On November 9, 2006, more than 40 church and religious leaders signed a joint Declaration on Marriage. Since then, a number of other religious leaders from different faith groups have also signed on. The level of cooperation leading up to the announcement in Ottawa's National Press Gallery was truly an historical event. The expression of unity, at the highest levels of leadership in the various faith groups, has happened rarely in Canada. And, if current trends in the media and public denunciations of religious belief are indicators of what is coming, it will be imperative that religious leaders continue to stick together.

(L to R) Ken Bellous, Baptist Convention of Ontario & Quebec; Father John Jillions, Orthodox Church of America; Bruce Clemenger, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada; Archbishop Marcel Gervais, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops at a press conference announcing the signing of the Marriage Declaration.

The passage of Bill C-38, and the accompanying political correctness arising from it, is probably the most significant contributor to the marginalization of religion in modern times. Take the Declaration of Marriage as an example. The Declaration is a public expression of religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Subsequently some emails sent to the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) castigated the religious leaders for even daring to express their opinion in public. In their view, there is no room in our society for public declarations of belief, at least when it comes to religion.

Rock star Elton John recently called for the banning of all organized religions because he says they contribute to anti-gay sentiments. It seems he thinks it would be easier to ban all dissention from his personally held views rather than enter into meaningful dialogue.

In relation to the marriage debate, I am hesitant to agree with the Globe and Mail's November 17th, editorial which stated, "It is time to let the issue go." All religions, who believe sincerely and deeply that marriage is between a man and a woman, may now be negatively impacted by the decision to change the definition of marriage, if they are inappropriately viewed as being bigoted (as John Ibbitson suggested) or intolerant. This is why we can't just let the issue go. Rather, it is imperative that we discuss the long-term consequences to radical changes to our social institutions, especially when religious minorities in our country our negatively impacted by those decisions.

For instance, the editorial criticizes the Prime Minister for feeling "beholden" to religious conservatives. Following this statement is a quote from the South African Court decision that granted same-sex marriage in that country which said, "The hallmark of an open and democratic society is its capacity to accommodate and manage difference of intensely held world views and lifestyles in a reasonable and fair manner." Surely, religious adherents have every right to freedom of expression and access to government that is enjoyed by the rest of society, do they not? One would hope that believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is a legitimate viewpoint in public debate and does not equate to a belief in apartheid.

The Globe and Mail stated that "the logic behind gay marriage is unassailable." That is a blatant attempt to cut off public debate on the issue. From the viewpoint of many of the world's religions, that marriage is between a man and a woman is unassailable. How are these divergent viewpoints reconciled?

"As different faith communities, we came together to present to Parliament and society as a whole, our common view on marriage," said Bruce Clemenger, president of the EFC, during the above-mentioned press conference. "As communities of faith, we would welcome an opportunity to participate in reasoned and constructive public dialogue concerning the nature of marriage." This is certainly a different tone than the ones mentioned earlier.

As illustrated in the negative emails, Elton John's comments and the Globe and Mail editorial, the age of debate and public dialogue may be a thing of the past, unless new attitudes are adopted, as my friend who writes the Burkean Canuck describes in his article, "Authoritarian Liberalism."

Unlike the harm principle which has extended itself to eliminating from free speech protection anything that might offend, extending protection to discourse would open up the debate. And requiring that order be maintained would prevent the bully—including authoritarian liberals—from silencing unpopular views. It would require, instead, that if you didn't like the view that was expressed in discourse, that you wait your turn and counter it … in more discourse.

Discourse, is of course the reasonable course of action in societal debates. However, it seems that those who disagree that marriage is between a man and a woman, are unwilling even to bring up the subject, and even more unwilling to consider the consequences of shutting the debate down. When defending minorities' Charter rights, there can be unintended consequences for other minority groups. Increasingly in Canada, the unintended consequences are limits on freedom of religion, or freedom of expression, some of which, as mentioned, are already being felt.

Douglas Cryer is Director of Public Policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Used with permission. Copyright © 2006 Christianity.ca.