Using the recent debate over lesbian and gay marriage as a starting point, this article explores what it means to take account of religion in Canadian law making. The article suggests that religious views cannot be relegated entirely to the realm of the private, individual and voluntary. The article further suggests strategies that could be used by courts and legislators to engage religion more fully and directly than is often the case at present.
Utilisant le débat récent sur le mariage des homosexuels comme un point de départ, cet article explore ce qu’il signifie de tenir compte de la religion dans la justice canadienne. Cet article propose que les opinions religieuses ne peuvent pas être reléguées totalement au domaine privé, individuel et volontaire. De plus, cet article propose les stratégies que la justice et les législateurs peuvent employer à engager la religion plus directement et entièrement qu’en ce moment.
Barbeau v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (2003) B.C.C.A. 25.
2.
Beaman L. ( 2005) The Myth of Pluralism, Diversity, and Vigor: The Constitutional Privilege of Protestantism in the United States and Canada. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion45: 311-325.
3.
Berger B.L. ( 2007) Law’s Religion: Rendering Culture. Osgoode Hall Law Journal45(2): 277-314.
4.
Berger P. ( 1967) The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Doubleday.
5.
Beyer P. ( 1998) The Modern Emergence of Religions and a Global System for Religion. International Sociology13: 151-172.
6.
Beyer P. ( 2003a) Conceptions of Religion: On Distinguishing Scientific, Theological and ‘‘Official’’ Meanings. Social Compass50: 141-160.
7.
Beyer P. ( 2003b) Constitutional Privilege and Constituting Pluralism: Religious Freedom in National, Global, and Legal Context. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion42: 332-339.
8.
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (2000 ) Submission by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-23: Modernization of Benefits and Obligations (March 2, 2000) http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStatements_Print.htm?CD=&ID=393
9.
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (2003 ) Marriage and Same-Sex Unions. Statement by the Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (June 19, 2003)http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStatements_Print.htm?CD=374&ID=1371
10.
Casanova J. ( 1994) Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-Sex Marriage ( 2002) Factum of the Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-Sex Marriage. Court of Appeal for Ontario. Files C39172; 39174.
12.
Egale Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (2001) B.C.S.C. 1365.
13.
Egan v. Canada (1995) 2 S.C.R. 513.
14.
Eisenberg A. ( 2006) Identity, Multiculturalism and Religious Arbitration. In: Arneil B, Deveaux M, Dhamoon R, and Eisenberg A (eds) Sexual Justice/Cultural Justice: Critical Perspectives in Political Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge , 211-230.
15.
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (2000) Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-23 : www.evangelicalfellowship.ca
16.
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (2001a) A Christian Affirmation of Marriage: www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/media/resource
17.
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (2001b) Submission to the Law Commission of Canada Consultation on Recognizing Supporting Close Personal Relationships Between Adults (January 31, 2001)www.evangelicalfellowship.ca
18.
Government of Canada (2002) Department of Justice. Marriage and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions: A Discussion Paper.
19.
Government of Canada (2003) Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Minutes (June 12, 2003) http://www.2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1037967&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2)
20.
Government of Canada (2005) Bill C-38: http://www.2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2333928&file=4
21.
Habermas J. ( 2006) Religion in the Public Sphere. European Journal of Philosophy14: 1-25.
22.
Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada (2002) Ontario Superior Court684, 39.
23.
Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada and Ontario (2003) O.C.A. C9172, C9174.
24.
Hendricks et LeBoeuf v. Le Procureur Général du Québec et La Procureure Générale du Canada (2002) Cour supérieure de Québec, No. 500-05-059656-007.
25.
Hervieu-Léger D. ( 1998) The Transmission and Formation of Socioreligious Identities in Modernity: An Analytical Essay on the Trajectories of Identification. International Sociology13: 213-228.
26.
Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) L.R. 1 P. & D.
27.
Interfaith Coalition for Marriage (2001a) Submission of the Intervener The Interfaith Coalition for Marriage. The Supreme Court of British Columbia (Short et al. No. 002698 and Barbeau et al. No. 003197).
28.
Interfaith Coalition for Marriage (2001b) Submission of the Intervener The Interfaith Coalition for Marriage. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court (Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General). (2002) 60 O.R. (3d) 321 (Div Ct); Halpern et al. Court File No. 684).
29.
Interfaith Coalition for Marriage (2003) Factum of the Intervener The Interfaith Coalition for Marriage. British Columbia Court of Appeal (Short et al., No. CA029048 Court of Appeal Registry: Vancouver No. L002698; Barbeau et al., No. CA029017 Court of Appeal Registry: Vancouver No. L003197).
30.
Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family ( 2003) Factum of the Intervener The Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family. Court of Appeal for Ontario, Halpern et al. Court File No. C-39172, C-39174.
31.
Law Commission of Canada (2001) Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships .
32.
Layland v. Ontario (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations) (1993) 14 O.R. (3d) (C.A.) 658.
33.
M. v. H. (1999) 2 S.C.R. 3.
34.
Metropolitan Community Church Toronto (2001 ) Factum of the Applicant, Metropolitan Community Church Toronto . Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court File 684/00.
35.
Metropolitan Community Church Toronto (2003 ) Factum of the Applicant, Metropolitan Community Church Toronto . Ontario Court of Appeal.
36.
Mitchell J. ( 2007) Religion is not a Preference. Journal of Politics69: 351-362.
37.
Moon R. ( 2003a) Liberty, Neutrality, and Inclusion: Religious Freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Brandeis Law Journal41: 563-573.
38.
Moon R. ( 2003b) Sexual Orientation Equality and Religious Freedom in the Public Schools: A Comment on Trinity Western University v. B. C. College of Teachers and Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board District. Review of Constitutional Studies36: 228-283.
39.
Orsi R. ( 2003) Is the Study of Lived Religion Irrelevant to the World We Live In? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion42: 169-174.
40.
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985) 1 S.C.R. 295.
41.
R. v. Haig and Birch (1992) 9 O.R (3d) (C.A.) 495.
42.
Reference re Same-Sex Marriage (2004) 3 S.C.R. 698.
43.
Religious Tolerance.org (2003) Same-Sex Marriage: Canadian Public Opinion Polls during 2003: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_maro.htm
44.
Ryder B. ( 2005) State Neutrality and Freedom of Conscience and Religion . Supreme Court Law Review29: 169-199.
45.
Stark Rand Finke R. ( 2000) Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London : University of California Press.
46.
Stout J. ( 2004) Democracy and Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
Young P.D. ( 2006) Same-Sex Marriage and Christian Churches in Canada. Studies in Religion/ Sciences Religieuses35(1): 3-23.
