The political battles on this
continue here.
"Alberta Premier Ralph Klein placed his considerable political weight in opposition to same-sex marriage Friday as part of a renewed push that includes a call for a national referendum on the issue.
Mr. Klein said that most Albertans oppose gays and lesbians marrying.
“...I don't know what the percentage of the majority is, but the majority of people are opposed to same-sex marriage. And I represent the people of this province,” he said.
He told a Calgary television station that while his province doesn't have a lot of legal options, it still has political avenues, including urging people to write to their federal politicians.
“Also, there is the alternative to have a national referendum on this,” he said. A clutch of federal Conservative Party MPs also called for such a vote, sources told The Globe and Mail.
However, Mr. Klein said his party won't adopt a formal strategy until he consults with his caucus as early as next Wednesday.
“I'm thoroughly disappointed,” Mr. Klein said of the Supreme Court decision on Thursday that allows Ottawa to go ahead with legislation to allow same-sex marriage. “There is very little legally we can do about it, but there is a lot politically.”
Mr. Klein's remarks could prove to be another headache for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who is facing division within his caucus on the matter. During the recent election campaign, Mr. Klein's musings about radically altering the Alberta medicare system became a political problem for Mr. Harper, leaving his Conservative Party trying to fend off Liberal accusations that it would privatize health care.
Sources said the issue of a national referendum on same-sex marriage was raised in the party's weekly caucus meeting on Wednesday, when members met to discuss how the Conservatives should react to the top court's decision.
Although Mr. Harper — and, sources say, a majority of the caucus — is discouraging the idea of a referendum, the mere fact the discussion took place demonstrates the internal difficulties Mr. Harper is facing.
A source told The Globe and Mail that the caucus is discussing such matters as: “If the bill fails, what's our position? Is it protection of religious freedom or is it something more dramatic, like proposing a referendum or a constitutional amendment? It's still [a live issue].”
Sources said individuals who support the referendum idea include Saskatchewan's David Anderson and Maurice Vellacott, and British Columbia's Russ Hiebert. None of the three could be reached for comment Friday.
One source said that Mr. Harper told caucus members he would prefer to limit the party's position to supporting the right of churches to refuse to marry gay couples if it violates their religious principles. The source said Mr. Harper is “lukewarm” to the idea of a referendum.
“Stephen would definitely favour the first, but there is definitely support in the caucus for the second.”
Mr. Harper is also reluctant to invoke the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to get around lower court decisions that have allowed for gay marriage in several provinces.
“Politically, we are aware of the sensitivities of using that,” the source said.
At most, a handful of Tories plan to vote for the legislation that the Liberals intend to introduce in the new year. They include MPs James Moore, Bev Oda and Belinda Stronach.
Ms. Stronach said Friday that the party has not yet reached a consensus on what position it will take after the vote.
However, she welcomed the right to a free vote in the House.
“Each individual has the right to decide what they want to do, based on their values, based on the views of their constituents,” she said. “As to what happens in the aftermath, we haven't arrived on a consensus on the various scenarios that could arise.”
But the Conservatives were not alone in experiencing internal division.
Several Liberals have also said they will break with the majority of their party on the bill.
MP John McKay, who is against gay marriage, said the issue has become divisive, with opponents being made to feel like bigots.
However, Mr. McKay said he would not call for use of the notwithstanding clause to retain the traditional definition of marriage. “I just find that that's a crude instrument. I can't bring myself to doing that.”
Some legal experts say, however, that the only way to go back to the old law would be to invoke the clause.
In Alberta, meanwhile, a group of gays and lesbians began a legal challenge against the province's Marriage Act.
The province maintains that while it can't use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to get around a federal same-sex marriage law, its own law remains on the books.
“The essence of the challenge is going to be discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Murray Billet of the group Canadians for Equal Marriage in Edmonton.
Edmonton lawyer Julie Lloyd said it is too early to say when the challenge will be filed.
There is a slim chance the province may change its position next week after the Alberta Tories meet to discuss how the government will respond to the issue, she said.
“I would be happy to hear from the government of Alberta that they will start issuing [marriage] licences,” she said.
“The information is to the contrary, so it would appear that we don't have any choice but to bring a challenge to the law.”
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
