NEWS STORY: Canada Charts Less Religious Course on Gay Marriage

c. 2005 Religion News Service TORONTO _ Social conservatives in the United States won a huge victory last fall when voters in 11 states approved bans on same-sex marriage. But in Canada, they soon could lose a nation. Liberal leaders in Parliament plan as soon as February to pass a law guaranteeing same-sex marriage as […]

c. 2005 Religion News Service

TORONTO _ Social conservatives in the United States won a huge victory last fall when voters in 11 states approved bans on same-sex marriage. But in Canada, they soon could lose a nation.

Liberal leaders in Parliament plan as soon as February to pass a law guaranteeing same-sex marriage as a constitutional right on a par with freedom of speech or religion. In stark contrast with the United States, most people in Canada think that’s just fine.


“My personal opinion is that there are plenty of things to get in an uproar about,” Carole Reynolds, a Toronto homemaker, said after a recent Sunday service at Emmanuel Howard Park United Church. “People in love is not one of them.”

Indeed, many Canadians have come to regard same-sex marriage as an affirmation of secular values that bind their diverse nation. Acceptance of minorities and respect for individuals’ rights are paramount in national politics, even if they clash with moral and religious beliefs.

Those distinctive priorities were at work in Canada’s national election in June. In a reverse of the U.S. presidential contest, Prime Minister Paul Martin framed his support of same-sex marriage as a measure of his willingness to defend constitutional rights.

Victory in hand, Martin plans to offer legislation that would codify a series of court decisions over the past three years that favored same-sex marriage. If all goes as expected, the new law would realize advocates’ ultimate goal in a breathtakingly short period.

“We have won rights so quickly, it’s unbelievable,” said the Rev. Brent Hawkes, pastor of the predominantly gay Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto.

However, grass-roots opposition to same-sex marriage is taking hold with help from religious conservatives in the United States. In recent weeks, opponents have mounted a furious lobbying campaign to sway members of Parliament against Martin’s bill.

Opponents, including an offshoot of James Dobson’s Christian lobbying group Focus on the Family, argue that the pendulum has swung too far. By defining individual rights so broadly, they said, Parliament risks trampling the rights of religious groups that publicly oppose same-sex unions on moral grounds.


“Regardless of what the government decides to do, there are going to be sizable members of the Christian community that are never going to be accepting of same-sex marriage,” said Derek Rogusky, a spokesman at the group’s Canada headquarters in Vancouver, British Columbia. “What kind of space are we going to allow for them?”

When Hawkes officiated at the first legally recognized marriage of two men in Ontario in January 2001, he wore a protective vest and had a dozen bodyguards escort him to the ceremony because he had received threats on his life.

Four years later, gay Torontonians take the right to marry almost for granted.

On a recent Saturday at City Hall, the names of three same-sex couples appeared on the wedding schedule. The last of the couples, Robert and George, arrived for their half-hour slot at 4 p.m. wearing cutaway coats with white vests and bow ties.

Inside the office-like wedding chamber, the Rev. Frederick Dunleavy guided the couple through their exchange of vows and rings. The only difference was that the couple addressed each other as “spouse” rather than “husband” or “wife.”

Afterward, Dunleavy said he was proud of having performed hundreds of same-sex weddings _ many for U.S. citizens who plan to seek legal recognition at home. The way he sees it, the institution of marriage should change with the times.

“It’s not just about having kids,” Dunleavy said as Robert and George received hugs and congratulations from friends and family. “It’s about the love that two people have for each other. So it’s a real shift in what marriage is about anyway.”


Martin’s bill would not require churches to allow same-sex weddings. The issue nevertheless has divided major religious groups, with Catholic bishops opposed to legalization and the United Church of Canada, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, in favor of it.

So far, only a few predominantly heterosexual churches have opened their doors to weddings for gay parishioners. One of them is Howard Park, which sits amid an established streetcar suburb and draws a congregation of mixed races, ages and incomes.

Several of Carole Reynolds’ fellow parishioners echoed her sentiment: Government should stay out of people’s personal affairs, especially those concerning whom they choose to marry, they said.

“At the end of the day, it’s not going to affect our lives,” said Michelle Hatt, who married husband Fraser at Howard Park. Years from now, she added, “I think people will look back and feel bewildered that there was even an issue at all.”

Parishioners also said Canadians by and large see religion as separate from political affairs. Many would recoil if a politician publicly advocated limiting the constitutional rights of any minority group based on religious beliefs, they said.

“We recognize that excluding one group from enjoying rights and privileges endangers all of us,” parishioner Christine Smaller said. “I don’t want to be told whether or not I may marry. And in order to protect that right, I must ensure that no one else is prohibited.”


(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

Howard Park parishioners’ views fall squarely in the mainstream of Canadian society. A recent poll by Environics Inc. found that 58 percent of Canadians support same-sex marriage, and other surveys reflect their reluctance to mix religion and politics.

Canada’s approach to same-sex marriage underscores a growing cultural divide with the United States. Social scientists trace the split to the 1970s, when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau launched a bold national experiment with individual rights.

Trudeau championed a document called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Canada’s answer to the U.S. Bill of Rights. His goal was to unite Canada’s diverse population and limit the power of fractious provincial governments.

The language is deliberately broad, guaranteeing “equal benefit of the law without discrimination.” Although sexual orientation is not mentioned, courts have deemed it an “analogous” form of discrimination, and they have cited the charter’s anti-discrimination clause as the constitutional basis for upholding same-sex marriage.

Trudeau’s charter has proven to be a powerful force in Canadian politics. An Environics poll found that 71 percent regarded the charter as a “very important” symbol of Canadian identity _ ranking ahead of hockey, the Mounties, even the national flag.

The charter’s popularity enabled Martin to turn same-sex marriage to his political advantage, observers said. By touting his support of same-sex marriage as a duty to the charter, he tapped a growing pride in Canada’s increasingly independent course from the United States.


“Only a generation ago, everything in America was bigger and better,” said Michael Adams, president of Toronto-based Environics. “Many people have gone from a deep admiration to more self-confidence that we are different.”

But to opponents, Martin’s ability to capitalize on the same-sex marriage debate highlights shortcomings of Canada’s legal and constitutional system. The issue has been confined largely to the federal courts, they said, and they don’t have the option of a U.S.-style referendum in the provinces to counter Martin’s hold on Parliament.

“We’ve got a fairly high level of apathy,” said David Brown, a Toronto lawyer who has represented Focus on the Family. “I think a lot of people in Canada just don’t care, because unless they perceive something will affect them and their immediate livelihood, they just don’t think it’s important.”

Observers on both sides of the issue said they see the upcoming vote in Parliament as a bellwether for the United States, particularly since President Bush has retreated from his pledge to help secure a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Passage of Martin’s bill “is probably going to add more fuel to the backlash we’re seeing here in the United States,” said Tom McClusky, an opponent of same-sex marriage and director of government affairs for the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

Advocates said Canada’s example would prove that same-sex marriages can help strengthen, not undermine, families and society. In time, people in other countries _ especially the United States _ would see no harm in following suit, they said.


“We are a role model,” said Hawkes, the Metropolitan Community Church pastor. “It’s very important that we realize that and fight to win this _ not just for our own rights, but for the symbolism around the world.”

X X X

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES

On Nov. 2, voters in 11 states passed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. The amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage. Amendments passed in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, and it shields states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or other jurisdictions that allow them. However, the act faces challenges of its constitutionality.

In February 2004, President Bush endorsed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricting marriage to one man and one woman and made the amendment a priority of his re-election campaign. Bush this month retreated from his pledge to lobby the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it would not receive the necessary two-thirds majority unless a court declares the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.

MO/PH/JL END BARNETT

(Jim Barnett writes for The Oregonian of Portland, Ore.)

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!