Same-Sex Marriage: still an inconvenient truth (for some)

Some crusades just won't end.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) will appear before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Thursday, May 13 and Friday, May 14 in a case involving proposed legislation that would allow the province's marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex "marriages" because of sincerely held religious beliefs.

In July, 2009, Justice Minister of Saskatchewan, Don Morgan, asked the Court of Appeal for an opinion on the constitutionality of the potential legislation. Morgan told the media that his government intends to fulfill its promise to provide a religious exemption to marriage commissioners, and to settle the issue with legislation. This is intended to resolve the situation that has seen marriage commissioners sue the provincial government over its insistence that they perform homosexual "marriages."

It is not so much enraging as it is sad. How is it that some marriage commissioners are actively seeking to simply ignore a part of the law because they don't agree with it? It's an outrageous proposal, no matter how "fundamental" that disagreement is to their core beliefs.

Would it be okay for a marriage commissioner to refuse to marry an interracial couple (above) if they really, REALLY didn't think it was an appropriate lifestyle choice? Or a couple that has a child out of wedlock? Or an older man/woman to a younger partner?

Of course, the Evangelical Council does not present the issue to be this black and white. It is far more complex - think about all the other government employees whose freedom of religion and conscience is being oppressed by the state!

“If neither of the proposed options is found to be constitutional, the limitations on religious freedom will not only affect marriage commissioners but could well impact any Canadians working in the public service,” explained EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson. “It would mean that government employees would be expected to check their beliefs, religious or otherwise, at the door, if inconsistent with their government employer.”

“Somehow, they perceive the right to freedom of conscience and religion doesn’t apply to an employee in a public role. That position is inconsistent with the Charter and Canadian jurisprudence. Human rights and employment law jurisprudence has well established that a Canadian, whether working in the private or public sector, may object to performing a task if it is contrary to their conscience or religious beliefs. To strip all Canadians who choose to serve the public in a government accredited role of their Charter rights is ludicrous.”

Now this is really pushing the boundaries of acceptable interpretations of the law. Of course public servants are allowed to exercise their freedom of conscience and religion in the workplace - no one is asking a person to check their worldview at the door when they come to work at 9am. However, everyone is bound by the laws which govern this country.

Listen, I don't think that may taxes should go towards the military and other implicit and explicit violent uses - but that doesn't mean I have legal grounds to NOT pay my taxes all together. That would be tax evasion, even though I am in my rights to exercise my right to conscience and religion in everyday life.

Moreover, when domestic rape was included within the scope of sexual crimes it might have rubbed a few cops the wrong way. Even a couple of judges who think what goes on in the bedroom between a husband and wife is their business. But the definition of rape is what it is and there is a legal obligation to uphold the law. If marriage counselors in Saskatchewan do not want to perform gay marriages then they should quit their jobs. They can take it up with the government, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't personal. They're not priests or pastors and marriage is a religious institution. Their job is to provide legal proof of a union between two people. Not to bless them, nor wish them well, nor stand before them in the eyes of God and all in attendance. In fact, to get "married" in Saskatchewan here's the process:

1. Both parties must appear in person (or one party needs to complete the “Non-Attendance Before Issuer Of Marriage Licenses” form) before the local issuer of marriage licenses and provide the following:

• birth certificate and government issued photo identification;
  
• written parental consent if under 18;
• proof of divorce or annulment (original or certified copy);
• proof of death of previous spouse is not required, but you need to know the exact date and place of death.

And as for the "act" of "marrying" that the Evangelical Fellowship is trying to protect their clients from having to perform under the auspices of freedom of conscience and religion entails:

• Bringing the prospective spouses to complete and sign the statutory declaration in the presence of the marriage license issuer.
  
• Reading the declaration to the parties to prove that they fully understand the content.
  
• And finally, reading the "Degrees of Consanguinity" which may bar the solemnization of the marriage. (This includes prospective spouses who are related to each other in the following ways through whole blood, half blood or adoption; grandmother, grandfather, father, mother, son, daughter, granddaughter, grandson, brother, sister.)

Wow. How morally trying and religiously charged. My order at Starbucks is more personal and emotional than getting a marriage license from a public servant.

I sincerely hope the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rules against the EFC and their ridiculous crusade to marginalize the realization of the human rights of same-sex couples.

Get out of town: CPC is undemocratic

I guess after all the controversies surrounding Rob Anders, Garth Turner, Bill Casey, and Mark Warner that Helena Guergis would have received the memo by now.

Under the glossy veneer of "populism" and "grassroots" politics is the uncomfortable reality that the top brass of the Conservative Party of Canada has an iron grip over their candidates, members of parliament, senators, and, to a lesser extent, their riding associations (that is, until the shit hits the fan).

After Stephen Harper dumped Helena Guergis (one of the party's trophy MPs) she recalls at how "undemocratic" the process of her termination really was:

The former minister for the status of women accuses the Conservative Party of treating her unfairly.

"I feel as though they've thrown the rule books out the window, that they're not respecting due process at all. I find it very undemocratic.

"I'm hurt by the prime minister. I am hurt because I did consider him to be a friend

"I feel as though I've gone through a trial, I have been convicted and now I'm been sentenced. And I still don't know what it is I'm supposed to have done." as well, so I find that very hard to deal with."

See, the problem here is that she's appealing to Harper's feelings. Which, according to most of her own supporters, is not a priority in a real "leader."

Among committed Conservative voters, "honesty" was the most important attribute in a leader with 45% of those polled followed by "intelligence" (23%), "decisiveness" (23%), "do not know" (8%) and lastly, "compassion" (5%).

More people do not know what is the most important attribute in a leader of a political party than "compassion." Go figure.

"If people in your family make mistakes you don't turn your back on them," Guergis said, pausing to fight back tears. "You stick with them and you work through it and I am committed to my marriage."

So play your little violin Helena. Go ahead and talk to the media and do all the TV interviews you want. You are, check that - you were just another cog in the Stephen Harper party and now that your usefulness (or the acceptance of the inane antics of your family) has run its course you will be replaced by someone just as good looking and probably just as qualified.

I applaud Guergis' determination and her commitment to her marriage. Those are the kinds of principles that I like to see in any representative. It's just too bad they came up a little short in her career as a public servant.

Green Party of England and Wales finally beat FPTP

Caroline Lucas has made history in the United Kingdom's 2010 general election. And while Lucas is not being courted by Brown, Cameron or Clegg to help form the next government her victory is nonetheless monumental.

Canadian Greens are celebrating today as the historic news was announced that Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Caroline Lucas has won her seat in the UK election, becoming the very first Green Member of the UK Parliament at Westminster. Caroline Lucas, who is currently a MEP, has been elected MP in the constituency of Brighton Pavillion with a majority of 1,252 votes over the incumbent Labour MP.

There are already Green members of parliament in other parts of the Commonwealth (New Zealand and Tasmania) but none have been elected, until yesterday, through First-Past-The-Post electoral system.

Elizabeth May is confident that Canada will soon have our first Green MP after the fallout of the next election, when she picks up her EDA of Saanich-Gulf Islands.

“Caroline Lucas's historic victory proves that Greens can win despite the first-past-the post system,” said Green Party of Canada Leader, Elizabeth May, “The UK has been the only nation in Europe where Greens had been shut out. All the others have proportional representation. There are lessons here for Canada. As Green leader I will win my seat as well.”

Indeed, if the UK Greens can beat FPTP then there is hope for Canada. With over 900,000 votes in 2008, you'd have to be an idiot not to realize that FPTP is an incredible disservice to our democracy. The first step, however, is winning a seat and then hopefully getting the chance to "reform the system from within."

Rider Report: KJ and KK back in Ssk?

Reading that Kenton Keith was released by the Hamilton Tiger-Cats today reminds me that another former Roughrider veteran is still floating around in professional football limbo: Kerry Joseph.

The buzz surrounding the release of KJ from the Argos has subsided considerably but I know there is a large population of Riderville who hopes to see KJ return to back-up Durant and mentor Cole Bergquist. Personally, I think he's still got it in him. He's not worth 2008 Grey Cup MVP money anymore (not after two terribly coached seasons in Toronto) but he is worth his weight (twice over) in experience and leadership.

Kenton Keith is another star whose time had prematurely run out when he left for the Indianapolis Colts in the 2007 off season - one season too soon from winning a Grey Cup. Wes Cates was a huge part of that season and he earned every single step he took to winning his ring, but I always had hoped that KK would be the guy to run at Grey Cup winning touchdown in.

Would Keith return to Saskatchewan to back up Cates? Probably. Would the organization have the confidence in him to do the job with young guns like Hugh Charles and Stu Foord waiting in the wings? Maybe not.

Two vets are out there playing the waiting game. Taman has already made his mark on the organization by bringing in Prechae Rodriguez and trading up in the draft to grab Shomari Williams; will he now bolster our club for a third Grey Cup appearance in four years? Here's hoping.

GO! RIDERS! GO!

Helena Guergis: Portrait of a Broken Woman

Whoda thought the CPC had limits to the insanity and incompetence of their candidates and members of parliament? We all knew they had limits to the levels of free thinking and personal integrity of candidates and MPs, but after the antics of Ambrose, Bernier, Raitt, and, as always, Rob Anders; I honestly thought Helena Guergis would have spent a few months in the backbenches only to resurface as a Minister of State. But today, we see the portrait of a broken woman.

The Conservative MP and former cabinet minister gets booted from caucus after her husband - another former Conservative MP - Rahim Jaffer gets pulled over and charged with impaired driving and possession of cocaine. He goes before parliament and is questioned about his questionable lobbying and she feels out her family for possible government contracts funneled through her husband. She's then removed from the CPC caucus. And now she's barred from the CPC candidacy in Simcoe-Grey in the next election.

But wait! She's going to FIGHT the decision and do all the ass kissing required to get her incumbency back. But this begs the question? Why?

If she is innocent of all allegations, shouldn't she be mad at Harper and the CPC? I'd think so. Unless if Simcoe-Grey would be impossible to win as an independent. Then she should be worried. Which, if we look at some of the electoral results from 1997 then yeah... she should be. That is... unless she's ridiculously popular. Which her supporters say she is.

However, if the allegations are true, or there is some truth behind all the hoopla, then she is either: A.) embarrassingly ideological; or B.) too stupid to know what's good for her and her party.

Last summer, the CPC was constantly flirting with majority territory and approval for Harper's style of governance was sky high! It seemed as if the CPC was made of Teflon when the Raitt bomb exploded. Today, it's a different time for the "Tories." No longer can any MP say and do whatever they want in public. (Well, maybe not.)

Long gone were the days where a Conservative MP could go heckle a democratic candidate in the US without any reprise. They could even leave confidential documents on TV sets and in the homes of former gangsters.

Not anymore...

So here she is, Helena Guergis, broken but not beaten. Not yet, anyways. She wants to fit in so badly but that's just not going to happen this time. I suppose a head has to roll after all the questions surrounding the integrity and ethics of the Harper Party.

A picture worth 1,000 words

Or perhaps 1,000 CPC voters who will stay at home next election.

Nancy Ruth: The Canadian Female Dick Cheney

Yesterday, Nancy Ruth - the one and only openly homosexual member of the CPC caucus - told Canada this:

"We've got five weeks or whatever left until the G8 starts. Shut the fuck up on this issue. If you push it, there'll be more backlash. This is now a political football."

Today, the Harper government has announced funding cuts to 11 women's groups in Canada. One of them is MATCH Canada, whose vision is to: create a world in which women have a say about their lives, their community and their country, and are decision-makers in all areas and at all levels of society. Women should have full access to resources and services, and have the power to make choices that improve their lives and those of their families and communities. A gender equity perspective should be integrated into all policies, laws and practices in all spheres of society. (Emphasis mine.)

Apt timing for the neo-Conservatives. Instead of looking like misogynists they look like political linebackers. It's a two-pronged rationale: 1) Fringe activists should have just stopped pushing the issue; 2) These groups were ineffective anyways.

Who do we have to blame for these cuts? The organizations themselves! Poor performers, they are. And anyways, how could they possibly succeed in today's modern society? Haven't women come far enough?!

Nancy Ruth meet Dick Cheney. The only thing missing is the buckshot and orange fatigues.