OTTAWA CITIZEN on DORA: "redundant, confusing and beyond its jurisdiction"

Defenders of the faith

Canadians had the right to freedom of religion yesterday and they will have it tomorrow, whether or not the government introduces a Defence of Religions Act.

The Conservatives know that legalization of same-sex marriage is a done deal, so in an effort to placate their political base, they are said to be considering options such as separate legislation to protect the rights of people to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings and also to express their opposition to them.

It's true that the normalization of homosexuality has caused rights to collide: freedom of expression and religious belief versus the right to equal treatment. But many of the problems thus created have already been sorted out to most people's satisfaction.

The existing Civil Marriage Act says that religious officials "are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." The Supreme Court has said the same thing. So there's no need to draft another law saying what everyone agrees, namely, that no one can force priests and rabbis to do something they don't want to do.

But what about non-clergy who are in the business of marrying people? Should government-appointed officiants who privately oppose same-sex marriage be required to uphold the law and marry a gay couple? It isn't a religious ceremony, so no one's interfering with the officiant's right to practice and believe in a certain faith. It's more a question of the extent to which officials can bring their personal beliefs into their workplaces. It's an interesting question -- our own view is that you should keep your private religious beliefs at home -- but in any case the whole question is moot as far as the federal government is concerned. The solemnization of marriage falls within provincial jurisdiction.

Still, it's not unreasonable that some folks are nervous about being hit with human- rights complaints from aggrieved same-sex couples. If you're a Baptist and you own a printing business, should you be forced to print same-sex wedding invitations? If you rent tuxedos, should you be forced to outfit two grooms?

Again, these are matters of provincial concern. But even there, there's evidence that religious groups don't have as much reason to fear as they might think. A human-rights tribunal in British Columbia ruled last year that the Knights of Columbus did not have to rent its hall to a same-sex couple (although it fined the organization for its shabby treatment of the couple).

Some people fear they'll be called hate-mongers for quoting scripture that says homosexuality is an abomination. True, it's difficult sometime to recognize the line between allowable expression and hate speech, but this is a problem that pre-dates the same-sex marriage debate. Racists quote the Genesis story of Ham and his sons to justify the idea that blacks are inferior. Is that hate speech? The question is difficult, but it doesn't require new legislation.

The laws protecting freedom of religion and the (sometimes competing) laws that prohibit discrimination are already on the books. It's now a matter of interpretation, and much of that interpretation will happen at the provincial level. We've had the Civil Marriage Act for more than a year, and faith groups are still free to define religious marriage as they choose. There's no need for government to create a law that is redundant, confusing or beyond its jurisdiction.

This editorial appeared on page A14 of the Ottawa Citizen on October 10, 2006.