Even your media cheerleaders know you're wrong

The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, not known for being a particularly leftwing rag, has published a scathing condemnation of a proposal to allow Saskatchewan marriage commissioners to refuse to solemnize same sex marriages. When a centre right paper like the SP refers to a rightwing government's policy as "reprehensible" and effectively brands the minister of a rightwing government a coward, it becomes apparent just how wrongheaded the policy is.

For my non-Canadian readers (and for Canadians who may have spent the last five years on a desert island with no access to the news), let me explain that equal marriage has been the law in Canada for quite sometime by an act of the Canadian Parliament. It has been law in Saskatchewan somewhat longer by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

For most everyone reading, let me also explain that marriage commissioners are agents of the state and only agents of the state. While they hold the same license as a clergyperson to solemnize marriages, they do not in any way act as agent for any religious body. In fact, the office of marriage commissioner was created precisely so that couples in Saskatchewan could have a wholly secular marriage ceremony.

This is manifestly not an issue of religious freedom.

Churches and other religious institutions, quite properly, are permitted to apply their own canonical requirements to any intended marriage. Thus no clergyperson is obliged to solemnize the marriage of any couple whose situation does not conform to canon law. A Baptist pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple. A Roman priest can refuse to marry a couple where the husband is divorced from a woman still living. An Anglican priest can refuse to marry a couple whose relationship falls within the prohibited degrees (ie, a man marrying his deceased wife's sister). While they act as agents of the state, they are principally agents of their religious institution, and should that change, their capacity to solemnize marriages is automatically revoked by the province.

Marriage commissioners are civil servants. Like any other civil servant, they are obliged to apply the laws, regulations and policies of the province. Religious convictions are, in this matter, irrelevant. If they cannot comply with the law, there is nothing which compels them to become marriage commissioners. (Indeed, if they are governed by such religious scruple, isn't it counterintuitive for them to participate in a system specifically designed to provide for a non-religious means to solemnize a marriage?)

Now, as a matter of reasonableness, there might have been a case for creating a temporary exemption for those who were already marriage commissioners when the law changed. That is to say, the small number of existing marriage commissioners who scrupled at same sex marriage could have been grandfathered -provided that they assisted any same sex couple to find another marriage commissioner - but that the exemption would not extend to any new marriage commissioners. Existing marriage commissioners had no legal entitlement to that situation, and the previous government chose not to extend it to them.

Apart from being reprehensible and cowardly, what the Saskatchewan Party government proposes in patently absurd. It is analagous to saying that pacifists should be allowed to serve in the military but, should the balloon ever go up, they wouldn't have to put themselves in harms way so long as another soldier could be found to put his or her life at risk. I have a great deal of respect for pacifists. Most of them understand that they shouldn't be in the military, and so long as the state does not compel them to military service, the system works.

The SP editorial makes some other comparisons to show just how odious this proposal is:

Would the minister go to bat for a social conservative who objects, justified on grounds of "traditional values" or religion, to wed a mixed-race couple? How about a Hindu doctor who refuses to treat a person he believes to be of a lower caste?

. . .

Surely Mr. Morgan wouldn't be asking the court if it's legally acceptable for a government manager to refuse to hire a First Nation worker based purely on her race, as long as he is able to identify another manager at a Crown corporation who's willing to hire her?

If this were about race or caste or even religion, even Don Morgan would be able to recognize this for what it is. Instead of being the Minister of Justice for all the people of Saskatchewan, he has chosen to pander to hatred. Words like "reprehensible" and "coward" are barely sufficient.

Facebook

So, just 'cause, I created a Simple Massing Priest Facebook Page. Three fans so far.

The Last Saskatchewan Pirate

Neither the Arrogant Worms nor the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra are from Saskatchewan. But Edmonton is on the Saskatchewan River, unlike either Moose Jaw and Regina, both of which are referred to in this delightful version of their fabulous novelty song, frequently covered by such groups as Captain Tractor and Squeeze of Scotch.

I draw to the attention of my non-Canadian readers that the civil province of Saskatchewan is entirely landlocked, but is nonetheless the home to two Naval Reserve Divisions.

And that the phrase "Arrrgh Métis" uses the technical term for a person of mixed Aboriginal and European descent. (Actually, historically speaking, "Métis" only referred to those who were of mixed Aboriginal and French descent, but now is generally used across the board.)



Oh, and the GST is our national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax, which was very unpopular when it was introduced to replace the hidden Manufacturers Sales Tax. I like the piratical take on the GST.

Perhaps, the end of the beginning

He was speaking about something else entirely. And no, in quoting Winston Churchill, I am not intending to compare North America's newest protestant denomination with certain nasty folk in central Europe at the middle of the last century. But I do believe that this little bit of Churchilliana applies:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Several groups of schismatics, cranks and naysayers have gathered themselves together in Texas and founded a new protestant denomination. Like several newly minted protestant denominations of the 1970s, they claim to be Anglican. They aren't - at least not in any meaningful sense. They also pretend to be Orthodox - but since they cannot bring themselves to affirm the fifth, sixth and seventh ecumenical councils, the're not that either.

They are a small protestant denomination calling themselves the Anglican Church in North America. Since they are not recognized by the Anglican Communion, the name might best be described as false advertising - or perhaps identity theft. Given their creative approach to legal questions of property, one should not be surprised.

They are not, it appears, united in what they believe but in what they reject - and what they reject is uppity gays and uppity women. Mostly uppity gays. Uppity women are a distant second. Well back in third place is any sort of independent thought on theological questions. Genuinely synodical government appears to be somewhere back in fourth since they seem to prefer the rule of prince-bishops.

This has, in some ways, been a long time coming. Several of the leaders of this new protestant denomination have been plotting and scheming for decades. Having failed to take over the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, they have chosen to establish a new protestant denomination in the hopes that the Anglican Communion will suddenly declare that they are the official holders of the Anglican franchise.

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end." This attempt to overthrow North American Anglicanism has some serious financial backers from the extreme political right in the US. These wealthy extremists have also bought and paid for several Anglican leaders in the two-thirds world. (Or, as the Primate of Uganda puts it, "they give us money. Oh they give us money. Since we began to relate with our orthodox brethren they have given us much more money, much more money, oh yeah, much more money. They have given us more money.") The new protestant denomination hopes that their two-thirds world clients will force the Instruments of the Communion to recognise them as the official replacement for both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church (that is the real Anglican Church of Canada, not the protestant denomination masquerading as an Anglican Church.)

No, this is not the end. It will drag on for another several years - years full of further identity theft, further simony, further sturm und drang.

It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Now that the willfully destructive have departed, perhaps the rest of us can get on with the work of the gospel.

Aren't you glad i didn't use a different Churchill quote, like this:
Lady Astor: Winston, you're drunk!
Churchill: Madam, you're ugly - and tomorrow I shall be sober.

A little market research

Tim Chesterton at Tale Spin has posted a most worthwhile survey on his blog. He's asking "non-churchgoing readers" about why they don't go to church.

Now there is a radical concept. Let's not assume what they think and feel and need and want. Let's ask them.

That's what sensible organizations do.

If you are one of my non-churchgoing readers, please go to Tim's blog and consider answering the questions. If you are one of my churchgoing readers, please go to Tim's blog and ponder the answers.

Two final observations:

1. I hope Tim is distributing this survey by other means besides his blog.

2. Why do I always feel I want to call Tim "Father Tim" even though I know he's "not that sort" of Anglican?

"When I was sick, you ministered to me"

Sensible conservative Andrew Sullivan has been liveblogging today about events in Tehran.

In this post, he copies unconfirmed tweets, including this very disturbing one:

2.31 pm. Canadians, call your foreign office. It's confirmed Canadian Embassy rejects injured protesters

I emphasize, this is NOT confirmed.

That said, it is a very disturbing report.

We are advised, in Matthew, that we will be judged on how we have responded to those in need - the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and the suffering.

I fail to see who could be in greater need than those who are being done to death by their own government.

Our Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Honourable Lawrence Cannon - email him (CannoL@parl.gc.ca). Lawrence Cannon is the grandson of Chubby Power - the last Canadian Liberal prepared to stick to his principles. (He resigned from Mackenzie King's cabinet over conscription.) One hopes his grandson might be prepared to listen to a principled argument.

While you are at it, email:

• Prime Minister Stephen Harper (HarpeS@parl.gc.ca),
• Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff (IgnatM@parl.gc.ca),
• Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae (RaeB@parl.gc.ca),
• NDP Leader Jack Layton (LaytoJ@parl.gc.ca),
• NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar (DewarP@parl.gc.ca),
• Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe (DucepG@parl.gc.ca) and
• Bloc Foreign Affairs Critic Francine Lalonde (LalonF@parl.gc.ca).

And don't forget to include your own Member of Parliament.

Look with pity, O heavenly Father, upon those who live with injustice, terror, disease, and death as their constant companions. Have mercy upon us and help us to eliminate cruelty wherever it is found. Strengthen those who seek freedom, justice and equality for all. Amen.

Exhilarating disappointment

The convention was today.

In one sense, the convention itself was of possibly limited relevance. Of the nearly 9500 votes cast, most had been advance votes by mail, by phone or online. There were apparently only 700ish votes cast live today.

Our principle opponent's people had been confidently predicting a first ballot victory in the order of 55 - 60%, which would be the most decisive victory in our party's history (apart, arguably, from the 1987 convention where Roy Romanow was acclaimed).

So much for those predictions.

Ryan finished a quite respectable 25% on the first ballot, but Dwain Lingenfelter (Link) fell short of a majority at only 46%. See the complete results here. The fourth place candidate was dropped and the third place candidate withdrew. Both subsequently endorsed Ryan.

Problem was, we basically needed to take 90% of their votes on the second ballot to stage an upset - a pretty tall order.

It was not to be. Link beat Ryan, clearly but not massively, 55 - 45% on the second and final ballot.

Three months ago, people used to describe the race as "former Deputy Premier Dwain Lingenfelter, MLA Deb Higgins, former party president Yens Pedersen and that doctor from Saskatoon none of us had heard of."

I am exhilarated that I was part of a team that took a virtual unknown and turned him into a serious contender. But, of course, I'm disappointed we couldn't get across the finish line.

Ryan's concession speech hit just the right note, calling on those disappointed in the result to stay and to help build the party. None of this self-indulgent PUMA stupidity here.

I had been up editing speeches until 3:00 am. I'm exhausted. But I know I've been part of something worthwhile.

(I'll be away at the Canadian Public Relations Society Conference and the Change of Command of HMCS REGINA over the coming week. Don't expect me to resume blogging until sometime after June 14. Then I promise to get back to covering the Anglican skirmishes from my own curmudgeonly perspective.)