Saskatchewan hires outside lawyers to argue for gay marriage exemptions
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE / Government lawyers don't appear to support proposed legislation
Gens Hellquist / National / Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Share |

It appears the Saskatchewan government has been unable to find lawyers within their own justice department to argue in support of legislation that would allow marriage commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples for religious reasons. As a result they are hiring Regina lawyer Mike Megaw to argue before the Court of Appeals that the two proposed pieces of legislation are indeed constitutional and do not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Justice minister Don Morgan said justice department lawyers are uncomfortable arguing for the proposed legislation after arguing in previous cases that marriage commissioners are civil servants who should not be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

"They feel that to argue a different point of view now, or take a different position even though they may provide a variety of different opinions, would be problematic for them. So for that reason, we will ask them to participate in the court process only to the extent that they provide resources or background information," Morgan told the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.

Morgan also said he is hiring Saskatoon lawyer Reynold Robertson to argue against the proposed legislation. Robertson said the Supreme Court of Canada has established that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

"The solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility," Robertson said. "The province has to have the services available so that these people can get married. You cannot then have people who serve the public in secular marriages refuse to marry people on a prohibited ground of discrimination. So that's the basis upon which I'm being involved in this issue and I believe it's a very strong argument."

Megaw is the lawyer for marriage commissioner Orville Nichols who has appealed after being fined $2,500 by a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to marry two Regina gay men. "The courts have been consistent — there is no hierarchy of rights, so one right cannot, to use a phrase, trump another," Megaw said. "If it's found the religious freedom argument is a right that individuals have, then the argument runs that the two rights must be balanced and there must be an attempt to give effect to each of the rights."

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, who have argued in the past against marriage commissioners being able to refuse to marry same-sex couples, are unsure of whether they will be allowed to argue against the legislation in the Court of Appeals. Commission employee Bill Rafoss says they are still checking to see if they can be part of the process.

Former justice minister Frank Quennell, the NDP justice critic, blasted the government for bringing in outside lawyers suggesting it raises questions about Morgan's confidence in the legislation. "I would be very surprised if this was based on or congruent with the advice that Mr Morgan had received from experts within the ministry," Quennell said.

The Court of Appeals is expected to hear arguments in the case this fall.



Share |


Reader Comments


 
Protect Marriage Equality
If the Saskatchewan (Conservative) Party government is successful in granting this exemption, then it becomes very easy for them to effectively abolish marriage equality by appointing only marriage commissioners who will decline to marry same-sex couples. One wonders what other exemptions can be allowed. Can they refuse to marry Muslims? Atheists? Catholics? Previously divorced people? Laws already exempt churches from marrying same-sex couples. That is protection enough for religious rights. If provincial marriage commissioners have religious reasons for not doing their full jobs, then perhaps they need to look for other work.
Wayne Madden, Edmonton Alberta
07/08/09 6:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Here we go again....
I thought this matter had been settled. Why are we allowing this man to force the needless spending of the tax payers' dollar. Is it because this action serves some underlying agenda of the Sask. Party as well? Mr. Orville Nichols is a civil servant. As a civil servant, he has no right to bring his religion to work. The arguments to support the discrimination are weak and a waste of time and money. Mr. Nichols needs to be dismissed because he refuses to perform the duties of his position.
Darryl Browne, Regina Saskatchewan
07/09/09 2:04 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
if it bothers you, quit your job
If the guy doesn't like the fact that as a civil servant, hired to do the work of the government [a secular institution], he has to do something that his religion doesn't accept, then he needs to resign. If he is allowed to discriminate as a civil servant, which other civil servants will be allowed to follow suit? The police? The judicial system? Could someone be refused a driver's license because a Christian examiner doesn't like gays, or atheists, or people from some non-Christian faith? These are scary possibilities. Remember the old days when at weddings, the license was signed in a side room, because the religious folk couldn't bear the thought of a government document being signed in what was to them a sacred space? Let the guy with the problem get his license to marry through a religious institution... or will that cut into his lucrative income? If he is so religious, he will understand the line, "You can't serve both God and mammon." He has to make up his mind.
Douglas, Peterborough Ontario
07/10/09 9:46 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
well duh
Seriously, passing legislation that allows marriage commissioners to refuse same sex couples is idiotic. If refusing them the right to marry is unconstitutional then it's settled, isn't it? I believe if a marriage commissioner is uncomfortable with marrying them, then they should at the very least be accountable for referring them to a commissioner that will. I believe gay people deserve the right to marry, but I don't believe that anyone must sacrifice their faith to do so, or that anyone has to lose at all.
Regan Flavelle, Edmonton Alberta
07/13/09 8:58 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Let's be fair...
If gay marriage could be denied on the basis of personal belief/choice will there be a similar provision for refusing to marry heterosexual couples? This isn't church after all, so if it's to be constitutional it should be fair to everyone.
Christine Margaux, Houston Texas
07/13/09 10:15 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Yes, let's be fair
Most christians believe the bible teaches marriage is between a man and a woman-simple and straightforward. Any christian marriage commisssioners who took the job did so with this understanding. To change the rules to something they disagree with on religious grounds, and then either force them to do it, or be fired, is religious discrimination. To try to use arguments about them refusing others marriage, or even driving licences is unfair, as their religious belief says nothing about this, therefore it isn't a religious issue-marriage is.
Neil Fix, Cheltenham Glos
09/19/09 10:46 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.