News

In recent weeks, a growing number of parishes across the country have voted to break ranks with the Anglican Church of Canada in a dispute over theological issues that include the blessing of same-sex unions, which they oppose.

So far, 15 parishes have left the national church and sought to place themselves under the authority of a conservative South American archbishop, a move that could lead to even more legal battles over church buildings, which some congregations want to retain.

The increasingly public dispute is just the latest flareup in a long-running heated controversy about same-sex marriage, which was legalized by the former federal Liberal government after a historic Supreme Court judgment.

Thousands of same-sex couples have been married since that time.

However, it remains a controversial issue for some religions, social conservatives and others.

That's why globeandmail.com has invited our semi-regular panel from several major faith-based communities and a representative of the atheist/humanist/free thinker groups to debate these questions:

What does your faith/creed/organization say about the issue of same-sex marriage?

Given the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights, what accommodation, if any, should be given to religious, or other, organizations which have are deeply-felt theological, historical or other reasons for opposing current laws?

As usual, the panelists are each writing a short essay and will also take questions from our readers.

The essays, questions and answers are published at the bottom of this page.

The members of our panel are:

Jennifer A. Harris is an Anglican Christian. She is assistant professor of Christianity and Culture at the University of Toronto.

Her teaching interests include Christianity and contemporary popular culture, sacred space, and the Bible in medieval society.

Lorna Dueck, an Evangelical Christian journalist, writes a monthly column for The Globe. Her latest: Support this bill on the unborn

She is also Executive Producer of Listen Up TV , a weekly newsmagazine on spiritual perspectives in current events, seen Sundays on Global TV, and Thursdays on CTS, Salt and Light TV and Christian Channel.

Rabbi Ed Elkin has been the spiritual leader of the First Narayever Congregation in downtown Toronto since 2000.

Born in New York, he graduated from Princeton University and has worked or studied in Canada, the U.S. and Israel.

Sheema Khan also writes a monthly column for The Globe. She has a Masters degree in physics and a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Harvard. She has worked in R&D, is an inventor and has worked at law firms in intellectual property law.

Ms. Khan also served as chair of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) from 2000-2005.

Justin Trottier is executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, making him the first full-time paid staff member at the first venue dedicated to humanists and freethinkers in Canada.

He is co-founder of the political advocacy group Canadian Secular Alliance, as well as president of the multimedia outreach group Freethought Association of Canada.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome to all our panelists. Thanks for joining us today.

Jennifer Harris: As the lone Anglican on this panel, it is my task to offer some background on recent events involving the Anglican Church of Canada and same-sex marriage.

In 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster (Vancouver) voted to allow the blessing of same-sex unions — a rite similar to but not identical with holy matrimony — in a limited number of churches.

This decision engendered strong reaction. Six parishes began a process to leave the diocese, while others voted to offer said blessings.

Dissent soon grew into outright division, with traditional parishes and clergy in many parts of Canada establishing a new ecclesiastical body called the Anglican Network in Canada, portions of which now claim Episcopal oversight from conservative bishops in Africa and South America (a deviation from the norms of Anglican ecclesial polity).

As the church has struggled with blessing same-sex unions, the country has moved on. Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land.

Since churches in Canada perform civil marriages under the aegis of religious rites, ecclesiastical bodies have had to respond.

Some have suggested that they will cease to offer civil marriages if their clergy are required to marry gay couples.

Others, such as the United Church of Canada, began to solemnize same-sex marriages as soon as they became legal.

The Anglican Church of Canada has not gone either route, at least not yet.

The national body of Canadian Anglicans met last summer, yet did not vote on the blessing of gay marriage (preferring to delay this vote).

Instead, it agreed that same-sex blessings do not contradict the core teachings of the Christian faith.

This understanding of same-sex relationships places the Canadian church in a distinct minority within worldwide Anglicanism.

Still, the Canadian church will examine the theological questions that arise from same-sex marriage and vote upon them in 2010.

Questions arising include conscientious objection to offering the solemnization of same-sex marriage, as well as how to deal with dissenting clergy and parishes.

Caution at the national level has been undermined by local activism, however, with dioceses in Montreal, Ottawa, and Niagara voting to allow parishes and clergy to bless same-sex marriages.

This move has become the tipping point for traditionalist clergy and parishes in affected dioceses across the country.

Some 15 parishes (approximately 0.5% of 2,800 Anglican congregations in Canada) have now left the fold. More are likely to follow.

The opportunity for conversation is quickly dissolving in the face of lawsuits over church property.

Theological discussion of whether same-sex marriages ought to be solemnized in the Anglican Church of Canada will continue for a few years at least, so easy answers remain elusive.

The fact remains that Canada is the only province within the Anglican Communion that must deal with legal same-sex marriage. This context has shaped the experience of many Anglicans who are pressing for equal marriage.

Balancing the legal and theological issues, questions of justice and conscience, desire for unity and autonomy, has made this situation extremely difficult for Canadian Anglicans.

Unity in diversity has always been the strength of Anglican Christianity, but now such unity has met its match.

Justin Trottier: The Centre for Inquiry's paper on same-sex marriage affirms our belief that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals are entitled to the same civil rights, liberties and economic benefits as heterosexuals.

Any state recognizing marriages should make them fully available to LGBT individuals.

Of the countries with same-sex marriage, only Canada has completely equal marriage rights, something of which humanists are deeply proud.

Humanists are committed to Enlightenment ideals, including human freedom, equality, and respect for science.

Emphasis on human freedom leads to acceptance of relationships between consenting adults, as so famously stated by Jesuit-trained former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

Science has determined that sexual attraction is a natural aspect of someone's being, genetically determined or fixed early on, like right and left-handedness, evidence of diversity within the species.

These principles suggest that loving relationships should be treated the same.

In Ontario. licensed humanist officiants for years have proudly performed secular ceremonies, including weddings, for heterosexual and homosexual couples.

How unfortunate that the Ontario Multifaith Council makes it impossible for us to give humanist celebrants full access like religious chaplains.

Equally troubling, in many provinces, groups must identify allegiance to a deity to be granted the right to perform even secular marriage ceremonies.

On religious accommodations, humanists strongly believe in church-state separation and generally feel the government ought not force religious organizations to solemnize marriages.

But this is complicated by the fact that religious organizations obtain charitable status simply for the "advancement of religion" (non-theistic worldviews are explicitly excluded here).

Religious organizations, through income tax breaks and unique property tax exemption, are subsidized by the government.

Religious organizations wishing to break with secular laws should refuse public subsidies since our government should represent citizens equally, rather than being complicit in discrimination.

Few organizations accepting public money would be able to publicly choose employees or business partners based on sexuality.

A new proposal — continue down the path redefining marriage.

The first reform, from the French Revolution, was the requirement that marriages require a civil component, creating one framework within a diversity of religious traditions.

Let's continue decoupling the social contract as the basis of marriage from the layers of religious and cultural significance that history has added.

The state should regulate all such relationships (homosexual and heterosexual) via the mechanism of civil unions.

Private institutions, like churches, can label relationships they deem consistent with their doctrine as "marriages."

Considering that the number of common-law unions has more than doubled since 1981, from 6% to 14%, Canadians could likely get in bed with this proposal.

Lorna Dueck: My faith, an evangelical interpretation of Christianity, takes the view that the Bible teaches that marriage is an exclusive, life-long covenant of commitment between one man and one woman.

We believe that both the Old and New Testament Scriptures were inspired by God and are a complete revelation of Christian faith and practice. This is referred to as "authority of Scripture" for our lifestyle decisions.

Throughout these Scriptures, heterosexual marriage is the family unit taught by God and homosexual conduct is seen as sin -- behaviour that is out of harmony with God's guidelines for living.

Like all sinners, (the church is full of us) homosexuality is a reality to be treated with welcome, respect and compassion by the church, but their sin cannot be sanctioned into the covenant of marriage by our clergy.

So what accommodation should be given for our church position that we do not want to conduct the legal right of same-sex marriage in Canada?

The simplest way is to have ourselves as a church leave the historic role of performing as government agents on the legal aspect of binding a contract between couples.

Taking the church out of the state function would clarify the role that ministers perform the spiritual realities in marriage. They facilitate the presentation of a couple for covenant before God, not government.

This has been the historic purpose of clergy in marriage, and the co-opting of secular legal sanction into marriage should be returned to the role of the state.

This would allow same-sex couples open access to their rights of solemnizing a legal marriage, and would give church communities and their clergy their rights to religious belief.

"Authority of Scripture" is a hot issue for Christians. It's what's breaking apart the Canadian Anglican Church, with same-sex marriage just the easiest of issues to surface.

Clergy and church buildings aren't the only situations affected by "authority of Scripture" beliefs.

Business owners, service providers, teachers and especially parents have convictions that run counter to legal realities.

If a Christian adheres to authority of Scripture, they cannot avoid the highest law is love.

That authority gives us hope that when we find ourselves opposing Canadian laws, we've opposed them in a way that fully attends to the inherent dignity of all persons.

Our democracy, with its recognition of religious freedom, ensures that these differing authorities can co-exist.

Ideally, our embrace of the dignity of all people gives us plenty of space to teach and live out our differences under one system of law.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Jewish hostility to homosexual relationships has historically been rooted in the interpretation of two verses from the Book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.

These verses prohibit a male from lying with another male "as one lies with a woman". Such a practice is deemed abhorrent, and the latter verse names it a capital offence.

Later rabbinic tradition has very little material about homosexuality, but what there is continues in this negative vein.

As well, lesbianism — unmentioned in the Torah — comes to be prohibited by the rabbis.

Given this textual legacy regarding homosexual acts, it is not surprising that marriage between two people of the same sex is not contemplated in traditional Jewish sources.

In our own time, many Jews maintain this traditional hostility to homosexuality. This is certainly true among most Orthodox Jews.

Other Jews, however, have begun to take another look at the Leviticus verses. In line with the rich rabbinic tradition of expansive biblical interpretation, they ask questions such as:

(1) What does lying with a man "as one lies with a woman" specifically mean? Might it not be interpreted in such a way as to allow some kinds of homosexual acts? Alternatively, might it be interpreted as meaning that a homosexual relationship should not be exactly like a heterosexual relationship, but if it has its own character that's okay?

(2) In the context of the biblical period, might the Torah have been condemning a certain kind of homosexual ritual prostitution that was felt to be abhorrent? If so, does that really apply to loving, monogamous homosexual relationships of today?

(3) There are many areas in which the halakha (Jewish law) has developed in response to new scientific information, the relationship of depression and suicide being one important example. Why can't the halakha recognize new insights about the causes of homosexuality as well?

Those Jews who are asking these kinds of questions often conclude that there is a basis for Jewish acceptance and affirmation of same-sex relationships.

Many Reform rabbis, and some Conservative rabbis, have begun to officiate at same-sex marriages, or at least to bless same-sex unions.

The equal rights of same-sex couples to marriage is now the law of the land in Canada, confirmed by both Parliament and the courts.

Having said that, no religious group or clergyperson may be compelled to celebrate a marriage which violates their religious convictions, whether it's a same-sex marriage or any other kind of marriage which they don't accept — for whatever reason.

Safeguarding this right is essential for maintaining religious freedom in Canada.

The various religious groups that comprise our society need to be able to sort this issue out within their own communities, without interference from the government.

However, individuals of any religion, who work for the government and serve in the capacity of civil marriage officiants, may not discriminate.

Sheema Khan: Islamic teachings do not permit same-sex marriage.

In fact, homosexuality is deemed unacceptable according to the primary sources of Islam, namely, the Koran and the authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad. In particular, the Koran refers to the story of Prophet Lot, and the ensuing demise of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

There were several issues of concern within much of the Muslim community regarding the same-sex marriage debate.

First, there were quite strong feelings against extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples.

Recognition of same-sex civil unions might have been somewhat more acceptable — an opinion shared by many Canadians.

Second, the debate served to educate many in the community about the reciprocal nature of the Charter.

Since 9/11, Muslims had relied heavily on Section 15 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, etc.

People were reminded that one could not demand protection from discrimination for oneself based on the Charter, while denying it for others.

Finally, despite the strong feelings about this issue, a 2007 Environics poll found that about two per cent of Canadian Muslims rated same-sex marriage as the thing they disliked most about Canada. The top three were: weather (24%), discrimination (12%) and taxes (8%).

What is of concern to many is the courts forcing imams to perform such marriages, or for mosques/Islamic centres being forced to host celebrations of same-sex marriages.

The question is whether the Charter provides a balance between the rights of those who seek to enter a gay marriage, and the rights of those who have a deeply-felt theological reason for opposing the current law.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks very much, panelists. Let's move on to the questions from our readers.

To our readers: Our panelists are submitting their answers at different times. We will post them as they become available.

Chris Boodram, Ottawa: Hi to all panelists and thanks for considering my question.

I must confess that as a non-religious Canadian, I'd pretty much considered this debate to be over with the government's decision to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, while respecting the rights of religious communities to decide which marriages to recognize/solemnize.

Indeed, that legislation only solidified what was an already very obvious judicial trend recognizing the right of same-sex couples to participate equally in the institution of civil marriage.

I recognize that it's a divisive issue for some religious communities.

But in terms of the law, the requirements of the Charter seem clear, the political decision has been made to uphold those Charter requirements, and the rights of religious communities to follow their teachings have been respected.

Given all this, my questions are: Why should the average non-religious Canadian care that some religious communities see fit to tear themselves apart over this question?

What further accommodations would religious communities who are not in agreement with this decision wish to have for themselves?

Jennifer Harris: I am not even sure how much members of the various religious communities involved in the debate care.

Even a quick poll in my parish this week suggests that most people aren't paying much attention.

As I noted in my opening essay, I am part of the Anglican tradition. Much media attention has been focused on the discord within my tradition on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Yet, as I also noted in my essay, dissent within the Canadian church is statistically insignificant.

This does not mean that the dissent doesn't matter. It should matter to my co-religionists and me, but I cannot fathom why the media is interested, except that churches fighting with each other makes for sensational coverage.

I cannot speak for the people who are pulling away from the mainstream of the Canadian church.

I understand that they are convinced of the historical and biblical foundation of their argument, and one cannot argue on that basis alone. Those of us who support same-sex marriage have theological, biblical, and historical foundations for our position too.

Would that we could live together in our difference.

It seems, however, that homosexuality represents a "last straw" for some folks, who simply cannot bear the idea of tolerating something which, for them, is so foreign to their understanding.

I am afraid that no amount of conversation and accommodation is going to solve that.

Justin Trottier: As a fellow non-religious individual, I still follow these controversies with great interest. I think they have a lot to say about our society's misunderstanding when it comes to the relationship between ethics, religiosity and conscience.

It is ironic, for example, that so many people believe that morals descend from god or revealed scripture, when in fact these sorts of schisms reveal how human religion in fact is.

Consider Rabbi Ed Elkin's remarks that Scripture can be used to justify anything and the stretching of Leviticus to fit a person's wish to make same-sex marriage acceptable.

It seems clear to me that secular society advances first and then certain people within religion, persuaded by reason, scientific evidence, and personal conscience, then attempt to rationalize their decisions based on a unique reading of scripture.

I am not arguing here that religion does not provide certain individuals some incentive to morality, but I am saying it undermines the notion that you need religion to be moral — an offensive and flatly wrong assertion non-theists often hear.

Lorna Dueck:: Hello, Chris. I too considered this societal debate over and now merely a question for followers of religious communities to decide on how to live out their own beliefs in relation to legal realities in Canada.

So, I don't think you need to, as a self described "non religious" Canadian, engage that.

All that is being discussed now is how will faith communities continue to uphold their right of religious freedom while living in a way that grants dignity and respect to all.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Hi, Chris. I agree with you entirely. The issue in our civil society has been settled.

As long as no religious group or clergyperson is required to perform a same-sex marriage against their beliefs, I seek no further accommodation in this regard.

So why should non-religious Canadians care about the debate within religious communities?

Well, on one level, the answer is that they don't need to.

That's one of the advantages of living in a society which maintains a separation between religion and state. You can carry on quite blissfully unaware of the debates that are roiling certain religious denominations regarding this question.

However, the fact that you, as a non-religious Canadian, chose to click on this panel discussion demonstrates that perhaps the religious debate holds some interest for you.

And I, for one, believe that the religious sector of our society does still have important things to say to the wider Canadian public about the many challenges that confront us. I also believe that the country would be the poorer without its multiplicity of religious faiths.

If one accepts that the religious sector is important, then the debates within that sector become important too.

The issue of whether same-sex marriage is a basic civil right has been settled. It is.

Now the religions are arguing about whether this kind of union is also something we can call "sacred" and therefore worthy of being not just tolerated but also affirmed and celebrated because of its sacred nature.

As a supporter of same-sex marriage myself, I believe that that is an important, and intrinsically interesting, conversation to have.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Chris: Thank you for your questions.

Why, you ask, should the "average non-religious Canadian care that some religious communities see fit to tear themselves apart" over the issue of same-sex marriage?

Well, as a nation, aren't we all part of an organic whole? It seems natural to be concerned about major issues that face Canadians — whether they are "religious" or "non-religious."

The recent upheavals within the Anglican community speak to fundamental questions that many other communities throughout Canada (and elsewhere) face. How do we handle differences, while trying to be true to our most cherished values?

These dynamics will not vanish by a simple government decree or parliamentary vote.

While I cannot speak for other faith communities, there is discomfort within many Muslim communities throughout Canada over the normalization of same-sex marriage, and what that may entail.

Does this mean that one cannot criticize same-sex marriage, without being branded a hatemonger or homophobe?

Look at the vitriolic campaign directed at Dr. Margaret Somerville for her views on the issue, and you'll see why some feel that they are gradually losing the right to speak freely on this issue.

Natalie O'Grady, Iqaluit: Is sexuality and religion a social issue or a spiritual issue?

If you are gay, and vehemently religious, are you less spiritual than a straight person?

I still don't quite understand how sexual orientation can spark such fiery opposition on the question of whether homosexual persons should be able to marry.

If religion provides a moral structure for a society, and if marriage (and staying married) is such an important aspect of morality and of a sound society (according to the Bible), aren't more married families better for a society, regardless of sexual orientation?

I look forward to what you have to contribute.

Justin Trottier: With the caveat that many disagree that religion is necessary to provides a moral structure to society rather than legitimizing a moral structure that develops through our need to find social solutions to live and work together, I do not see why sexuality would in any way affect a person's religiosity or sense of spirituality.

Lorna Dueck: Hi, Natalie. I do agree that more married families are better for society. It is the best way to care for children.

I also agree that gay people are often deeply spiritual, as are many people.

But being spiritual and being a follower of Jesus are two different definitions. So when followers of Jesus take marriage out of a secular context, and put Jesus's truth into it, it looks different than what we might design for ourselves.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Natalie, thanks for your question.

My strong belief in the importance of the institution of marriage in general is one of the reasons why I personally support same-sex marriage.

So I agree with you. I believe sexuality is both a social issue and a spiritual issue, and gay people are no less spiritual than straights.

As to why there is so much opposition to same-sex marriage, I think that the scriptural legacy that some of the other panelists and I all refer to is key.

If you are an adherent of a faith that is scripturally based, then the claims of those Scriptures cannot simply be ignored.

My reading of the history of my own faith is that Jews have throughout the generations found ways to bring new insights and interpretations to their reading of the Bible which have allowed them to live both in fealty to sacred text and in recognition of the reality of their time.

For example, the Bible prohibits the taking of interest because loans were understood to be a form of charity, and you don't make a profit off your charity.

But as the economy in which Jews lived evolved from a simple agricultural one into a much more sophisticated and complex urban one, it became clear that this prohibition was not an advantage to either poor or rich people.

There needed to be some incentive for people to grant loans, in a context of business and not charity.

Scholars applied themselves to the text using ancient tools of interpretation and found ways to accommodate the needs of a more complex economy while still maintaining their adherence to Scripture.

Ways were found to allow the new information and the new reality in, so that our faith did not remain frozen.

But that doesn't mean "anything goes."

Some changes just go too far and threaten the foundation of biblical faith.

The notion that we can interpret our way out of the prohibition on eating pork is an example of this. It has been so central to Jewish life for so many centuries that it cannot be made to go away.

The problem is that when you're in the midst of a debate about a proposed change, it's hard to know whether it's the kind that will help the tradition evolve in a healthy way, or whether it's the kind that will threaten the very basis of the faith.

I feel that same-sex marriage is in the former category, but plenty of my co-religionists think it's in the latter.

And that difference of opinion is why there's some of the emotion out there that you have observed.

Only our descendants will be able to truly evaluate who was right.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Natalie. Thank you for your thoughtful question.

I don't believe any one of us can be the arbiter of spirituality. That is for God to decide.

As for sexuality, it has both spiritual and social components within Islamic teachings (which I don't have the space to discuss here).

As you mentioned, religion does provide moral structure. In most world religions, sexual relations between members of the same gender are considered immoral.

This moral structure also excludes sexual relations between a man and woman outside of marriage.

Jennifer Harris: Natalie, this statement represents one of the theological and biblical foundations in favour of same-sex marriage.

If we absent the question of gender (something some people cannot do) from the Christian teaching on marriage, then we have precisely this outlook: Marriage, as described in the Bible is about the life-long, self-giving love of one person for another, a love that mirrors Christ's love for the church.

How cool is that?!? Why wouldn't we want all people to embrace this ideal of love, commitment, and self-giving?

I completely agree, therefore, with the thrust of your question, and wish that it could be clearer to more of my co-religionists.

Kevin McDougald, Winnipeg: Polls taken on this issue in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere have shown these societies to be diagonally split on this issue.

The younger and more highly educated are more receptive to change, and the older and less highly educated are more skeptical.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Kevin. Two other factors have affected why people are split on this — the value younger adults place on being highly relational and a growing respect for human rights awareness.

This has become the framework of a changed morality around views on homosexuality.

This is a challenge to the church which thought of homosexuality as simple and to be avoided, and it means we are playing catch-up on what is a Biblical view and how is it lived out authentically.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: I'm really not sure, Kevin.

This may reflect the trend toward a weakening in adherence to revealed Scripture among younger people.

It may also reflect the romantic model of love which is so prevalent in our popular culture, namely that when two people fall in love, no external differences should get in the way — whether they be differences of race, religion, social class, etc.

Now we can add that the fact that two people are of the same sex should also not be allowed to trump true love.

Perhaps older people have, on average, a bit more of a practical approach to relationships based on their experience.

And this more practical, less romantic, approach, may lead them to be a bit more cautious with regard to the "love conquers all" marriage model.

But this is just my speculation.

Sheema Khan: Thank you, Kevin, for your question.

It is true that younger people seem more liberal in their views than the older generation. However, it seems that when young people settle down and have children, then issues of belief and morals seem to take on added importance.

It would be interesting to see how these life changes impact upon an individual. Does she or he become more conservative, or more liberal, with time?

With respect to same-sex marriage, a poll recently published by the Pew Center seems to suggest the very trends that you describe.

Jennifer Harris: Kevin, education is the basis of civil society, not just change. As an educator, I am committed to the notion that critical thought is essential to full engagement in society.

I note, however, that many well-educated people stand opposed to same-sex marriage, so one cannot be blithe in discussion.

Sexuality is a matter of deep concern, regardless of one's age or socio-economic status.

And even while I am a progressive on this issue, I would never say that change is necessarily a good thing.

Justin Trottier: I might point out that polls also show the younger and more highly educated to include a significantly larger portion of atheists and humanists compared to the other demographic groups.

I would also echo what other panelists have said on this. Satisfying the emotional needs of both partners, in spite of traditional gender roles, has taken on a more important role in contemporary culture.

In the West, we are fascinated and sometimes repulsed by the arranged marriages of other cultures (and our own earlier history), because we have a romantic view of the close relationship of two people that we think is essential for the happiness that marriage promises.

Indeed, as the rate of marriage decreases and that of common law rises, we are seeing the younger generation moving toward a different conception of workable relationships.

I, for example, have been living with my girlfriend for a few years but see little incentive to marry, other than economics.

Nick Oliver, Halifax: What parallels, if any, do we see between this issue and that of slavery?

The church's role back then was first facilitator to the slave owners, providing scripture to justify it, and later champion of the abolitionist movement, providing scripture to justify it.

Surely, the love in the hearts of homosexuals is more important than the supposed evil the acts they commit represent. Are gays and lesbians not human? Are they not our brothers and sisters, to paraphrase the old abolitionists?

Do they not deserve the protection of the church, not the contempt of its congregation?

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Nick, in my experience, Scripture can be used to justify most anything human beings do.

Scripture is vast and varied enough that you can usually find a verse that rationalizes whatever you want to do.

So you're right, the Bible was used both to justify slavery and to demand its abolition.

The Bible is used today by some to oppose the war in Afghanistan, and by others to justify it.

The Bible is used to justify censorship and to condemn it.

And the same for global warming, child poverty, NAFTA, Darfur, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and everything else.

The task of an honest biblical interpreter therefore is to look not just for single verses that support already preconceived positions, but rather to look for overall trains of thought.

It's to seek out the verses that seem to express contradictory points of view to the one that one holds, and see if they can be explained in another way.

And it's to be aware of one's own biases when reading the text.

This is a very subtle and nuanced process and requires a great deal of humility — paradoxically, not always the strongest suit of religious folk.

Jennifer Harris: Slavery is a deeply relevant analogy and reminds us that religious communities have been deeply mistaken in the past (as in the present, and likely in the future).

I agree with you that gays and lesbians deserve the protection of the church — I dare say that everyone on this panel would share this view. But I note that offering protection, for example from discrimination or violence, is not the same thing as offering full acceptance.

To be clear, I support the church's movement toward blessing same-sex marriage. At the same time, I believe that those religious people who do not support same-sex marriage are being genuine when they declare that they still love and respect homosexual persons.

So the analogy with slavery needs to be clarified.

Gay and lesbian people had full citizenship rights, including the right to apply to adopt children, prior to the equal marriage act, so one cannot make the argument from slavery unproblematically.

I agree, however, that the right to marry the person of one's choice, regardless of gender, is a big one, and exclusion felt significant, especially once the barrier was rolled away.

Justin Trottier: I could not agree more both that homosexual couples deserve full compassion, love and respect, and that no church has a claim to absolute truth — given its vicissitudes on this and other issues.

A small sample of issues on which major churches have radically changed their minds include female suffrage, respect for diversity, especially for Jewish individuals, and acceptance of scientific discoveries like the model of the solar system or evolution.

Lorna Dueck: Nick, no one wants to "treat people as less than human."

Rather, by stepping aside and ending the role of Christian clergy being agents of the state, it stops a state from going along with our religious beliefs.

Gay couples can have the marriage sanction under Canadian law, others can have their covenant experience with God under their own belief systems that clergy would officiate.

It's a separation of rights and they should be able to comfortable co-exist.

Michael Fiorini, Bermuda: Could any of you support a motion that would prohibit any of the other panel members from living according to their beliefs. Why or why not?

Sheema Khan: Hello, Michael. Interesting question.

In any society, we have to balance diverse beliefs and opinions within a framework that can find equilibrium between competing interests.

Prohibition against beliefs would depend on how such a belief would impact upon other individuals and the public at large.

The answer to your question is not "yes" or "no," but rather, "it depends."

For example, there are some immigrants [primarily from Egypt, Somalia and the horn of Africa] who believe in female genital mutilation. Yet, safety of minors trumps cultural beliefs, and our government rightly outlawed such a practice.

In fact, there have been a recent spate of cases at the Supreme Court which have dealt with freedom of religion versus other competing interests.

For example, a student can wear a heavily-sheathed kirpan to school, in spite of those who argued against it, citing safety reasons.

Yet, an Ontario court has ruled that observant Sikhs must wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle — i.e., in this case, safety trumps religious beliefs.

So, we must examine each situation in detail, within the context of our Charter.

Jennifer Harris: I could (and do) support such measures in some limited circumstances.

The most obvious prohibition that I support today limits female circumcision. This is a firmly held belief and tradition in some communities, but is unacceptable in Canada.

Moving from the specific to the general, I would accept limits on behaviour that adversely affect children, animals, the environment, and disabled and other vulnerable persons.

The law limits behaviours that harm others. I believe that these laws apply as much to religious people as to anyone else.

Justin Trottier: People are free to hold whatever beliefs they wish but there are many instances when engaging in activities according to such beliefs would cause measurable harm to others or to their own children, and in those cases the state would have a right to intervene.

Lorna Dueck: Michael, that's a big question that opens another whole discussion.

I would have to say that if the beliefs of my fellow panel members opposed the inherent dignity of human life, I would support a motion to prohibit that.

We're working on a broadcast story right now about Hindu beliefs in the caste system that have kept Dalits, and scheduled castes, in bonded slavery for centuries.

These are illegal in Indian law but still widely practised and affect 250 million or more in India. India is correct to prohibit such beliefs.

We can find examples closer to home, and that's why in a democracy Christians like myself debate beliefs that we feel will introduce harm to society.

It's an amazing balance that democracy allows — expression of belief, debate and choice on what is the way forward.

If we "lose" the debate, we adjust to the balance of our rights of religion, and our responsibility to live in love with each other.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Michael, there is nothing that has been expressed by any of the other panel members that warrants prohibition.

We are all within the mainstream of Canadian society.

However, there might be religions out there whose beliefs cannot be tolerated by the wider society.

Polygamy, female circumcision, slavery and the beating of children come to mind.

Some people out there might say they need to practice one or another of these things because it is their religious belief, and they might even bring Scripture to support their claim.

But society has an interest in protecting the most vulnerable of its members, so it's possible that that belief, however sincerely held, cannot be allowed in our country.

Frederick Duquette, Edmonton: In England, same-sex couples can now enter into a civil partnership which grants equal legal status to their union without involving the tradition of opposite-sex marriage.

Why is such compromise not possible here in Canada?

Jennifer Harris: Such a compromise did exist in Canada. But the Supreme Court in its wisdom ruled that separate categories do not ensure equality.

This logic is at the heart of arguments for integration in the U.S. school system, and in various equal rights and affirmative action initiatives.

Of course, these examples, and their degrees of success, suggest that equal doesn't always ensure equality. Equality is a messy business, but so is compromise and accommodation.

People talk about ours as a tolerant society, but this is hardly something worth fighting for. Toleration is "putting up with" something, and is quite often the easy way out.

I would much rather live in a society of mutual understanding. Understanding requires more of us all as citizens — not the least having to get to know someone who is different from us.

What truly matters to our civil society? Love one another.

Justin Trottier: I believe the state ought to get out of the marriage business altogether.

So I agree that your proposal is ideal but only if — as described in the Centre for Inquiry's strong position on this — all relationships (homosexual and heterosexual), were legalized in the same manner, in the form of civil partnerships or civil unions by the state.

So long as heterosexual couples can be married by the state, nothing less than full equality for homosexual couples is acceptable.

Lorna Dueck: Frederick, your question did come up before the appointed Justice Committee that toured 12 cities hearing from Canadians on this.

But the Liberals opted for speed on this and did not even finish democratic process and publish the Justice Committee's findings. So, I'd argue that we didn't hear what options were all available.

I can recall being in a parliamentary hearing on this — I think that was in 2005 — where gay activists handed out clever bookmarks that had individually wrapped chocolate turtles on them, chiding parliamentarians for being slow on their rights.

EGALE was on record for wanting nothing less than the societal blessing that the historic term marriage endows — anything like civil partnerships was deemed lesser and was not seen as equal, and therefore would not eliminate discrimination.

Sheema Khan: Hello, Frederick. That is an excellent question.

I am not a constitutional/legal expert, and I don't recall the full details of the debate here when it first took place.

As I mentioned before, recognition of civil unions may have been more acceptable to religious groups. I am not sure why Canada did not go down that route.

Terry Weber: As someone who is legally married to a same-sex partner but not affiliated with any church, I'm curious why any religious group would feel that it should have a say in something that is so deeply important to me?

I understand why some religions are reluctant to give their blessings to same-sex marriages (although obviously I don't agree) but I don't understand why some groups also feel they have the right to challenge my constitutional rights as a Canadian or, more importantly, interfere in my personal life?

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Terry, I think the constitutional debate is now over and no one should be able to interfere in your personal life.

I'm not aware of any challenges to it in the civil sphere.

Now the debate has shifted to where it properly belongs, to the religious communities.

And you have the right to affiliate with whichever one of those you choose, or none.

Jennifer Harris: The issue at the heart of your question is one rooted in tradition.

Religious communities marry people on behalf of the state. This has been a fact in the common law tradition since shortly after the French Revolution.

Canada's legal decision to accept same-sex marriage, with which I am in complete agreement, needs to take into consideration the matter of this tradition.

The question of protection for communities and clergy who cannot, because of doctrine or conscience, perform such weddings is not yet answered to the satisfaction of some religious bodies.

There is no question that you have a constitutional right to marry your partner.

But at the same time, your right to marry should not limit the rights of groups who cannot support your rights. With all that said, I feel that churches that cannot marry according to the law of the land should consider getting out of the civil marriage business.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Terry. Thank you for writing.

The institution of marriage — between a man and a woman — has been around for a long, long time. It is often seen as a cornerstone of society. It has deep historical, cultural, social, and moral significance for people throughout the world. It is common to all major faiths.

Not surprisingly, governmental recognition of same-sex marriage does not automatically imply wholehearted acceptance by all Canadians.

The key, however, is for all parties to recognize the rule (and spirit) of our law — namely our Charter — when it comes to dealing with each other.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks again to our panel for a very thoughtful debate on this controversial subject. Any last thoughts?

Justin Trottier: I must comment on Ms. Dueck's remark that "homosexual conduct is seen as sin — behaviour that is out of harmony with God's guidelines for living . . . like all sinners, homosexuality is a reality to be treated with welcome, respect and compassion by the church."

I need not dwell on how offensive such comments are to many of us.

What I would like to point out instead is that homosexuality — unlike other proscribed "sins" — is not something one can ask for forgiveness for, reform, and then never "sin" again.

It is in fact part of the natural world. Science has shown that homosexuality has been observed in more than 400 species of animals, including more than 200 species of mammals and in most species of primates (our closest genetic relatives).

Curiously, and as a sideline, if all of these species were in fact "intelligently designed" as some who decry evolution claim, homosexuality would certainly appear to be part of god's design.

I would also like to comment on the repeated insistence by the panelists that maintaining religious freedom in Canada means allowing religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing marriages if they do not wish to.

Ms. Harris said: "I feel that churches that cannot marry according to the law of the land should consider getting out of the civil marriage business."

I might agree, but I think they should also get out of the charities business.

In downplaying religion as the only body having trouble with the law of the land, Ms. Dueck explained that: "Business owners, service providers, teachers and especially parents have convictions that run counter to legal realities."

Perhaps, but none of them could ever run a business, nonprofit organization or any other entity in which they openly discriminated against homosexuals or other individuals, let alone get charitable status for doing so or the special property tax dispensations that only apply to a small select group of charities such as religious institutes.

It is time we re-evaluated such hypocrisy in a secular country and made our charities laws as fair and just as we are making our marriage laws.