Free to Marry

An open letter to Premier Ralph Klein

ev · July 1, 2003

Hon. Ralph Klein

Premier of Alberta
307, 10800 — 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B7

Howdy, Mr. Klein.

I am Evan Spence, co-editor and publisher of the weekly Internet serial pintday.org. We publish weekly editorial content on whichever contemporary issues are simmering at the time. By now you may be passingly familiar with our work, as we’ve contacted you twice previously. Once in regard to the public funding of Canadian hockey teams (“pro”), and once relating to your tabling of Bill 12 concerning teachers’ right to strike (“con”).

I’m afraid this third letter also falls into the con side of affairs.

The hot topic of late is the impending and somewhat abrupt legalization of gay marriages in Canada. I know you’re familiar with the topic, Mr. Klein, as you’ve already publicly pledged to use the constitution’s bizarre Notwithstanding Clause to exempt Alberta from compliance with any new federal laws.

My understanding is that this isn’t actually a legitimate use of the Notwithstanding Clause, which was really only designed to allow Québec to do whatever the heck they want. Regardless, your plan is now to not challenge the federal definition of marriage, but simply to refrain from issuing marriage certificates to gay couples. (The definition of marriage being firmly in federal constitutional territory, and the solemnization of the ceremony being in yours.)

Bad idea. Here’s why:

You will immediately create an export market for the registration of gay marriages. By virtue of the federal jurisdiction, gays will still be legally married couples in Alberta, even if they don’t register there. People will be cross-border shopping in Saskatchewan for their marriage licences. Mr. Klein, I have relations in border-straddling Lloydminster, and I assure you that—unlike same-sex marriages—this is truly against the laws of nature.
You will create an incentive for gay couples to move out of, or stay out of Alberta. This is simply lousy economics. Gays are an indeterminate percentage of the population, but they are wage earners like everyone else, and they often have greater percentages of disposable incoming owing—I can only assume—to the fewer numbers of dependent children they care for. Why wouldn’t we want this segment of the population in Alberta working for local companies and spending their money in our economy?
The argument that legally married gays will then be able to adopt children (they will), and that this is somehow bad is a complete red herring. The concept of the conventional nuclear family has long since been blown to bits. If you use this arguement as justification to prevent gay couples from marrying, they you should consistently use it to ban other non-traditional family arrangements: single parenthood, arranged marriages, unions between couples with large age differences, and even couples that don’t plan on having children. What makes the so-called traditional family so suitable for child-rearing anyway? As Keanu Reeves said in the classic Steve Martin comedy Parenthood, “They’ll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.” And that was not a thinly veiled euphemism for homosexuals. The determining factor to judge someone’s suitability for adoptive parenthood should be just that: suitability. Not some bureaucrat’s level of squeamishness.
The same unassailable logic that gives Albertans Sunday Shopping, beer sales on Canada Day, and a deregulated electric system must also apply to gay marriages. It is not for the government to decide.

If your ploy was to keep Alberta in the national limelight, it has worked tremendously. (“Bad press is press just the same.”) No news article or broadcast on the subject of legally sanctioned gay marriages in Canada can end without mention of Alberta attempting to block it. The publicity is great, and I love its In-Your-Face, Ottawa message, but this is just reinforcing the sort of hayseed stereotypes the national media like to employ to suppress the regions. Please stop: it has nothing to do with the Alberta Advantage.

Mr. Klein, your absolute best trait as a politician is your ability to see your mistakes, and change your mind. Here is a classic opportunity to prove that once more. Think of the grisly alternative: drive through gay marriage booths on the Saskatchewan border.

Yours truly,
Evan Spence

Tuesday, July 1, 2003
PD DCVI

Ralph’s Reply

July 30, 2003

Dear Mr. Spence:

On behalf of Premier Klein, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your June 24, 2003 letter.

The Premier has taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your comments to the Honourable Dave Hancock, Minister of Justice and Attorney Gerneral, and asked that he provide you with a response on behalf of the Government of Alberta. I am sure you will be hearing from the Minister as soon as possible.

Thank you for forwarding your views to the Premier.

Sincerely,

James Davis
Deputy Chief of Staff

cc: Honourable Dave Hancock, Q.C., Don Tannas, MLA, Highwood

Letter From The Minister

September 12, 2003

Dear Mr. spence

The Honourable Ralph Klein, Premier, has forwarded a copy of your recent letter regarding same-sex marriage for my attention.

Alberta is very conscious of the importance of issues surrounding families and, in particular, issues arising from the application of Alberta laws to same-sex and common law couples.

The Alberta Government has declared its support for the current law pertaining to marriage that allows marriage only between a man and a woman. As you may be aware, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed the Marriage Amendment Act on March 15, 2000. This amendment to the Marriage Act states that the word “marriage” in the Marriage Act means a marriage between a man and a woman. The amendment also declares that the Marriage Act will operate notwithstanding any violation of certain rights and freedoms protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Over the years, Courts and lawmakers have recognized the need for laws that allow people in committed relationships outside of marriage to deal with the financial and property issues they face. In Alberta, we worked to ensure our laws clearly outline the responsibilities people assume when they enter into a financially and emotionally interdependent relationship.

On December 3, 2002, the Legislature passed the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act and it was proclaimed in force June 1, 2003. This legislation balances the desire of Albertans to protect and promote the concept of marriage as an institution of stability in our society with an understanding of the need for fairness in access and application of our law to those who choose non-marital interdependent relationships. The Adult Interdependent Relationships Act also provides a common, well-understood definition of spouse that applies to all Alberta legislation. The Act states that the term “spouse” refers exclusively to the husband or wife of a married person.

As you known, a recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a same-sex couple in Ontario could marry. This decision upheld a lower Court’s ruling in Ontario that federal marriage laws are unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal, however, as part of their decision, changed the definition of marriage immediately rather than give the federal government sufficient time to enact the change as other lower Courts had done.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal had earlier ruled in favour of same-sex marriages, but initially suspended that ruling until July 2004 to permit the federal government to draft new legislation. However, on July 8, 2003 that province’s Corut of Appeal amended that order and lifted the suspension, thus permitting same-sex marriage.

Court of Appeal decisions in Ontario and British Columbia have reformulated the common law definition of marriage as “the alwful union of two persons, to the exclusion of all others.” It is important to note that Court decisions from other provinces are not binding on Alberta.

I wrote to the Federal Minister of Justice on June 11 and July 4, 2003 urging him to appeal both the Ontario and British Columbia devisions and to consult with the provinces before framing the terms of the Supreme Corut of Canada reference.

On July 17, the federal government unveiled draft legislation that adopts the definition created by the Ontario and British Columbia Courts. This Bill has been referenced to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion along with questions about jurisdiction over marriage law, the constitutionality of the draft Bill, and whether or not the religious freedom guarantees in the Constitution protect relgious officials who refuse to sanctify same-sex marriages. These important steps were taken without any prior consultation with the provinces.

By not appealing either the Ontario or British Columbia decisions and instead drafting new legislation redefining marriage, the federal government has failed to address a fundamental questions that should be brought before Parliament: Is the traditional definition of marriage important to our society today and—if it violates the Charter of Rights—should that definition be retained notwithstanding the Charter of Rights?

Alberta will intervene at the Supreme Court on the federal governments’s reference and we expect to speak to the issue of jurisdiction. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the jurisdiction to pass laws in relation to marriage, while the provinces retain exclusive jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage, which includes matters such as registration.

At this point, you may wish to contact the federal government to advise them of your position as this is a significant societal issue that must be dealt with in a fair and democratic manner. For your assistance, following are the addresses for the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General:

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellignton Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A2

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
East Memorial Building
4^th Floor, 284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A2

Thank you very much for advising the government of your concerns.

Yours truly,

Dave Hancock, Q.C.
Minister

cc: Honourable Ralph Klein, Premier, and Don Tannas, MLA, Highwood Constituency

Translation

“The exact opposite of what you said.”

Thanks for actually reading my letter, Dave.

ev · PDDCVI

Comments »

Free to Marry

Ralph’s Reply

Letter From The Minister

Translation

Leave a Reply