Angry in the Great White North

From the Globe and Mail:

After tying the knot for more than 3,400 people, Orville Nichols expects to become the first person in Canada to be fired for refusing to marry a gay couple.

Mr. Nichols, a 69-year-old marriage commissioner from Regina, says performing same-sex marriages does not accord with his religious and personal beliefs. And Saskatchewan Justice Minister Frank Quennell made it clear late last year that refusal is not an option for civic officials in his province.

Mr. Nichols got in trouble when he told a same-sex couple that he could not officiate at their marriage. Did they ask for another official? Of course not!

The couple, who refused to talk about the case with The Globe and Mail, subsequently filed a complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and now Mr. Nichols's job is on the line. But he says he will not go down without a fight.

Now C-38 is not law yet, but everyone knows that it has provisions to protect those who are morally opposed to same-sex marriage. But some provinces have already given notice that those provisions are meaningless:

Many, including Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, have found middle-ground solutions.

But some provinces, including Saskatchewan, have taken a hard line. Mr. Quennell, who did not return calls last week and is on vacation this week, issued a statement late last year saying marriage commissioners are expected to follow the law and could lose their jobs if they do not marry same-sex couples.

But what about the soon-to-be law?

Apparently it has all the force of an overcooked noodle:

Because the solemnization of marriage is within provincial jurisdiction, [Irwin Cotler] has appealed to his counterparts in the provinces and territories to make provisions for civic officials who don't want to perform a same-sex marriage.

That's it? He asked really, really nicely? That's the protection the federal government has promised for people who cannot officiate at a same-sex marriage?

Here's what the bill says:

The Legislative Committee heard from a number of witnesses opposing Bill C-38 that a primary concern from their perspective related to the bill’s inadequate protection of religious freedom, and of expressive freedom based on religious belief, for both religious institutions and officials as well as individuals. The absence of parliamentary authority to remedy this perceived failing owing to the constitutional division of powers was seen by these witnesses as particularly problematic. Acknowledging that the solemnization of marriage and other practical contexts in which the guarantee of freedom of religion is engaged largely fall under provincial jurisdiction, some were of the view that the bill could and should enhance the level of protection available in respect of areas of federal jurisdiction. To address this perceived deficiency, the government proposed, and the Committee adopted, a new provision under which,

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Here's what it means. Nothing.

Oh yeah. C-38 won't change anything. Religious institutions and people with strongly held religious beliefs will be protected. What's the big deal?

No wonder gay couples are laughing and running to the human rights tribunals in order to teach these homophobic idiots a lesson about who's boss. Certainly it's not Irwin Cotler:

This is clearly a source of some frustration for Mr. Cotler.

If there is a conflict between religion and equality rights, he said "there is a principle of reasonable accommodation. . . . One should be able to find a way of accommodating those who for reasons of conscience feel they don't want to perform a same-sex marriage."

Sounds like Irwin Cotler is learning just how much "reasonable accommodation" Canadians can expect from the gay rights movement. Funny, but I'm pretty sure he was warned this was going to happen.

But then he knew better than all the rest of us, didn't he?