Marriage commissioners can't discriminate: Saskatchewan court
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE / Province will still seek religious exemptions
Gens Hellquist / National / Friday, July 24, 2009
Share |

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench has turned down the appeal of marriage commissioner Orville Nichols saying that Nichols "in his capacity as a marriage commissioner acting as government, is not entitled to discriminate regardless of his religious beliefs."

In 2005 Nichols refused to perform a civil marriage ceremony for two Regina men after he discovered that it was to be a same-sex marriage. The two men filed a complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and a human rights tribunal later ruled that Nichols had discriminated against the two men, fined him $2,500 and ordered that he perform same-sex marriages if requested.

In his appeal Nichols argued that he has the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples because of his deeply held religious beliefs. He argued that his religious beliefs should be accommodated and that it was the government's responsibility, not his, to ensure that services were available to same-sex couples wanting to be married.

In her ruling Justice Janet McMurty said that "A public official has a far greater duty to ensure that s/he respects the law and the rule of law. A marriage commissioner is, to the public, a representative of the state. She or he is expected by the public to enforce, observe and honour the laws binding his or her actions. If a marriage commissioner cannot do that, she or he cannot hold that position."

Rebecca McLellan, manager of operations for the SHRC said the Commission was pleased with the decision, noting that to allow the commissioners to discriminate would undermine protections of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

Justice Minister Don Morgan said the province will still go ahead with seeking a legal opinion on the constitutionality of two possible pieces of legislation that would exempt marriage commissioners from having to perform same-sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. One version would grandfather in marriage commissioners who were appointed before Saskatchewan legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 while the other would provide an exemption for all marriage commissioners. "The gist of the application is that the province has got an obligation to accommodate their religious views," Morgan told the Saskatoon Star Phoenix.

Janice Gingell, chief counsel for the SHRC, said she expects that Nichols will appeal the Court of Queen's Bench decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals, the same court the government has asked for a decision on the two proposed pieces of legislation exempting marriage commissioners.

Morgan agreed that the Queen's Bench decision would likely be appealed.

Saskatchewan is rapidly becoming ground zero on the issue of whether marriage commissioners should be exempted from having to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if it goes against their religious beliefs. Gingell says she has been notified that the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Catholic Civil Rights League will both be applying for intervenor status when the court hear arguments on the constitutionality of the proposed legislation exempting marriage commissioners.

Gingell added that the SHRC hasn't decided yet on whether they will be applying for intervenor status. However, she did inquire whether any queer organizations might be applying for intervenor status.

No date has been set yet to determine the constitutionality of the two proposed pieces of legislation that the Saskatchewan government wants to introduce.



Share |


Reader Comments


 
Commissioners
It shoudl be itneresting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about the Saskatchewan marriage commisisoners' decision.
james, orillia ontario
07/24/09 11:12 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
marriage is a legal transaction
Marriage is a legal event, first and foremost. As such, it follows the appropriate federal and provincial/territorial laws. There is an option of adding religious content. As far as I can tell, there is NO OPTION of having a religious ceremony WITHOUT THE LEGAL PART and still calling it a marriage. I would allow an exemption if the marriage were to take place in a house of worship under the direction of a clergyperson who is licensed to marry by the appropriate province/territory. At that point, the couple need to follow the rules of both state and religious institution, because the service being offered is both legal and religious in nature. The religious institution may have its own ADDITIONAL limitations. The Anglican Church, for example, requires that both persons being married be baptized; if only one person is baptized, there are special procedures to be followed. And "No minister shall solemnize the marriage of two persons neither of whom has been baptized." ["Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada" p. 526, 1985] But it sounds like Mr Nichols is performing these ceremonies outside of any church, in which case only federal/provinvial/territorial law applies. Back to nitty-gritty, a marriage commissioner is a representative of the state, not of any religious organization. He is licensed to offer a service on their behalf. If he can gain an exemption, can the person who does testing for driver's licenses refuse to grant a license to a gay person because of their "deeply held religious beliefs?" Can the police refuse to respond to a gay person's call for assistance because of their religious beliefs? NO! and NO! Can I become a marriage commissioner and refuse to marry straight people? Or non-whites? Or people from certain economic backgrounds? NO! NO! and NO!
douglas, peterborough ontario
07/25/09 2:25 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Make no exceptions.
If freedom of speech and religious objections has to go in Canada, why restrict such practice to forcing all marriage counselors to perform gay marriages? Dr. Henry Morgentaler M.D., for all that we know, is a G.P. (general practitioner) who does not hold any medical specialization in Obstetrics and/or gynaecology (for all that we know, he obtained his medical license by fraud and deception, see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler ) and despite of that in his medical practice he performed thousands of abortions (many of them late term abortions). In the whole scheme of things timely abortion is much more essential service than performing marriage as it cannot be postponed (not for long). Instead of sending all Canadian women who require late term abortions to a clinic in US should we not demand that all current and future general practitioners in Canada performed at least one late term abortion in their medical career and at least one surgical (early term) abortion a year as a condition of retaining their medical licenses?? This suspense is killing me, as I cannot wait to see reliable scientific data proving that homosexuality is a genetic disorder. I cannot wait for reliable tests of amniotic fluids that will give every Canadian woman an early indication that the “blob of cells” that invaded her uterus will one day engage in sodomy. I cannot wait to hear homosexuals scream that selective abortion of future homosexuals and other sexual deviants is a perverse form of discrimination based on “future sexual orientation” that is also allegedly prohibited under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Who needs a homo doctors who refuse to see for themselves how they came to this World?? Who needs a homo doctors who refuse to perform abortions when genetic tests clearly show presence of a homo gene? Who needs a homo doctors who claim some deeply held religious objections while refusing to terminate lives of next generation of homosexuals??
karol, mississauga ontario
07/25/09 9:51 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Double standard
What really bugs me is that a bunch of homos can go out of their way to jerk around marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan for his deeply held religious objections to performing gay marriages and all other homos in Canada immediately jump on a bandwagon and scream discrimination, but when openly homosexual judge Justice Harvey Brownstone advertises that he performs exclusively same-sex marriages in his chambers located at the North York Family Court all homos in Canada find it perfectly normal. Things are even worse than that, Justice Brownstone advertises that he is is available to perform gay marriages every weekday from nine to five despite of holding a full time job as judge. It seems that Canadian homos find it perfectly normal that family court proceeding in North York Family Court in Toronto grind to a standstill every time bunch of homos from anywhere in the World shows up there to have their marriage ceremony performed by Justice Brownstone If Harvey Brownstone wants to moonlight as unpaid marriage commissioner he should offer his services to heterosexual couples as well. When he moonlights as an unpaid marriage commissioner during time that Family Court is in session, at the minimum, the time he takes to perform these marriages should be docked from his salary as a judge. http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/ontario_case/appeal/pride_week_marriage.htm Quote, Toronto Justice Harvey Brownstone is more than happy to conduct a same-sex marriage for couples wishing to have the ceremony performed by a judge. An appointment must be made by email well in advance. Justice Brownstone is available to perform wedding ceremonies in his chambers any weekday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the North York Family Court, located at 47 Sheppard Avenue East, 2nd Floor (steps from the Sheppard subway station). Couples must bring their marriage license and a cheque for $75, payable to “The Minister of Finance”. Justice Brownstone’s staff sends the cheque, together
karol, missoissauga ontario
07/25/09 12:42 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
no religion bans this
I would love to know where in the bible it says thou shall not provide public services to sinners. I know some religious groups consider queer folks to be sinners but I never heard of one that says its wrong for its members to provide any public service for those it considers to be sinners. No church is forced to marry gays/lesbians against their wishes so religious rights are well protected. If religion was so important to the marriage commissioners refusing to do their jobs why don't they perform religious services instead of civic ones, they do have that choice if they're too pious to provide public services to us sinners but they can't have it both ways, both religious and public at the same time, they'll have to choose one or the other.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
07/25/09 3:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
homosexuality?
@ karol.... Homosexuality may be genetic. It is NOT a disorder.
douglas, peterborough ontario
07/25/09 10:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Marriage
In this country there are 2 ways to unite in marriage,the church or city hall,aka civil.When 2 people choose city hall the church is left out of this union.When a Justice of the peace refuses to perform his duty because of religious reasons then he should step down or be fired from his position because he is in breach of his oath of office.Breach...got that?No more no less....Breach!Now, when the rest of you paranoid freaks catch up to the 21first century maybe we could all live in a more peaceful manner....Ya think?
Trevor Calhoun, Oshawa Ontario
07/26/09 5:34 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
The Hypocrisy of it all!
To Karol... It never ceases to amaze me how many people, who claim themselves to be morally justified in their condemnation of the LGBT community, actively seek to antagonize those they are against by visiting LGBT websites. I begin to wonder, is it some form of self-loathing, or is it something more sinister, like pure bigotry? I personally do not see any reason why people of all faiths and all beliefs and all cultures and all nationalities, and all sexual orientations, and both sexes can't live together in peace. There is no rational reason why any person should be condemned by another for simply being who they were born as. Those who are religious and who condemn others really have some nerve claiming to be morally superior considering the atrocities committed by their churches over the ages. Some religions still don't even consider men and woman to be equals for cryin' out loud. Maybe they should instead spend their time atoning for the sins committed by their church rather than condemning others. When it comes to public service, it is just that. PUBLIC. Religion has no place in public service. This isn't because religion isn't important, but rather because as a government representative, your personal beliefs cannot be cited in the performance of your duties. By doing so, you effectively state that the government you represent only recognizes your particular beliefs over all others. Well that is just wrong. Religion is a private matter between you, your family, your church and the deity you believe in. It has no place being forced upon others who do not believe as you do. I leave you with this thought. This world is our home. We all occupy it and must live together. As such, the following quote from the bible applies specifically to those who condemn those who share this home: Proverbs 11:29: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."
Jason, Hamilton Ontario
07/27/09 5:25 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
please read what you quote
karol, I don't understand some of your statements. You say that family court proceeding in North York Family Court in Toronto grind to a standstill every time bunch of homos from anywhere in the World shows up there to have their marriage ceremony performed by Justice Brownstone.... Then, you quote him as saying An appointment must be made by email well in advance. [This sentence is actually in BOLD in the original.]... If you have to make an appointment well in advance, that means the system will NOT grind to a halt just by me showing up on the doorstep... I think the issue here is discrimination. But I am not totally clear about what it is that you are objecting to. Is it equal marriage? Or the fact that someone hired to represent the government is not getting permission to refuse to do his job, and still get paid for it? You suggest that...When [Justice Brownstone] moonlights as an unpaid marriage commissioner during time that Family Court is in session, at the minimum, the time he takes to perform these marriages should be docked from his salary as a judge; Well, what if Mr Nichols were free to refuse to marry samesex couples, provided HE pay the wedding fee for them?
douglas, peterborough ontario
07/27/09 7:21 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.