As a "B-Plan" in the event that the federal government's intended review of the same sex marriage legislation fails, there are measures being prepared to protect pastors and churches from law suits if they refuse to marry same sex couples. The "Defence of Religions Act" is seen as a response to what many have come to see as an over-aggressive gay agenda that lables anyone who speaks against homosexuality or same-sex marriage as "homophobic".
I'm hopeful that this step will provide the church and it's leaders the freedom to say "no" without fear of legal action. While not everyone will agree with me on this, it's no secret that morality cannot be legislated. Morality comes out of our personal decision to yield our will to a greater moral authority. The choice to yield cannot be forced upon anyone who knows their own mind and is determined to follow it. (If you're not sure that you agree, ask some parents who have teenagers at home...)
While I certainly don't agree with same sex marriage on a personal level, it may be that the "Defense of Religions Act" is the best option for our nation, if for no other reason than it will avoid an enormous social and political backlash.
The great irony in this discussion (which was on the front page of today's (Oct 4, 2006) Globe and Mail) is that constitutional experts are already saying that the act itself would violate the constitution and that protection provisions already exist.
If the current federal government fails in it's effort to reverse same sex marriage legislation (and it's a virtual certainty that it will...) my hope is that this proposed Act would quickly and easily pass. If not the election posturing would be fascinating to say the least ...
By the way - I've changed the comment requirement and you no longer have to login to post yours so ... fire away on this, I'd be very interested in what you have to say!