Parliament will recess for the summer at the end of June. When it meets again in the fall, it will face, as promised by Prime Minister Harper during the last election, a debate on the thorny issue of same-sex marriage.
The debate will be in two parts:
- Is it the will of the House of Commons that the debate on same-sex marriage be re-opened? If the House of Commons agrees with this, then the second question will be:
- Should the Civil Marriage Act (Bill C-38), which redefined marriage to include same-sex partners, remain in effect or should the Act be amended to permit marriage to refer to opposite sex people only, as it was before the enactment.
Homosexual activists have started to gear up for this final debate by re-establishing their so-called Equal Marriage Committee, to be headed up by the homosexual former mayor of Winnipeg, Glen Murray.
On the other hand, twelve pro-family organizations in Canada have established a Defend Marriage Coalition to present the pro-family perspective nationally. The coalition consists of the following organizations: REAL Women of Canada, Catholic Civil Rights League, Campaign Life Coalition, Canada Family Action Coalition, Enshrine Marriage Canada, Preserve Marriage-Protect Children's Rights, United Families Canada, United Mothers and Fathers, Marriage Canada, Equité-Famille, Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre, Association des Parents Catholiques du Québec.
The first initiative of the Defend Marriage Coalition was to send a letter to all the leaders of the religious organizations in Canada, letting them know that religious rights are not protected under last year's Civil Marriage Act, which permitted same-sex couples to marry. This is because, contrary to the former Liberal government's assertions, religious groups are still subject to legal challenges under the legislation.
This is based on the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada in the same-sex marriage reference, handed down on December 9, 2004, concluded that although the provisions on the Civil Marriage Act purport to preserve religious rights, this provision has no effect, and is superfluous, because it deals with provincial rights and, therefore, is outside the federal government's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did acknowledge that religious groups would be protected from actually performing same-sex marriages, but the court also stated that in situations where there is a "collision of rights", the courts would be obligated to balance and delineate these colliding rights. This is not reassuring because in most cases in which the courts have adjudicated religious freedoms versus homosexual rights, the latter's rights have trumped religious rights.
Already, in less than a year since the same-sex marriage law was passed in Canada, cases have arisen which negatively affect religious rights in Canada:
- The BC Human Rights Tribunal, in 2005, ordered the payment of a fine for "hurt feelings" 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 to refuse to rent the hall to the lesbian couple because of the Knights' religious beliefs, they nonetheless were fined and had to pay costly legal expenses to defend themselves.
- 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 this spring.
- The Canadian Human Rights Commission refused a complaint of a federal employee who wished to have her mandatory union dues diverted to charity because her union was actively supporting same-sex marriages. The federal employee claimed that the use of her union dues contravened her freedom of religion and conscience. The government employee is now seeking a judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.
The Defend Marriage Coalition has been heartened by the positive response it received from the religious leaders. The letter is available on our web site www.realwomenca.com. For those without access to our web site, please fax/write/phone our national office for a copy of the letter (available in French and English).
Please give a copy of the letter to your local pastorpriest
abbi, as all religious leaders should be made aware that they are not protected under the present marriage definition.
Also Very Importantly:
Visit your MP over the summer months about this crucial same-sex marriage issue. We do not want the MP's to return to Ottawa in the fall stating that it is not an issue with his/her constituents. It must be an issue.
The Defend Marriage Coalition will be undertaking other initiatives shortly in its effort to restore to Canada the traditional definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
This may be the last opportunity we have to return Canada to the traditional definition of marriage. We must not fail in this. It is not for our own sakes, but for the generations to come.
|
