Sunday, July 17, 2005
Delusional in Saskatchewan
Everyone has tasks at their job that they don't agree with performing. In fact, many people would like nothing better than some excuse, any excuse, to not perform them, however, there is also a little thing called a paycheck that stops irrational behaviour. A Regina marriage commissioner is going to attempt to push the limits.
Orville Nichols, a marriage commissioner for the past 23 years, has registered a complaint before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission over being forced to perform gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies -- says he'll go to a higher court to keep his marriage commissioner's licence.
Nichols, a provincial employee, doesn't get to pick and choose the job duties he can perform. In November, Justice Minister Frank Quennell notified all provincial marriage commissioners they were obligated to follow the law and perform same sex marriages.
After receiving his letter last November, Nichols stated publicly in a January Reader Leader-Post story that he would neither perform same-sex marriages nor give up his licence for not performing the ceremonies. "It's my personal and religious belief that it is not right," Nichols said. "My definition of marriage is opposite --male and female -- not two males and females. That's why I oppose it."
It is nice that Nichols has an opinion, but the last time I checked there were still some unemployed people in Saskatchewan, if he doesn't want to follow the law - look for a new job. Tom Cruise, because of his religion, believes that antidepressants are wrong, does that make him right? Nope, it sure doesn't.
I wish this story simply ended with a lone complaint in Saskatchewan. Sadly, it was picked up by Uber-Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) who issued not one, but two press releases defending Nichols.
In the first release, Vellacott said Quennell's insistence that marriage commissioners have to resign for refusing to perform same-sex marriages "violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The MP added that, like bilingual services, the province should find marriage commissioners "willing to perform this function" instead of firing them.
Ok Maurice, I will bite. First, comparing sexual orientation to learned languages is sad and desperate, but such is the mind of the Maurice. Next, let's find a marriage commissioner who is bilingual and refuses to serve the public in one of Canada's official languages. There next action will be cleaning their desk since they no longer will be on payroll.
In a second press release Wednesday, Vellacott named the "two homosexuals that issued the complaint," but the MP said he did not see anything wrong with doing this. This is a public issue and marriage should be viewed as a public event, Vellacott said.
When did marriage suddenly become a "public event"? Whatever happened to the sanctity of the family? Oh right, it is only for families that Vellacott approves of? If marriage is a public event, doesn't the public have interest in making sure that its commissioners operate under the public definition of marriage?
Here is hoping that the people of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin get better representation next go around. They sure deserve it.
Orville Nichols, a marriage commissioner for the past 23 years, has registered a complaint before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission over being forced to perform gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies -- says he'll go to a higher court to keep his marriage commissioner's licence.
Nichols, a provincial employee, doesn't get to pick and choose the job duties he can perform. In November, Justice Minister Frank Quennell notified all provincial marriage commissioners they were obligated to follow the law and perform same sex marriages.
After receiving his letter last November, Nichols stated publicly in a January Reader Leader-Post story that he would neither perform same-sex marriages nor give up his licence for not performing the ceremonies. "It's my personal and religious belief that it is not right," Nichols said. "My definition of marriage is opposite --male and female -- not two males and females. That's why I oppose it."
It is nice that Nichols has an opinion, but the last time I checked there were still some unemployed people in Saskatchewan, if he doesn't want to follow the law - look for a new job. Tom Cruise, because of his religion, believes that antidepressants are wrong, does that make him right? Nope, it sure doesn't.
I wish this story simply ended with a lone complaint in Saskatchewan. Sadly, it was picked up by Uber-Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) who issued not one, but two press releases defending Nichols.
In the first release, Vellacott said Quennell's insistence that marriage commissioners have to resign for refusing to perform same-sex marriages "violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The MP added that, like bilingual services, the province should find marriage commissioners "willing to perform this function" instead of firing them.
Ok Maurice, I will bite. First, comparing sexual orientation to learned languages is sad and desperate, but such is the mind of the Maurice. Next, let's find a marriage commissioner who is bilingual and refuses to serve the public in one of Canada's official languages. There next action will be cleaning their desk since they no longer will be on payroll.
In a second press release Wednesday, Vellacott named the "two homosexuals that issued the complaint," but the MP said he did not see anything wrong with doing this. This is a public issue and marriage should be viewed as a public event, Vellacott said.
When did marriage suddenly become a "public event"? Whatever happened to the sanctity of the family? Oh right, it is only for families that Vellacott approves of? If marriage is a public event, doesn't the public have interest in making sure that its commissioners operate under the public definition of marriage?
Here is hoping that the people of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin get better representation next go around. They sure deserve it.
Comments:
<< Home
"When did marriage suddenly become a 'public event'? "
I say: marriage has always been a public event - it's the proclamation to the greater community that two people are contractually bound to be miserable together (rimshot!). If it weren't a public event, we wouldn't need C-38.
Bah!
Post a Comment
I say: marriage has always been a public event - it's the proclamation to the greater community that two people are contractually bound to be miserable together (rimshot!). If it weren't a public event, we wouldn't need C-38.
Bah!
<< Home