|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE RETURNS IN CANADA
Prime Minister Harper stated, during the recent
election campaign, that if he were elected Prime Minister,
he would re-visit the issue of same-sex marriage in Parliament.
Subsequent to the election, he stated that he would raise
this issue, not right away, but "sooner, rather than
later".
Although we do not know exactly when Mr. Harper
will call for a vote on a motion to re-open the same-sex marriage
issue in Parliament, we do know, from our analysis of the
views of the MPs on the issue, that such a vote will be a
very close one.
Our deep concern is that Mr. Harper will suddenly
announce, without warning, that a vote on the same-sex marriage
issue will be held, for example, the following week, and we
will not be prepared for such a vote.
Even though we do not know the exact date
of the vote, there are several facts that we do know:
- The life of the minority Harper government
will be approximately 18 months at best Therefore, we can
expect another federal election, at the latest in the summer
or fall of 2007. However, the opposition parties could "gang-up"
on the minority conservatives in a no-confidence vote and
the government could go down to defeat earlier. But, for
their own reasons, the opposition parties may not want to
bring the government down earlier, and, on the weight of
probabilities, the Harper government may hold on until the
summer of 2007. On the other hand, senior journalist Douglas
Fisher in an article in the Toronto Sun on March 5, 2006,
stated that he believes the Harper government will be short
lived because the government bureaucracy will undermine
it. He also believes the Liberals, who regard themselves
as the natural governing party, will do everything within
their power to remove the Conservatives from office, the
sooner the better.
- Mr. Harper wants to enter the next election
with the reputation of a sound manager, not as a social
conservative (which he is not anyway). Therefore, he will
want the hot button issue of same-sex marriage to be gone
and forgotten by the time the next election is called.
For this reason, we can expect that Mr. Harper will not
want a protracted debate by conducting Justice Committee
hearings on the issue, which would extend the debate.
Previous Justice Committee Hearings
In this regard, it should be noted that previous
Justice Committee hearings which began in early 2003, at the
personal request of the then Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon,
were a farce: Despite the lengthy hearings, the Committee
never issued a final report. This was due to the arrogant
and profoundly undemocratic decision of Chief Justice Roy
McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who ordered that
same-sex marriages should become law immediately. This decision
ruled out further parliamentary debate as well as any possibility
of an appeal to the Supreme Court. Later, when the same-sex
marriage Bill, C-38 was sent to the Justice Committee for
review in the spring of 2005, the House of Commons and Senate
Committee hurried through a mere handful of witnesses in a
perfunctory performance: The Committees never intended to
give Bill C-38 an in-depth review. Instead they merely rubber-stamped
it on behalf of the ruling Liberal government. Under these
circumstances, an in-depth review of same-sex marriage in
Canada would be well justified. We must insist that such a
review take place. Even though Mr. Harper will be reluctant
to engage in such a high profile procedure, it is a matter
on which he should proceed, providing that Parliament agrees
to re-open the issue.
Any delay in calling for the vote in Parliament
on whether the marriage issue be re-opened, at least provides
a window of opportunity to strengthen support for the traditional
definition of marriage - a definition that crosses time, cultures
and religions. It is a definition which protects vulnerable
children, who thrive best when raised by a mother and father
from whom they learn both their gender identity and roles.
Moreover, if same-sex marriages are to continue to be legal,
we know that polygamous and other such unacceptable partnerships
will be legalized in Canada. (See REALity, January
/February 2006, Polygamy Marriage Around the Corner, p.11)
Religious Organizations Vulnerable
This coming vote on marriage will also be
extremely crucial for religious organizations in Canada, because,
contrary to the former Liberal government's assertions, religious
groups will inevitably be subject to legal challenges if the
legal definition of marriage remains unchanged and continues
to include same-sex partners.
The federal legislation permitting same-sex
marriages, The Civil Marriage Act, which received Royal Assent
on July 20, 2005, provides in S.3, that officials of religious
groups are free to refuse to perform a marriage not in accordance
with their religious beliefs. However, this provision has
no force or effect in law. This is because the legislative
authority, in respect to marriage, is divided between the
federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Under
the Constitution Act of 1867, Parliament has competence
to determine the capacity to marry, e.g., who may marry
whom. But the provinces, under the Constitution Act,
have jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Same-sex
Marriage Reference, which was handed down on December 9, 2004,
confirmed that the provision purporting to preserve religious
rights in the federal Civil Marriage Act has no effect.
The court concluded that this provision was superfluous because
it dealt with a matter of provincial jurisdiction only. The
court did assure religious groups that the freedom of religion
provision in S. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights would protect
religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform
marriages of same-sex couples. However, the court also stated
that in situations where there is a "collision of rights",
the court would be obligated to balance and delineate these
colliding rights. This is not reassuring because, in all the
cases in which the courts have adjudicated religious freedoms
versus homosexual rights, the latter's rights have always
triumphed.
A recent example of the collision between
religious rights and homosexual rights occurred when the BC
Human Rights Tribunal, in 2005, ordered the payment of a fine
for "hurt feelings" apparently caused by members
of a Catholic Knights of Columbus Council in Port Coquitlam,
BC, when they refused to rent their hall to a lesbian couple
who wished to use it for their wedding reception. That is,
there was a collision of rights between religious freedom
and homosexual rights and the homosexual/lesbian rights triumphed.
Although the decision acknowledged the right of the Knights,
because of their religious beliefs, to refuse to rent the
hall to the lesbian couple, they nonetheless, were fined for
causing "hurt feelings" and had to pay costly legal
expenses to defend themselves.
Another recent case occurred in the province
of Manitoba, where a Mennonite-owned summer camp was charged
with discrimination by a homosexual male choir because the
camp refused to rent the camp premises to it. This case is
to be argued before the Manitoba Human Rights Tribunal in
the spring.
It is clear that if the definition of marriage
continues to include same-sex couples, religious organizations
in Canada will be drawn into expensive litigation in order
to protect themselves from accusations of discrimination and
will be on the losing end when their rights collide with homosexual
rights.
In short, the same-sex marriage legislation
has created serious problems which warrant our deepest concern.
Therefore, there is much at stake concerning
the vote in Parliament on whether the debate should be re-opened.
It is crucial that we must become active to ensure that Parliament
re-open the debate and then let the majority vote in support
of the traditional definition, i.e., a union of a man and
a woman to the exclusion of all others. This will be the
last opportunity we will have to do so.
In this regard, REAL Women, along with a number
of pro-family groups in Canada, have sent a joint letter to
all the religious leaders in Canada - Sikh, Hindu, Muslim,
Catholic, Protestant etc., many hundreds of them - requesting
that they become involved in this debate, not only for spiritual
reasons, but also because of financial considerations due
to extensive litigation that is now occurring and will continue
if the definition of marriage is not changed.
It is also crucial that individuals become
engaged in the forthcoming motion on re-opening the debate.
Please contact your MP on this matter. It
is preferable if you meet personally with your MP (accompanied
by 6 individuals, if possible, to increase the impact) or,
failing that, write a letter. Unfortunately, we have learned
that e-mails are not an effective method for getting the message
across to MPs, even though they are preferable to no contact
at all. Please meet your MP or write that letter without delay.
This is our last opportunity to return the traditional
definition of marriage to our country.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
