?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Dec. 14th, 2004

"People will be under no pressure to perform any act that manifestly contradicts with their religious beliefs." (Martin)

Well, okay. Fine. But if you're, say, a Justice of the Peace, or some such, and your job principally involves, for example, performing marriages, and your religious beliefs are likely to interfere with the performance of your JOB, shouldn't you, I don't know... FIND ANOTHER FUCKING JOB? (Same goes for those "conservatives" in the States refusing to dispense birth control. So long as medical insurance covers erectile aids and not birth control - especially since the latter has other legitimate medical applications and the former does not - you people can just shut the fuck up. If you can't responsibly balance your temporal and religious beliefs, maybe the one or the other needs some attention, tweaking, or REMOVING. Go and get your fucking head in order, and in the meantime, find a job where your confusion does not FUCK WITH PEOPLES' HEALTH.)

About the marriage thing; I don't see the issue. Obviously no one's going to force churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The Supreme Court's not talking about "marriage". They're talking about what is effectively a civil union. A purely legal arrangement. Personally I think we should take "marriage" out of the constitution altogether. It's a religious term and has no place in a legal document, especially not in this country, for crying out loud.

I mean, hell: you wanna get "married"? Great. Go get a civil union license-thingy-whatever, and then go get the legally-meaningless religious ceremony if you like. Sure, it has significance to you. Solemnize your vows with the approval of your religion. But the two HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER. Nor should they. Harper's bullshitting is really starting to hurt my brain. I would like him to shut the fuck up, now, please. >.<

And... It's a "provocation"? Oh, good grief. "The British monarchy is in our past"?! Uh, actually, no. It's not. Otherwise we wouldn't have that big gold sceptre-club-thingammy in a position of prominence in the House of Commons.

Oh, and we still have no hockey.

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
iamgerg
Dec. 15th, 2004 04:02 pm (UTC)
I have to disagree with you on this... I think the right to refuse is an important part of any work environment. I think there is a fundamental difference between this and refusing to dispense Birth Control. In Gay Marriage the ceremony will not be refused, simply that various peoples will not perform them... This effects only one person... the Justice. Theoretically the Couple being married would not notice the fact that a certain person did or did not perform the ceremony. With Pharmacists they are making a moral decision about a subject that doesn't involve them... I might understand if certain Pharmacies refused to sell certain medications but the cases in the states have been simply a pharmacist refusing to dispense a perfectly legal drugs. Were only one of three pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription at a particular pharmacy again I could see it.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )

Profile

reeciebastion
chandri
Chandri MacLeod
Fantasi.net

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com