Ghost of a flea

I also find creepy and unexplainable the virulence of some SSM opponents, but I have to disagree that the charitable status of religious organizations means you are "literally" supporting the spread of their stupidity. Forced support of ideas one opposes is definitely the situation with public education, the CBC, and grants to (other) leftist organizations. But the most you can say about religions is that they have an unfair advantage over non-charities in promoting their ideas. This isn't just quibbling over semantics, either. There is huge difference between the government taking money from people and the government refraining from doing so.

I am afraid I do not see the difference between a subsidy and a tax cut except that the first is favoured in NDP rhetoric while the second is favoured by Conservative rhetoric. Excepting, of course, that these two parties do not agree about which organizations and interests should be incentivized through the public purse. In the first instance an (often uncompetitive) industry or service is given an advantage by receiving funds from the taxpayer while in the second it is given an advantage by not having to pay the same share it would otherwise have to. I can see an argument for reducing or eliminating, say, property taxes across the board but not for distorting property markets and the relative advantage of this or that belief system by saying one class of building is exempt for supporting the repair of pot-holes in the roads people use to visit it. Why churches, synagogues, mosques and temples but not, say, Objectivist office space?

Also, I believe you are overlooking the many ways in which (some) religious beliefs not only receive tax breaks but are directly subsidized. In Ontario, to cite one example, we have a separate religious school board which for historical reasons is supported through taxation.

And not that anyone I have read is actually even musing about this argument except in the fantasies of anti-gay hyperbole. As I said, we have had same-sex marriage in Ontario for two years and I have not even heard a rumour of anyone challenging the supposed Charter rights of (some) religious organizations to charitable status. If such a challenge comes it is far more likely to come from the Scientologists or some UFO cult than "gay activists".

i just want it done. i just want them to recognize that people are people and be done with it. i was reading another blogger who was talking about how it kind of irks him that there is so much fanfare because it's just something that should have happened a long time ago. i'm not sure i agree with him, i think that sometimes things deserve fanfare *because* they are overdue. but nonetheless, i can see his point. i guess it's just a different version of my "i just want it done."

I've given up on sorting out Canadian polity. You're arguments are a shade different than ours - which is a good thing. :-)

But, Flea, I'm surprised you missed the big news!

Lack of a penalty is not the same as an incentive. Yes, it is unfair that some ideological organizations have to pay taxes while religious groups are exempt from them. But the last people to be blaming are the churches. More power to them, I say. The way to address the unfairness is for the government to exempt the others, too.

Saying that you're forced to support religious groups through your tax dollars implies that government spending is currently at or near a legitimate level and that what Ottawa fails to get from religious groups it must get from you. In fact, the government spends multiples more than it has any business spending. So it's great that the religious groups are denying it some revenue that would fund even more programs. The blame should be directed to the government and to the extent that they don't grant tax-free status to similar non-religious ideological groups.

(Of course, my comments don't apply to direct subsidies to religious groups. That kind of thing is wrong no matter who the recipient is.)

The only thing that I still wonder about SSM is this: why is a federal law even required? Marriage and matters relevant to it are, as far as I know, regulated by the provinces. So why not leave it to the various provinces to do what they need to do?
Incidentally, as an Ontarian, I have no problem whatever with Ontario's same sex marriage law. As far as the 2 other provinces go...that's for the people of those provinces to decide. I may disagree with them, but that's democracy for you. If the Supreme Court of Canada decides that those provinces are in breach of the Charter...then all the better, they will have to sort out laws that aren't.And in so doing, one hopes, find a fairer way to treat our fellow citizens who want to live in the way they choose.

Mark: "Lack of a penalty is not the same as an incentive."

I will explain why the are later today.

"The way to address the unfairness is for the government to exempt the others, too."

The Americans are much closer to realizing this than we are. Of course, it begs the question of why religious organizations are exempted and not, say, Objectivism. But I have already said that and you get round to repeating my position later in your comment.

"Saying that you're forced to support religious groups through your tax dollars implies that government spending is currently at or near a legitimate level..."

This is at the heart of our misunderstanding/disagreement. My observation implies no such thing. These are two separate propositions. I do not believe I have ever said anything at this blog to the effect that government spending is at or near a legitimate level. If opponents of Bill C-38 were saying their opposition was based on * anyone * having their civil marriage or marriage rites subsidized through taxation I would have less reason to dispute their position. Such a position would be logically coherent. I would still favour Bill C-38, however, because it moves toward equality before the law while any bill achieving equality through disincentivizing so called "traditional marriage" is entirely hypothetical. As are any moves toward disincentivizing religious belief.

"Of course, my comments don't apply to direct subsidies to religious groups."

And... we do so to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in Ontario. Strangely, I have yet to hear a single "gay activist" - whoever they might be - make this point. The more the McVety's of the world claim the matter of their percs are the "hidden agenda" of gay marriage the more people like me are going to stop and say, "Good point" and ask just why organizations that cannot honour the Charter are favoured by the public purse.

Unlike many Canadians, yourself excepted obviously, in most circumstances I am happy for private organizations to exclude people on whatever absurd basis they like provided they pay for their prejudice with their own money. There are many firms I will not support because I disagree with this or that policy, labour practice, etc. and I bitterly resent supporting any of them either through subsidies or tax breaks when I would never support them with my business. The fact I feel the same way about being asked to incentivize (some) people's religious beliefs is no different.

Dr. Funk: Good question. If people against C-38 were saying that marriage should be left to the provinces I would much more sympathetic to their argument. It is a question that might usefully be addressed to Mr. Harper and his party. They not only accept the federal government should stick its nose in but that it should use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Constitution to do so. But such is "small government" Conservatism when smaller government means imposing a specific set of religious precepts on everybody who happens to disagree with them.

The answer to your question and to those all too hypothetical separation-of-powers opponents, however, may be found in the text of Bill C-38 itself (Section B). See here for a discussion:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&ls=C38&source=Bills_House_Government#bmarriagetxt

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, provinces are responsible for regulating the "formal validity" of marriage while Parliament is responsible for legislating the "legal capacity" or "essential validity" to marry. As such, Bill C-38 is a much belated expression of that power.

As the Conservatives reminded us when they thought it was convenient to do so, Parliament, not the courts, is sovereign in this matter. Now they think only that section of Parliament that agrees with them should be sovereign by whatever tortured, short-term arithmetic would (temporarily) allow them to stop Bill C-38. In so doing they ignore over a century of precedent - including precedent set by a number of Conservative majority governments - about cabinet solidarity, every sovereigntist vote from Quebec - unless those votes contribute to toppling the government with the Conservatives, and even their own rhetoric about "deals with the devil" - unless those "deals with the devil" prevent gay people from getting a civil marriage certificate in Alberta for a few more weeks.