Canadian government gears up for debate over changing the traditional definition of marriage
OTTAWA, ON—The federal government has officially tabled legislation that could lead to the redefinition of marriage to “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler introduced The Civil Marriage Act (Bill C-38) into the House of Commons on February 1. If passed, the bill will extend legal capacity for civil marriage to same-sex couples. Members of Parliament are expected to debate the issue over the next several months.
“The government is hurrying down an unknown path. It has not taken the time to explore the long-term consequences of choosing this path rather than others,” warns Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC). “Once the path is chosen, it will be difficult to go back.
“It is a sad day when the language of husband and wife is removed from federal legislation,” he adds. “Is this what Canadians want? It is a distorted notion of tolerance and respect that eclipses this distinctive relationship.”
Cotler maintains the bill addresses all aspects of personal rights and freedoms—including the protection of minorities from discrimination and freedom of religion—as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“…Nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion,” reads a statement in the bill’s preamble, “and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
“Religious groups remain free to follow their beliefs and no religious official will be forced to perform marriages that are contrary to their beliefs,” Cotler reiterates in a release. He adds, “Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples does not take away the rights of any others, nor does it relate to religious marriage.”
Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy for the EFC, calls Cotler’s statements “bland assertions” and “empty promises” and says “there is absolutely no evidence” that religious freedom would be protected should marriage be redefined.
“With more than 75 per cent of marriages in Canada solemnized by clergy, it is clearly a deeply religious institution. It is naïve and impossible to say that you can change civil marriage without it having an impact on religious marriage and religious institutions,” she says.
“Already we have seen marriage commissioners forced to resign in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba over this issue. Mayors have been forced to resign in Newfoundland. A human rights complaint has been heard against the Knights of Columbus [in British Columbia] for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding reception.
“This is just the beginning of the types of religious freedom violations we anticipate from the redefinition of the institution of marriage.”
Making a difference
Advocates of traditional marriage are urging Christians across the country to attend rallies and contact members of Parliament to encourage them to vote against the bill. Focus on the Family Canada launched an online e-mailing service in January and say it has been used to send more than 1.6 million messages to members of Parliament.
“We were really taken aback at what the response was to that and I think it’s just a sign of more to come,” Focus’ vice-president of family policy Derek Rogusky told the Globe and Mail. “I don’t think I’ve seen [the public] quite as concerned about something and willing to act upon it as they are about this.”
However, at least one MP is concerned that correspondence being sent to constituency offices—which sometimes receive up to 1,000 e-mails and 50 regular letters a day—isn’t making as big a difference as some might think.
“Letters just don’t do it, given the volume of mail on many issues that comes to our offices each day,” says the MP, who did not wish to be named. “The only thing that would turn this around would be if constituents would contact their MP personally and insist on either speaking with them on the phone or a personal meeting. They can go two by two, but groups would not do it.”
He advises telling MPs who say they plan to vote for same-sex marriage “that you cannot vote for them and that you will work to defeat them [in the next election].”
A survey published by the Globe and Mail February 1 asking the question, “How do you intend to vote on same-sex marriage?” found that 139 members of Parliament would vote in favour of the new legislation. Another 118 said they would vote against it while 49 were undecided or would not state their position. A total of 154 votes are needed to pass the bill into law.
