Court’s marriage decision criticized

By DEBORAH GYAPONG and BCC STAFF

The refusal of the Supreme Court of Canada to recognize the uniqueness of marriage as a life-giving bond between man and woman is extremely disappointing, says Vancouver Archbishop Raymond Roussin, SM, who called on Parliament to support and strengthen marriage and family by acknowledging their true nature.

“The reality of marriage is that it supersedes politics and man-made law,” said Archbishop Roussin. “Marriage has always been respected as an institution existing for the common good of the family and society.”

He said society has always recognized traditional marriage as the necessary context for raising and educating children, the foundation of future generations. He acknowledged the court’s recognition of religious freedom as welcome, and said the Church must continue to teach without interference and celebrate the sacrament of marriage without coercion.

Many groups are joining Archbishop Roussin in denouncing the Supreme Court’s Dec. 9 opinion in favour of “same-sex marriage,” but, like the archbishop, they are taking some comfort in the court’s support for religious freedom.

The court’s decision, said Archbishop Roussin, fails to recognize that marriage is ultimately of concern not only to religious bodies, but to all of Canadian society.

Archbishop Roussin asked Catholics, and all Canadians, to speak out and express their views as Parliament prepares to debate the subject. “I ask the faithful to speak loudly and clearly. Those who are married and have a special understanding of the role of marriage have a particular obligation to remind parliamentarians that this issue is of monumental significance.”

He reminded Catholic law-makers of the Church’s teaching that they have a moral duty to clearly oppose such legislation and that voting in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is “gravely immoral.”

Archbishop Roussin called on Parliament to show leadership for the common good of Canada and insisted that the government allow a free vote on the issue so that all MPs might vote in accordance with their conscience.

A statement issued by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops Dec. 9 said, “We are pleased that religious officials are protected from ‘being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs’ (par. 60) and that this judgement confirms that freedom of religion also prevents ‘the compulsory use of sacred places for the celebration of such marriages’ (par. 59).”

“We’re not surprised by the decision,” CCCB counsel William Sammon told CCN in the foyer of the Supreme Court after the decision was released.

“We would have liked to have seen a holding where they said the traditional definition was constitutional and the proposed [‘same-sex marriage’] definition was not, Sammon said, “but the political winds are not blowing in that direction.”

The CCCB view was echoed by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), an umbrella group representing more than 140 churches, educational institutions, and ministry organizations across the country.

“What we have is a very strong endorsement for religious freedom, so we have a great deal to build on, but we’re going to have to do some work to ensure these guarantees are enshrined in law so we don’t end up in an endless morass of litigation to establish these rights,” said EFC Law and Public Policy Director Janet Epp Buckingham.

Both Buckingham and Sammon were disappointed that the court’s opinion did not determine whether civil officials can refuse to perform “same-sex marriages.” The solemnization of marriage is provincial jurisdiction, but the courts could have given guidance on whether the Charter protects freedom of conscience in this area.

Manitoba has told civil authorities who perform marriages to turn in their marriage licences if they won’t marry same-sex couples, a move that groups like the EFC have interpreted as a violation of religious freedom because it forces people to choose between their jobs and their consciences.

The Catholic Women’s League (CWL) issued a release registering the organization’s “dismay” at the Dec. 9 opinion. The CWL, with 101,000 members, is the largest Catholic women’s group in Canada.

“The League believes marriage is a unique, fundamental societal institution and must remain as such because of its essential role in the procreation of children and the nurturing of future generations,” the statement said.

Campaign Life Coalition described the ruling as “a disaster.”

“The Prime Minister has sought to stifle legitimate debate by having the Court rule before draft legislation has even been presented to Parliament,” Campaign Life National President Jim Hughes said in the release.

Jean Morse-Chevrier, who represented Campaign Life during the media scrums at the Supreme Court, said the group will work hard to re-elect those who support traditional marriage and work hard to defeat those who don’t. She said Canadians should not have a vision imposed on them that is “contrary to nature.”

“The government has played fast and loose with legal procedure to ensure that ‘same-sex marriage’ occurs in Canada,” said Iain Benson of the Centre for Cultural Renewal in a news release issued Dec. 9.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has played into the careful game of ‘let’s avoid analysis’ and in a very brief decision almost totally focused on secondary issues (not a single mention of children at all, for example) and not on law, evidence, or serious analysis, granted ‘same-sex marriage.’”

In the non-binding legal opinion, the Supreme Court answered three questions referred by Canada’s Attorney General on proposed legislation to change the definition of marriage, and refused to answer a fourth.

On whether Parliament has the exclusive authority to determine who has the capacity to marry, the court answered yes.

On whether the proposed legislation extending the capacity to marry to same-sex couples was consistent with the Charter, the court also answered yes, saying that the proposed legislation, “far from violating the Charter, flows from it.”

On whether freedom of religion guaranteed in the Charter protects religious officials from being compelled to perform “same-sex marriages,” the court also said yes.

The court refused to answer whether the opposite-sex definition of marriage was constitutional.

Among the reasons for the refusal:

The Attorney General had already said he was going to go ahead with legislation to change the definition.

Courts in six provinces and one territory had already paved the way for “same-sex marriage.”

The lower court decisions had not been appealed, so they remain the law.

Same-sex couples had already “married.”

Rendering a decision might undermine the legal uniformity the Attorney General is seeking.

Not answering whether the opposite-sex definition is constitutional throws the issue back to Parliament.

“They have put it totally back into the political realm, with really very little in the way of actual instruction, but the political realm is where it belongs, so I think they have been very astute in pushing this back,” said EFC’s Buckingham.

CCCB Counsel Sammon told CCN that Parliament needs to ask key questions about the social purpose of marriage.

“Is it merely to acknowledge close personal relationships or is it to promote the traditional family where children are born and raised and nurtured and educated? That’s really going to be the battleground,” he said.

The battle “will be horrendous,” the most divisive in a generation, one that is going to split Canada, according to Gwen Landolt, National Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, a national pro-life, pro-family lobby group. “People don’t want the destruction of marriage.”

She called for real debate in Parliament, a national referendum, and a constitutional amendment.

REAL Women has joined forces with a new organization called Enshrine Marriage Canada (EMC) chaired by William Gairdner, author of The War Against the Family. Richard Bastien, a representative of the Catholic Civil Rights League, is on the EMC Steering Committee.

“This is a sad day in Canadian history,” Bastien told CCN Dec. 9. “It’s a great disappointment. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that marriage is for just about anyone. Allowing gay couples to marry means that marriage will soon become meaningless as a social institution.”

Enshrine Marriage Canada is seeking a constitutional amendment to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the Canadian constitution.

“We’re supportive of any effort to support traditional marriage,” said Derek Rogusky of Focus on the Family.

Rogusky said that a constitutional amendment may not be necessary, that Parliament can defend marriage by voting against the legislation, “but certainly, to go that far would be excellent.”

In a media briefing after the decision, Prime Minister Paul Martin said he had no fear of the debate on this issue.

Describing Canada as a mature country, able to handle differences of opinion, he told journalists he had no problem with Canada becoming only the third country (after Belgium and the Netherlands) to legislate in favour of “same-sex marriage.”