Big news up in Canada. The supreme court ruled that the Federal Government could legally change the definition of marriage from the 'Union of a man and a women' to the 'Union of two people'. This opens the door to same sex marriage in Canada. I found a copy of the ruling at http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html (good site, check it out). I have only scanned through it but here is a summary of what I have read to date:

1. The supreme court was asked to answer the following questions:
1. Can the government redefine marriage in Canada?
2. If yes, can government redefine marriage to include same sex marriage?
3. Can religious officials be compelled to marry same sex couples against their (the officials) beliefs?
4. Will the redefinition of marriage apply to Quebec civil law.
2. The supreme court gave the following answers:
1. For civil purposes, the government can redefine marriage in Canada.
2. For civil purposes, the government can redefine marriage to include same sex marriage.
3. Barring unique circumstances, religious officials can not be compelled to perform a same sex marriage.
4. The court declined to address this question.

So, I have the following questions of my own:

1. Can religious officials be compelled to recognize a marriage that does not conform to their beliefs?
2. Can written works or oral presentations speaking against the legal definition of marriage be considered Inflammatory or discriminatory?
3. If yes, can such works be banned or ordered altered to conform to the legal definition of marriage?
4. Can the legal definition of marriage be further expanded to include more than two persons?
5. Can the legal definition of marriage be further expanded to include beings other than persons?
   

As you can tell I am not in favour of changing the definition of marriage. In fact, I am not in favour of governments being in the marriage business. I would rather that governments embrace the concept of secularism and remove the last vestiges of church that are still part of the state. France did this years ago. They have the concept of a civil union which is separate and distinct from marriage. The laws defining the creation and dissolution of a civil union can change without protest from religious organizations because it is understood as being separate and distinct from marriage.

In the US, religious groups are trying to get the definition of marriage enshrined in the constitution. This effort will for the same reason it failed in Canada. Courts will look at the definition of marriage as a legal definition, not as a religious one. From a legal point of view marriage is a right, not a sacrament. Denying a right to one or more persons based on sexual orientation is wrong, therefore same sex marriage will be legal sooner or later.

I'll talk about this later when I have actually finished reading the ruling.