Wrasslin' with my conscience

[mahogany]

Before launching into the homily, on Sunday, our priest thanked everyone who had signed the petition for doing so, and reminded us of the importance of signing and taking a stand against what’s happening in our country right now.

I couldn’t sign it. I still can’t. There are three issues that our priest was urging us to oppose. One of them is the re-definition of marriage.

For those that aren’t familiar with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I’ve added this excerpt from the federal government’s website:


EQUALITY RIGHTS

SECTION 15

1. Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
2. Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


This section of the Charter makes it clear that every individual in Canada – regardless of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or physical or mental disability – is to be considered equal. This means that governments must not discriminate on any of these grounds in its laws or programs.

The courts have held that section 15 also protects equality on the basis of other characteristics that are not specifically set out in it. For example, this section has been held to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of section 15 is to protect those groups who suffer social, political and legal disadvantage in society. Discrimination occurs where, for example, a person, because of a personal characteristic, suffers disadvantages or is denied opportunities available to other members of society.



It’s always been my understanding that the Charter is meant to be interpreted inclusively and broadly. I can’t sign a petition that advocates an action that would violate our constitution, or that might violate the constitution.

What’s interesting is that in the past, when I’ve been in direct opposition to the Church’s teaching on an issue, I’ve discovered over time, that I was an arrogant little shit, and that the Church’s position had much more wisdom than I gave it credit for.

That’s not to say that Church leaders haven’t been responsible for some horrible atrocities - they have. I’m talking about official Church teachings..teachings that are binding on the faithful. Those are the ones I can follow wholeheartedly. I don’t think that I have to support this Church leaders’ stance on this issue, since it’s not an official doctrine, and it’s not binding. I think I can still consider myself faithful in this case.

Still, I question myself. How much of my opposition to the Church’s teaching stems from my typically GenX mentality that buys into moral relativisim - well, not completely, but a little? Is my experience as a visible minority colouring my feelings on the issue? Does it matter? An informed conscience is a difficult standard to meet. How well have I informed mine? Not very well, I would have to admit.

Aggghhh. Too much thinking for a Monday morning.

Comments

[daisan.livejournal.com]

I don't really understand the fuss everyone (here in America they're doing the same thing) is making about gay marriage (if I am correctly understanding your post.)

How does the loving union of two people for the purpose of creating a stable home life and raising children degrade the current institution of marriage? Why does it exclude two people of the same gender? And don't divorce and pre-nuptual agreements degrade marriage? Yet these are allowed and encouraged (not by the Church, true, but I don't recall petitions against the legality of pre-nuptual agreements or anything!)

There are definitely aspects of the 'typical' homosexual lifestyle that go against Church teaching, just as much as there are aspects of the 'single' lifestlye that also go against Church teaching. What I don't understand is why gay marriage is so wrong.

Just wanted to say that I empathize with your conscience's struggles. :)

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

Just for arguments sake, I'd really love to see a coherent defense of the "No" side of the issue that does NOT include:

Any reference to the Bible or any other religious book, or makes any reference to premarital sex as being sinful, or that mentions the concept of sin period.
That does not rely on historical precident
That does not make hurtful statements (such as assertions that homosexual intercourse is unnatural)
That respects the constitution
That clearly demonstrates how opposing same sex marriage is for the common good, while respecting all of the above

I think anything that's law binding, must at minimum meet the above standards in order to be considered an argument that's appropriate to be applied to all members of society.

I wonder if it can be done? I have yet to see one.

[czaria.livejournal.com]

As an American comedian quipped: Gays are the only people who want to get married these days. Why not let ‘em?

It’s truly sad that humans can’t get over these ancient bigotries. Sadder still when they try to use God, or Allah or whoever, to justify them. Last week I saw a report about some “christian” group that wants to put up a monument at the church where the funeral for Matthew Shepard (gay guy killed by bigots) was held. It reads something about him dying as God’s punishment for his being gay. They talked to one of the women advocating this and she was raving about how it wasn’t about her, it wasn’t her who hated gays, she just “hates the sin”, and that this was about “God’s hatred”. What god is she worshiping, exactly?

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

Last week I saw a report about some “christian” group that wants to put up a monument at the church where the funeral for Matthew Shepard (gay guy killed by bigots) was held. It reads something about him dying as God’s punishment for his being gay.

I heard about this too. It's vile. It sickens me to hear about stuff like this. It makes me want to wear a sticker that says "I'm a Christian, but I'm not mindless, I'm not a biggot, I'm not hateful, and I have no intentions of shoving my religion down your throat....I promise"

[wonkvdjagt.livejournal.com]

What’s interesting is that in the past, when I’ve been in direct opposition to the Church’s teaching on an issue, I’ve discovered over time, that I was an arrogant little shit, and that the Church’s position had much more wisdom than I gave it credit for.


Yeah, but the Church has also been very very very wrong before. So I'm going to be a bit of an arrogant little shit here.

I think it's weird that by not agreeing with one position on an issue you were forced to imply that you disagreed with the position on the other two issues (by not signing the petition at all). It's like saying, "If you're a member of this church, you will believe ALL of these things, whether they are related to one another or not." What are the chances that one person's considered reflection of three entirely separate issues in light of Biblical teaching will result in agreement with the Church's position on all three of those things?

I think it's the little statistician in me reacting this way...just seems like bad questionnaire design to me ;)

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

What are the chances that one person's considered reflection of three entirely separate issues in light of Biblical teaching will result in agreement with the Church's position on all three of those things?

Apparently the chances are pretty slim. Considering the size of the parish that I attend, and considering that there were two masses prior to the one I attended, the number of signatures that I saw as I walked past looked astonishingly small.

I take some small comfort in the fact that many members appear to share my disagreement with the Church's stance on this.

[spellboy.livejournal.com]

i think the world would be a better place if the catholic church kept out of politics. really. the issue of same sex civil marriages has nothing to do with them. they are not going to be forced to perform marriages they do not want to. the issue at hand has to do with the canadian govt obeying the constitution. it's about removal of relativistic morality. not creating it. everyone being equal. how is that relativistic?

just because an organization has been around for a long time, it does not mean it has a collective institutional wisdom. they really need to review their policies. the world has dramatically changed. they haven't.

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

I just keep thinking back to past instances of serious injustices being perpetrated, and wonder if people will look back at this time in 200 years and view it as yet another example of the Church leaders standing in the way of justice.

[spellboy.livejournal.com]

perhaps the pope in the year 3003 will comment that the church "might" have made a mistake. they way they did with their persecution of Galileo and the crusades.