Front Page

Will clergy be next?

By LAUREEN McMAHON

Canadian clergy, including Catholic priests, are expressing serious concern that they may soon be required by law to perform “marriage” ceremonies for same-sex couples even if it goes against their religious principles.

Their worries stem from last July, when the B.C. Appeal Court found that refusing to allow homosexual couples to marry is a violation of their rights and freedoms guaranteed by Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The contentious issue took a radical new twist when the B.C. Vital Statistics Agency announced that, beginning this April, provincial marriage commissioners must agree to perform civil marriages for homosexual couples.

Refusal to do so, according to the government, will result in commissioners having their licences suspended.

The ruling affects around 300 provincial marriage commissioners who perform roughly half of all B.C. marriages.

Operating in the province since 1982, the private marriage commissioner program was a response to the public’s demand for a more flexible alternative to a traditional civil marriage performed in a court house, which restricted a couple’s choice of ceremonial content, time, and place.

The Knights of Columbus reacted with outrage to the government’s announcement, with State Deputy Terry Kidwell and Fourth Degree chaplain Father Fred Weisbeck calling on Catholics to send letters and e-mails to government, including MLAs, justice minister, attorney general, and premier.

In a statement, the Knights warned that the decision could be the tip of the iceberg, setting a precedent that “may overlap to the medical profession and force doctors to perform abortions.”

They urged writers to point out that the decision stifles religious beliefs and denies freedom of expression, at the same time that no federal law has yet been passed supporting same-sex marriages.

For one marriage commissioner, the possibility of being called on to officiate at same-sex weddings was too much. Carol Scott-Miller decided to relinquish the marriage commissioner licence she received in July 1998.

After learning last summer that the B.C. Court of Appeal had changed the definition of marriage to include the “union of two persons,” opening the door to same-sex marriage, Scott-Miller resigned her commissioner duties immediately.

Scott-Miller, who is also human resources co-ordinator for the Vancouver archdiocesan offices, said that as a practising Catholic it would be impossible for her to continue as a commissioner, since same-sex marriage goes against the Church’s teachings.

Scott-Miller told The B.C. Catholic that she began performing civil marriages after retiring from a career government job in Victoria.

She said she probably performed around 100 marriages a year, often inviting couples into her own home or travelling to venues such as cruise ships. Commissioners, she said, net about $50 per marriage plus travel expenses.

“It was a happy time for me, as I enjoyed working with couples over the years. Marriage commissioners can help draft a marriage ceremony while making sure that all legal requirements are satisfied. While some couples become quite involved in planning their ceremony, others might call in the morning and ask to be married that afternoon. You must be quite flexible and make yourself available weeknights and weekends.

“One of the agreements is not to deny anyone the ceremony if you are available to do it. Now that same-sex marriages are legal, marriage commissioners must be willing to officiate at them regardless of personal religious beliefs. This led to my decision to resign.”

St. Pius X pastor Monsignor Pedro Lopez-Gallo told The B.C. Catholic that he has advised parishioners who are marriage commissioners to resign in the light of the court’s new definition of marriage.

“How far away we are from the promises of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and our current PM Paul Martin, when they assured the electorate that religious communities would not be harmed by the court’s decision,” he said.

Since priests are also licensed marriage commissioners, he questioned how long it would be before they are subjected to penalties when they abide by the Church’s teachings by refusing to solemnize the vows of homosexual couples.

“Until now, our celebration of marriage was in conformity with the civil Marriage Act, but if we resign our licences as marriage commissioners, we will become only ministers of religious marriages, and our faithful must undertake another civil marriage.

“This new regulation is a sign that more of our society wants to eradicate God’s commandments,” said Monsignor Lopez-Gallo.

Responding to the concerns of clergy sparked by what has happened to B.C.’s marriage commissioners, Dr. Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College and Canada Family Action Coalition, has called for Prime Minister Paul Martin to follow through on an earlier promise to protect the religious rights of those who perform marriages in Canada.

Dr. McVety said he had received many calls and visits from pastors fearful that they will be next in line as the government “invades the religious territory of marriage.”

For months Dr. McVety has been warning clergy that they may one day be forced to marry same-sex couples or lose their licences. The prime minister, he said, needs to be reminded of his previous statement assuring the electorate that he would consider the religious rights of clergy.

Catholic Civil Rights League vice president and lawyer Phil Horgan said, “For those who have been engaged in the debate over the role of the state and the exercise of religious and conscience rights, the demand of the B.C. government is merely another step in a concerted effort to remove religious voices from public administration.”

Horgan charged the Canadian Government with “steam rolling” over the religious rights of many as it seeks to accommodate the rights of a vocal minority.

Paul Forseth, MP for New-Westminster-Coquitlam-Burnaby, is challenging the constitutionality of forcing marriage commissioners to marry same-sex couples.

The controversial changes proposed by the B.C. Vital Statistics Agency, he said, is “political agenda by stealth.

“Has the provincial cabinet made a decision on this matter and are all MLAs defending this move? The voters need to know. Why can’t they wait until parliament decides?

“This issue is before the Supreme Court, and parliament has yet to legislate to finalize the rules. It looks like B.C. has decided to ‘jump the gun’ and actively promote same-sex marriage as a matter of government operational policy.

“The B.C. government does not have the political consent from the electorate to do so,” he added.

Forseth suggested there could be two lists of marriage commissioners: one group which is willing to provide services to same-sex couples and another which isn’t.

Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler announced at a news conference Jan. 28 that while there has been no change in the government’s support for same-sex marriage, it is adding a new question in its already presented question to the Supreme Court of Canada. It seeks an opinion on whether the opposite-sex requirement for civil marriages is consistent with the Charter.

Minister Cotler acknowledged there is strong opinion against a change to the definition of marriage and said the government believes that including the new question will allow for a “more comprehensive advisory opinion” by the court and be “a more responsive approach to Canadians divided on this issue.”

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed the decision. The CCCB had wanted the government to appeal to the Supreme Court earlier lower court rulings in favour of same-sex marriage, which the government failed to do. It is the Supreme Court which is now being asked these questions.

“We’re very happy about this,” said Msgr. Peter Schonenbach, general secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. “We can argue very solidly on this,” he said in a CCN interview Jan. 29.

“We’re quite confident that the Supreme Court may well uphold what we’re saying. That will certainly put the whole debate in a different light.

Prime Minister Paul Martin denied that the government’s move is an attempt to stall the court’s scheduled April 16 hearing until after a federal election is held.

“This is not an attempt to delay,” he said. “A lot of Canadians are very concerned about this and they want this basic question asked.

Minister Cotler estimated that the court would not hand down its ruling until the middle of next year. Parliament would then debate and vote on the proposed legislation.