Quantcast


Twitter icon


Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
-Christian definition
 -Shared beliefs
 -Handling change
 -Bible topics
 -Bible inerrancy
 -Bible harmony
 -Interpret the Bible
 -Persons
 -Beliefs & creeds
 -Da Vinci code
 -Revelation, 666
 -Denominations
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment

Same-sex marriage

Homosexuality
Human rights
Gays in the military
Nudism
Origins
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking
Stem cells
Transexuality
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Conflict between marriage commissioner &
same-sex couple in Saskatchewan, Canada

Submissions by the Tribunal and
Attorney General. Conclusions. Lawsuit.horizontal rule
Sponsored link.


horizontal rule

Submission by the Human Rights Commission:

The Commission had filed a brief of law with the Tribunal. It said in part:
"It is submitted that Mr. Nichols' denial of a civil marriage ceremony to M.J. on the basis of M.J.'s sexual orientation is a violation of Section 12 of the [Human Rights] Code. Mr. Nichols religious views cannot afford him a defence to that denial. M.J. has no duty to accommodate Mr. Nichols. Any balancing of Mr. Nichols religious rights with M.J.'s equality rights and right to non-discriminatory public services must take into account that civil marriages were specifically designed to allow citizens to be married without regard to religious beliefs. To allow the character of that service to be changed by an individual, contravenes the purpose of the legislation. The Code protections may then vary depending upon the belief system of the service provider. Mr. Nichols defence of religious freedom is not made out in a contextual analysis of the purpose for civil marriage ceremonies."
horizontal rule

Submission by the Attorney General:

With the consent of all parties, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan was recognized as an intervener. In his brief to the Tribunal, he stated:
"The Attorney General's basic point in these proceedings is that a marriage commissioner such as the Respondent is a public official, providing a statutory service to the public. Like all public officials, he must provide his services consistently with the statute under which he is appointed, The Marriage Act, 1995. He must also comply with the Code and the Charter, which require that governments provide their services without discrimination, and without requiring applicants to satisfy a religious test."

"The Attorney General also submits that the nature of the service in issue, a civil marriage ceremony, is of fundamental importance to the analysis. Under The Marriage Act, 1995, the basic purpose of a civil marriage ceremony is to ensure that couples who are lawfully eligible to marry can do so without meeting any religious test or qualifications. Allowing individual marriage commissioners to refuse their services based on religious objections to a marriage would undercut the basic purpose of the civil marriage ceremony. The entire point of civil marriage is that a couple does not have to satisfy the religious requirements of the official performing the marriage. Allowing individual marriage commissioners to refuse their services based on religious requirements would transform the civil marriage ceremony into a quasi-religious one, contrary to the basic purpose of civil marriage"
horizontal rule

Conclusions of the tribunal:

  • Was the refusal of the marriage commissioner discrimination? Tribunal Member: Anil K. Pandila, Q.C. concluded that he was unable to agree with the respondent that there was no denial of service to the couple because they were able to be married on their chosen date by another commissioner. He concluded that there was a denial of service '...  as the evidence clearly points out that the Respondent refused to provide the service on the basis of his religious beliefs'."

  • Should the respondent's religious beliefs about SSM be accommodated? Pandila agreed with the submissions of both the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General. He noted that the former concluded:
    "The only words that can be used to solemnize marriages by marriage commissioners do not include any reference to religious principles. .... As the marriage commissioner is a public official acting on behalf of the state, he is required to provide services to ensure that all persons who meet the legal requirements for marriage can marry without regard to his or her personal characteristics. According to the Commission, the service must be designed in such a way that individuals entitled to receive the service have equal benefit of the law and are treated in a non-discriminatory matter."
    He noted that the Attorney General concluded that:
    "As a public official appointed under a statute, a marriage commissioner's duty is to determine whether a couple is eligible for a civil marriage ceremony based solely on the legal criteria: The federal substantive law, dealing with capacity to marry, and the provincial procedural law dealing with the process for a valid marriage ceremony. A marriage commissioner cannot effectively create additional eligibility requirements, based on the marriage commissioner's personal religious or moral beliefs about the morality or suitability of a proposed marriage. To do so would be to allow the Marriage Commissioner to refuse to apply the law based on an irrelevant consideration."
    Pandila noted that if marriage commissioners were allowed follow their religious beliefs and deny same-sex couples the right to marry, then other commissioners would deny marriage to inter-faith couples or interracial couples.

  • Pandila issued his report on 2008-MAY-23. He awarded the sum of $2,500 to the Complainant and directed that "... the Respondent cease contravening s.12 of the Code." 1
horizontal rule

Marriage commissioner sues Saskatchewan government:

Orville Nichols launched a lawsuit against the government in an attempt to change its policies so that marriage commissioners could refuse to marry couples on religious grounds. He filed a statement of claim in late 2008-NOV.

According to Focus on the Family Canada:

"The suit alleges that the province’s Saskatchewan Party government had broken a commitment made when it was in Opposition not to force marriage commissioners to perform same-sex 'marriages' against their will. 'We find this quite concerning. The government must respect freedom of religion,' Nichols’ lawyer, Philip Fourie, told the StarPhoenix. '[People] in the public service must be able to exercise their convictions'." 2
Conservative religious groups often place the word marriage in quotation marks when same-sex marriages are being discussed. This emphasizes that they do not feel that a SSM is a valid marriage.
horizontal rule

Commissioner Nichols loses appeal:

Orville Nichols appealed the Tribunal's ruling. The the basis of his case was that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Canada's constitution -- should protect his religious beliefs to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Justice Janet McMurty of the Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Nichol's argument in a 39-page decision dated 2009-JUL-17. She concluding that the human rights tribunal was:

"... correct in its finding that the commission had established discrimination and that accommodation of Mr. Nichols' religious beliefs was not required."

Human Rights Commission manager, Rebecca McLellan, was pleased with the court decision. She said:

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code." 3

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. "M.J. v. Nichols," Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, 2008-MAY-23, at: http://www.saskhrt.ca/
  2. "Marriage commissioner sues Saskatchewan government," Today's Family News, 2008-DEC-03.
  3. "Commissioner who refused to marry same-sex couple loses appeal," CBC News, 2009-JUL-23, at: http://www.cbc.ca/
horizontal rule
Site navigation:

 Home > LGBT > Same-sex marriage > Canada > Saskatchewan > Commissioner . here

horizontal rule

Copyright © 2004 to 2011 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2004-OCT-11
Latest update: 2011-FEB-28
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or go to the Sask. marriage commissioner conflict menu, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

 

 
Sponsored links: