Simple Divorce Papers

The man had another choice to make. His choice was also consistent with his religious beliefs. His religion gave him the right to decide whether or not to agree to a religious divorce. He chose not to. That was his choice and he made it. Presumably he is left to suffer, or enjoy, whatever burdens, or benefits, resulted from his choice. The Supreme Court, in this latest intrusion into the private lives of Canadian citizens has turned to the concept of choice on its head.

What kind of choice exists when the consequences of the choice are transferred to another person? What kind of society would we have if I was allowed to make choices that affected you and you were allowed to make choices that affected me. I don’t mean the less significant indirect way in which we are all affected by the choices others make. I mean the direct consequences of our choices. In this case the woman chose not to remarry. She could have but she chose not to. She could have chosen to have children but she did not. It is she and not her ex-husband who should bear the consequences of her choice.

What’s next? What will the Supreme Court do when a woman who has been spurned by a man to whom she was betrothed in an arranged marriage sues him? What if the religious beliefs of the woman prevent her from marrying anyone other than this man despite the fact that he will not go along with it? Will the court ordered him to pay her compensation for the loss of companionship and children because she chooses not to violate her religious beliefs? Will they go so far as to order him to go through with the marriage?

The concept of the separation of church and state is not enshrined anywhere in Canada’s constitution. Until today I did not think it needed to be. The Supreme Court has proven me wrong.

“For a fast, low-cost, lawyer-free legal divorce visit www.DivorceOnline.ca.”