Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Canadian province sued over gay marriage rule
11.26.2008 8:00am EST
(Prince Albert, Saskatchewan) A marriage commissioner is suing the Saskatchewan government after being fined $2,500 for refusing to marry a gay couple.
A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal cited Orville Nichols for discrimination in May for refusing to perform the same-sex marriage.Nichols told the tribunal last year that he refused to marry the couple in 2005 because it went against his Baptist faith.
Philip Fourie, Nichols’ lawyer, said the lawsuit demands the province give marriage commissioners the legal right to not perform same-sex marriages if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
“This is clearly a horrible violation of Charter rights,” he said in a news release.
“This problem can be easily fixed by simply allowing the commissioners a right to decline and pass on the ceremony request to another commissioner.”
Saskatchewan Justice Minister Don Morgan said the tribunal’s ruling is binding on the province.
He said commissioners unhappy about the law have the option of turning in their licenses to perform civil marriages.
“We have sent a letter to all of the civil marriage commissioners indicating to them that it is an option to them to surrender their civil marriage certificate and to obtain a religious one if they wish to affiliate themselves with one of the churches,” Morgan said.
The case is to be heard in Prince Albert on Dec. 23.
During the tribunal hearing into the case, Nichols said he was contacted in 2005 by a gay man about performing a wedding.
The gay man, who can only be identified as M.J. because of a publication ban, found Nichols’ name on a list of marriage commissioners in Regina.
Same-sex marriage was made legal in Saskatchewan in November 2004. Marriage commissioners, who are appointed and licensed by the province to perform civil ceremonies, were told to provide the service.
Nichols, who has been a marriage commissioner since 1983, testified that he told the couple he would not marry them because it went against his religious beliefs.
He then referred the couple to a marriage commissioner who would perform the ceremony.
The tribunal said in its ruling in May that Nichols was acting as a public servant when he performed marriages and so was obligated to marry the gay couple because same-sex unions are permitted by law in Canada.
Fourie chided Premier Brad Wall and Morgan for being critical of the former NDP government on same-sex marriage and promising to stick up for the rights of marriage commissioners.
“The government promised to be different but they are not acting any differently at all on this issue,” he said.
“The pendulum has swung too far in favor of same-sex people and against people of faith.”
If the marriage commissioner were a Roman Catholic and a fellow Catholic who had divorced his first wife (something not recognized by the Church) came in looking to marry a new wife would it be considered acceptable for the commissioner to refuse on the grounds that this is a violation of his faith? A person should not seek employment in a government position if their religious beliefs require them to refrain from providing services to citizens who are not compliant with their religious beliefs. If this man were a minister in a church rather than a civil servant then this would be a completely different issue and refusal would be reasonable. Many religions place various conditions on who they will perform weddings for. Many will not marry persons who are not members of their religion. This makes perfect sense. But working in civil service may require compromises on religious rules. What’s next, Orthodox Jew or Muslim paramedics that won’t touch female patients?
Robert
I don’t know about “planned out”, but I read that homophobic Latino and blacks voted heavily enough for Prop 8.
This is how they thought for years before this event.
But, I note that the gap for banning gay marriage in CA has narrowed down in percentage of yes votes for the ban this time. Percentage-wise fewer for yes and more for no compared to last time when there was Prop 22 banning gay marriage in 2004.
So this indicates likely in 4 years time in 2008 more change of hearts, more new gay and progay voters coming of age to vote, older antigay people moving away or dying off.
when you work for the state you should do the job according to laws
if not any state worker can stop his job on grounds of i do not know what dogma.
he is guilty . he should get double the fine .now.and be fired .
Would he refuse to marry a heterosexual couple if one of the parties had been divorced? If not, he’s being inconsistent. But I’m sure he doesn’t. It’s not his business whether someone is divorced, just like it’s not his business what’s between the legs of the members of the couple.
Usual religious bigotry on display! Fire the commissioner!
As long as he’s not the only marriage commissioner for a hundred miles, what’s the harm in passing it along to someone else? This is exactly why people in this country don’t want to let gays marry; stories like this give them legitimate concern that their religious freedom will be in jeapordy. This is why Yes on Prop 8 was able to argue that equal marriage would have a negative effect on straight peoples’ lives.
Obviously it would be better if everyone was tolerant, but allowing people the option of declining (as long as there is still someone else to perform the ceremony) will make people much more accepting of equal marriage. And eventually as the older generations pass away, people will decline less and less.
It’s one thing to campaign for your rights, but insisting that everyone agree with you is taking a step in the wrong direction.
Do commissioners “pass along” hetro couples for “religious reasons?” If so, then “passing” might be acceptable. I remember African-Americans saying in the 1960s that they hated the riots and civil disobedience but that they also thought that they created positive results. So, although they hated it, they condoned civil disobedience and rioting. They said that civil rights don’t come as a result of always “being nice and politely asking for social change.”
Caitlyn,
It should be a problem though. People shouldn’t be able to pass on a minority group if they are performing a civil service out of religious belief or faith. You can’t make discrimination ok when it is practical to do so.
Religious people SHOULD be worried about stuff like this, but then again religious people SHOULD NOT be performing civil marriages in the first place unless they plan on performing such civil services equally, otherwise the government should not be recognizing them. If the government does, then it would be legitimizing for religious reasons discrimination.
Either the government should not recognize religion performing civil services or it it can but not allow them to be discriminatory in the process.
It doesn’t make sense to allow religious people to be discriminatory performing a civil service if non-religious representatives of the state are not allowed to be discriminatory. Church should be separate from the State.
Caitlyn, take a look at the Charter. It’s easily available online. Canada doesn’t have the hard-and-fast separation of church and state the US does, but this has done nothing to erode a state far more functionally secular than the US.
The simplest way to put it is this: if somebody is performing a task as an agent of the state, then they are bound by the state’s anti-discrimination standards. Remember the Catholic high school outside of Toronto which was forced to allow gay couples at prom? It’s a religious school, so the church’s standards should apply, right? Not so. In Ontario, you find four types of school boards. English-speaking boards are everywhere. They’re overlaid by French-speaking boards and Separate (Catholic) school boards, again both Anglo and Franco. They’re all tax-supported, so all must comply with the Charter, not the Vatican.
The story with the schools should explain why an individual agent of the government isn’t allowed to set their beliefs above enforcement of the state-established standard. Under the Charter, refusing a gay couple is just as unacceptable as refusing a Sikh couple, or a Filipino/First Nations couple, or a Pentecostal couple. However, my husband was telling me that his cousin and her fiance (they already have at least one kid) wanted to get married by a pastor in Alberta. The pastor refused because they were living in sin. (They’re trying to get OUT of sin–no good.) Since it was a church wedding, the pastor could refuse–the Charter specifically allows for that.
**If you allow someone to discriminate for THIS reason because he is “Baptist” what If I was in his shoes and my religion told me that being FAT and OBESED is wrong, therefore If I didnt want to marry Fat people or someone of color, etc…
So HE IS WRONG! Period. IF it disgusts him that much then he needs to get out of STATE/CIVIL work. He should go work for his Baptist Cult and build up a wall around him and leave the rest of the world alone!
Years ago I may have agreed with Caitlyn and ohters, but now they are just down right being mean. If this man is being a good person and a good soul, then I am sure his God will give him his golden house on the hill, but just being ignorant and mean may just get him a shack in “hell”!
If you work for the govt, then you must apply the law fairly. Are we going to allow people to eg not do their jobs, whatever they are, simply because of their religious beliefs? They are simply in the wrong business, and should find a job where they don’t see conflict between the laws they must support as a govt employee, and their religion.
Andything else is down the slippery slope to becoming a saudi arabia theocratic nightmare.
I think that if you work for the government you have an obligation to do your job. If he has such a problem performing civil marriages for gays he has the option to only perform church marriages. I don’t understand what the problem is. If he is mainly concerned with his beliefs, he can just perform church marriages and disriminate to his heart’s content. Sounds good to me.
“The pendulum has swung too far in favor of same-sex people and against people of faith.” Excuse me but his inference that same sex couples and people of faith are mutually exclusive is insulting. I live in this Province & work for the Government and believe if you work in the civil service you provide the same service to everyone. And, that changes in Government shouldn’t change human rights. Enough of this 1 step forward, 2 steps back malarkey… As a Canadian, I must say that I don’t see the so-called separation of church and state. On the contrary it seems that politics & daily governing in the U.S. is inundated by/with religion and religioius factions making this separation nothing more than a huge facade… There is an alternative for Mr Nichol, that of obtaining a religious licence vs a civil one. If he doesn’t want to meet the cannons of his religion in order to function in that capacity then that’s his choice. I imagine that the use of a civil licence ensures more profitability and doesn’t come with the same responsibility or religious entanglements. Incidentally those of which he apparently holds so dear.
Crazyworld, I think your scenario is flawed. There is no way that someone could be Baptist and have an issue with Fat People.
This really isn’t such a big deal. I mean, the guy did refer them to another commisioner that would perform it anyways, so it’s not like their not getting married. Who are we to demand tolerance for what we believe in if we can’t even tolerate other people’s beliefs? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sticking up for that Babtist piece of shit, but I’m saying he was respectful and said though he couldn’t do it because of his religion (which I think is fair) he did, respectfully, refer him to someone that would. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with this, though it is ignorant.