|
1a) http://www.anglican.tk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=698 http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ed2d02f0-a7ff-45cd-ad20-a39146db7ddb by Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun, Friday Dec 10th 2004 Ruling splits Canadian church leaders Canada's liberal and conservative churches broke into increasingly divided camps Thursday after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Parliament has the right to legalize same-sex marriages.
Canada's liberal Protestants, including the United Church of Canada and Vancouver-area Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham, welcomed the decision, saying it would pave the way for gays and lesbians to be treated as equal members of the Christian church. They were joined by leaders of the Unitarian Church of Canada.
But Canada's evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders, including Vancouver's Archbishop Raymond Roussin, expressed great disappointment at the top court's judgement. They repeated their argument that homosexual marriage should not be legalized because it is forbidden in the Bible, with some conservatives warning the decision means Canada's Parliament will soon be required to legalize polygamy.
The only thing most liberal and conservative Christians generally agreed on is that it was useful for the Supreme Court to re-confirm that, under freedom of religion provisions in the Charter of Rights, no clergy can be forced to perform homosexual marriages.
However, the Anglican bishop of Greater Vancouver saw a 'mixed blessing' in Thursday's decision regarding homosexual rights, a wedge issue that increasingly separatese Canada's 20 million nominal Christians.
Ingham, who has been at the centre of an international storm since his Anglican diocese agreed to bless same-sex unions in 2002, said the ruling leaves him pleased for gays and lesbians in Canada. But Ingham also worried an 'unintended message' in Thursday's court judgement will foster the continued 'ghettoization' of religious organizations in Canada's pluralistic society.
Since the ruling affirms the right of Canadian religious groups to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, Ingham said it will allow conservative religious organizations to continue to 'discriminate' against gays and lesbians.
"I've always been distressed by arguments for religious people to be able to continue to discriminate against gay and lesbian people. I don't believe in that kind of God. It's as if one is saying: 'If you're a non-believer, you can't discriminate. But if you're a believer, you can. So if you want to discriminate against gays and lesbian people, join a religious organization."
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada have often aligned with Muslim and Sikh organizations to intervene in court cases that would give homosexuals the right to marry. Canada's Jewish and Buddhist communities are more split on the issue, with a minority of clergy from each religion supporting same-sex marriage.
Ingham agreed with the strict legal reasoning in the Supreme Court ruling protecting religious freedom. But he wondered, since neither the courts, society nor religious leaders would allow discrimination against Semitic people, why do they support discrimination against gays and lesbians regarding marriage?
The bishop emphasized his diocese has only agreed to permit the blessing of same-sex civil unions, not actual marriages, which are a higher form of church sacrament.
Meanwhile, Rev. Ed Hird of St. Simon's Anglican Church in North Vancouver, one of several priests who resigned from the diocese over same-sex blessings, said that although he's not surprised by Thursday's ruling, it goes against what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years.
Hird said the court ruling will help enshrine complete moral relativism in Canada regarding sexual relationships, eventually requiring Parliament to legalize polygamy, including 'bisexual polygamy'.
Catholic Archbishop Roussin said he found Thursday's Supreme Court decision 'extremely disappointing'.
Roussin reminded Canada's Roman Catholic MPs, including Prime Minister Paul Martin, that the Vatican teaches it would be 'gravely immoral' for them to support same-sex marriage legislation. "The reality of marriage is that it supersedes politics and man-made law," he said.
The archbishop, who leads more than 300,000 Lower Mainland Catholics, took a much stronger position against same-sex marriage and Catholic MPs who might support it than the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The national body issued a statement applauding the court for protecting clergy's right to refuse to perform the rites, and urged Parliament to allow a free vote, so MPs opposed to same-sex marriage could vote with their consciences.
1b) http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_bishop-marriage20041209
Religious same-sex discrimination worries bishop WebPosted Dec 9 2004 12:50 PM PST VANCOUVER - The Anglican bishop at the centre of the storm over same-sex blessings says the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on gay marriage leaves room for discrimination.
The highest court has ruled that Parliament can legalize marriages for gays and lesbians.
Same-sex blessings are already happening in the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster. That has prompted eight parishes to withhold their financial payments to the diocese and no longer recognize Ingham as their bishop.
Thursday's decision supports ministers who object to the idea of gay marriages - ruling that they can't be forced to perform same-sex marriages if it goes against their religious beliefs.
Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham calls this a mixed blessing for the church, because it recognizes that religious organizations have the right to conduct marriages according to their own beliefs.
Ingham says that means the ruling could be used as a shield to discriminate.
"It means that if you're a non-believer, you can't discriminate against gay and lesbians, but if you're a believer you can. So if you want to discriminate against gays and lesbian people, join a religious organization."
Ingham also says if the law passes, it will help what he calls "tolerant forces" put pressure on the Anglican Church to deal with gay marriage.
2a) http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/12/10/775734.html Fri, December 10, 2004 Let's talk (same) sex Supreme Court decision on marriage will erode religious freedom, says Michael Coren By MICHAEL COREN -- For the Toronto Sun It was hardly the surprise of the year. A Supreme Court increasingly packed with judges renowned for their liberal opinions decided yesterday that homosexual marriage is a civil right and that to prevent it is unconstitutional.
What is surprising is how self-congratulatory people have been because the ruling also claims to respect freedom of religion. In other words, clergy who observe rather than edit their faiths won't be forced to marry same-sex couples.
But even this is doubtful. A spokesman for Justice Minister Irwin Cotler himself said that the issue is not decided and that the courts will rule on a "case-by-case basis."
When asked if the Supreme Court could give "a meaningful opinion" on whether the promise of freedom of religion will be respected, he admitted it would be "difficult" to give any concrete answers.
Some of us have known this for a long time. Last year I interviewed one of the leaders of the campaign for gay marriage. He was explicit:
'Certain consequences' "I don't think any priest or minister should be forced to marry gay people, but I do think that if they refuse to do so, there should be certain consequences. They're not observing the spirit, if not the law, of the land and as such we should challenge their charitable tax status. Why should they receive tax breaks if they refuse to marry gay couples?"
I reminded him of the number of poor and needy people helped and fed by the churches.
He had obviously thought out his position. "We'd exempt the kitchens and public parts of the churches, but remove the charitable status from the rest of the building."
If this sounds extreme, recall the case of Marc Hall, the young man who wanted to take his homosexual partner to a prom at a Catholic school in Toronto. An Ontario court declared the school had no choice and had to accept the student and his friend at the dance.
That case was grotesquely indicative of what will almost certainly happen in the coming months and years concerning churches and gay marriage. Homosexual activists and lawyers, politicians and a liberal media that was massively sympathetic all pounced on the school, the church and the court.
'Physical intimidation' Those who opposed the young man bringing his partner to the prom were caricatured as bigots and hateful fools, and lies of an almost racist nature were told about Catholic teaching. A young man from the Catholic Civil Rights League who attended one of the hearings told me he had to face "physical intimidation" when he made his case.
The court's decision was based on public funding of Catholic schools. In other words, because the school received tax dollars it had to do what it was told. Those tax dollars, of course, come from Catholic parents, who are not allowed to direct their tax money into private faith-based schools.
So if a school has to act thus, what makes a church that receives financial help through its charitable status in any way different? Which takes us back to the candour of the spokesman of the justice minister and the determination of one of the leaders of the campaign for gay marriage.
I am convinced that many members of the gay community would defend the right of a church, mosque or synagogue to refuse to marry gay couples. I am also convinced, however, that there are others in that community who will challenge these bodies at the first opportunity.
Yet these are only consequences. There are other issues. The rights of children, the future of a balanced society, the role of men and women and mothers and fathers, the nature of a healthy sexuality, the causes of homosexuality and many more.
Avenues of debate around these issues have been closed to us because of an extensive campaign in the media, the entertainment industry, the courts and education to marginalize and even silence those who question the gay community and its aspirations.
Please visit http://www.marriageinstitute.ca for another voice.
And please know that there are many intelligent and compassionate people who will not merely bow their heads and accept what they know to be wrong.
2a) http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/000427.html#more December 10, 2004 High Court In Canada Backs Gay Marriage By Doug Struck, Washington Post Friday, December 10, 2004
TORONTO, Dec. 9 -- Canada's Supreme Court on Thursday declared same-sex marriages constitutional, underscoring the sharp contrast on the issue between Canada and the United States.
The court gave the go-ahead to Parliament to legalize gay marriage nationally, a step that has strong public support. If the law passes, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the world's only countries to fully legalize such unions.
Lower court rulings already had upheld gay marriage in most Canadian provinces, leading to thousands of such weddings. Many have been between couples from the United States.
The court opinion was the latest sign that Canada is on a different track from its southern neighbor, where referendums banning gay marriage passed in 11 states last month. President Bush has said he will seek a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage from being legally imposed by "activist judges" and the "far-left minority."
Prime Minister Paul Martin of the ruling Liberal Party said Thursday he would introduce the gay marriage legislation early next year. Opponents promised a spirited fight in Parliament.
"We have to protect marriage," C. Gwendolyn Landolt, vice president of Real Women of Canada, a group opposed to gay marriage, told reporters after the decision. "Those Liberal members of Parliament have to know they are not going to be reelected" if they vote for the measure, she said.
Martin said he expected the measure to pass. "I've always thought Canada is the most postmodern country," he told reporters in Ottawa, the capital.
Toronto's annual Gay Pride Day parade draws hundreds of thousands of people, including nearly every successful or aspiring politician. Gay partners of Canadian military personnel get spousal benefits, and openly gay men occupy cabinet seats and other top government posts with barely a shrug from the public.
The main opposition Conservative Party opposes the marrying of gay couples in religious ceremonies but supports legal civil unions between same-sex partners.
"Canada is without a doubt one of the best -- if not the best -- places to live as a gay or lesbian person," said Douglas Elliott, a Toronto lawyer involved in the Supreme Court case and president of an international association that monitors laws on gays. "It's hard to believe that just a river separates us from the reality in the United States."
The situation has changed quickly in Canada, a country that many people used to consider more socially conservative than the United States, gays here say.
Eleven years ago, Charles Schouwerwou and William Shannon were refused a marriage license in Ontario. "The experience at City Hall was embarrassing. The clerks were horrified when we walked up to the desk," Schouwerwou recalled. "The woman started sputtering. She said, 'Oh, you can't do that.' "
This May, Schouwerwou, 44, and Shannon, 57, his partner of 17 years, went back to City Hall. "We were treated with incredible respect," Schouwerwou said. "There wasn't a bat of the eye. The clerk congratulated us. It was a warm feeling, except the form still has the words 'bride and groom.' They need to work on that."
"I think as a country and society, we have grown up a lot," added Schouwerwou, a conference planner in Ottawa. "We've gone from a society with fears and misgivings, to where same-sex couples are commonplace. We are taxpayers, we are parents, we are politicians."
Gays used to envy the freedoms in the United States, said Elliott, 48, who reflected on the changes in Canada on the eve of the Supreme Court opinion. "In the '70s and '80s, the police chief was kicking down the doors of bathhouses, and Anita Bryant came to Canada to say that gays were a threat to children. It was very, very scary."
Elliott said the seeds of change were planted by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the late 1960s. "He came up with the wonderful phrase that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. He persuaded us that if we wanted to be a modern country in a modern world, we had to embrace separation of church and state."
Elliott and other lawyers have won rulings in six of Canada's 10 provinces and one of its three territories that same-sex couples cannot be denied the marriage rights that are offered to heterosexual couples. In January 2001, after a favorable ruling by a court in Ontario, Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa became the first gay men in Canada to legally marry in a church.
Since then, six provinces have issued marriage licenses to thousands of same-sex couples, and significant numbers of gay men and lesbians from the United States have crossed the border to marry. There is no residency requirement for marriage.
The western plains province of Alberta, Canada's fourth-most populous, remains a stronghold of opposition to gay marriage. "We are disappointed," Ron Stevens, Alberta's justice minister, said Thursday. "But I need to be realistic about the court decision, and the reality is our ability to defend the marriage act has been restricted by the decision."
A federal law to standardize gay marriage rights was drafted in 2003 by the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who also asked for an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court. Thursday's unanimous opinion gave the go-ahead to that legislation, while affirming that clergy members who oppose gay marriage cannot be forced to perform the ceremony.
"Our constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life," the court opinion said, citing the advance of women's legal equality.
The court refused to say whether laws that restrict marriage to couples of different sexes were unconstitutional. The Martin government had sought that finding to give the Liberal Party political leverage to pass the legislation. The Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper, called the court's reluctance on that point a victory for opponents of gay marriage.
"This decision should be made by elected representatives," Harper said in Ottawa. "The vote will be a very close one." Posted by editor at December 10, 2004 03:22 PM
2c) http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=1790668 news home Friday, Dec 10, 2004 Klein says most Albertans oppose same-sex marriage
EDMONTON (CP) - Premier Ralph Klein weighed in on the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage for the first time Friday, saying the fight is far from over.
Klein said most Albertans oppose gays and lesbians marrying. He urged them to write letters to press the federal government to hold a national referendum on the issue.
"I'm thoroughly disappointed," Klein told CFCN-TV. "There is very little legally we can do about it, but there is a lot politically.
"In this province my feeling is the majority, and I don't know what the percentage of the majority is, but the majority of people are opposed to same-sex marriage. And I represent the people of this province."(...)
House of Commons Hansard - December 10, 2004
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I hope that after the Minister of Justice made his comments in the House yesterday he went away and actually read the decision of the Supreme Court on same sex marriage. If he did he would have found that the Supreme Court refused to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional and, in fact, sent the matter back for Parliament to decide. Will the justice minister stop misleading Canadians and acknowledge that the decision to implement same sex marriage is not a constitutional requirement, but a policy choice that the Liberals are making?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never pronounce on a judgment until I have read it first. That is exactly what I caution the member opposite. I just want to say if he looks at the judgment it clearly declares -
Mr. Peter MacKay No. You pronounced on it first. You pronounced on it first, minister. You should have waited for the decision.
Hon. Irwin Cotler: If the member wants to hear the answer I will give it. It clear declare that the opposite sex requirement for marriage is unconstitutional. It is right through the judgment. Otherwise, we could not have a unanimous judgment extending civil marriage for gays and lesbians.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. In fact, that is the question that the Supreme Court of Canada refused to answer. The Supreme Court sent it back to Parliament. The Prime Minister told Canadians that his bill on same sex marriage would protect religious organizations. Yesterday the Supreme Court told him that the bill's provisions about religious protection were outside of the jurisdiction of Parliament. How does the Prime Minister now intend to statutorily protect not only religious organizations but also public officials with moral concerns about same sex marriages now that the Supreme Court of Canada has told him his -
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am now convinced that he did not read the judgment and still has not read the judgment. If he had read the judgment, he would understand that it being an advisory opinion, it cannot direct Parliament to do anything. All it can do is give advice. That is the nature of a reference. It is up to us to undertake that responsibility, to introduce legislation in Parliament, and we are going to do that. It will protect religious organizations because under the Charter, the court said religious freedom is absolutely protected, contrary to what the hon. member said.
--
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the veil is off the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage. The Liberals misled Canadians when they told us their legislation would protect religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that this provision of their act was not even within federal jurisdiction. In fact, across the country marriage commissioners are being told to resign if they will not perform ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs. The Liberals told Canadians they would defend the traditional definition of marriage and they did not. They told Canadians that they would protect religious freedoms and they have not. Why should we believe that they will protect -
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the hon. member to read question 3 of the reference when the government asked the Supreme Court as to whether religious freedom is protected and the Supreme Court unanimously answered "yes". With regard to the solemnization of marriage, it would corroborate with the provinces. ----------------
2e) A COURAGEOUS VOICE IN THE PARLIAMENT http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/December%209,%202004%20-%20SCC%20marriage%20ref%20decision.doc
Suite 610, Justice Bldg. House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 Tel (613) 992-1899 Fax (613) 992-3085 Vellacott.M@parl.gc.ca
HOUSE OF COMMONS
CANADA
Maurice Vellacott, MP Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
Traditional marriage is not unconstitutional
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, and other provincial courts, were wrong!
For Immediate Release December 9, 2004
OTTAWA - Conservative Party MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) was surprised that there was some restraint showed by the Supreme Court of Canada today in its decision on the Liberal government's marriage reference. "There is much that is wrong about the decision," said Vellacott, "but it is essential to note that the court refused to declare the traditional, opposite-sex definition of marriage unconstitutional."
Notwithstanding lower court rulings, including that of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, the traditional definition of marriage is not unconstitutional. That is the verdict of the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the position of Canada's highest court, the Parliament of Canada. Vellacott, therefore, challenges the Saskatchewan government to comply with this position and protect the constitutional rights of religion and conscience for the province's marriage commissioners. "The court's decision today is a huge victory for the Conservative position that Parliament is supreme. With its decision, the supreme court has challenged the Liberal government to quit hiding behind judges in the pursuit of their agenda to re-define marriage," emphasised Vellacott.
"The supreme court has categorically rejected the argument that same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right," said Vellacott. "The Liberal government was effectively chastised by the supreme court for not appealing lower court decisions," said Vellacott.
The court stated that religious groups opposed to same-sex marriages are protected, and do not have to perform such ceremonies. Vellacott responded to this by saying, "Many Canadians are not greatly reassured in the current political climate that religious liberties will be protected in this matter. We will need much more than bland assurances from the courts or the Liberal government that religious freedom will be protected."
Protecting religious freedom means more than just protecting the rights of churches and other religious bodies to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. It also means:
o Preserving the right of churches to publicly preach and teach their beliefs related to marriage o Preserving the right of religious schools to hire staff who respect their doctrines and practices o Protecting justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners who do not want to solemnize marriages that are not in accordance with their beliefs
o Preserving their charitable and other economic benefits as public institutions o Preserving the right of any public official to act in accordance with his or her beliefs
"If the Liberal government does bring forth legislation to change the definition of marriage, the Conservative Party will allow a free vote, and I and most of my colleagues will be voting against any change to the definition of marriage," stressed Vellacott.
- 30 -
For further comment, call Maurice Vellacott at (613) 992-1899
2f) http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/dec/04121003.html LifeSite (Dec 10/04) Lobbying of Liberal MPs Key to Possible Defeat of Canadian Gay 'Marriage' Law
OTTAWA, December 10, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With almost every member of the socialist Bloc Quebecois and NDP parties certain to vote for the Liberal government's bill to legalize gay "marriage," and all but four of the 99 Conservatives known to be opposed to the upcoming marriage re-definition, the main focus of lobbying by pro-family Canadians will be on influencing individual Liberal MPs across the nation.
There is a slight chance they could succeed. Pro-family leaders are mindful that the 1999 defense of marriage motion passed by a whopping 216-55. The September 16, 2003 vote on an identical motion lost by a slim 137-132. However, for that vote, 29 MPs were conspicuously absent, 19 of them Liberals.
The vote on the very controversial C-250, which added "sexual orientation" to Canada's hate crimes law passed by a close vote of 141-110. It was considered close because, again, 39 MPs did not show for the crucial vote. Most notably, 33 of them were Liberals.
Liberal leader Paul Martin, ironically mimicking previous leader Jean Chretien's authoritarian practices, which Martin promised he would change, has stated that the vote on the marriage bill will be subject to a two-line whip. That means Cabinet Ministers must vote for the government legislation or risk losing their jobs and status and especially risk losing the substantial extra income and perks Cabinet members receive.
For the past few decades, the threat of losing that income and those perks has proven to be sufficient bait for Cabinet Members to dispose of their principles and consciences and their obligations to the voters and the good of the nation. That is another challenge for social conservative Canadians - to change that Ottawa political culture of elected Members of Parliament being subservient trained seals to authoritarian party leaderships, in all parties.
The Globe and Mail reported today that of the 42 non-cabinet Liberal MPs it contacted, 31 have indicated they will support the change to the definition of marriage, 10 are opposed and one is undecided.
The Toronto suburb of Scarborough gives an indication of what might become possible in other parts of the country. In Scarborough, which has a high immigrant and middle class family population, five, and maybe all six of its Liberal MPs will likely vote against same-sex marriage.
The Dec.10 Scarborough Mirror community newspaper notes that prior to the election, a survey by Scarborough Centre Liberal MP John Cannis found that 94% of respondents favoured retaining the traditional definition of marriage. Cannis says he will vote according to the wishes of his constituents.
Similarly, Scarborough-Guildwood MP John McKay said there is "absolutely no question" where his constituents stand and that his vote on the marriage issue will reflect that. He told the Mirror, and was seen on national media stating, "I'll be supporting the traditional definition of marriage".
Scarborough Southwest MP Tom Wappel and Scarborough Agincourt MP Jim Karygiannis both also told the Mirror they will be voting against the marriage definition change. Pickering-Scarborough MP Dan McTeague was not available for the Mirror report. However, he is also likely to vote against the bill, despite his cabinet position, since he has been a consistent and outspoken defender of both life and family. Scarborough-Rouge River MP Derek Lee is the odd man out in Scarborough. Lee told the Mirror it was "premature" to say how he would vote on the bill although he has consistently voted in the past to defend traditional marriage
Tom Wappel expressed disappointment that Martin has gone back on his previous promise to allow a completely free vote on this issue. Wappel said, "As far as I understand it's going to be a limited free vote," referring to the fact that Martin is attempting to force the almost 70 members of Cabinet to vote for the government bill, regardless of their personal consciences and constituents' wishes on the issue.
See LifeSiteNews.com's MPs voting record http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/fedvotes/
Next Ed-Mail Same-sex Blessings |