The Supreme Court opinion on gay marriage delivered in December is only one chapter in the long history of the issue in this country. Fundamental arguments aside, what is so surprising is how self-congratulatory people have been because the ruling claims to respect freedom of religion. In other words, we have been assured that clergy who refuse to marry gay couples will not face pressure or prosecution.
Perhaps. But the legal history of the gay movement indicates a different scenario. A spokesman for Justice Minister Irwin Cotler was disarmingly frank when he said that the issue was 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. "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 through 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 Mark Hall, the young man who wanted to take his homosexual partner to a prom at a Catholic school. In a hurried judgment, the court declared that the school had no choice and had to accept the student and his friend at the dance. That case was indicative of what will almost certainly happen in the coming months and years concerning churches and gay marriage. Homosexual activists and lawyers, high-ranking politicians who were gay and a liberal media that was sympathetic to the homosexual community all pounced on the school, the Church and the court.
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 money to private faith-based schools.
So if a school has to act thus, what makes a church that receives financial help from its charitable status in any way different? This takes us back to the candour of the justice minister's spokesman 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 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.
That is so very sad. For honesty, for freedom and for Christianity. Please visit 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 believe to be wrong.
