Canadian Cardinal & Same-Sex Marriage

[Ani_Ibi]

I don’t know how many of your are still interested in discussing (not debating) the Canadian developments in the same sex marriage question. I have questions and would like your thoughts.

I just read Cardinal Ambrozic’s letter. An earlier poster referred to an news article on Cardinal Ouellet. I didn’t find Cardinal Ouellet explained things very well. Cardinal Ambrozic is, as usual, simple and to the point. I found his request for the notwithstanding clause very interesting. The notwithstanding clause stalls things for five years. That would give us time to observe the European experiments in same sex marriage legislation and also to have a series of public forums.

Conversely, I can understand why the government would want to be exceptionally careful about using the notwithstanding clause. They would not want to create a precedent for everybody stalling things for five years.

Now, I have some questions maybe some of you can help me with:

1. I understand the Church’s position on same sex marriage. However, what of the Canadians who are not Catholic? Freedom of choice is something we as Catholics cannot take away from people without putting ourselves at risk. Is this so or not so?
2. Is it the terminology ‘marriage’ which is the problem? Does the Church feel that civil same sex marriages impinge on and jeopardize an ancient tradition and indeed on Church Tradition?

Someone has suggested that we delete the term ‘marriage’ from the civil lexicon altogether; that all couples (whether heterosexual or homosexual) wanting to be joined by the state would have civil unions. ** The secular terminology would be ‘civil union.’**

Those couples having entered into civil unions and enjoying the legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities of civil unions could then be ‘married’ in their churches, according to the regulations of those churches. The Church terminology would be 'marriage.'

The state would have the jurisdiction to join couples in civil unions regardless of sexual orientations of those couples.

The church would have the jurisdiction to marry couples and to reserve the right to refuse to marry couples according to their own regulations concerning same sex couples or anything else or considered to be an impediment.

So is terminology the problem?

Continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

1. How does the doctrine of double effect apply? I compare (perhaps wrongly) the same sex marriage question with the abortion question.

Double effect applies to abortion in this way (correct me if I am wrong): The freedom of choice a woman enjoys can be exercised at her own discretion toward what she decides (rightly or wrongly) is her own well-being or even what she decides (rightly or wrongly) is the lesser of two evils.

This decision may harm her. It may harm those close to her. However this harm is reparable harm. The harm caused to the fetus, however, is irreparable and absolute.

Moreover, the decision to have an abortion removes the freedom of choice from the fetus. Well, one can argue that a fetus is not rational and therefore does not enjoy freedom of choice. But that is moot. Were it not for the abortion, the fetus has the potential to mature to the point where he or she is rational and can enjoy freedom of choice. In any case witness John the Baptism leaping in his mother’s womb at the approach of the then-pregnant Mary. Does rationality apply to the spirit or only to the intellect?

So I am persuaded first of all of my obedience but also of the rightness of pro-life.

With the same-sex marriage question, it is a little more tricky for me, particularly where it concerns non-Catholics. The decision to marry someone of the same sex is not irreparable. It is not absolute. It does not remove freedom of choice from the spouses nor from anyone else for that matter.

Moreover, I wonder if the vehemence with which the heterosexual case is being brought to bear does not in fact injure homosexuals and those close to them.

1. The Charter is applied using the ‘rule of proportionality.’ Where rights conflict, one party cannot normally deny the other party’s right absolutely. The rights of each are manifested in a proportional manner. In *Ramsden v the City of Peterboro *a citizen wanted to put up flyers. The City objected saying that it created an eyesore and even made it difficult for hydro workers to climb the poles, thus violating a City by-law. The eventual ruling was that the City had a right to prevent eyesores and a right to protect against hazards, but that the City had to respect the right of the citizen by providing a place somewhere (if not on hydro poles and construction boards) where the citizen could post flyers.

So, under Constitutional Law, does this not translate to the state having the right to make ‘civil unions’ while the Church has the right to ‘marry’?

1. The heterosexual marriage proponents have spoken of collateral damage ensuing from opening the doors of marriage to same sex couples. To wit, (a) churches will have to rent their halls to lesbians and (b) child development suffers in same sex households. And so on. Does anyone know of any other concerns?

As for the church halls: discrimination (this is a Human Rights Act domain now not a Charter domain) requires differential treatment first before the prohibited ground of ‘sex’ can even be considered. The exception to this is if churches can prove ‘undue hardship.’ What is the undue hardship in renting a church hall to a lesbian couple for

a) a wedding?
b) a wedding reception?
c) any other purposes recognized as legal by the civil statutes?

I’m not being rhetorical or difficult. My questions are not rhetorical. I want to know what your thinking on this is.

1. Church/State separation seems to be a constantly shifting line? How do we cross that line without harming the fundamental benefit of having that line in the first place? Again this is a double-effect question.

 

[Pondero]

Hi Ani:

I do have other concerns. When rights clash as they do in real life, it seems religious ones are always trumped by equality rights. I don’t think there is a single case where religious rights guarantied by the Charter win out.

The Charter isn’t working out, it should be abolished, as it is discriminatory and unfair to those with religious beliefs.

It could be renamed the Charter of Wrongs and Violations and its corollary, the Human Rights Tribunals, so effective in stamping out opposition in Provinces should be called the Secular Inquisitions.

I wrote to my MP on same-sex marriages telling him that Hell will freeze over before I vote Liberal again.