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.
|
