SubscribeWhen will gay rights activists and the government figure out what the separation of church and state means?
You've heard it until you can recite it in your sleep. We are a country, actually a continent, where the separation of church and state are sacrosanct. Or are we? Take for example the issue of gay marriage... someone please take it (cue the drums). Gay rights activists would have us believe that the right to marry is a legal right which the government bestows. That's not true! For centuries, long before Canada and the United States ever came into existence, marriage has been the territory of God and the church. God ordained marriage between a man and woman. It is the government which has since come along and usurped that fundamental responsibility of the church and placed itself in the position as arbiter over marriage. It would appear on this issue, at least, that the doctrine of separation does not exist.
Case in point, last spring the state of Maine, through the state legislature, passed a law legalizing gay marriage. Clearly in doing so the government was infringing and imposing on the church when it decided to enact such a law or at the very least, it was removing the church's authority to oversee and administer this important and biblical institution.
To this imposition, the voters in Maine backed the government down. If you're counting, and I am, that's 31 times different states have voted on this issue and 31 times states have defeated similar laws and legislation by popular vote. What makes the Maine vote so interesting, is that Maine is traditionally seen as a liberal leaning, independent state that would be sympathetic to gay rights activists and their cause. Thus the defeat of this law is viewed as a blow to gay marriage.
Here's the thing, I'm not advocating that anyone's rights or freedoms should be impeded on. I'm certainly not advocating, in the name of God, disrespect or violence over this issue. I do believe, though, that marriage is the purview of the church and as such should be left to the church.
Please add a comment
Canadian history is very different than American history. Americans fought Britian for their independence, Canadains did not. In fact many Canadans can trace their lineage to British loyalists (those that left America to remain British in the wake of the War of Independance).
I guess I have a problem with the thinking that Canada and Canadians are just like Americans - we are not, we just don't put up a fuss most of the time - this may be one exception.
The separation of church and state is an American construct and not apart of Canadian ideal, thought, or history - unless of course one ascribes to the idea that Manifest Destiny has already taken place (which I do not). The majority of the Canadian governmental system is based on the British model of government, with the exception of the senate. The British parliament includes the the reigning British monarch who is the head of the Church of England (instituted by Henry VIII (1534) and settled under Elizabeth 1 (1558)) and included the Bishops of the church...
"The parliament is bicameral, with an upper house, the House of Lords, and a lower house, the House of Commons.[1] The Queen is the third component of the legislature.[2][3] The House of Lords includes two different types of members: the Lords Spiritual (the senior bishops of the Church of England) and the Lords Temporal (members of the Peerage) whose members are not elected by the population at large, but are appointed by the Sovereign on advice of the Prime Minister."
While it is true that the Queen and her representative, the Governor Governor, play a much smaller role in government than in the past, it is important to note that the only separation of church and state in Canada comes because those that lead us no longer acknowledge the sovereignty of God and the Church in parliament.
But I am not finished the history lesson. I guess I just get bugged when claims are made based on "historical fact" and the history being touted is myth. For example, I got an email last summer deriding the idea that the Canadian national anthem might be sung in other languages at the Olympics. They wanted me to support the idea that the anthem should be "sung in English the way it was originally written." However, Oh, Canada was originally written in French and years later translated into English. Again, please don't base your argument on something that just isn't true, even though many people don't know the difference - it looks bad to those who do.
I hope I have made my point.
Leave a Reply