The judges significantly declined to answer the fourth question on whether the current laws upholding traditional marriage were unconstitutional.

(See the exact wording of the reference questions and the proposed legislation here:
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2004/doc_31110.html )

The Court compared the failure to recognize women as persons to the refusal to grant 'marriage' rights to same-sex persons. It quoted a lawyer in a Canadian women's rights case who claimed that "several centuries ago it would have been understood that persons should refer only to men." Launching from that quotation, in a revealing low blow at pro-family advocates, the justices opined, "Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples". The justices did not acknowledge that such an understanding is still dominant in almost all the world and that the aggressive challenges to traditional marriage were launched only very recently in some developed nations.

Continuing from their insinuation of a Middle Ages mentality held by traditional marriage defenders, the justices stated, "The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today." The Canadian "jurisdictions" or provinces to which the judges referred were all subject to decisions by activist judges who imposed legislative changes on the provinces.

While Prime Minister Paul Martin vowed a free vote would be permitted on the matter, it has been revealed that there will be no free vote for nearly 70 of the just over 300 members of Parliament since cabinet members and their parliamentary secretaries are to be forced to vote in favor of the homosexual 'marriage' legislation.

Life and Family groups in Canada are encouraging Canadians to contact their MPs in their constituency offices and urge them to vote against any government legislation which approves of homosexual 'marriage'.

See the full Supreme Court opinion:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html

Canadian Pro-Family Groups Respond To Supreme Court Reference Decision

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Most Canadian pro-family groups have strongly criticized the Supreme Court today for its response to the Liberal government's reference to the Court on its not yet formally introduced nor voted upon legislation to allow homosexual 'marriage'.

Campaign Life Coalition President Jim Hughes said, "The Supreme Court has chosen to direct government legislation rather than telling Parliament that they should draft, debate and vote on such legislation before the Courts speak."

Hughes called the Prime Minister to task for trying to "stifle legitimate debate by having the Court rule before draft legislation has even been presented to Parliament". He continued "We are a free nation ruled by elected representatives and more and more we are being ruled by an un-elected judiciary and not by our own elected representatives. The cart is definitely before the horse."

CLC is urging Canadians to "contact their MPs in their constituency offices" and "to vote against any government legislation which approves of 'same-sex' marriage".

REAL Women Canada notes that "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." Gwen Landolt of REAL Women charged that Canadians represented by these Parliamentarians "will be disenfranchised on this most crucial question of this generation."

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) organization has urged "Members of Parliament to have a full, informed and vigorous debate on this issue," and asked that "there be a free vote so that all members may vote according to their conscience." The CCCB said it intends to be part of the debate and urged all Catholics, "especially those who have the experience of marriage, to play an active role" in the debate. In its statement the CCCB did not explicitly call for defeat of the upcoming legislation nor did it urge Catholics to work for that defeat.

Bishop Richard Smith, President of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops told LifeSiteNews.com, "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 law-makers 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."

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) denounced the Supreme Court's decision "as an unprecedented pre-empting of parliamentary debate by the judiciary."

CCRL President Phil Horgan stated, "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." Commenting on the precedent-setting nature of the decision, Horgan said, "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. Involving the court at this stage was an attempt 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".

The CCRL head advocated an active response to the government's intent to pass legislation now given a go ahead by the Court. Horgan said, "Parliament still must introduce and debate this legislation before it becomes law. We will be working with all Canadians who value true marriage to defeat any legislation in favour of same sex marriage every step of the way. The decision must now be made by the public and their elected officials, not the courts. We want MPs to know that they will be held accountable."

The CCRL is demanding that the Prime Minister and his Party "call off their whips in caucus and cabinet" so that the Members of Parliament will be able "to vote their consciences on legislation going to the core of their beliefs". "The true test of religious and conscientious freedom in Canada" says the CCRL, "will not be limited to churches and their congregations."

REAL Women, Focus on the Family and Canada Family Action Coalition have also responded by calling for a national referendum on the issue.

Campaign Life Coalition Press Release
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/press/2004/041209responsetodecision.htm

Catholic Civil Rights League Release
http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=201

Canada Family Action Coalition release
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/marriage/referendum-call.htm

CCCB Release
http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStatements.htm?CD=&ID=1602

Protection for Religious Freedom in Homosexual 'Marriage' Legislation "Very Weak"

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Canadian Supreme Court opinion giving the proposed Liberal legislation on same-sex 'marriage' the green light has "very weak" protection for freedom of religion, according to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. Reacting to the Supreme Court decision today, Harper noted that the Court has made assurances for freedom of religion beyond what is covered in the legislation.

The draft legislation states only that "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." However, many questions regarding religious freedom and the proposed legislation remain unanswered. Even the Supreme Court opinion widened, albeit slightly, the draft legislation's religious freedom protection.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) organization welcomed the affirmation by the Court which indicates that "The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in our Charter jurisprudence". The CCCB continued, "We are pleased that religious officials are protected 'from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs', and that this judgment confirms that freedom of religion also prevents 'the compulsory use of sacred places for the celebration of such marriages'.

Beyond protection for church ministers, and church buildings, however, questions remain about the fate and lack of protection for civil officials whose faiths or consciences prevent them from solemnizing such "marriages". Marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already been ordered to perform such 'marriages' or lose their jobs.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops anticipates that the Ontario government, with the support of the opposition parties, will now enact legislation to give form and substance to the protections indicated by the Supreme Court.

However, that anticipation may lead to disappointment given Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's well-known views on moral issues which are often diametrically opposed to the teachings of his Church. Responding to the ruling as an indication to go forward with homosexual 'marriage', McGuinty said, "I'm proud of the fact that we've moved forward . . . It's the right thing to do."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
MPs Tells Provinces to Stop Forcing Marriage Commissioners to Solemnize Gay Marriages
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04112402.html

END