Estevan-Ed Komarnicki, MP, today said the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the federal government’s reference questions pertaining to the legality of a proposed Bill to allow for same sex-marriages falls within the jurisdiction of Parliament.

“The Court said today that the federal government has the jurisdiction to legislation the civil definition of marriage,” said Komarnicki. “Although it stated that in its opinion the civil definition of marriage could be expanded to include same-sex couples, it is still up to Parliamentarians to decide that. The Supreme Court also stated that churches and religious officials have broad protection under the Charter of Rights and could not be coerced by the state to perform marriages counter to their beliefs.”

“Protecting religious freedom means more than just protecting the rights of churches and other religious bodies to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. It also means preserving the right of churches to publicly preach and teach their beliefs related to marriage; preserving the right of religious schools to hire staff who respect their doctrines and practices; protecting justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners who do not want to solemnize marriages that are not in accordance with their beliefs and preserving their charitable and other economic benefits as public institutions,” Komarnicki said.

The Supreme Court however, declined to answer the question, submitted belatedly by the government, of whether the traditional definition of marriage in the common law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“It is interesting that in its reasons not to answer that question, the Court says that the government has already made up its mind on the matter and would be introducing legislation regardless of what the Court ruled, so it would not be constructive to give an answer at this point,” Komarnicki said. “Additionally, since the government failed to appeal lower court rulings regarding same sex marriages, thereby giving the rulings legitimacy, thousands of people claimed their newfound right to marry. To take back those rights would be an injustice, the court said. This is another example of how the Liberal government has manipulated this matter towards its own predetermined outcome.”

“Liberal, Bloc and NDP MPs blocked Rob Moore’s Private Members’ Bill enshrining the traditional definition of marriage, because they said it was unconstitutional. Now, with the Court’s ruling, we now see clearly that these Members were merely expressing their own opinion that this important Bill should not be debated in Parliament. Our Party will grant its Members a free vote on this matter. For the sake of democracy, this issue ought to be debated freely and openly in Parliament,” Komarnicki concluded.