The ruling comes down

So the supreme court ruled today on same sex marriage. There was a TV crew in here this morning interviewing Fr. Bill on it, so keep your eyes on Global news tonight.

I have mixed feelings on it. The court set out to answer four questions. The first is the one I feel the worst about. Does the federal government have excluse legal authority to define marriage, to which they unanimously voted yes. This upsets me because I don't see it as the government's responsibility to define marriage for anyone. Marriage comes out of a personal belief, and each belief system has their own definition. In fact this day in age everyone has their own belief system, even within the various religions. It is our government's job to protect religious freedom, defining marriage has nothing to do with that... back to this question in a bit.

The second question was does extending the capacity for same sex couples to get married constitutional. The answer to that was yes. To this I agree in a sense. My own morals aside, freedom is to respect the right of someone to do something you disagree with, thus if the government is going to define marriage, this is fitting with that ideal.

The third question was are religious leaders protected from having to marry same sex couples? The answer to this was yes. This means now, written in stone, that a religious leader cannon be forced to marry a same sex couple. This has a deeper implication, as it protects the same right to freedom as above. While the second question validates the right to have a same sex 'marriage', it also validates the right of anyone who doesn't want to recognize it as such. But it creates an odd contradiction. The government says it has the sole right to define marriage, but at the same time, we are not legally bound to follow that definition. That's why ruling #1 makes no sense to me and upsets me.

The fourth question adds to this. Is the current definition of marriage UN-constitutional. They chose not to answer this question. So they say it's the government's right to define marriage, it is the right of same sex couples to get married, but at the same time, the constitutional definition of marriage only as opposite sex couples isn't unconstitutional, but in the end it's up to individual religious groups to define what marriage is. See my problems with it?

Here's what I think. #1, the government's only two jobs in marriage is to maintain a registry, and to protect the innocent (so that is in terms of underage, forced or arranged, polygamous, incest, stuff like that). There ARE institutions which will perform same sex 'marriages'. Also, common law 'marriage' is legally acceptable in Canada, so it negates the whole thing anyway, because you don't need to be 'married' to have legal rights to marriage benefits.

So have a registry to maintain order, to qualify for the registry, you have to live with your partner for a time limited term (I think it's 6 months now) and sign a legal document saying that the relationship you have is a familial one, entitling you to tax and such benefits, and entitling both parties to divorce proceedings should the need arise. The other option, you have a marriage certificate signed by an institution with the right to do so, a church or whatever. It guarantees Homosexual's the rights they are guaranteed by the freedoms of the charter, but at the same time, it guarantees my right as a Catholic not to consider a same sex union a 'marriage', and to maintain that was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. Basically it makes everyone responsible for their own actions.

There's my rant.