Mike Savage, MP Liberal for Dartmouth riding, born and raised Catholic, married Anglican, and quoted a United Church moderator stating it was a human rights issue, to justify his position in supporting same-sex marriage. He still leaned on his Catholic upbringing for the morality of his human rights stand on this issue. Was this some sort of appeasement to Catholics? Many informed Catholics who voted for him the last time around will not be doing do this time.

His father, former premier and medical doctor was one of the founding members of Planned Parenthood of NS and yet a practising Catholic.

House of Commons Hansard - March 21, 2005

Civil Marriage Act

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill, the
civil marriage act, here in Parliament where so many other historic debates
have taken place in years past.

Many members have spoken about how difficult this decision has been for
them and how much difficulty they have had during this process of
discussion. This debate has occurred in many places, in our communities, our
churches and our families. Now it takes place where it should, in
Parliament, where legislation is subjected to its most legitimate and
democratic test.

I was asked recently if I wished that the legislation, as emotional as
it is, could have been avoided, and I said no. We do not stand for election
to this historic and important place in order to make easy decisions, but to
debate and decide those that most matter to Canadians. We come to this place
to discuss difficult issues, to debate the merits, to make decisions and to
make law.

In my view this is a law whose time has come. I am pleased to tell
members why I feel this way, as I have discussed this with my constituents
back home. For me, the discussion revolves around two basic principles. The
first is the issue of justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The
second is an issue of personal faith.

First, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is something of which
Canadians are justifiably proud. It guarantees that every individual is
equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and
equal benefit of the law without discrimination. I believe this bill follows
that principle. I believe anything less than the right to marriage and the
right to use the name marriage would be unlawful and would be unjust.

I also believe that it is right to protect religious freedoms and the
bill clearly does that. How much clearer can it get than clause 3 of the act
where it says:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse
to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious
beliefs.

I cannot imagine why that would be anything but clear in its protection
of the rights of churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to choose whether
or not to sanctify marriage. As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has
indicated very clearly that Parliament must create uniformity of law across
the country. This follows the precedent of eight other jurisdictions in
Canada that provide equal access by same sex couples to civil marriage.

From the point of view of justice and the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, the answer is clear. This is a law whose time has come. I support
the legislation because I think it is right and because it is both just and
moral. It is consistent with both the Charter of Rights and with my own
personal faith.

That is not to say that the issue has been without difficulty. Many
people whom I respect greatly oppose my view, some in particularly strong
terms. Though my view has never changed, I have struggled to find the words
to express my strong support for the legislation. I found them in the words
of Dr. Peter Short, the moderator of the United Church of Canada. He has
expressed that the legislation does not represent an abandoning of faith,
but rather an embracement of faith. He further reminds us that the literal
interpretation of scripture has been used to justify actions that none of us
would advocate: slavery, apartheid and the repression of women.

From my own faith, I take heart in the notion of informed conscience,
that as Catholics we need to combine the teachings of the word with our own
objective judgments and make wise decisions. This concept have been the
tenet of many lives, including my late parents, of people who have made this
world a better place. There are many people of faith who feel differently,
but there are many who feel as I do and have indicated it to me. It does
reinforce the importance of religious protections so clearly delineated in
the bill.

I have had many telephone calls, written exchanges and visits with
people who feel differently. I respect their right to their opinions and
have in fact come to understand some new views of my own. I recall a meeting
with a Baptist minister who strongly opposed my view but with whom I was
honoured to share a prayer in my office, and I thank him for that privilege.

I must confess though that there is one concept with which I am simply
unable to identify. That is the concept that extension of marriage rights to
gays and lesbians diminishes marriage rights to others. I simply do not
think or believe that the extension of rights to others diminishes our own.
Why would it?

» (1735)

Why is it acceptable for those in our society who have committed the
most egregious crimes against children, men who abuse their wives,
murderers, war criminals and terrorists, that they can be married without
diminishing the institution of marriage but gays and lesbians cannot? It
does not make sense. Likewise, the idea that same sex couples cannot be a
family is absolutely wrong.

There is much rhetoric on both sides of this argument. There are some
who say that same sex couples are in fact better parents, more loving,
understanding and more sensitive. I would simply suggest that there are both
good and bad parents who are both homosexual and heterosexual.

I happen to be the godfather to a little girl who has two mothers. I can
simply say without any fear of contradiction that no one would be better
parents to Emily and her sister Rosie than her parents Jane and Vicki. They
are a family in every respect and deserve to be recognized by their country
and their fellow citizens as the family they are.

On every level, legal, personal experience, personal faith and family, I
believe this is the right thing. It sits comfortably in both my head and my
heart.

It does however leave one issue that troubles some people. Am I here to
reflect my own views or reflect the majority view of my constituency?
Leaving aside the fact that there is no clear way to know for certain the
accurate view of my constituents short of a referendum on this issue, would
it be appropriate for me to vote according to the majority view?

I have a responsibility to consult with my constituents actively and
openly. I have done this and I will continue to do this. However at the end
of the day I need to make a decision that I believe to be right and I will.
I suspect it will cost me votes.

The only polling I have seen on this subject indicates feelings are
mixed in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour on civil marriage, but those who oppose the
bill are probably more inclined to vote against me rather than the reverse.
This is democracy and I fully accept that fact.

However the fundamental issue of importance to me is that human rights
and equality of minorities cannot be left to majority favour. Over the
years, minority groups of every faith, race and sex have suffered at the
hands of majorities. The fundamental principle of equality is the protection
and even the enhancement of minority recognition and rights.

I support Bill C-38 for those reasons. I believe a time will soon come
when we will look back on this debate with great national pride. The
evolution of social justice, however, is seldom easy. I have respect for
those who are uneasy with this legislation and I certainly hold no ill
feelings.

I thank all my constituents who have expressed opinions. Nothing is more
democratic or important. However the legislation passes every test for me,
legally, morally and ethically. It affirms our Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. It supports issues of equality and, most important, it feels right
in my heart. This is a law whose time has come.

I support the legislation as introduced by the government.