Quote:
Originally posted by prosequence
I believe marriage is a religious blessing.
Forcing a religion to change what it believes is wrong.
The benefits in both provinces that gay marriage is legal (British Columbia and Ontario) are there for same sex couples WITHOUT having to be married.
Is it OK for governments to take over a religous ceremony?
To add in what they think is fair and right? Are they not supposed to be representing the "people", doesnit not matter that the majority of the people are against it, for may different reasons?
|
First of all, the Canadian government has explicitly stated that
no religioin will be forced to perform marriages that are against their faith. This is a compromise between freedom of religion and freedom to equal rights. Obviously, homosexual marriages will be performed by the crown.
Second of all, yes, the government is supposed to represent the people, no colloquial quotes needed. In fact, they are supposed to represent the rights of
all people, not just the majority. Does it make any sense to ask the majority what rights the minority should have?
Consider this. Suppose you were to hold a US referendum on whether black people should be slaves or not. If all the white people said "yes" and all the black people said "no" then they would be slaves and that's all there is to it. The majority has spoken! Pretty fair, eh? Then again, you can just hold another referendum on whether black people should vote at all and you'd never have to hear from them again! Justice has been served....
This is called the "tyranny of the majority." Again, it doesn't make sense to ask the majority what rights the minority should have, which is why some laws are determined by the people and other laws are determined by the government (individuals, basically).