Terry Glavin on that ruling in Saskatchewan...
You can always count on Terry to have some really wise words...this is from his excellent blog...
Having been raised in the Roman Catholic tradition I lay claim to what I like to think is just the tiniest bit of an edge by way of insight into the langer-thick idiocy and hypocrisy at work in the religious crawthumping that tends to erupt in the matter of "gay marriage," which is a meaningless term to begin with because either it's marriage or it isn't, but nevermind that.There's more at his site...
Only too well do I remember having been hectored in my libidinous Catholic youth about the shabby and sham institution of "civil marriage." Oh you wouldn't want to do anything like that, lad. Why Father? Well, you see, my child, to enjoin with a woman in a mere civil marriage is to place yourself and the girl in a state of sin, and think about the implications for the 17 babies you'll be wanting herself to provide you besides. A marriage commissioner officiates over a worthless and invalid institution that does not amount to a true bill of "marriage" at all. It's the genuine article you'll be wanting, my child, the proper Holy and Apostolic sacrament of marriage, so leave off this business of paying a fee to the Crown for a scrap of paper that has neither soul-perserving nor ecclesiastical value.
And thus it had come to pass down through the holy centuries that for a man and a woman to co-habit without first procuring the sacrament of marriage was to be consigned to an ash-pit of depravity, and to resort to the mere confines of a civil marriage was to engage in a delusion and a calamity so bereft of grace that the institution could be said to be fit only for homos.
But do you know what happened then? In the final years of the 20th century, those among us not given to the heterosexual persuasion but nonetheless given to some pluck and ginger began to triumph in their brave and righteous agitations not for holy matrimony but for the right to the benefit and security of civil marriage. And do you know what happened next? No quicker than you could say segregated and unconsecrated graveyards for unbaptised babies, clergymen of all stripes, not least the Roman, commenced to thunder and caterwaul about the sanctity of civil marriage, if you don't mind. Let not this institution fall, we were instructed, to the advance troops of the sinister homosexualist agenda.
One minute, that hollow, worthless and fraudulent institution was a thing we were admonished to avoid at all costs to our immortal souls. The next minute it was worth its weight in the Holy Father's toenail clippings. Suddenly it was the bedrock of our civilization. Priests were howling from the pulpits with exhortations that we protect the (utterly foreign and un-Catholic, but nevermind) institution and stand a vigilant guard against the hordes of sodomites shimmying up the very ramparts that separate all that is decent from all that is savage.
Well, the priests lost. But some geezers just don't get it.
Good news comes by way of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling that discovers to no one's surprise that like every other civilized jurisdiction in Canada, in Saskatchewan a marriage commissioner cannot resort to some weird personal or religious gimcrackery to justify a refusal to provide the benefit of the marriage law to heterosexual citizens and homosexual citizens alike. It is a straightfoward finding. But it is perplexing to Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, who raises an objection, and has now lodged it with Justice Minister Don Morgan. Here it is:
"It’s a serious misunderstanding of Christian faith or any faith for that matter. . .the inference [sic.; he means 'implication'] here (is) you can hold these beliefs and freedom to worship just long as it doesn't affect your life or how you live out your life. And that obviously is a serious problem. It sets up a hierarchy of rights saying these same-sex rights are more important than freedom of conscience and religion."
The ruling does absolutely nothing of the kind. The Canadian people are entitled by law to enter into marriage, and whether one is queer or straight should not enter into it at all. It's that simple. Marriage commissioners who find this confusing because of their superstitions or because of their unfamiliarity with plain logic or for any other reason might want to think of taking up some other vocation, like standing on streetcorners to shout and shake bibles at passersby.