"Liberals Won't Commit to Marriage"

June 18, 2003

Anyone needing further proof of the utter disregard the federal Liberals hold for Canada’s parliamentary and democratic institutions received a decisive confirmation this week.  

The same Liberal government that just three years ago voted overwhelmingly in favour of a parliamentary motion to uphold the traditional definition of marriage is now refusing to appeal recent court decisions that legalize same-sex marriage.  The Liberals have demonstrated that their word both inside and outside of Parliament is worth nothing. 

The Ontario Court of Appeal has declared Canada’s definition of marriage to be unconstitutional and determined that same-sex marriage should be legal under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  This follows a May ruling by the B.C. Court of Appeal that said prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, and a similar ruling in Quebec. 

If the Liberals had any respect or sense of obligation to Canada’s parliamentary process, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon would have been instructed by the Prime Minister to take immediate action to reassert Parliamentary control over the legal definition of marriage.  Instead, Mr. Cauchon has confirmed that he will meekly allow the courts to dictate law to Parliament by introducing federal legislation to legalize same-sex marriages. 

Yet on June 8, 1999, the House of Commons passed a motion by a vote of 216 to 55, clearly stating that:  “marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada. 

In addition, the House of Commons Justice Committee is currently drafting a report on same-sex marriage following extensive study in hearings held across the country.  This crucial component of the parliamentary decision-making process is being obstructed by the courts with the support of the Liberals.  The government is discarding the Justice Committee’s work as easily as it abandoned the parliamentary motion on marriage. 

The definition of marriage is a controversial social policy that should be decided by elected representatives in Parliament not by the courts.  Whether for or against same-sex marriages, all Canadians should be concerned about this latest demonstration of judicial activism.  

It’s difficult to pin too much blame on the courts however.  Someone had to fill the void left by the Liberals’ consistent display of political cowardice.  The Liberals want to avoid taking a firm stand on the definition of marriage, so their strategy is to leave the impression that they had no choice but to heed court rulings. 

But they did have a choice.  Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and their Liberal colleagues have had years to bring forward legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage, but chose not to.  Now despite polls that have consistently shown the majority of Prince George-Peace River citizens agree with me and support that definition, Liberal inaction allowed the courts to decide rather than MPs.

I am confident that when the next federal election rolls around, Canadians justifiably outraged by this latest display of Liberal passive politics will hold Paul Martin accountable for his support of gay marriage.