Quote:
Originally posted by prosequence
I can understand where you are coming from, but why does the government have the right to perform a religious ceremony?
And as far as the minority arguement, no offence but it lacks...
Let's say the minority of people are crack heads, we hold a referendum on building more crack houses, most the people say no, but to the "medical addiciton" of the crackheads, the government declares it is in the best interest.
I'm not saying it's all black and white but once in a while, the majority should rule.
|
First, what are you
really complaining about when you question why "the government have the right to perform a religious ceremony?"
I would be happy if there was
no legal definition of marriage and it was something only recognized by the church. However, for whatever reasons, there are legal consequences to be married. As long as the law recognizes marriages, the law must be fair and allow anyone the right to marry.
Secondly, I
will take offense to your ridiculous claim that my minority argument "lacks." This is such typical reactionary rhetoric that is all too prevalent in debates today and in the past.
At least you recognize that it's not all "black and white." Yes, often the majority does rule and I never said otherwise. Unless you mean that, sometimes, the majority should rule over the minority. I vehemently disagree (and, thank God, so does our government!) for reasons already stated.
Your example of the minority "crack heads" as a retort is specious. It relies on our current opinion of crack heads as unsympathetic characters in order to make their government sanction seem proposterous. What's the point of this, that if the government protects the rights of the minority then the majority might disagree? Yes, this can happen and we've already been over this.
If the government thinks it's in our best interest then the hope is that it is! If it's not then surely there will be a party you can elect that will introduce new policy more popular with the people. It's not a perfect system but, nothing is, and it's better than letting the majority rule with prejudice and triviality.
This is off topic but there is already plenty of legislature that is unpopular with the people but are upheld, nonetheless, because the government feels it's in our best interest. This is especially true when it comes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you honestly protest this?