With the insanely crazy weather of a week or so ago, it seems fitting to have a snow job of a different sort coming at us from our cousins just to the east. In case you have missed the news, a particular marriage commissioner is Saskatchewan—a "devout" Baptist, no less—has been making headlines for living up to his moral principles.
Seems Mr. Orville Nichol is having some reservations about performing the wedding ceremony of homosexuals, and is now being called on the carpet for his personal standards.
By mistake, I clicked on the wrong link as I attempted to chase down this story, and discovered that Nichol is only one of many commishes who are reacting to their freedom of choice being crammed down his throat. In fact, as I scrolled down the legal report, I failed to find his name even listed. It strikes me as strange that he appears to be singled out for speaking out.
People, I find this story quite alarming, for a number of reasons.
One, since when is it questionable to say "no" to something you have some scruples over? Refusing service at a restaurant because of colour—I agree that that is wrong. Not lending a helping hand because of religious differences—smacks of bigotry. But the man has issues with two men or two women getting married, and simply requests the option of not being forced to marry them. He has his reasons, and although I didn't actually read them, I have a sneaking hunch I know what they are. There are plenty of others who can and will. So what's the hang-up?
Two, since when is it questionable to speak out against moral issues? I struggle, for the same reason, with the restriction placed on pro-lifers, who simply want to publicly declare their case against the murder of innocent babies. Likewise, there remains a stigma with those who choose to educate their children at home. In both cases, there is a severe double standard, an uneven playing field. What's next, Is the court going to tell him who to vote for?
Three, since when is is questionable to resist someone else's morality? I have had my share of disagreements through this column over these past four-plus years. That's alright with me: we are allowed to disagree with other's opinions and values. In this case, however, I didn't read anywhere where Mr. Nichol was guilty of any trash talking or hate crime. He's not even moralizing. He has simply drawn a line in the sand, saying, in so many words, that he will go so far in his line of duty, but not further.
Agree or disagree with his position, I understand that he is saying he wants the option to not do something that is, ironically enough, optional. Would there be the same hullabaloo if he turned them down because it was the wrong timing, the wrong day, the wrong church?(I thought you'd say "no.")
Four, since when is it questionable to be "devout" Baptist? Why the emphasize on what he is apparently devoted to? I didn't read of the devout justice system that over-ruled the government, or the devout homosexuals who claimed a measure of victory. Is there a little media bias here? I attended at Baptist church for years—regularly, willingly, and actively--though I am not sure I qualified as being devout, and if I was, is that wrong?
I really believe in education, including home education, but does that mean I am a devout educator—whatever that implies? I love a good cup of coffee three or four times a day: Does mean I am a devout coffee drinker? In either case, what's the point in underscoring it?
Theoretically, we live in a country which allows free speech. To be sure, that liberty can be abused, as we saw at the G20 Summit in Toronto last summer. On the one hand, abusive and denigrating trash talking has no place in a civilized society; but on the other hand, government-imposed restrictions (hello, North Korea and Iran) have no place here either.
For every one Mr. Nicholls, there are ten who are willing to perform the ceremony. The couples in Saskatchewan will be just fine. I'm just thinking: Maybe in this wedding scenario, Mr. Nichol
is actually the best man.
No comments:
Post a Comment