Commentary
Blurring the Separation Between Church and State
The debate over the question of gay marriage in the House of Commons has provided certain forces with an opportunity to push their agenda of further eroding the separation between church and state. The most illogical arguments are being advanced, including a definition of marriage as a religious sacrament and a suggestion from Prime Minister-in-Waiting Paul Martin that the church be given control over all marriage, with all other unions recognized with a different name. Such a move would represent a significant step backward for all Canadians.
Separation between the church and state is a fundamental democratic right that was first affirmed in Western Europe during the Age of Enlightenment. Medieval Europe had been ruled by a nobility enthroned and maintained by Christian religious orders, with the vast majority of the population living in abject squalor. All fields of life were dominated by the dogmas of the Church, and anyone who dared challenge these dogmas was exiled, tortured or killed. The struggle for the recognition of human rights and democratic rights arose specifically in opposition to the rule of the churches and separation between church and state became the basis upon which modern constitutions were drafted.
In Canada, as in other European colonies, this separation was blurred. Following the British victory over the French on the Plains of Abraham, the British decided to accommodate the Catholic Church and enacted special protections for Roman Catholics. In exchange, the Church played a pivotal role in destroying the nationalist movements that swept Quebec at the beginning of the 19th century. At the time of Confederation, special recognition for Catholics was again included in the constitution, and remains in place today. When the constitution was patriated in the 1980s, the newly created Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognized the supremacy of God in its preamble and equality of religions. This failure to clearly separate church from state has meant that non-Roman Catholic religious groups have been able to use the equality provisions of the Charter to demand special status as well, including funding for private religious schools and tax-free status.
The Catholic Church and some evangelical Christian groups are now using the debate over gay marriage to further erode the separation of church and state. High-ranking Catholic officials, for example, have threatened politicians and challenged the right of Parliament and the courts to enact laws. Evangelical groups have also argued they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on the body politic. Different politicians have lined up behind these groups, claming the issue is one of morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Canada, marriage is recognized as a civil arrangement. Whether there is a role for religion in a marriage ceremony is a matter of individual choice. However, there is not a single Canadian province or territory that will recognize the validity of a religious marriage (or divorce) if it is not registered with the state.
The agenda of the religious right in this debate is clear - to extend its power base in a country where there is very little popular support for its positions. As Stockwell Day found out when he tried to win electoral support on the basis of his fundamentalist beliefs, most Canadians view the religious right, which gets its marching orders from evangelical groups in the U.S., with deep suspicion.
In the U.S., the religious right has had much more success, and it now dominates a significant part of the Republican Party's power structure. Under the current Bush administration, the federal government is turning over hundreds of millions of dollars to fundamentalist religious organizations for the administration and delivery of social programs. This is all being done in the name of restoring so-called American values. Canadians must remain vigilant over attempts to impose these "American values" on the Canadian body politic.