Yes, this is a hot button topic. I realize. But because of that I expect a conversation to be sparked, guys! Help me out here.
To get right to the point, I am not against gay marriage. Those who are baffle and frighten me, but to each his own. I personally believe that everyone has the right to a marital union in the eyes of their state, province, or country, despite sexual orientation. I think for a society that claims such forward thinking open-mindedness to still be reserved in the slightest on the topic is a backward one. I think I want a just world that treats every human with fairness under the law, at the very least, so that when my children grow up, gay or straight, they'll feel safe in their love. Most importantly, I think that not all of you future Prairie Couples are strictly Bride & Groom limited. Nor should you feel you ever have to be. Ever.
Phew. That being said though, unfortunately, these are not the views of the majority. Or of those who control and mitigate the unions, primarily--the Justices of the Peace. But should it be up to them? Should they have all of that power, and allow themselves to be so swayed by their own beliefs and predilections that it should limit the opportunities for a well-rounded relationship between two people?
So I'm going to put it to you bluntly now and cease the rambling:
Should Justices of the Peace, or Any Wedding Officiant, Be Allowed to Refuse to Marry Gay Couples Based on Their Own Beliefs?
My lips are zipped. So talk to me!