Issues of fundamental, ethical principles are always the most difficult for politicians to handle.
It is for that reason that Premier Brad Wall should be commended for his handling of the recent issue of marriage commissioners refusing to perform civil ceremonies for gay couples ... even if the premier's actions have satisfied very few.
Those supportive of right of same-sex couples to marry as both the law of the land and a fundamental human rights issues question why Wall and his Saskatchewan Party government even had to refer the matter to the courts for guidance in the first place.
However, supporters of the dissenting marriage commissioners are even more disenchanted.
They argue the provincial government could have done subtle things to accommodate the marriage commissioners including a "single entry point" that would avoid gay couples and those commissioners refusing to perform ceremonies for gay couples from ever coming into contact. More strident views argue the government should have further challenged the issue in the courts as "unconstitutional".
A couple important points need to be clarified here.
First, the five senior Appeal Court Justices concluded that there is no infringement on religious freedoms of the marriage commissioners because they can still practice their religion as they choose. The issue is the performance of their duties as public servants as outlined by the law and the Human Rights Code. (It's important to remember that the gay marriage decision in no way compels any church to marry same-sex couples. This only applies to non-religious civil wedding ceremonies.)
Second, the five justices left virtually no option for a so-called compromise. To allow one marriage commissioner to opt out of providing service would be like, as Justice Robert Richards explained, one civil servant saying that he refused to provide service to someone because they were black or Asian, but eagerly adding he would find another civil servant that would help.
Give the obvious delicacy and strong emotional sentiments surrounding this issue, one can only admire the stance Wall and his government took. There could not be a satisfactory compromise here. A strong, firm decision had to made that would likely offend one side or the other.
Wall followed the sensible, reasonable course of accepting the guidance the court's guidance that his government requested.
And in doing so, Wall demonstrated that he understands why we need to separate church and state in our society.
But this important principle that Wall obviously gets seems lost on some of our federal MPs. The very same Conservative MPs who chose silence when a foreign company was engaging in hostile takeover of Saskatchewan's biggest player in the potash industry now have a lot to say on the gay marriage issue.
The ink on the judges' decision was barely dry when Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP Maurice Vellacott was writing to Saskatchewan Justice Minister Don Morgan demanding the provincial government implement the unworkable "single entry point" system. Vellacott criticized the Court of Appeal for "belittling religious faith as something you do in your head or on weekends".
Not to be outdone, Cypress Hills-Grassland MP David Anderson fired off an angry missive after Wall's decision, stating the court decision "guarantees that religious/faith rights will be treated as a second tier human right in the future" and that "no person who has an active faith perspective keeps that as 'private' and separate from all other areas of their life."
If so, what's to stop people of all active faiths - Muslin, Jewish, Hindu, Christian - from then expressing their religious beliefs on the job? And what if those beliefs interfere with the services you get? What if they simply say: "I won't serve you because your religious beliefs aren't the same as mine?"
This is why we need to separate church and state.
Wall should be commended for adhering to this important concept.
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 15 years.
