Sask. court rules gay marriage refusal law unconstitutional

[gsdx]

Yay us! They're working for the government, not their church.

REGINA - Saskatchewan's top court has ruled that marriage commissioners cannot refuse to wed same-sex couples on religious grounds.

The Appeal Court was asked to rule on proposed provincial legislation that would allow commissioners to cite their religion in saying "no." The law was crafted after a conflict arose in 2005 when commissioner Orville Nichols, a devout Baptist, refused to marry a gay couple.

In a decision released Monday, the court ruled the law would be unconstitutional. It said that accommodating the religious beliefs of the commissioners could not justify what would amount to discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Supporters of the law had argued it didn't deny same-sex couples the right to find someone else to marry them. But Egale Canada, which advocates for gays and lesbians, said it was discriminatory and would erode equality rights.

<snip>

Richards rejected suggestions that the number of gay marriages would be small and those affected could simply seek out someone else to perform the ceremony.

"First, and most importantly, this submission overlooks, or inappropriately discounts, the importance of the impact on gay or lesbian couples of being told by a marriage commissioner that he or she will not solemnize a same-sex union," he wrote.

"It is not difficult for most people to imagine the personal hurt involved in a situation where an individual is told by a governmental officer, 'I won’t help you because you are black (or Asian or First Nations) but someone else will,' or 'I won’t help you because you are Jewish (or Muslim or Buddhist) but someone else will.' Being told, 'I won’t help you because you are gay/lesbian but someone else will' is no different.

Full Report (worth the read): http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-refusal-law-unconstitutional-court-20110110-071200-550.html

 

[Keelandson]

This story mentions that the ruling from the five on the panel is unanimous even if the reasons are different, making it unlikely Saskatchewan will go to a higher appeal court.

But the story can be confusing because it begins:

REGINA - Saskatchewan's top court has said marriage commissioners cannot use religion to say "no" to nuptials for same-sex couples.

The Appeal Court had been asked by the government to rule on a proposed provincial law that would have allowed commissioners to cite religious grounds in refusing to marry gays or lesbians.

But further down is says

Nichols, who has been a marriage commissioner for almost 30 years, was fined $2,500.

He asked the Court of Queen's Bench to reverse the decision, but it upheld the tribunal's ruling. A further appeal is still before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

I assume that that appeal is to have his fine lifted.

The judge who wrote for himself and the other two whose reasons were the same as his says

"The historical marginalization and mistreatment of gay and lesbian individuals is well known," Justice Robert Richards wrote on behalf of three of the five judges. "They have been able to recently claim the right to marry only after travelling a very difficult and contentious road."

Love it.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Sask. court rules gay marriage refusal law [STRIKE]unconstitutional[/STRIKE] INHUMAN

no government or whateva they calls

no authority anyway

thankyou folk what make it happen

ya make world happys ans safer ans etc so on place cause it

da future of planet more for it a too but still lot a ta do

 

[frankfrank]

^ I actually understood a post by SLOPPYSECONDS! (And I agree, too!)

 

[Slazzer]

Sloppy makes sense. He is just hard to understand.

 

[Geoffboyardee]

Sask. court rules gay marriage refusal law [STRIKE]unconstitutional[/STRIKE] INHUMAN

no government or whateva they calls

no authority anyway

thankyou folk what make it happen

ya make world happys ans safer ans etc so on place cause it

da future of planet more for it a too but still lot a ta do

Awww. How sweet...
(mostly because this is the first post I understood by you)

 

[The_Reaper]

As a Saskatchewan resident, one of the few on these boards, I'm quite happy about this ruling.

I've been saying for months, to anyone who would listen, that a civil servant is duty bound to honour the law of the province they serve, not the religion they practice in private.

I think this issue should be done and over with, though there's no guarantee of that. The 'conservative' government that brought this challenge to the courts in the first place (with no real mandate from the people to do so) is full of social conservatives, and we're not likely going to see the end of their attempts to roll back gay rights in Saskatchewan...

Though they've got a lot to answer for at the moment, namely how they're now going to justify the legal costs they spent on this court challenge that no one asked for, and why it was tax dollars well spent, when any grade school child with an understanding of the role of civil servant could have given you the obvious answer...

 

[Ninja108]

ITA with this ruling. If they want to open a private pratice and turn away gays & lesbians due to religious reasons, go right ahead.
But when you work for the goverment or the public in any way shape or form, guess what?
Your religion takes a back seat to serving the public. If you can't handle that, quit and find another job.

 

[gsdx]

I've been saying for months, to anyone who would listen, that a civil servant is duty bound to honour the law of the province they serve, not the religion they practice in private.

That's what surprised me when I read the article. I thought all that had been taken care of in the Same-Sex Marriage legislation. Any civil servant who refuses to do his job and perform the ceremony (for whatever reason) should suffer the same consequences of any other civil servants who refuse to do their jobs.

 

[Ram]

This is great and all. OOT but is there a right way to pronounce Saskatchewan?

 

[gsdx]

is there a right way to pronounce Saskatchewan?

Pretty-much as it's spelt: sass-CAT-chew-wahn

 

[T-Rexx]

I thought Sasquatch was just a myth!

 

[wooffy]

That's what surprised me when I read the article. I thought all that had been taken care of in the Same-Sex Marriage legislation. /QUOTE]

Due to the odd division of powers in the Constitution, the definition of marriage is federal but the actual process and administration is provincial - hence why we had, for a time, equal marriage in some provinces but not others.

 

[frankfrank]

This is great and all. OOT but is there a right way to pronounce Saskatchewan?

Bill and David were sitting in a gay bar in suburban Brisbane. This guy walks into the place, and neither Bill nor David can avoid looking at this newcomer - he is incredibly gorgeous - they think that he looks a LOT like the country-and-western singer Randy Travis looked during the height of his singing career. (Let it be said that, when Randy Travis was popular, both guys had quite a crush on him.)

David: I don't remember seeing this guy before. Why don't you go up and start a conversation with him? You're better at this than I am, with the goregous ones. It would be GREAT if he came home with us and we had a three-way.

Bill: OK, I'll give it a try, and I'll see what happens.

[BILL walks to the bar, and sits on a stool next to the good-looking guy]

Bill [to good-looking guy]: Hello, I don't remember seeing you in here before. Where are you from?

good-loking guy: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

[GOOD-LOOKING GUY, obviously not interested, leaves his stool and goes into the bathroom.]

[BILL, somewhat dejected, goes back to table to sit with David.]

David: Well, did anything happen? What did he say?

Bill: I don't know. He doesn't speak English.

 

[FanofFiction]

Good for Saskatchewan!! A few of my friends from out there were worried the law would be upheld.

 

[Royal Heart]

As a Saskatchewan resident, one of the few on these boards, I'm quite happy about this ruling.

As am I. I'm not surprised by the ruling, but I'm still pleased that the vote was unanimous and quick.

 

[bankside]

It only makes sense.

 

[The_Reaper]

Just an update, as I think most people would be interested in this, but I'd hate to say I told you so on this...

But our 'Justice Minister' Don Morgan is not letting go of the issue, as he's announced that the government is looking into the creation of separate marriage commissioner lists.

This is similar to a practice in Ontario, where a couple applying for their marriage license indicates the sexual orientation of themselves and their partner; heterosexuals and homosexuals then receive different marriage commissioner lists based on the commissioners who have agreed to perform all weddings and those who have refused.

Essentially, they claim this is 'constitutional' because service isn't being denied...Though one of the judges has said that a separate list system likely wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge if someone brought a case forward.

I'd also like to go on the record and say that Ontario and Saskatchewan are quite different; primarily in size.

I wasn't able to find direct numbers, but it seems to me that Ontario often has more than 1 marriage commissioner representing a region in that province; whereas Saskatchewan (which has dozens of small towns and communities) might not have the same luxury.

As such, since marriage commissioners tend to only have authority in the jurisdiction in which they were appointed (say Saskatoon, for example, and provided I'm reading this correctly); gay couples in small-town Saskatchewan could still be refused service by their local marriage commissioners, though indirectly, through this list system.

So, why should gay couples have to shell out 'gas money' and other extra charges to drive to an area where a marriage commissioner will marry them?

Like I said, I doubted the government would let go of this, and hopefully, someone shoots down this idea quickly.

 

[gsdx]

This is similar to a practice in Ontario, where a couple applying for their marriage license indicates the sexual orientation of themselves and their partner; heterosexuals and homosexuals then receive different marriage commissioner lists based on the commissioners who have agreed to perform all weddings and those who have refused.

I did not know this.

 

[bankside]

If this kind of "exception of conscience" is allowed, I assure you it will be pushed to the point of unworkability. If you want a role in the administration of civil law, you have to take that role regardless of your chosen religious tenets.