Thursday, February 03, 2005

And the Beat Goes On

I've been sick in bed for a couple of days and there appears to be lots happening on the same-sex marriage front. My morning Globe & Mail says that the Liberal spin doctor's are advising our PM and Liberal Cabinet minister's to use the phrase "civil marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage." Apparently, the latter has has a negative connotation in some people's minds. Similarly, we'll be innundated with the phrase "human rights," rather than "minority rights." The former allows the politicos to piggyback on long accepted human rights, rather than drawing attention to the giant social experiment we are undergoing.

I think Paul Martin's handlers are getting very, very, nervous.

Kate over at Small Dead Animals has an excellent post on the matter from a non-religious perspective. She has an enviable capacity to strike at the heart of the issue. Go read her post.

Damian Brooks, at Babbling Brooks, has also weighed in with his views. He doen't think the matter really will have an impact on him, but thinks a reasonable compromise is to have the state perform civil unions for everyone and leave marriage to the religiously inclined.

In a related matter, Kate has commented further on the human rights case in Coquitlam, B.C. She notes from the Globe & Mail that:

The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed. That was in September, 2003.
Just in case you have trouble finding the case, I have looked it up. I may be found under the following citation:

Coquitlam Knights of Columbus v. the Really Loving Lesbian Couple Who Truly Didn't Know the Knights were Catholic, (Honest), but are Looking Forward to Grinding Them Into the Human Rights Commission Ideological Dust Anyway, Even Though They Now Know The Knights Are Catholic and Were Just Following their Obvously Bigoted and Homophobic Catholic Consciences, Which Must Not Be Permitted, and Even Though The Knights Obtained and Paid for Another Hall and All other Expenses Related to the Invitations, Just So The Loving Lesbian Crusaders Wouldn't Be Out of Pocket for Their Loving Marital Celebrations.

Kate of The Last Amazon also weighs in on this matter with the following comment [I originally attributed this to Kate at Small Dead Animals. See what happens when you blog when ill. My apologies to both Kates.]

And yet, the ladies still took the issue to the BC Human Rights Tribunal after receiving compensation for a new rental hall and the reprinting of their wedding invitations. So sorry, but you were more than adequately compensated for the incident and I am not willing to sacrifice Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association on the altar of sexual politics.

One final heads up ladies. If an organization is located behind a Catholic Church and on church property you can bet the cat that the organization is affiliated with the Catholic Church.
[My last paragraph mysteriously vanished when I went to correct my attribution blunder. The blogger gods are clearly not happy with me, or the Kate's have much more influence over the blogoshere than I thought. You may assume tha whatever I said in that last paragraph was brilliant, pungent and to the point.... and now lost to history.]

Remember the above comments when Liberal politicians try and smoke you with the spin that the same-sex marriage legislation will have no impact on the rights of religious folk. It is a lie sustained only by the odious means of interpreting religous rights in the most narrow way and focusing protection from the state's power on clerics' sacramental perogatives. As for the rest of the faithful, .... well just ask civil marriage commissioners, or the Knights of Columbus, for a guided tour of the liberal looking glass world of rights and freedoms.

1 Comments:

At 8:52 am, February 04, 2005 , Blogger Kateland, aka TZH said...

John, I think you are quoting 2 different Kates and only sourcing one.

Kateland.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home