[ZTWsquared]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:ZTW:
Long ago it was the church that dealt out the marriage certificates and kept records (most still do today).  The civil law had no involvment with marriage whatsoever.

Your post was thoughtful and well put – but I am not swayed by your argument. I understand that in human history in many parts of the world there was little or no distinction between religious doctrine and civil law. That was also at a time when entire populations adhered to a single religion and all accepted the singular authority of the church. All this is quite irrelevant to today’s reality.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:If it wasn't for the church, there would have been no "marriage".

Semantics again … humans have been pair-bonding for a lot longer than there has been organized religion. Even without religion mankind would have created the analogous marriage. It is also irrelevant.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:May I direct your attention to the first line in the Charter... Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

There is a huge distinction between acknowledging the supremacy of God as a foundational value, and the attempt by certain organized religions to control matters of civil policy by invoking their particular interpretation of God’s will.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:"God" in this term, from what I believe we can all gather, refers to the supreme being within Christian, Judaic, and Islamic religions.  From my understanding, none of them  support a homosexual marriage.

If there was a religion that did support homosexual marriage would you then change your mind? I’ll assume for the moment your answer is “no” in which case I again ask you why your personal opinion should prevail over the rights of others.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:Go down the charter and you can clearly see there is nothing within the charter pertaining to a separation of church and state (similar to that the US uses within their Consitution).

I’m glad you brought this up because it is a subject I am very familiar with and fond of. Canada has dealt with this matter IMO in a very modern and very Canadian way.

At one time Canada was in fact a theocratic state because our head of state was the monarch of Great Britain and as with most monarchs they claimed their rule by right of God. But even though the Queen is still our head of state, we are no longer a theocratic state; we are in fact a secular state because of the very charter you quoted – and here’s why.

There are two fundamental values guaranteed by our charter that make a theocratic state impossible … everyone’s fundamental freedom of conscience and religion (2a) and everyone’s fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression (2b).

And don’t forget … the separation of church and state works both ways. It also protects religions from a certain amount of interference from parliament and the courts – so be careful what you ask for.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:Now I'm not sure, but I believe that Canada has no Constitution or document pertaining to a moral division of church and state to this effect. Therefore, by the explanation above, shouldn't Canadian law at least reference religious context?

You are correct – and it does. Even though Canada is a secular state by virtue of the charter freedoms, that doesn’t mean the state has to be totally neutral or can’t be officially accommodating of faith and religion. In Canada our governments have no problem recognizing the importance of religion as part of local culture, accommodating religious symbols in public settings, allowing tax, dietary, holiday, Sabbath, and other kinds of exemptions. But 2a and 2b still trump all that – and in cases where rights are at risk versus the will of religions, governments have to protect individual rights and decide in favour of the individual.

Think of the alternative … think of what’s happening in countries right now where there is no separation of church and state and consider the human and civil rights abuses and even atrocities done in the name of the theocratic state.

In a discussion about homosexual marriage you may not think we’re talking about anything related to what’s happening in Afghanistan for example, but the underlying concept is identical --- organized religious doctrine dictating public policy and civil rights.

IMO this discussion is at the very core of what makes us Canadian … an ability to deal with the past and its baggage in a fair and accommodating way that still honours the principles we were founded on while at the same time furthering individual rights and freedoms for all. For all their democratic chest thumping I think Americans could learn a lot from our particular brand of democratic and accepting society.