John Rapley - Foreign Focus WHAT WITH the controversy in the Anglican Church over the appointment of openly-gay bishops, homosexuality is very much in the media spotlight just now. The issue is not novel to Canada, where some churches have been wrestling with the role of homosexuals in ministry for years now.
However, the matter moved outside church walls this summer when the federal government announced it would legally recognise gay marriages while enabling churches to opt out of performing them becoming only the third country in the world to do so. Gay rights activists cheered, and American homosexuals in particular were quick to declare that they would cross the northern border to tie the knot. The point seemed especially poignant in light of the fact that the trend in the US currently runs counter to the Canadian one, with American legislators discussing enshrining the traditional conception of marriage in law.
The announcement by the Canadian government is seen by many as a parting gesture by outgoing Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Mr. Chretien has agreed to demit office next year, and seems keen to cement his place in the Canadian history books. However, there was more than personal calculation behind the decision.
MATTER FORCED
The matter was forced by a series of court rulings which, in interpreting the Charter of Rights, judged that the rights to equality of gay people were violated by their inability to marry. Rather than appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government decided just to change the law. Even in Canada, which prides itself on civility to a fault, controversy was bound to erupt, and it has. Many churches decried the decision. While Canadians are less religious than the Americans, they are more religious than the Europeans who are similarly tolerant on this issue. Both the current prime minister and his likely successor are Catholics. While they have said they will not take the advice of their bishops, other members of parliament will be more likely to listen to their constituents.
SPEAKING OUT
Nor, significantly, is it only the churches which are objecting. Leaders of other religious groups, including Muslims and Hindus, have joined arms with their Christian counterparts to speak out against the proposed legislation. Given current immigration trends, the share of the Canadian population that is drawn from such religiously conservative groups is set to increase, possibly pointing to future political trends.
Beyond moral objectors, many in the Canadian political elite are unhappy with the way the matter has been put on the agenda. Canada has had a Charter of Rights modelled on the American bill of rights, and so entrenched in the difficult-to-revise constitution for barely a generation. So, unlike in the US, where judges have been "making laws" for two centuries, Canadians are not yet fully accustomed to the idea that the law can effectively be written by a handful of men in robes. Thus, even some who support the principle of gay marriage are unhappy that the courts have made it law. For the sake of principle, they would like the federal parliament to take control of the political agenda and, if need be, override the Charter of Rights (something Canadian legislatures, unlike their American counterparts, can do) in order to assert parliament's sole right to make the law. This issue will not make or break any political careers, but it is sure to fester. A revolt is brewing in the caucus of the ruling Liberal Party. While the prime minister maintains he will forge ahead, he is also allowing his MPs a free vote. Defeat of the bill is thus not out of the question.
A compromise would involve drafting a law that gave gay couples substantially the same legal rights as married spouses, while still declaring marriage to be strictly a heterosexual union. Public opinion polls suggest this would be a popular solution, and it would probably placate most of the Liberal caucus. But it is unclear that it would satisfy the courts. It is equally questionable that Mr. Chretien would be willing to go so far as to override the constitution. Thus, his real political legacy may be how skilfully he can manoeuvre through the factions of his caucus before he rides into the sunset.
John Rapley is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
