According to the draft bill submitted to the Supreme Court, judges who choose to follow their Christian convictions are not exempt from performing Same-Sex Marriage ceremonies and could be punishable by law.

by Rory Leishman

At a special mass for Catholic lawyers, judges and legislators on September 18, 2003, Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic, Archbishop of Toronto, reminded his audience that Catholics in public life must be willing to suffer and even die for the faith. "There are things greater than ourselves for which we must be ready to die," he said. "If nothing is worth dying for, then I am not truly free."

"Separation of Church and state now means the separation of conscience from politics … "Having grown up under communism in Slovenia, Cardinal Ambrozic has first-hand knowledge of anti-Christian oppression by the state. Today, he fears a deterioration of relations between Church and state in Canada. Within the Canadian context, he warned: "Separation of Church and state now means the separation of conscience from politics"—a separation forbidden to all conscientious Christians.

Norm Cafik, a former Liberal cabinet minister under prime minister Pierre Trudeau, was the featured speaker at a formal dinner for Catholic lawyers and legislators following the mass. He recalled how both John the Baptist and St. Thomas More lost their heads over the definition of marriage. Today, Cafik noted, Catholic judges and lawyers are compelled by law to accept what these saints rejected.Is Cafik right? Are Christians like him and Cardinal Ambrozic overreacting? Surely not.

In last June's Halpern ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal mounted a direct attack on Christian faith and morals, by striking down the traditional definition of marriage. In the court's opinion, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the common law definition of marriage, "perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships" and, therefore, contravenes the alleged equality rights of homosexuals in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On this basis, the court unilaterally imposed so called "same-sex marriage" on Canadians. Given this ruling, what might now happen to an Ontario judge who is a faithful Christian and refuses to conduct a civil marriage for a gay or lesbian couple because he or she cannot in good conscience perform such a travesty of a true marriage?Consider the precedent set in the case of former London mayor Dianne Haskett. In 1997, she was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry of violating the rights of homosexuals in Section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, by refusing on religious grounds to issue a Gay Pride proclamation at the request of the Homophile Association of London Ontario.

Likewise, in 2000, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Scott Brockie, the president of a Toronto print shop, had violated the Code, by refusing on religious grounds to print stationery and letterheads for the Toronto Lesbian and Gay Archives. Brockie appealed to the courts and lost. On June 17, 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the Tribunal ruling, and directed Brockie to pay $5,000 in damages to a former president of the Archives and to refrain from refusing to print stationery and letterheads for any organization that promotes gay pride.Brockie has complied with this court ruling. Had he failed to do so, he could have been charged with contempt of court and consigned to jail as a Christian prisoner of conscience.

The draft bill on gay marriage that the government of our Liberal and professedly Catholic Prime Minister Jean Chretien has meekly submitted for approval to the Supreme Court of Canada purports to uphold the right of Christians to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple.

Consider, though, the precise language of this bill: Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Judges are not officials of religious groups. They are officials of the state. It follows that all judges, regardless of their religious convictions, are now required by law in Ontario to conduct a marriage ceremony upon request by a gay or lesbian couple.Ambrozic and Cafik are right:

Thanks to judicial misinterpretations of the Charter and our modern human rights codes, faithful Christians are no longer free in Canada to uphold the traditional teachings of the Church.

Rory Leishman is a columnist for The London Free Press. His web site is www.roryleishman.com/. His e-mail address is: mail@roryleishman.com.