Marriage is a loaded issue with tons of cultural baggage.  Its role and purpose have changed substantially over the past few centuries.  I would agree that churches should have the freedom to set their own policies regarding marriage as long as their policies are consistent with the rest of their policies and rules.  Personally, I would have no problem with presiding at same-sex marriages as long as the couple had a mutual, long-term commitment to each other, just as I would expect of heterosexual marriage.

I think this needs defusing!

Let the state decide the laws of the country  - including defining marriage.  Let them do the legal aspects of marrying via there own officials.  Let churches bless whatever marriages they choose to bless after the law has been met.

Hopefully those religions and denominations that don't approve of remarriages after divorce and/or marriages between same sex couples   will slowly but steadily lose there followers!

It isn't a special case, Ina.

Consider that women cannot be discriminated against in the workplace -- now consider the Roman Catholic church.....you think they don't ?  

it's based on theology...of course....women should not be leaders.

shucks, some of our regulars on this site belong to churches other than catholic that won't even have a woman on their board....only in the kitchen you know...

there are a ton of things which churches "get away with" ...and have for a lot longer than 1988

consider some of the rules around bigamy...and consider the mormons

consider our rules around age of drinking...yet in some churches those under  19 would receive communion wine.

oh, and wait until 2012 in Ontario, when the public buildings  rulings start to be enforced, about access...then watch many many churches, not just united churches, squirm.

oh, and finally, we can and some churches have given sanctuary.

churches have married folks when the state wouldn't.

you don't want to start bending to the laws of the state...just cause they exist.

Pinga,

lets stay within the UCC for the purposes of this thread :3

What "State" laws does the UCC have to follow and which ones doesn't it have to follow?  And the ones that it 'doesn't have to follow', why?

Just a Self-writing poem,

InannaWhimsey

well, it won't have to follow the 2012 ontario laws re accessability, as i understand it, should it choose not to serve the public....

dang -- in a midst of a bunch of posts, i do a duplicate on top-- sorry

it can choose to give sanctuary, such as to refugees....when a public building would have to give the person up

churches, including the united church, are allowed to have differing rules based on theological standings.

in the past, the united church had rules about what women could or should do....that has changed.....some would argue it has only changed as much as society has..

churches are also exempt from some of the rules regarding serving food to the public.   (I was reminded of this one by seeler's thread on the turkey dinner).

Pinga - exempt from rules about serving food to the public?  Only to a certain extent.  A health inspector can close a church kitchen if she finds that dishes are not being washed properly:  a commercial dishwasher with water at a certain high temperature; or if washed by hand a javax rinse is used.

there may be other laws as well.

And no serving alcohol without a license - which isn't an issue for most UCC.

There are actually special sections in the food inspection regulations for churches/religious institutions....Seeler.  We pulled them out, as someone was freaking out that we couldn't do bake sales.   (Now, it may have been Ontario's, but i would expect other provinces have similair exemptions)

The 2012 date isn't accurate. There is a 2012 deadline for customer service policies but the standards for buildings and access have yet to be released. We have a few years on that one, I am told.

fair....but........its coming

We are not exempt from health regs if we are serving the public. A bake sale to the public is allowed if the regs are followed. However if the sale is to church members only, the health regs don't apply.

I'm going to find the precise section, again, DKS...coz that isn't quite the case.

Not going to happen. No minister can be compeled by the state to perform any wedding. We are free to decline without giving a reason. That's called S.2 of the Charter of Rights, Freedom of Religion

gotta run...but check out this link...

 There are exemptions all over the Health Protection & Promotion act for churches and special meals.

It is the case. We deal with this all the time on our church office. If we are serving the public (like at a turkey supper where tickets are sold to non-members) the regulations apply. We have to inform the Health Unit and we will receive an inspection. We have to comply with the regs. If we are serving our own (dinner for our own members), no problem. Bake sales, however, are exempt, but you can not sell products requiring refrigeration. That is how our Health Unit is interpreting the regulations. There were five cases of food poisoning at church suppers in our Health Unit area last year, according to the MOH. Frankly, church suppers are dangerous places to eat.

WEll, it in part depends whose interpretation you get. THe local HEalth Unit told a neighbouring church that it depended if it was "widely publicized".  Of course they didn't define what that meant.  I was surprised as well since when I took the food handlers course a few years back the instructor said tht churches were exempt from the regulation.  Upon futher investigation it sounds like things are changing.

I believe there have been fall suppers in Southern Ontario shut down by the health unit.

The United Church of Canada (and all other religious organisations operating in Canada) MUST operate within the laws of Canada. Churches are part of a wider community and must respect that wider community, petitioning for legislation or changes to legislation on moral grounds or theological grounds -- any grounds at all, in fact -- as any group or individual is free to do. The alternative is to act outside of the law and accept the consequences, as any other person or group must do.

The amount of tolerance extended to churches and faiths by the secular state is admirable. However I believe it goes too far in exempting churches from compliance with aspects of Canada's human rights legislation, particularly in relation to gender and sexual orientation. I would argue very strongly that these exemptions should be withdrawn from churches because they allow churches to act in ways that are contrary to the democratically expressed values of our society, divisive and inherently unjust. These are and "victimless" attitudes that i'm referring to.

All churches should willingly accept that discriminatory employment practices, for example, fly in the face of the values expressed by the polity.  If an organisation discriminates in this way, I believe it should face prosecution. Canadian legislation is more lenient.

There have been finer times in the history of most Christian denominations when Christian thought and civil action led the way in relation to human rights. It was largely \that teaching and political action in the past that seeded the antidiscriminatory principles now upheld by Canadian society. It is ironic that Christian churches should be trying to draw lines in the sand... I only hope the sands turn our to be as shifting as they have been in the past.

Christian bigotry SHOULD be an oxymoron! The churches will be far healthier, far more respected, far more fruitful and and far more attractive when they divorce themselves from bigotry (which has secular social and cultural origins anyway) altogether. As it stands, churches can become boltholes for social reactionaries and their loathsome doctrines: doctrines that are no more worthy or health-giving in a church sanctuary than they are on the street. It should be immaterial to Canada as a social and political entity whether bigotry is practised in a factory or a club, a business or a church.

If the churches were doing their faithing work with integrity, they would have no need to be concerned about these issues at all. The comments I find no further away than on Wondercafe forums make me feel sick, shamed and angry and make me want to tear myself away from the hateful attitudes the word "Christian" has come to mean in so many contexts, even if it meant pursuing my faith alone. Fortunately, thanks to the UCC, that's not proved absolutely necessary.

Your argument is contra S.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects religious freedom. If a church bases their actions on a consistant theological position, then S.2 tops all other laws. That principle was upheld in the SCC's comments on same-sex marriage.

Where I am from, you have to marry first before a justice of peace to make it legal, marrying in church is just an option you might or might not choose, it doesn't make it legal.  For the Catholics, one of the two has to be at least catholic, in order to marry in a church, kind of: services only for members. If you consider churches as private organizations it makes sense that they can decide who to marry and who not. The move of the UCC to let every congregation vote on it seems to me a smart move. It's sad that many congregations are lacking behind the UCC values by voting against it, but I am sure time will change that and those places will die out because evolution tells us that what can't change usually dies.

Aside from marriage- do we give a congregation or minister a choice who's funeral to hold? There is sacular alternatives to funerals, too. I am actually glad, after coming the long way from the Catholics that the UCC is at least at the point where there is an option. I've always felt the UCC is more progressive than it's members.

DKS: religious freedom is NOT absolute. Actions of bigotry against people are not "religious expression" (unless it's a very sick religion, in which case, everyone's better off if it's policed).

Religions have to "get along" with the society in which they are practised; societies have a perfect right to [ut fences around their activities and their propaganda where they conflict with the predominant values of the society and its "good order" and due process.

heh, then, Mike...which takes me back to the RC & Baptist  denial of women as priests and pastors.

Then argue that with the SCC. Their position on the matter is quite clear. Religious freedom allows what you call "acts of bigotry". Just as the church can exclude people from its fellowship if it so chooses on theological grounds.

I agree wholeheartedly with MikePatterson on this.  Why does religious freedom trump freedom from discrimination?  If one really had religious freedom to discriminate one would be able to do so in all aspects of their lives, not just in places of worship.  "Well, your honour, God told me not to hire gays in my restaurant, so I don't" or "God told me not to hire women in my bank, so I don't".  I can't see that going over too well.  How about "God told me I could have these slaves, murder these people, sacrifice these virgins"?  Religious freedom is about freedom of belief, not freedom of behavior.

Somegirl...the one thing to keep in mind is it is that same religious freedom which allows churches to also risk in areas.  If the government were to make a terrible law, we, as a church, would have religious freedom regarding it..(or the potential to have).

I would NEVER want the church to tie itself to the law of the land....as the topmost law...

DKS - I think you missed the point of my post. 

I still hold to my position -  Let the State marry people according to the law of the land.

Let religious groups do/not do whatever they think necessary to meet there code of marraige.  RCs have different requirements then Baptists and so on.  I wasn't suggesting that anyone be forced to officiate at a wedding they think is 'ungodly or iregular'.

People marry legally then go to there church for the next step.

For many legitimate and historical reasons that's probably not going to happen. Not in Canada. We now do have marriage commissioners in all provinces (we didn't in Ontario until four years ago), but there are still many areas of the province where the only people who are authorized by the province to perform weddings are clergy. Until that changes, churches will still be given authority to solemnize wedddings.

Except where it is part of a stated theology. You can't discriminate in secular employment, but a church can require its leaders to follow certain practices without being accused of discrimination. That's because it is backed by a faith statement. That allows Roman Catholics to have male only spiritual leaders and United Church clergy to be married. In Canada the state will not interfere with the internal practices and policies of a religious body unless that body refuses to follow their own polity. Then it is wide open to a lawsuit (and there have been a couple) and civil remedy.

I would hate to see churches forced to marry everyone who came to their door.  Nor do I think that the church would have to give reasons, or explain, why they were willing to marry some couples and not others.   I can think of many reasons, other than same sex marriages, why I church might refuse a marriage.  A great difference in age, jumps to my mind.   A questions of compenancy - does one or both parties lack the ablility to understand what they are doing.  A strong suspicion that this is an abusive relationship.   An attitude that says "This is for now.  In a few years we will probably get divorced and move on."   etc. and so on.  Churches even have the right to say that their services are for members only.   By the way, my church does marry same sex couples.  They don't do weddings for people outside the congregation - both the ministers and the building are usually quite busy.   (People who really want to get married in this historic old building can get around this requirement by attending a few services.)

 DKS: civil law must be paramount. if civil law tolerates religious "freedom" within certain boundaries, its practitioners should be glad. If a government passes a law that is odious to a religious belief, then that religion should make clear its objection and its followers should show the courage of their convictions through civil disobedience. Civil disobedience will have civil implications.

Whether the church or the state is "right" will be a matter of debate: sometimes it will be clear, sometimes it will be highly arguable. THAT is the way it almost always has been handled... imperfectly, perhaps, but it allows societies to function. Value systems will also be in conflict in a society as diverse as ours.

Clergy aren't considered 'employees' and aren't subject to the labour codes and other 'employee' rights.  As Pinga point out, women don't enjoy equal rights to employement in some denominations; but this a significant point reaching beyond this single issue.

That is offensive and foundationally at odds with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Religious freedom is a foundational principle of a civil society. Civil society doesn't "tolerate" religious freedom. It is a foundational principle.

That is correct. Clergy are "elected officers" and not employees.

 DKS: So why do we not have sharia law in Canada? Why do we not allow multiple marriages? Why do we not allow genital mutilation? Why do we we not allow slavery?

Religious freedom is about following one's faith in ways that do not harm others: marginalisation of women and gays harms others. 

 The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

and:

""All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

and:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Freedom of "thought, conscience and religion" does not licence conscience-motivated acts of terror. Not should it be an "out" for discrimination on other grounds. 

You are clainming a right without offering responsibility. Grow up.

I would say that we have to tread carefully.

I would not like to open the door to the state deciding religious beliefs and so I support right to religious freedoms.

I do tend to wonder about stuff like "consistent theology" because it too opens the door to sharia law, genital mutilation, poly-marriage, etc... They are consistent theologies we maybe don't support, but they are at least as consistent as any theologies we do support.

For me, I also do not like hiding behind religious freedom.

As far as the whole move from liberal and conservative alike- perhaps to bridge a rift...to say churches should get compelety out of the marriage business... well to me, again with the perspective of a GLBTQ person is, this:

So, for eons you were the marriage folks. It was a sacrament of the church or a valued event or a God joined together thing, etc.... It had theology attached. It had to meet church theology and church standards, etc... and now, because some GLBTQ people show up you want to get out of the business?
If I was a golf club or a place to eat or a movie theatre... and I was happy being that place and doing that business for years and then decided to get out of the business because blacks were permitted, doesn't that seem a tad racist? If women are admitted and I want to bail, doesn't that seem a sexist move?"... so, for me, this whole "let the state do marriage" seems just the same.

From some, I expect nothing less. It is exactly what I expected.

From others, I expected more and it is not what I expected when you touted equality.

Because none of those things you have named are matters of religious freedom. They are cultural practices. The question of multiple marriages may become one with the polygamous Mormons, but that will be a while yet.

Discriminations against women and gays are also cultural practices. They have no place in theology, unless by "theology" you mean the circuitous affirmation of cultural and personal attitudes.

Put it another way - Does the state have the right to determine theology - or fundamental beliefs?  Can the state come in and tell a church what is to be theologically correct?  This was an issue in the Roman Empire and the disestablishment of the church in the american experiment.

This is different from having to obey the laws that do not counter civil rights.  To say the church must not do x because it counters the law of the land which overrides civil rights is to engage in the fallacy of misplace concreteness.

I may and do      find churches that do not do same sex marriages, do not ordain women or gays, do remarry  to be deficient in theological understanding but I will defend their right to be wrong.

What you describe as "discrimination" is not,  when it has a theological base. The Roman Catholic Church has a belief that all priests must be men because Christ was a man. That is not discrimination. It is a faith statement and is thus protected under S2 of the Charter. End of story.

I agree with DKS to a point.

I would not support the state determining female ordination or gay ordination or chunk, dunk or sprinkle or anything of that sort.

I do however think there is squirming done to say one is a cultural difference and another is a consistent theology.

In fact, female ordination would have trouble with consistent theology because it is not consistent. If one looks at even the issue of homosexuality one will find it has been far from consistent.

On the surface, religious freedom allows you to assemble and worship without limitation or interference from the state.

It also has case law that states that all religions have equal rights, based upon tradition and the rule of law.

That is basically bologna, rightfully so, but it is bologna.  

One would be hard pressed to find those who say that includes Children of God/Family of Love/the Family/The Family International (TFI) and a religious group advocating and documenting adult-child sexual contact.

The state also does not allow polygamy, yet we know that has an ancient religious history. The state steps in regarding medical issues in minor children. There is child neglect and abuse laws that trump religious freedom laws. 

The state also does not make exemptions for using implements for spanking if you are religious. There are those who believe hitting with the hand contravenes their religious beliefs and they believe a hand is for love and a paddle, switch... for discipline. The law still declares it a criminal act.

Setting up one group you are not in as a culture and the group you are in as a religion is a wiggle. Is aboriginal religion actual religion or a culture? See the wiggling one must do? Female circumcision/mutilation/cutting predates Christianity and Islam. It can be found in Egyptian mummies. Does being able to say it is not in the Quran or the Bible mean it is not a religious practice? Is aboriginal and pagan faith a religion?

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the civil divorce agreement signed by Jason Marcovitz, to give his wife, Stephanie Bruker, a get, was a valid contract that overrides his protection under freedom of religion. They married in 1969, divorced in 1980 and he waited until 1995 and she was 46 and past child bearing years, etc.  The Marcovitz/Bruker case was the first to the Supreme Court since the amendment to the Divorce Act in 1990, which prohibited people from creating or maintaining obstacles for their former spouse to marry religiously. Now, is creating an obstacle or maintaining one theologically sound in one faith and not in another? Hmmmm...

Let's not pretend the right to religious freedom trumps all other laws. It si like the right to speech. One still cannot slander, verbally abuse and one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building. If halahka law applies, then why not sharia? Not emotional response or anything, but just why is one religious law upheld and another refused?

"Hands off my law" and "hands all over theirs" is just hypocrisy.

DKS: A faith statement? Nonsense: it's cultural patriachy. The early Christian church had many women leaders.  It was a break with cultural tradition justifiable because Christians broke away from Jesus' parent culture. It was the culture of the Middle East that fixed women in domestic roles. To say Jesus was a man so all who preach Christianity must also be men is just to perpetuate old Middle Eastern attitudes formed in a culture, economy and geographic context so different from out own that the thinking is hopelessly disconnected. For generations, Christians used a comparably ludicrous argument to justify slavery. We should similarly be following the Jewish codes of practice set out in Leviticus. 

One may be less likely to convincingly say it is "consistent theology" regarding some things than another is to say that polygamy and concubines are, forced or arranged marriage (widows marry brothers-in-law), rape of female captives... 

Again, it is not a place I wish to tread, neither in saying absolutely that the state should determine religious value nor in saying that the state absolutely should be "hands off" if someone or some group says "it is religious". There is a balance and there should be a case by case decision, to me.

In your opinion. The Charter, however, is on the side of the Roman Catholic Church. That's also why we have a religion-based, tax supported school system in parts of Canada.

i just want to point out that this statement is false, if i am reading it properly...

nobody is forcing a church to marry same sex couples if they don't choose to do so. 

the UCC is simply because it has decided that it is well within the laws of scripture to do so.  if other churches do not interpret the scriptures the same way, then they do not have to marry same sex couples, and there is no law that is going to come in and force them to, as evidenced by the fact that the catholic church has never been convicted with discrimination and forced to change their stance on allowing women to serve as priests or openly gay people to teach in the catholic school system.

Your public health unit is screwing you.  We are explicitly exempt from the water laws, as well as serving laws.  If your health unit were to disagree, you would win in court.  And you would have the backing of the church lawyers, so you could save money on the costs of the challenge :)  This has been very explicitly explained by church lawyers, by ministry people, and by some (but clearly not all) health units.

The exception being is you are paying someone to supply the food.  Then the rules apply.

Church suppers are no more dangerous than supper at a friend's house.

Three conflicting principles are getting muddled here: law, justice and morality.

A benign society tries very hard to harmonise them so that its laws (which are about social order) are, in general, just (fair to all). It will also try to incorporate as much widely-held morality as possible to bring the law closer to its citizens' comfort zones and widely agreed ideas of "good" and "bad". But the unavoidable result is that there will always be cases of an act being just but illegal, legal but immoral to many, even moral but unjust. Life doesn't flow tidily down idealised channels. Membership of a society means sucking it up or taking the consequences of opting out. Our moral principles often mean that we feel and act out of synch with society, and experience alienation and/or the sting of our society's sanctions. That can become a force for social change.

The impossible problem is that morality is necessarily personal; everyone has to discover his/her own morality; you can't write a law that says "you've got to be good". You CAN write a law that says "pay your taxes" but a government can NEVER spend them in a way that pleases everyone. Within a group of people, even a church membership, morality is always negotiated, always compromised, usually debated, and seldom fully realised.

A democracy establishes the principle of trying to please majorities, as a rule and given the other "realities" of the day. That creates a disenchanted minority. A benign society tries to make up for it by allowing free speech with all the noise and distractions it generates. That should provide sufficient scope for religious groups to "get it off their chests" and persuade others to join them, and to campaign for more congenial legislation. 

Religious tolerance should not  be guaranteed in any unconditional way and, in fact, must be restricted in a diverse society to keep conflict to a liveable minimum.  religious tolerance should not be taken for granted; it is possible only to the extent that religious groups accept their social responsibilities and recognise and RESPECT  social norms as well as their own. Intolerance and prejudice on the part of religious followers threatens society's capacity to extend freedoms in relation to faith.