Supreme Court clears way for same-sex 'marriage".

On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government has the right to legalize same-sex "marriage," but did not say whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Among organizations that criticized the Supreme Court's ruling were the following.

Centre for Cultural Renewal (Ottawa)

Noting that the federal government's failure to appeal lower appeals courts' decisions led the way to creating a "right" to same-sex "marriage," the Centre's lain Benson concludes that "the government has played fast and loose with legal procedure to ensure that same sex 'marriage" occurs in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has played into the careful game of 'lets avoid the analysis' and in a very brief decision almost totally focused on secondary issues (not a single mention is made of children, ... for example) and not on law, evidence, or serious analysis, grants same-sex "marriage."

Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) www.familyaction.org

"The process for a fair decision on the definition of marriage has been so corrupted, polluted, and politicized by less than thirty judges and maneuvers by the Liberal government, that the only way to resolve this divisive matter is a full vote by Canadians," said Brian Rushfeldt. "We are calling for a referendum on this crucial constitutional issue at the next election. We plan to fight it riding by riding with the Canadian people.

Concerned Christians Canada [phone]

The "decision by the Supreme Court of Canada affirming same-sex marriage has drawn a line in the sand that must not and cannot be crossed without risk of abdicating historical facts, religious truths and civilization itself," said President Krayden.

REAL Women www.realwomen.ca

"Unfortunately, Parliament no longer serves the public as a reflection of its views. An alleged free vote in parliament is nothing of the kind. To pass this controversial same-sex marriage bill, the Prime Minister requires, because of his split caucus, that all 39 cabinet ministers and possibly the 28 parliamentary secretaries, vote for the bill. This means that voters in at least these Liberal ridings ... will be disenfranchised on the most crucial question of this generation. Moreover, the Liberals will exert intense pressure on its backbenchers and insist that they vote for the bill.

"An alternative to this anti-democratic maneuvering by the Liberals, that will allow all voters to participate in this controversial issue, is a referendum. Otherwise, a vote in parliament on same-sex "marriage" lacks legitimacy...."

Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) [e-mail]

"The Court should have returned the reference questions to Parliament for the proper stages of the introduction and debate of a bill before they gave an opinion," noted Phil Horgan, CCRL president. "As far as we know; this is the first time the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on proposed legislation before it was introduced in the House [of Commons]. Involving the court at this stage was an attempt [on the part of the government] to circumvent the democratic process in order to impose a fundamental social change that many Canadians do not want. This is a bad and dangerous precedent that could be invoked in future to stifle debate on other divisive social issues.

There must be a "truly free vote on this legislation and ... call off their whips in caucus.... The true test of religious freedom in Canada," it said, "will not be limited to churches and congregations.... It must extend to Members of Parliament in a free vote."

Quebec Catholic Lawyers Association (QCLA)

The QCLA has asked Paul Martin for the resignation of Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, alleging he influenced the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision on the same-sex "marriage" question.

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) www..cccb.ca/PublicStatements.ht m?CD=&ID=1602

The CCCB welcomed the "affirmation by the Supreme Court of Canada" in its decision on the marriage reference questions in which it indicates that the protection of freedom of religion "is broad and jealously guarded in our Charter jurisprudence."

As for the marriage question, it is a social institution, they said, concerned with the common good, not individual rights. They called for a free vote in parliament and for lay Catholics to make their views known to their MPs and Senators.

Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) www.lifesite.net

According to CLC President Jim Hughes, "The Prime Minister has sought to stifle legitimate debate by having the Court rule before draft legislation has even been presented to parliament.... The cart is definitely before the horse."

The only positive aspect on the reference is the freedom for Churches to refuse to perform ceremonies contrary to their beliefs, said Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer for CLC. "One wonders, however, when even these freedoms will be compromised by judicial activism," she added.

Catholic Insight (C.I.) [e-mail]

In its response C.I. said it did not recognize the right of either the Supreme Court or Parliament to make judgments on God-given truths or rights. "We, Catholics, grant no jurisdiction to either the judiciary or Parliament to alter the legal definition of marriage in Canada which was simply based on how it was 'understood in Christendom,'" said the magazine's editor, Fr. de Valk.

He called upon Members of Parliament "to reject the forthcoming ... legislation as unauthorized meddling in religion and morality."

MP Maurice Vellacott www.mauricevellacott.ca

Finding the silver lining in a dark cloud, Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) found hope in the fact that "the court refused to declare the traditional, opposite-sex definition of marriage unconstitutional." He went on to say, "The court's decision ... 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...."

Responding to the Court's ruling that churches do not have to perform same-sex "marriages," Vellacott observed that protecting religious freedom means more than just protecting their right to say no. It also means their right to preach and teach their beliefs related to marriage; the right of religious schools to hire staff who respect their doctrines and practices; the right of justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners to refuse to solemnize marriages not in accordance with their beliefs; and the right of churches to maintain their charitable status.

Enshrine Marriage Canada (new group) [phone]

Dr. William Gairdner, chairman of the steering committee and chief spokesman for Enshrine Marriage Canada (EMC), will join Rabbi David Novak, Douglas Farrow, Richard Bastien, and Susan Martinuk to announce their campaign to amend the Canadian constitution to protect the historic definition of marriage.

EMC is a not-for-profit, non-partisan, secular organization that was created to co-ordinate a national campaign to enshrine the traditional legal definition of marriage in the constitution. The group has said it will disband when that mission is accomplished.

Two more Catholic bishops

Bishop Richard Smith, President of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops: "We would hope that all lay Catholics would make their views known to the MPs that we do want any legislation that's going to alter substantially the nature of marriage defeated, and we would hope that Catholic politicians in particular would act accordingly."

Vancouver Archbishop Raymond Roussin gave the strongest Catholic response by reminding Catholic lawmakers of the Church's teaching that they have a moral duty to clearly oppose the legislation and that voting in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is "gravely immoral." ( source: LifeSiteNews.com)

Nota bene

The editor of Catholic Insight points out that the Church has made it sufficiently clear that there is no freedom of conscience to attack basic moral principles of Christianity. A vote in favour of same-sex "marriage" by a Catholic, therefore, is a deadly (mortal) sin (see editorial, page 3) and cuts this person from the community of the faithful.

Nineteen of the thirty-nine members of the federal Cabinet are Catholics.