If Alberta thinks it can, for example, refuse to recognize gay marriages entered into in other provinces, they’re in for a Grade-A bitchslapping from the courts. There are precisely zero options for them in this regard. So I can only imagine that the extent of this proposal, if they go ahead with it, will be to say “Don’t say civil marriage in Alberta. We don’t use that word here.” But they still will be civil marriages. They just won’t be called that. Civil marriages from other provinces will automatically be civil whatsits in Alberta, and civil whatsits in Alberta will automatically be civil marriages in other provinces, etc.
I really don’t see what the point of this would be. Nobody is going to stop calling them marriages just because of some legal decree.
Any other variation on the proposal is going to run straightway into legal problems. There’s no way Alberta can say “You can only enter into legal marriages with the blessing of a religious organization. If you want something non-religious, you’ll have to take Option B, which isn’t a marriage.” This would run straight into religious freedom protections (though I guess they could Notwithstanding themselves around that). Moreover, lots of large, established religious groups will marry same sex couples - like the United Church, only the largest protestant denomination in the country. So they’d be stuck recognizing gay marriages anyways.
Bizarre. And then the article elfbabe links to talks about a constitutional amendment. Ha! I wonder what colour the sky is in their world. Maybe some kind soul will explain to them how the amendment procedure works.
So, my marriage to my husband, performed by an officiant in a community hall, wouldn’t be legally-recognized outside of Alberta, were it to happen in the future? It’s bad enough that we’re not legally married according to his natal church, but the rest of Canada, too? I’m so confused.
So, Gorsnak, how’s things in Scratchywan? Can the native-born, you know, move back after they’ve been gone for a long time? Would you all make fun of me and call me names?
People who put commas after “because” fill my soul with righteous wrath. I may start a thread about it someday.
In the meantime, I don’t really care much about marriage laws personally, but philosophically I think they should dispense with all this foolishness and let everyone marry as they wish.
Frustrated. Read an article in my local paper today that NB is trying to enact legislation that will permit officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriage. Being a rational person, I assumed they were referring to clergy . Um, no. They propose that all provincial clerks should have the right to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriage based on their beliefs. I intended to link to that article but it’s a pay service. Here is a tidbit from the Edmonton Sun instead.
I’m pissed. Since when do government clerks get to determine which parts of their jobs they will perform? If the Conservative government feels this is legitimate (and apparently they do), what’s the stop a clerk from refusing to marry anyone whose relationship they perceive as outside their own personal belief system? Can they refuse to marry the pregnant woman and her fiancé? After all, they had sex before marriage, and we can’t be condoning that. What if an applicant had been married and divorced? I don’t want to encourage that kind of behavior. :rolleyes:
If a government employee refuses to do an essential task does already have freedom to follow their beliefs. They can choose not to work for the government.
I got that idea. But you see, there is no comma after because. It is an abomination, an offence against nature. It makes my skin twitch and my antlers writhe. If you must signal such a pause, use an ellipsis; it’s what they’re for. I cannot help but snarl with rage when commas happen after “because”. It’s in my nature.
Also, thank you for the link, but I wouldn’t call a comma after “because” innocuous. As punctuative errors go it’s a great deal more offensive than the ubiquitous apostrophe-skipping or the banal comma splice.
What does “legally married according to his natal church” mean? Does government actually care where you were married? Surely married is married, according to the government and how it calculates tax breaks, etc.
If the government only recognized civil unions and had no concept of marriage then surely as a practical matter external countries would have to recognize these civil unions as the equivelant of marriage in their country? A church marriage would have no legal significance whatsoever, it would be a personal issue that one shares with their church.
snort I am intrigued by this concept of tax breaks for married couples in Canada. It’s a fascinating concept but not one I believe exists here. Marriage is financially detrimental in tax-terms…unless I’m the only one getting screwed.
My WAG is that the spouse in question is Catholic, and either was married before or the couple in question did not marry in a Catholic church or that the marriage in some other way does not conform to Catholic rites.
I don’t know too many other churches who are so specific about who is and isn’t married by their rite, but I could also be very, very wrong.
Got it in one. Jim is a (very bad) Catholic, so our marriage, performed by an officiant in a community hall with him marrying a…non-Catholic just doesn’t exist in their world. Then, once Jim gets his vasectomy, the Pope will take to his bed for the weekend.
Cyros, we’re sure not getting any married tax breaks. No, wait, if one of us makes virtually no income, we can claim the other as a dependant. Whoopee.
The two male Members of Parliament in my city both are Liberals, and both voted against the Liberal’s same marriage bill. One of them even resigned from Cabinet over it.
This being big news for a little city, they made the front page of the paper, with a big photo of them tightly holding hands, as if they were a gay couple at the alter.
The photographer and editor should be given an award.
Near as I and a couple of friends can tell, he means that the Government will no longer be performing civil ceremonies. With a JP I mean… so anyone wishing to be married outside of the church or a handfasting is either SOL or has to go out of province.
At least that’s what we think he means, I don’t pretend to understand it at all. I suppose we’ll be hearing more eventually.
But that doesn’t make sense. Because anyone could go down to their local United Church (or whatever) and enter a gay marriage, and then they’d have to recognize it, if they’re recognizing other religious marriages. If they’re going to recognize any of them, they have to recognize all of them. That’s why my theory is that the idea is to recognize them, but just slap a “Union, not marriage” label on them without doing anything with any real legal implications.
I’m beginning to suspect it might all just be noise to appease the religious conservative wing of their voter base. Some of the comments seem to point in that direction, like suggesting a legal challenge to determine whether the new federal legislation supercedes Alberta’s provincial legislation declaring that all marriage is hetero. That’s just laughable. I doubt the courts would even hear arguments, they’d slap down the province the second they got through the courthouse door. I mean, the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion is pretty clear about who gets to define marriage, and it ain’t the provinces. So what would be the point of such a frivolous legal action with such a foregone conclusion? Only one possibility - to be seen as trying to “defend marriage”.
The whole “churches will be forced to perform gay marriages” mantra that is repeated over and over by the conservatives (and even gets special mention in Bill C-38) is total crap. There is nothing in existing marriage law or in the proposed changes that forces any minister/priest/rabbi/etc. to marry anybody. Did the Divorce Act force Roman Catholic priests to start marrying divorcee couples? Did the Charter of Rights provisions for freedom of religion force rabbis to start marrying Islamic couples? Religious marriages are subject to all the freedoms and restrictions imposed by that religion and its doctrines, and have nothing to do with the secular law. The fact that the provinces are in the habit of using the churches as unpaid marriage registrars (to the point where it can be difficult to get a non-religious marriage registered in some areas) doesn’t force the churches to accept all comers.
How about we call the religious ceremonies “Holy Matrimony” (or the equivalent per the religion involved) and recognize it as a religious ceremony (similar to Christian baptism or Jewish bar mitzvah). If you want a legally recognized “marriage”, you go down to the courthouse and do it under civil law. This shuts up the conservatives who don’t want their precious religious ceremonies to have the same name as gay unions (Og forbid!), while clearly separating the religious/doctrine issues from the legal recognition of rights/obligations issues.
Now, allowing a provincial official to refuse to perform his duties because he personally doesn’t agree that the couple should get married is blatant discrimination. I firmly expect any government that actually implements this to be quickly slapped upside the head by the courts.
