Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on some comments that I made in the debate when it began a couple of weeks ago surrounding the issues of religious freedoms, specifically the lack of any genuine protection of religious freedoms in the legislation before the House.
The lone clause included to protect these freedoms, a clause which states that religious officials will not be forced to perform marriages, has already been ruled as falling within provincial responsibility by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus it is beyond the federal government's power.
Moreover the legislation does nothing to accommodate or even grandfather those civil officials throughout the country who serve as marriage commissioners, even though the justice minister himself has suggested the religious freedoms of these officials should and would be protected. He remarked in a recent interview, “No one should be compelled to perform a same sex marriage contrary to their religion or belief. We believe we can reach accommodations so that those who do not want to perform that same sex marriage, religious officials or civic officials, by reason of religion or conscience will not be required to do so”.
Yet presently some of the provinces are forcing marriage commissioners to perform these marriages, even when doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. This has led to a wave of resignations and human rights complaints from civil officials who have refused to perform ceremonies on religious grounds.
In my home province of Saskatchewan, provincial officials have taken one of the hardest stands with regard to civil officials. Marriage commissioners, regardless of their deeply held religious beliefs or tenure of service, were informed that they must perform same sex marriages or be stripped of their responsibility.
Yet the justice minister, who once stated that protecting the religious freedoms of such officials was desirable, now bizarrely dismisses this as a provincial matter, no longer a concern of the federal government. It is bizarre because the government has included a clause, as mentioned earlier, stating that religious officials will not be forced to perform marriages, clearly a provincial matter.
Nevertheless, the minister is apparently content to disregard the genuine concerns of people like Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols. Mr. Nichols simply wants a balance. He is simply requesting that his religious belief systems be tolerated and accommodated in the same manner as others would expect their views to be upheld. If the federal government is intent on altering the definition of marriage, it should ensure protections are in place for people like Orville Nichols.
For anyone who suggests this balance is unfeasible, I refer them to the case of Ontario. Instead of taking a rigid line, like my home province, it sought and achieved a balance. When Ontario updated its laws to accommodate court rulings that legalized same sex marriages, the province was silent on rights and obligations of civil officials. Effectively this has ensured that these officials would not be obliged to perform a marriage contrary to their religious belief system.
This is the proper course of action to take. This is a thoughtful balance. Indeed, even the Toronto Star has admitted as much, stating in a recent editorial, “Sensibly, Ontario has taken a laissez-faire attitude, allowing cities and towns to accommodate staff who do not wish to perform same sex weddings for religious or other reasons”.
The government has failed to achieve such a sensible and balanced approach in this legislation. This legislation teeters too far in one direction.
Traditional religious belief systems and secular values must be recognized in an equitable and thoughtful manner. We must achieve a proper balance.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House a representative sample of the views of my constituents on this issue. People in my riding have devoted much time looking at this issue and have developed some well thought out opinions worthy of our consideration. It is important that their voices be heard.
Joe Jeerakathil of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, a strong advocate for maintaining the current definition of marriage, reminds us that:
Marriage, as currently defined, predates governments, states, courts and charters of rights.
The Christian Church's definition - 'a union of a man and a woman' - comes from the legal Digest of the Roman Emperor Justinian.
Marriage existed in pre-Christian civilizations and has always been a union between a man and a woman.
The Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament in the Council of Trent.
The Roman Catholic view of marriage is based on the Aristotelian principle of natural law.
Although Aristotle originated the concept, Thomas Aquinas, the giant of Christian philosophical thought, gave it theological shape. He defined natural law as participation in the eternal law of the universe by rational creatures with a built-in commitment to doing good.
A union of a man and a woman fulfills the natural law or God's law because it leads to procreation and, hence, does not fall within the term 'marriage'.
Another letter I received from a constituent, Pastor Daryl Olson of Outlook, Saskatchewan, yet another supporter of the traditional definition of marriage, reminds us of the important role marriage has in our society. He writes:
The institution of marriage is not a planned invention of human society.
Rather, it signifies a particular relationship between a man and a woman,...
...a unique way of life that has emerged from human existence and experience during the history of humanity with two obvious goals:
...the mutual support of the partners and procreation of children.
By nature, this particular lifestyle has the capacity to fulfill both of these goals...
A same-sex union, however, by its particular and unique nature is incapable of procreation.
This particular illustration of the uniqueness of these two kinds of relationships alone begs for a respectful and separate treatment for both.
In other words, ... just as the institution of marriage has been recognized and protected based on its uniqueness and merits, ...
...similarly, some form of legally formalized same-sex partnerships could be recognized and protected based on its uniqueness and merits.
The institution of marriage and a possible form of legally regulated same-sex partnership, should name and safeguard their unique rights and duties with corresponding laws and regulations.
Those were just two examples that illustrate the strong desire among the vast majority of my constituents to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Although some in my riding have just as passionately argued the opposite position, I must defer to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of my constituents.
As a result, I would like to state that while I believe the federal government must fully recognize that same sex relationships possess equivalent rights and privileges as opposite sex ones, I am unable to support the legislation. Moreover, I base this vote not only on my own personal convictions but also, if not primarily, on the fact that the majority of the constituents I represent across my province have expressed similar reservations.