A Church of Christ minister who has been responsible for civic marriage ceremonies at Cambridge city hall for the past 15 years is facing the axe if she doesn’t agree to perform same-sex “marriages.”
Rev. Jay Brown told LifeSiteNews that city council voted 8 to 1 Monday night on a motion, brought forward by Councillor Donna Reid, that Brown be forced to officiate at homosexual “marriages” or they would issue a “request for proposal” to find a replacement.
Rev. Brown explained that as a minister of the Church of Christ she must follow the precepts of her church, which does not allow homosexual “marriage,” but that she was always ready to accommodate same-sex couples by recommending a designated minister who would be happy to perform the ceremony.
“I have nothing against gay people, in fact a member of my family is gay,” Brown said in an interview with LifeSiteNews, “but I represent my church, which does not allow same-sex marriage.”
“My church won’t allow me to. I haven’t had to make that decision,” she said, adding that in the years since homosexual “marriage” was legalized in Canada she has been asked only a few times to perform same-sex “marriages.”
49 Comments
And this is why people like you should support the separation of church and state.
The big difference is, this "minister" works at city hall, while there to perform civil marriages she cannot discriminate. She is not performing religious marriages, she can do that at the church. But cannot be paid by the government to work as a civil servannt and discriminate.
The individual's freedom of conscience is beyond the reach of Government. That is a fact to which a just form of governance conforms.
Rev Brown's straight forward accomodation for SSMs is not objectionable ... except to the dictates of absolutism.
SSMers use rhetoric and argumentation that leans heavily on absolutism. This springs from the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics.
In this instance, the local Government is imposing gay identity politics as a state-imposed religion or belief system that competes and stands in opposition to the freedom of conscience of all citizens.
The thinking is to elevate gay identity politics and to demote the citizen to a mere subject or minion of the Government's official "religion".
That the citizen's conscience is beyond the reach of Government is a reality put aside by this local government. They declared, Let's pretend the Government is more powerful than it actually is. Why?
Because the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea is resolved in Canada, with the imposition of SSM, through a legal fiction that is utterly dependant on the expansive arbitrary exercise of governmental authority. Arbitrary acts spawn further arbitrary acts to prop-up the imposition of the Specious Substitute of Marriage, also know as SSM.
Freedom of conscience is far more than a legal construct. It is upon such freedom that liberty depends. Consider the basis for self-government with the consent of the governed. Consider the basis of civil society. Consider the basis for religious freedom.
Freedom of conscience is at issue in this case. This is so whether or not the individual is religous, a church minister, or a wedding officiant. It is beyond the reach of government (lower case g)but is always a tempting target of Government (upper case G). Knowing and respecting the difference is seemingly beyond the tolerance level of SSMers.
Cue the pro-SSM commenters whose freedom of conscience is unhindered under the bride-groom requirement.
Again it's not enough for this woman in her good nature to accommodate by recommending them to someone who will officiate their ceremony.
No no no, she has to be punished.
The left once again shows that as far as they are concerned freedom of religion is denied. The first amendment must be done away with to accomondate the new state religion. Instead of so called seperation of church and state, we now have state imposed religion of big government and radical secularism which is atheistic in nature.
Yet another example of how SS"M" won't affect anyone.
Nobody is sticking a gun to her head, *forcing* her to do this job. Go do something else with your time, lady.
If she doesn't want to do her job, she needs to vacate the position. End of story.
In the process of performing "civil" ceremonies, this minister is working for the state, not his church. In that capacity he must perform his duties. Religious conscience applies in private, not in performing state sanctioned duties. Remember the justice of the peace who refused to marry a mixed race couple because he thought is was bad for kids? Same thing.
As a representative of the city, she needs to represent its citizens. Would a Catholic Priest be able to refuse a civil marriage to those who were divorced or a Lutheran be allowed to refuse service on behalf of the city to a Jew? Due, of course to their own deep faith.
Or what about Rev Brown herself. Is it REALLY a faith matter? Has she married atheists? Or even satanists? Did she care? Or is it only when Teh Gheys come around that her soul is in danger?
And while we're at it, is in only justifiable and a matter of faith when in comes to gay marriage? What if a planning administrator refused to let Mormons start a business due to his sincere beliefs? Or if a fishing license officer decided that his moral duty was to deny all fishing licenses to those who fish on Sunday?
Nope. It's only when it's gay people. And when you objection is only based on whether the person is gay, you cease to have principles. Instead you have prejudices.
No, Son of Adam,
Same sex marriage does not affect Rev. Brown at all. She is choosing to make an issue of it (like she could over mixed faith marriage or Islamic marriage, but chooses not to). But it still doesn't affect her.
@John Noe
When has the First Amendment of the US Constitution ever applied in Canada?
The bottom-line is that ssm provides absolutely no benefit to society. It is an extreme concession that grants temporary happiness to a small number of people. So if anyone is inconvenienced in the slightest way by ssm (such as Rev. Brown), then that inconvenience should be taken into account by voters in other states/countries that are on the precipice of marriage redefinition.
@Timothy
"Has she married atheists? Or even satanists? Did she care? Or is it only when Teh Gheys come around that her soul is in danger?"
Athiests aren't getting married in churches or anyone with religious convictions. Same goes for satanists.
"What if a planning administrator refused to let Mormons start a business due to his sincere beliefs?"
My grandfather almost couldn't marry my grandmother because her parents said he wasn't a completely Jewish.
"Nope. It's only when it's gay people. And when you objection is only based on whether the person is gay, you cease to have principles. Instead you have prejudices."
Because the above mentioned aren't forcing churches or people of faith to consumate their relationships.
You really have no argument here.
"She is choosing to make an issue of it (like she could over mixed faith marriage or Islamic marriage, but chooses not to). But it still doesn't affect her."
The couple is making it an issue. It does effect her because she's being forced to AGAINST her beliefs. Haven't you read the article?
I assume not.
@Timothy
"Has she married atheists? Or even satanists? Did she care? Or is it only when Teh Gheys come around that her soul is in danger?"
Athiests aren't getting married in churches or anyone with religious convictions. Same goes for satanists.
""What if a planning administrator refused to let Mormons start a business due to his sincere beliefs?"
My grandfather almost couldn't marry my grandmother because her parents said he wasn't a completely Jewish.
"Nope. It's only when it's gay people. And when you objection is only based on whether the person is gay, you cease to have principles. Instead you have prejudices."
Because the above mentioned aren't forcing churches or people of faith to consumate their relationships.
You really have no argument here.
.
"She is choosing to make an issue of it (like she could over mixed faith marriage or Islamic marriage, but chooses not to). But it still doesn't affect her."
The city council is making an issue. It does effect her because she's being forced to AGAINST her beliefs. Haven't you read the article?
I assume not.
A marriage, "civil" or not, is between one man and one woman.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6&version=NIV
A woman cannot be a pastor or a minister.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2014:34-35&version=NASB
This is just a lie.
She can find someone else to do the ceremony it says so in this article.
If anyone reads beyond the open one liner they would know this.
Then she should not be performing marriages. If she can't comply with the law she should quit her job.
Canada has decided, and rightfully so, that banning marriage is discriminatory. Hence it would be illogical for Canada to allow its citizens to discriminate against another group of citizens.
After all, should people be allowed not to perform interracial marriages just because they're racists? Of course not. Same goes with marriage equality.
Remember the lie the homosexual activists telling us that it will have no effect on our marriages and our freedom of religion will be respected. No Christian will be forced to violate their religious beliefs. Now we get this:
The Cambridge Record reports that Dana Christiaen of the region’s AIDS committee said that forcing ministers to perform same-sex weddings was a core issue for the gay and lesbian community, while homosexual activist Allison Rogers said allowing a different official to perform Cambridge’s same-sex weddings was “deplorable.”
They are now openly admitting that they lied and want to force us to throw away our 1st Amendment rights.
Christiaen’s comment reveals that the heart of the issue of “gay marriage” may be more than forcing a Christian minister to perform a function that is expressly forbidden by her church.
Eric Metaxas of Breakpoint.org noted in an editorial that the push by homosexual activists for total acceptance of same-sex “marriage” is not about normalizing homosexuality but an attempt to destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.
“Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex “marriage.” “How does our marriage hurt you?” they ask,” Metaxas wrote.
“Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights
Remember this next time when they parrot the same old lie.
Metaxas referred to the statement by Michael Coren of the National Review Online who said, “there have been between 200 and 300 [legal] proceedings … against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. It’s becoming obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents.”
SSM is not marriage.
The issue is not the gay identity of those who'd SSM. They could both be explicit in declaring themselves nongay and still SSM is not marriage.
The local government has decided to make gay identity politics supreme to all other considerations, including the basis of the legitimacey of their own governing authority.
Freedom of conscience applies whther or not Brown is a church minister or even whther or not Brown is religious.
SSM is not marriage. The direct implications of imposing the specious substitution is what introduces the conflict in the first place. Religion did not introduce the conflict. The SSM campaign has sewt Government against freedom.
In Canada, as in other just self-governing societies,the People have a government and not the other way around.
These local politicians need reminding. Dissent is justified because the imposition of SSM is arbitrary and, as such, is anti-freedom and anti-good-governance.
This is merely an example that illustrates these problems.
Oh poster #13. Canada was supposed to have freedom of religion like the USA but that is now gone.
Regardless of what happens up north, it is a reminder to us here in the USA that these people are hell bent on destroying the 1st Amendment here and will take away our freedom of religion if not opposed.
The stench from up north will find its way here.
typo correction: The SSM campaign has set Government against freedom.
Also note that wedding officiants are not necessarily government employees bbut they are public servants whose discretion and judgement make them valuable contributors to the link between civil society and government. Government does not own them They are not slave labor. They are not functionaries of a government; rather they are independant and traditionally that is a highly valued feature of the system of local government.
In this example the local Government has presumed itself to be totalitarian in the wake of how the imposition of SSM is at root a power grab in which Government ams to take over civil society rather than serve civil society.
SSM upends more than marriage. Its imposition corrupts all that it touches.
Timothy Kincaid's comment is an example of ignorance. Brown is not required to perform other ceremonies that would be against Brown's church's teachings. Kincaid can spout all the speculative nonsensical diversion he wishes to conjure up out of nothing, but his knowing nothing relevant is merely testamount to Incaid's ignorance on this.
John Colgan'scomment is also an example of ignorance. The fact of freedom of conscience does not depend on which country a person resides. Conscience resides within the person. It is intrinsic to human dignity. Canada has long recognized and institutionalized protects for this human freedom.
Religious liberty has a reality independant of the law. The law does not grant this liberty. The 1st Amendment has its counterpart in the Canadian constitution.
But the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics undermines all of this. The SSM campaign teaches its followers -- John Colgan being an example of such a supplicant -- that there is no good religion and no liberty of conscience that can stand against the entrenched SSM idea. The only good religion is the kind that is progay or proSSM, according to the dictates of the SSM campaign.
SSM sets government against freedom .... and against the mechanisms instituted with the consent of the governed to safeguard liberty. SSM commenters tell us this without a hint of hesitation or second thought.
Readers might as well believe them. They mean it -- 1st Amendment or no 1st Amendment. The imposition of SSM is arbitrary and so much more arbitrariness follows just to prop it up.
The supremacy of identity politics was wrong when it was pressed into law via the racist filter; it is no less unjust if pressed into the law via the gaycentric filter.
Marriage has a reality independant of the law. Freedom of conscience has a reality independant of the law. That is how we can discern that the law sometimes gets stuff right and sometime gets stuff wrong. Same goes for government policy such as the example of this local government's favoritism for the gay identity group.
In Canada the SSM campaign is tooled up and lawyered up to enage in the long slog of mopping up after the SSM imposition. They intend to bleach liberty out of civil society for the sake og the purity of gay identity politics. Absolutism is the newly established state religion in Canada and in a generation the full implications will become entrenched and difficult to overcome.
The goal of the SSM campaign is to innoculate the gay identity group against criticism (or even mere and benign disagreement) and against open dissent. History teaches that this sort of recklessness is like putting a lid on a boiling pot and then turning the heat up higher.
Government serves civil society, not the other way around. The truth will not be suppressed where the People recognize the costs of conformity. Citizens can and do put up with a lot but eventually enough is enough.
Doggone double posts.
"No, Son of Adam,
Same sex marriage does not affect Rev. Brown at all. She is choosing to make an issue of it (like she could over mixed faith marriage or Islamic marriage, but chooses not to). But it still doesn't affect her."
Who do you think you're kidding, Timothy? When the government passes a law that causes people of faith to become ostracized from civil society, then it definitively affects them. It means that we only have rights and are only free so long as we agree with the state.
"Same sex marriage does not affect Rev. Brown at all. She is choosing to make an issue of it (like she could over mixed faith marriage or Islamic marriage, but chooses not to). But it still doesn't affect her."
It is the state that is making an issue of her faith, Tim. Something that they never did before. And now she can no longer work for the government like she could before SS"M" was passed. So it most definitely absolutely DOES affect her!
@Chairm
Wedding officiants may be somewhere in between "slave labor" completely "independant [sic]" of the government. They work for the government, so I'm not sure how they would not be "functionaries" of the government?
In your previous post you used the phrase "SSM is not marriage" three times. That doesn't make it true. In some states and some countries, SSM is marriage.
Some states can consider a dog to be a cat, Jon. But it's still a dog regardless of what the government says.
I have another comment in the cue.
...
Jon,
What would make SSM marriage in thise other places?
Sometimes the law gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. Marriage has a reality independant of the law. How else could one acknowledge that the law might be either correct or in error?
To be clear: SSM is not marriage, but that is not on my sayso. You mischaracterized what I said. The nature of marriage sets it apart from the SSM idea. The difference is what makes SSM a subset of nonmarriage. Just because you say SSM is marriage does not make it so.
The imposition of SSM is an exercise of arbitrary government power. That, too,does not magically transform SSM into marriage.
That arbitrariness points directly at the problems illustrated in the example of this local government.
As for the wedding officiant be "completely independant", well, I did not say wedding officiants are "completely independant" They are public servants and provide a link between civil society and government. They provide links within civil society, primarily, and are only secondarily employed by government in terms of marriage.
They are not government functionairies but if that is how you insist they must be treated, then, okay, that would confirm the problem with the SSM campaign's goal of government takeover of civil society. That takeover, too, is arbitrary, anti-freedom, and anti-marriage.
It is the theme that runs through the SSM rhetoric and argumentation. It comes out as far less benign than SSMers would hope.
SSM cannot legally and biologically tie parents to their parents, like marriage can. SSM doesn't represent both sexes in every union, like marriage does. SSM is sorta like marriage, but only on a couple of points. SSM is fool's gold--marriage is the real thing.
Whoops--tie children to their parents. That makes more sense.
Let's get this straight from the outset. Marriage cannot exist between same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is non-existent, a farce, a sham. Period. Non-debatable.
Sexual relations between same-sex couples is sodomy. God condemns it. Nature abhors it.
This debate about homosexual marriage has got to stop because it is nothing but perversion.
right on lonesme
they only cover this ss with marriage it is incorrect it is a sin
I can't believe how many insensitive people there are on this topic. This woman said that she recommends another person who can perform the marriage. The marriage is still being done, so why all the whining that this woman has to compromise her own principles to accommodate something that she cannot do. The marriage is still being done. Isn't that's what's important?
You nailed it.
The gay community is not trying to get married without any agenda attached.
They have an agenda to use marriage law to attack freedom of conscience in society as well.
I know that supporters of NOM and myself have had rousing debates before, but I'm sure that there will be NO debate when I say this. As a gay man, I'm appalled that someone of faith would be FORCED to go against her faith and perform marriages for same sex couples. IF, in fact, marriages for same sex couples are granted, I will DIRECTLY (by email, phone call, or in person if I have to) propose a law that will grant ministers, priests, pastors, or any member of clergy from being forced to go against their faith. (Now here's where some people may get a bit upset) It would be like a gay or lesbian owning a business and were FORCED to go against what they believe in and made to sell religious material. It would be against what they believe and it's as wrong as members of the religious Christian clergy being forced to go against what they believe and perform marriages for same sex couples!
You cannot separate the conscience from the person. You must disobey government when it forbids you to do what God commands or commands you to do what God forbids. God is the higher authority!
The minister says she has nothing against "gays". Well, I do!
They have perverted the word "gay".
They are trying to pervert marriage.
They are trying to normalize abnormal behaviors!
Freedom of conscience does not in any society extend to a universal freedom to manifest any and all beleiefs.
The Council decision is proportionate to a legimate a not to discriminate in civic device provision on the basis of sexuality. This woman was not being forced to marry someone of the sex herself. She was being asked to carry out her civic duties. Not religious ones. Asking others to perform the ceremonies she doesn't like is not a proportionate accommodation. It is an affront and insult to any LBGT person is the jurisdiction and the council rightly took action against it. Exact same case is now before European Court of Human Rights. Let's see how that turns Pu in a few weeks time.
Paul Mc, the first sentence in your comment adds zilch to the discussion. Freedom of conscience is not something granted but it is intrinsic to the human being as a human being.
The rest of your comment is a display of ignorance of proportion, of civic duty, of the basis and limits on responsible lawmaking, and of good governance.
What you feel is good for your favored identity group is not automatically what is good for society.
But to your credit you admitted the true purpose of the pro-SSM campaign. In this instance you percieve a supposed right not to feel offended because gay identity politics takes top priority over all other considerations.
Any local L or G or B or T who would feel offended by a reasonable accomodation (one which very rarely is even called for) must cherish a very big chip on the shoulder.
The local government did not act on proportion, nor in accord with good governance, nor with respect for freedom of conscience. That was brushed aside.
It boilsdown to the demand that the marriage idea be demoted from its preferential status to a barely tolerative status. Indeed it is to become a litmus test and those do not pas the absolutism of the SSM campaign must not be tolerated. Dissent is outlawed and conformity is the cost of entry into public service (see my earlier remarks) and, at least rhetorically, the price of admission to the public square.
Communists and facists have long relied upon such abuses of law and governmental authority. History warns against these encroachments against civil society.
In place of the marriage idea (the core of marriage as a foundational social institution of civil society) the SSM campaign would entrench the supremacy of gay identity politics because THAT is the core of the imposition of SSM. That is what is given preferential status by the local government in that Ontario town. The marriage law is hijacked and used for an anti-marriage and an anti-liberty purpose.
Your comment, Aul Mc, nicely illustrated the totalitarian impulse of the SS campaign. It sets Government against civil society. It upends the truth that the People have a governemt; it substitutes with the falsehood that the Government has a people.
Readers can be grateful for your freely offered warning. Thanks for doing that.
Did I not mention in my other comments that same sex (whatever it is, but not marriage) is the box of "Pandora". As soon as a state recognizes or legalizes it, it frees all evils into the society. Mark my words this is just the beginning, you will see and hear a lot more bizarre stories that would make even the dead turn in their graves. How dare she calls herself a Reverend; belittling the ministry of God.
I will add that this is an attack on the protections that are in place to safeguard freedom of conscience.
That freedom is beyond the reach of Government. The role of governing authorities is to protect rather than to assail this freedom intrinsic to the human being.
The problem that SSMers have is that their SSM project depends on a government takeover of civil society such that nothing can stand between the individual and the power of the State. No buffer. No safeguards.
What the government "grants" it can take away in favor of gay identity politics. That is the operational tactic of the SSM campaign's attack on the marriage idea -- on the foundational social institution of civil society.
But government does not grant marriage nor does it grant freedom of conscience. The SSM campaign depends on a false understanding of lawmaking, of governance, and of freedom.
DN, if you meant by "sticking a gun to her head" to say that nobody would force her to perform SSMs, then, you did not read and comprehend the conflict in the story.
If you meant that readiness to perform SSMs is the new litmus test for qualification to do perform marriages, then, you need to explain yourself more clearly. You do realize that freedom of consicence is beyond the reach of Government, right?
RC, she is first and foremost a free citizen in a free country.
As for doing her job, as you put it, she has been doing so quite successfully for many years. She has done so even after the imposition of SSM in Canada. So what is your complaint, really?
Not job performance. Nope.
SSM is not marriage. You say it is. Well, then, go find a like-minded officiant to perform the job for that type of arrangement. If you need assistance, well, Rev Brown can point you to the designated officiant who has been called upon --- oh twice -- in five years.
Richard said:
"Remember the justice of the peace who refused to marry a mixed race couple because he thought is was bad for kids? Same thing."
Not the same thing.
There is one human race and its nature happens to be two-sexed.
Marriage includes the two sexes of the one human race. There is no such thing as a "mixed-race" marriage. Perhaps you would impose racist criteria to claim otherwise?
The problem with that is that the supremacy of identity politics is long-repudiated -- which is probably what you had hoped to invoke in your comment. So you cannot here revive identity politics based on gay identity so as to insist that the wedding officiant be required to perform SSMs. It does you no good to make such a claim based on the supremacy of gay identity politics.
Meanwhile the government does not own civil society. Quite the contrary.