Let's talk (same) sex

Supreme Court decision on marriage will erode religious freedom, says Michael Coren

It was hardly the surprise of the year. A Supreme Court increasingly packed with judges renowned for their liberal opinions decided yesterday that homosexual marriage is a civil right and that to prevent it is unconstitutional.

What is surprising is how self-congratulatory people have been because the ruling also claims to respect freedom of religion. In other words, clergy who observe rather than edit their faiths won't be forced to marry same-sex couples.

But even this is doubtful. A spokesman for Justice Minister Irwin Cotler himself said that the issue is not decided and that the courts will rule on a "case-by-case basis."

When asked if the Supreme Court could give "a meaningful opinion" on whether the promise of freedom of religion will be respected, he admitted it would be "difficult" to give any concrete answers.

Some of us have known this for a long time. Last year I interviewed one of the leaders of the campaign for gay marriage. He was explicit:

"I don't think any priest or minister should be forced to marry gay people, but I do think that if they refuse to do so, there should be certain consequences. They're not observing the spirit, if not the law, of the land and as such we should challenge their charitable tax status. Why should they receive tax breaks if they refuse to marry gay couples?"

I reminded him of the number of poor and needy people helped and fed by the churches.

He had obviously thought out his position. "We'd exempt the kitchens and public parts of the churches, but remove the charitable status from the rest of the building."

If this sounds extreme, recall the case of Marc Hall, the young man who wanted to take his homosexual partner to a prom at a Catholic school in Toronto. An Ontario court declared the school had no choice and had to accept the student and his friend at the dance.

That case was grotesquely indicative of what will almost certainly happen in the coming months and years concerning churches and gay marriage. Homosexual activists and lawyers, politicians and a liberal media that was massively sympathetic all pounced on the school, the church and the court.

Those who opposed the young man bringing his partner to the prom were caricatured as bigots and hateful fools, and lies of an almost racist nature were told about Catholic teaching. A young man from the Catholic Civil Rights League who attended one of the hearings told me he had to face "physical intimidation" when he made his case.

The court's decision was based on public funding of Catholic schools. In other words, because the school received tax dollars it had to do what it was told. Those tax dollars, of course, come from Catholic parents, who are not allowed to direct their tax money into private faith-based schools.

So if a school has to act thus, what makes a church that receives financial help through its charitable status in any way different? Which takes us back to the candour of the spokesman of the justice minister and the determination of one of the leaders of the campaign for gay marriage.

I am convinced that many members of the gay community would defend the right of a church, mosque or synagogue to refuse to marry gay couples. I am also convinced, however, that there are others in that community who will challenge these bodies at the first opportunity.

The rights of children, the future of a balanced society, the role of men and women and mothers and fathers, the nature of a healthy sexuality, the causes of homosexuality and many more.

Avenues of debate around these issues have been closed to us because of an extensive campaign in the media, the entertainment industry, the courts and education to marginalize and even silence those who question the gay community and its aspirations.

And please know that there are many intelligent and compassionate people who will not merely bow their heads and accept what they know to be wrong.

This whole thing can get ridiculous: We want to apply for a marriage license. . Except:

""Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!" "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!" __________________

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.