Traditional Definition of Marriage Constitutional: Legal Expert

Today’s National Post (subscription required) reports that Eugene Meehan, a former national president of the Canadian Bar Association and well-published legal scholar, has argued that restricting marriage to a union of man and woman would be constitutional.

According to Meehan, C-38 undermines religious freedoms as well as federal-provincial boundaries because it’s up to the provinces to sacralize marriage and the bill does not protect individuals and religious groups from provincial laws:

Mr. Meehan also casts serious doubt on the federal government’s assurances those who do not support same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs will be protected.

“A same-sex couple denied the right to hold their wedding ceremony in a particular hall could lodge a complaint before the relevant provincial human rights commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, even though the refusal was based on religious grounds,” Mr. Meehan stated in his opinion.

He also noted that Manitoba recently informed marriage commissioners their licenses would be revoked if they did not perform same-sex marriages.

This decision suggests that Lorne Gunter was correct to suggest that while C-38 only (weakly) protects religious officials, but no one else.

Lawyer Gerry Chipeur, representing a gropu of lawyers, is distributing a summary of the legal opinion to every MP and Senator.