British Expatriate Network

This is perhaps the simplest and finest speech I've heard in a long long time. It's Canadian PM Paul Martin talking to the House of Commons regarding the Civil Marriage Act (known as the Gay Marriage bill) - Bill C-38.

"This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers - yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard - not the dodging, the flawed reasonings, the false options. Just yes or no."

http//www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=421

We do read THIS


“The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.”

The facts are plain Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so.


This is the sort of legislation we should enact here. anybody whos religion is against same sex marriage has thier rights respected , and those same sex partners who wish to be together as one can .so niether side should have freedom issues to argue about . It seems a good solution for everybody .
please president bush follow suit

Erm, John we already do.... its called the Establishment Clause of the Constitution....

The problem isn't that Religions will be compelled to marry same sex couples... its that those religions want to stop others from marrying same sex couples.

Irony isnt it ROB that this country was formed by those faiths who wished to follow thier own beliefs without interferance from other faiths .
Yet now its the same faiths who wish to dictate to others what they should and should not believe in .

I don't think irony covers adequately the whole church and state debate over here. I think it unlikely the founding fathers would ever have considered banning prayer in schools, but then again they probably hadn't considered mass public education either.

On the other hand the use of Federal funds for 'faith based initiatives' is probably exactly the sort of thing they were worried about as it indicates some form of entanglement between church and state at a policy/government level.

But you are right, a nation founded on the concept of religious freedom is being hijacked by people who want to implement religious oppression and indoctrination.... all in the name of freedom and American values.

Freaks, the lot of them! :wink:

I completely support the aims of the gay marriage bill, although in reality it's already legal in most of Canada anyway.

This is actually not a brave Canadian government fearlessly introducing this legislation, they were forced to more or less at gunpoint by provincial courts who ruled that under the country's constitution, it was descriminatory not to let gay couples marry.

But therein lies the tension for religious groups. It's that tension between parliament and courts. In this sense I do think religious groups have some well-founded fears. Martin and his Liberals say there is tough wording in the legislation that will protect any religious group from performing gay marriage ceremonies against their beliefs. This has been backed by The Supreme Court of Canada.

That may well be, but if the Federal Government were backed into a corner to begin with, religious groups say that it's entirely possible they will be hauled up in front of the courts for any number of lawsuits filed by gay rights groups or individuals, most likely alleging descrimination and that one day one of these cases will win. Gay groups feel particular antipathy towards the Catholic Church of Canada. I would like to say that this is impossible, but I don't think it is.

I personally don't agree with their "traditional" definition of marriage, but the legislation is meant to protect religious groups to keep practicing that if they want to. Problem is, in the eyes of many, that's tantamount to descrimination and bigotry and I think that battle will be fought one day, however much Mr. Martin and the Liberals thing the legislation will put an end to the debate.

Does this mean that if I become a gay-friendly Minister I can perform these ceremonies then?

Now I have to think of a cool name for my church.

In Canada, there are several churches that do perform the ceremonies, the largest of which is The United Church.

Brethren of Bling?