Klein's futile fight a show for the right
Gay marriages will eventually arrive, but most voters have other issues

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/columnists/story.asp?id=B08A45F3-8E6A-4A92-8D0D-E11781F50FF1
 
Graham Thomson 
The Edmonton Journal

Thursday, June 19, 2003
 
Saddle up the horse, Sancho Panza, break out the armour, fetch the lance -- it's time for Alberta Justice Minister Dave Hancock to tilt at another legal windmill.

This time it's over same-sex marriages.

Over the years, the Klein government has been involved in high profile court challenges on social transfer payments, the gun registry and the Delwin Vriend case on the rights of homosexuals.

The government lost every one of them. Perry Mason is obviously not on the government payroll.

The province blamed bad judges. The political fact of life is the government never really expected to win any of the fights. And it doesn't expect to win any constitutional battle using the notwithstanding clause against same sex marriages, either.

Hancock and Premier Ralph Klein don't even want to take the matter to court. They are not social conservatives. Look at the Vriend case five years ago when the Supreme Court forced Alberta to extend human rights protection to gays and lesbians.

There was all kinds of talk from the government about using the notwithstanding clause to nullify the court decision, especially from the right wing members in caucus such as Stockwell Day. In the end, Klein fought back in caucus and the court ruling was unopposed.

Klein is invoking the spectre of the notwithstanding clause once again to placate the conservative members in caucus and in society.

Just three years ago, when Science Minister Victor Doerksen won a legislative fight to legally define marriage in Alberta as a union between a man and a woman, Hancock voted against the amendment. He said the definition of marriage was a federal responsibility.

Now, Hancock appears to be a changed man. He said Alberta is "very disappointed" the federal government did not appeal the gay marriage issue to the Supreme Court. Hancock has not changed. What he is saying between the lines is that he is very disappointed personally. He wanted the Supreme Court to make a decision on same sex unions. If the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of gay marriages, Hancock and Klein would have grumbled publicly but said they had no choice but to accept the ruling.

That would have given them the easy way out of this. Now, they reluctantly have to get out their sabres and start rattling. Many legal experts say Alberta's case is flimsier than a cardboard suitcase. Hancock euphemistically says he has received legal opinions "on all sides of the issue."

It all looks more than a tad hypocritical. Hancock and Klein should follow their consciences and show leadership on the issues of gay rights. The political reality in Alberta is if they don't launch a legal fight, they'll face a revolt in caucus, among Tory party members and from a vocal segment of the population. Mostly from rural areas, but not entirely.

Government officials say a Justice Department poll done in 2001 showed that 66 per cent of Albertans don't want homosexuals to be granted marriage licences. Interestingly, the same percentage supported same-sex couples receiving equal benefits as married couples.

Alberta now has the Adult Interdependent Relation Act which gives non-traditional relationships the same legal status as marriages.

Alberta gays in long-term relationships have the same rights as everyone else, but they don't have the right to get a marriage licence.

Hancock quipped they can "go to Toronto" to get one. At the risk of sounding flippant, the airlines have plenty of seat sales on. Gay couples should just go, get married and flaunt their licences when they get back. Or they can wait until the federal government changes the law to redefine marriage and allow same-sex couples across the country to get married.

Hancock will wait to see what the legislation says before deciding what legal steps to take next.

"Can we redefine marriage? Probably not," he said. "Can we say we won't recognize a marriage in Alberta unless it adheres to the definition that we have in our act? Yes, I believe we can."

Realistically, the most Alberta could do is refuse to administer marriages and not issue licences for gay marriages. That might force Ottawa to set up a parallel marriage licence system in Alberta if Klein refuses to co-operate. Knowing him, he'll loudly threaten to fight and then quietly find a way to co-operate.

As Edmonton MLA Drew Hutton pointed out, it is not a big deal when you think about other issues such as mad cow disease and SARS. Hutton, who supports the official government stance against same-sex marriages, says the big issues in his riding are electricity deregulation and education funding.

They will remain the big issues. Same-sex marriages are not coming soon. The federal legislation will go to the Supreme Court for a tire-kicking before heading to a free vote in the House of Commons. Alberta officials are still hoping the legislation will be tripped up.

Don't count on it. They may be slow in arriving, but same-sex marriages are coming to Alberta. They are an inevitable result of our Charter of Rights.

Put the horse back in the stable, Sancho. Alberta's own Don Quixote should give this windmill a pass.