mossrose
August 30th 2006, 10:24 AM
Alberta's opposition parties made good on a promise Monday to delay debate on a Tory private member's bill that would have allowed commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Speaker Ken Kowalski chastised opposition members for eating up the time allotted for debate with procedural matters, killing backbencher Ted Morton's controversial Bill 208..........
The bill sought to protect marriage commissioners who refused to conduct same-sex marriages because of their moral or religious beliefs, and would have made it necessary for parents to give permission before any aspect of same-sex relationships is discussed in the classroom.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/08/28/bill208-reading.html
I heard a local talk show that was discussing this yesterday morning and were interviewing MLA Ted Morton who introduced the bill. Several people who identified themselves as homosexual, some of whom were planning on getting married made very valid points about why anyone would go to a minister or other officiant who would not be enthusiastic about performing a wedding.
Mr. Morton commented that he couldn't understand that either, and that apparantly all those who phoned in were obviously not of the militant type of homosexual/lesbian who would purposely, and are, seeking out anyone that they may push the envelope with.
Because people ARE being taken to court over this issue. And there is no reason for it.
And those who question the right of parents to refuse to allow their children to be taught about homosexuality in the schools because of their religious beliefs must realize that the Canadian government and the provincial governments have allowed all sorts of concessions for "religious reasons", not only in the schools, but in other areas, as well.
For example, JW's have for many, many years been able to opt their children out of all kinds of things that go against their beliefs. The "Winter Celebration School Program (aka Christmas Pageant)", etc. When I was a little girl, I was not allowed to take the dancing class in gym because of what my parents believe. Nobody took them to court over it.
Members of the Sikh community are allowed to bring their "ceremonial knives" to school, in spite of the restriction against weapons. And those same members who grow up and want to become RCMP officers are given special uniforms and turban hats so that they can follow their religion, even though I am sure that no Christian RCMP officer is allowed to wear a cross anywhere on his/her uniform (I am only conjecturing here......).
Native RCMP officers are allowed to keep their long braids if desired, all others must have regulation haircuts.
Etc.
So, why should Christian, Islam and Jewish officiants, as well as those not involved in any religion, not be allowed to turn down anyone they wish as clients for a marriage? Some turn down heterosexual couples now, and you don't hear about the Human Rights Commission getting involved.
And why shouldn't parents who don't want their children taught about something that goes against their beliefs be allowed to opt their kids out of those classes?
There is no good answer, except that certain members, not all, mind you, of the homosexual/lesbian community are so desperate for society to accept and tolerate and help them rationalize their behaviour that they will do anything to achieve that goal.
You go ahead and do whatever you desire, but allow me to do the same. That's all I ask.
Speaker Ken Kowalski chastised opposition members for eating up the time allotted for debate with procedural matters, killing backbencher Ted Morton's controversial Bill 208..........
The bill sought to protect marriage commissioners who refused to conduct same-sex marriages because of their moral or religious beliefs, and would have made it necessary for parents to give permission before any aspect of same-sex relationships is discussed in the classroom.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/08/28/bill208-reading.html
I heard a local talk show that was discussing this yesterday morning and were interviewing MLA Ted Morton who introduced the bill. Several people who identified themselves as homosexual, some of whom were planning on getting married made very valid points about why anyone would go to a minister or other officiant who would not be enthusiastic about performing a wedding.
Mr. Morton commented that he couldn't understand that either, and that apparantly all those who phoned in were obviously not of the militant type of homosexual/lesbian who would purposely, and are, seeking out anyone that they may push the envelope with.
Because people ARE being taken to court over this issue. And there is no reason for it.
And those who question the right of parents to refuse to allow their children to be taught about homosexuality in the schools because of their religious beliefs must realize that the Canadian government and the provincial governments have allowed all sorts of concessions for "religious reasons", not only in the schools, but in other areas, as well.
For example, JW's have for many, many years been able to opt their children out of all kinds of things that go against their beliefs. The "Winter Celebration School Program (aka Christmas Pageant)", etc. When I was a little girl, I was not allowed to take the dancing class in gym because of what my parents believe. Nobody took them to court over it.
Members of the Sikh community are allowed to bring their "ceremonial knives" to school, in spite of the restriction against weapons. And those same members who grow up and want to become RCMP officers are given special uniforms and turban hats so that they can follow their religion, even though I am sure that no Christian RCMP officer is allowed to wear a cross anywhere on his/her uniform (I am only conjecturing here......).
Native RCMP officers are allowed to keep their long braids if desired, all others must have regulation haircuts.
Etc.
So, why should Christian, Islam and Jewish officiants, as well as those not involved in any religion, not be allowed to turn down anyone they wish as clients for a marriage? Some turn down heterosexual couples now, and you don't hear about the Human Rights Commission getting involved.
And why shouldn't parents who don't want their children taught about something that goes against their beliefs be allowed to opt their kids out of those classes?
There is no good answer, except that certain members, not all, mind you, of the homosexual/lesbian community are so desperate for society to accept and tolerate and help them rationalize their behaviour that they will do anything to achieve that goal.
You go ahead and do whatever you desire, but allow me to do the same. That's all I ask.