Hold on to your seats everyone 'cause I'm about to put into print something rare: Jean Chrètien, the Prime Minister, is correct. There is really nothing left to debate. The time has come to eliminate the restrictions on the institution of marriage currently facing gay and lesbian couples in Canada.
The issue has come to the forefront of public policy debate due to two controversial provincial Supreme Court rulings, one in Ontario, and the other in British Columbia. In both those judgments, the respective Supreme Courts effectively struck down existing matrimonial laws that stated marriage was a state of union exclusive to one man and one woman.
In essence, the court in Ontario ruled that the federal legislation's definition of marriage was in breach of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits discrimination based on a number of factors. While gender preference is not specifically noted as a basis for illegal discrimination, case law has since defined it as thus. The Ontario court was kind to the feds: they gave them a year to make the law fit the Charter or else. B.C.'s court was more blunt: the law's out.
The ball was tossed straight back to the Liberal government: the court was about to determine existing law was unconstitutional, therefore the Chrètien government either had to revamp it to make it fit the Charter or accept the changed definition. Chrètien chose the latter amidst increasingly vocal opponents to the plan.
And what opposition it is.
To no one's real surprise, numerous church groups, including the 13 million strong Catholic Church in Canada, were among the first to call down the PM. Backed by new directives from the Vatican, church officials began reminding politicians worldwide, and especially in Canada since it faces defining legislation in its immediate future, of their Catholic upbringings and their duty to live up to the teachings of the church in carrying out their public office. Indeed, one bishop even threatened the Prime Minister with eternal damnation if he brought this new legislation to a vote in the House of Commons.
I can't be certain, but threatening the life - or in this case, eternal life - of the head of government might just be illegal.
