"The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so"
About this Quote
Martin’s “The facts are plain” is doing the classic politician’s trick of trying to end the argument by announcing it’s already over. It’s a calming opener with a hard edge: he’s framing the issue not as a moral battlefield but as settled architecture - rights, jurisdictions, and limits. The sentence rhythm is legalistic and incremental (“must and will,” “if they do not wish,” “that is their right”), designed to sound like governance rather than ideology.
The intent is bridge-building in a moment when Canada’s same-sex marriage debate risked turning into a culture war imported from elsewhere. Martin draws a thick line between civil recognition and religious participation. He’s not asking clergy to evolve on command; he’s insisting the state can expand marriage equality without conscripting faith communities. That’s a strategic reassurance aimed at moderates and anxious religious voters: your churches won’t be punished for dissent, and the courts are on your side.
The subtext is equally pointed toward advocates of equality: the state’s project will proceed, but it will proceed cleanly, with minimal collision. By invoking both “the Supreme Court” and “the Charter,” he wraps the compromise in Canadian civic scripture. It’s not just policy, it’s constitutional identity.
Context matters: in the early 2000s, after pivotal court rulings and the Supreme Court reference on same-sex marriage, the political challenge wasn’t merely passing legislation - it was containing backlash. Martin’s quote functions as a pressure valve, translating a divisive social shift into a promise of pluralism: expanded civil rights, protected religious autonomy, no zero-sum winner required.
The intent is bridge-building in a moment when Canada’s same-sex marriage debate risked turning into a culture war imported from elsewhere. Martin draws a thick line between civil recognition and religious participation. He’s not asking clergy to evolve on command; he’s insisting the state can expand marriage equality without conscripting faith communities. That’s a strategic reassurance aimed at moderates and anxious religious voters: your churches won’t be punished for dissent, and the courts are on your side.
The subtext is equally pointed toward advocates of equality: the state’s project will proceed, but it will proceed cleanly, with minimal collision. By invoking both “the Supreme Court” and “the Charter,” he wraps the compromise in Canadian civic scripture. It’s not just policy, it’s constitutional identity.
Context matters: in the early 2000s, after pivotal court rulings and the Supreme Court reference on same-sex marriage, the political challenge wasn’t merely passing legislation - it was containing backlash. Martin’s quote functions as a pressure valve, translating a divisive social shift into a promise of pluralism: expanded civil rights, protected religious autonomy, no zero-sum winner required.
Quote Details
| Topic | Marriage |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Paul
Add to List



