OTTAWA, May 20, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In oral submissions before a House of Commons sub-committee on same-sex “marriage” Bill C-38 Wednesday, Ruth Ross, Executive Director of Christian Legal Fellowship, made it clear that the rights of conscience and religion are at risk if Bill C-38 – legislation to expand the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex unions – is enacted as law.
Ross pointed out that “the wording of section 3 on religious freedom is found wanting.” She goes on to explain that, because the provinces will decide the fate of religious officials, the federal government can offer no guarantees that they would not be forced to perform same-sex “weddings,” as commissioners in several provinces have already been forced to do.
“Protection for religious individuals and groups is eroded when there is a ‘collision of rights’ and a ‘collision of dignities’ with the rights of homosexuals,” Ross explained in her submission. “The Marriage Reference said this collision would have to be decided on a case by case basis. This will result in a real threat to religious freedom, if the case law to date is any indication.” Ross cites decisions against Chris Kempling, Scott Brockie, and Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary as examples.
Ross warned, “If, as a so-called act of inclusion, same-sex marriage is established as a norm, the vast majority of cultures and religions in this country will find themselves excluded from the social mainstream.”
Ross reiterated Mr. Justice Gonthier’s statement from the Chamberlain v. Surrey School District judgement, “It is a feeble notion of pluralism that transforms ‘tolerance’ into ‘mandated approval or acceptance.” She added, “The great risk is that the emphasis on tolerance will be used as a mark for obliterating dissent on controversial questions such as the morality of certain sexual activities.”
Ross emphasized that the Supreme Court’s answers in the Marriage Reference had not mandated the redefinition of marriage and that the risks to the physical, moral and religious welfare of children were too high to engage in this huge social experiment.
In conclusion, Ross stated emphatically that CLF strongly objects to Bill C-38, on the basis of both its content and the fact that it is technically flawed.
See the compete Christian Legal Fellowship submission here.
tv