Do you approve your president/prime minister?

[sapphi_snake]

@Joelcool7:

Umm you realize the actual definition of Marriage had to be changed so that gays could get married right?

Lots of definitions have changed over time. There was a time when the definition of 'citizen' did not include women. Why oh why did they change the definition of that too?

When the law was first passed the Government tried stripping my pastor of his marriage liscense because he refused to marry a gay couple. That gay couple insisted that he marry them and tried forcing him to do so and the Government directly ordered him too. Now today he has his marriage liscense back so the laws must have changed a bit.

Pastors shouldn't have marriage licenses in the first place. Religious and civil  marriages shouldn't get mixed up.

Also civil servents have the right to their religious beliefs as well.

I'll illustrate this another way. A vegetarian who works for a company is brought to a BBQ. At that BBQ everyone in the company eats meat they ask the Vegetarian to eat a hot dog, the Vegetarian doesn't want to eat the hot dog and declines, so that Vegetarian is then fired for declining the hot dog.

Except, that's just an idiotic analogy! A company BBQ is not a work activity, or part of work protocol. Marrying people is a civil servant's job! A proper analogy to a civil servant not wanting to marry gays would be a civil servant not wanting to marry a mixraced couple, because he doesn't agree with that. Or, regarding your vegetarian example, another proper analogy would be a vegetarian working for McDonals as a chef, and refusing to cook meat, even though that's essentially  HIS JOB. A civil servant's job is to marry people, and that includes same sex couples. He works for the state and has to follow protocol, esle he'll get fired, like any employee who refuses to do his/her job.

Now that vegetarian (Pastor/Civil worker) works for the company (Government) and that Government (Company) asks the civil servent (Employee) to eat a hot dog (Marry a gay couple) but that civil servent (Employee) doesn't believe in eating meat (Gay Marriage) so it is now okay to fire that employee (Civil Servent) because they refuse to give up their beliefs.

As I said above, this is simply a bad analogy. Eating a hotdog is not part of protocol, marrying people (including gays) is. When a civil servant refuses to marry a gay person they're refusing to do the job he was hired to do, and also commiting discrimination and going against his employer's policies.

Forcing someone to go against their religios beliefs is not democratic.

Neither is forcing your religious beliefs on others.

believing and practicing a religious belief is not against seperation of church and state either. Their are plenty civil servents and pastor's who would be fully willing to do a gay marriage, so why force those with opposing beliefs to do them?

Because it's their job, as appointed by the state to marry couples (including same sex couples)!!!

Infact why change the definition of a word because a minority group finds the word offensive?

Because society changes over time?

Also a minority group in a democracy does not have the right to change the laws against the majority of people's views.

Anyw laws that are discriminatory towards minorities can be changed, regardless of what the majorities (that want to persecute the minority group) want.

Now in Canada the majority may agree with gay marriage (I don't know) but it was never voted on by the Canadian people.

Civil rights aren't voted by people.