Saskatchewan gov’t tells commissioners they must perform same-sex marriages

Government declines to appeal recent court decision


The provincial government in Saskatchewan has decided to not appeal a unanimous court decision obliging the province marriage commissioners to perform same-sex marriages no matter their religious objections. Justice Minister Don Morgan says he’d hoped to find a way to accommodate those who oppose gay marriage after the court ruled they could no longer refuse to marry same-sex couples, but concedes his government has “not found any workable options” that would allow for it. “The Court of Appeal has clearly ruled that civil marriage commissioners must perform ceremonies for couples who meet the legal requirements,” Morgan says. “That includes same-sex couples.”

Saskatoon StarPhoenix

Filed under:

Saskatchewan gov’t tells commissioners they must perform same-sex marriages

  1. Why would the Government of Saskatchewan want to accomodate someone who wishes to discriminate on religious grounds? Good for the court for its ruling and even though the Gov. of Sask. had to be pushed into it, at least they're doing the right thing in the end.

  2. Of course its unconstitutional, they're government employees. If they want to decide on a case-by-case basis, they can become religious ministers. Otherwise, surely they're obligated to perform their job.

    • To a large extent this is the case. If an employee has sincere religious beliefs the employer is expected to accommodate them up to the point of undue hardship. The thorny issue here is that allowing employees to engage their religious beliefs resulted in discrimination against others.

      • Certainly this runs into the exclusion against bone-fide occupational requirements?

  3. This is completely insane. I have no real case against same-sex marriage except that it is just the thin edge of the wedge. Soon enough, the good commissioners of Saskatchewan will be forced to allow left-handers and red heads to marry and we will never be rid of those recessive genes!

    • Unless everybody with those genes dies without offspring, you're never going to be rid of them anyways. That doesn't ruin the joke though does it?

  4. Its just one piece of an agenda. How long before the courts tell religious institutions who they can and can't marry(Sorry, Catholic Church but you can only marry who the Canadian government says you can.)? Originally, the gay movement was about living your lifestyle free of harrassment. Since then, it has transformed into an organization which seems to want to change all institutions to give them a pro-homosexual flavor. Its only a question of time before being a non-progressive christian is a crime in Canada. Fascinating isn't it that Canadians are nowhere near committed to the rights of the unborn as they are to the gay community? The subject of unborn children and our so-called sense of Canadian compassion slips away. Our media speaks out for the rights of the gay community but ignores a community(the unborn) that can't speak for itself. Maybe the gay community should make that an issue? Or are only prospective heterosexual babies being aborted?

    • You do know that case after case has stated that churches aren't forced to marry gay people, right?

      • I believe Ward's emphasis was questioning future directions this may be taken. And also throwing in a red herring, but that's besides the point ;)

  5. At some level, this issue is about partisan gamesmanship… i.e. what fundraising structure is best for my guys right now. However, at a deeper level it is about whether we view political parties to be public or private entities. While it is important that they remain independent of government, I find the assertion that they are private entities rather absurd even though a technical argument for that can be made based on their legal standing outside of government.

Sign in to comment.