Moral issues on gov’t backburner: experts

The Saskatchewan Party government’s handling of the issue of same-sex marriage has shone a light on its delicate relationship with social conservatives.

While the party is prepared to play lip service to social conservatives who played a prominent role in its early days and remain part of its base, say observers, there has been little actual delivery from the government on hot-button issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage since its 2007 election victory.

Raymond Blake, a University of Regina history professor who has studied the Sask. Party, said much of the party’s evolution since its 1997 founding has involved playing down the importance of issues of personal morality.

"New political parties are coalitions and each part of that coalition is somewhat important," Blake said in an interview Tuesday. "How do you manage the various groups within? Of course you can say, throw them a bone, knowing that the bone is not going to satisfy them. But at least you can say, ‘We listened. We are building this province block by block and we don’t want to sort of alienate any group because political coalitions can come undone relatively quickly.’ "

In opposition, the Sask. Party slammed the then-NDP government for not fighting against the legalization of gay marriage.

But after forming government in 2007, it ignored the issue until launching a 2009 reference court case on a proposal that would have allowed the province’s marriage commissioners to opt out of performing marriages for homosexual couples.

When the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled the proposal unconstitutional last week, Justice Minister Don Morgan suggested the government would look at other potential ways to accommodate commissioners who did not want to oversee same-sex marriages.

But on Tuesday, the government announced it accepted the court’s ruling and would not pursue the issue further.

Blake said going to the courts is a very common way for politicians "to deal with issues they really don’t want to touch because they are wedge issues."

But the government’s move was bound to disappoint social conservatives who had hoped for action to accommodate marriage commissioners.

Tom Schuck, a Saskatchewan Party member and a lawyer who represented one of the interveners in the case, acknowledged in an earlier interview that the government had done little on social conservative issues but praised it for having good intentions.

On Tuesday, he expressed disappointment after the government’s decision, saying it had bowed to political pressure.

"From a practical point of view, the solution is to put them out into the wilderness again to think things over. . . . I hate to think of that as a solution but sometimes you need to purge in order to move forward," Schuck said from Weyburn.

Schuck said social conservatives may play closer attention to candidates vying for Sask. Party nominations.

Muriel Nielsen, the president of the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association, had also expressed hope in an interview last week that the Sask. Party would find a way for commissioners to opt out of performing same-sex marriages.

She said her organization has made the case to the government that it should not fund abortion services and pass parental consent and "conscience" legislation for health-care workers opposed to abortion.

"There is some support but they are hesitant, I think, to really speak out," said Nielsen, who believes the government is fearful of the political consequences of handling hot-button social issues.

Nielsen said at the moment there is no strong political option for social conservatives in Saskatchewan.

"I think there will be an opportunity some day because I think people are fed up with the status quo, so to speak," said Nielsen, who lives in the Swift Current constituency of Premier Brad Wall.

The Sask. Party has touched on some other social conservative concerns since taking office. Schuck praised the government’s move to scrap the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, which he described as a "kangaroo court" in favour of having cases heard by the Court of Queen’s Bench.

However, Morgan has been adamant that the move was made in the interest of efficiency, not ideology.

Ken Rasmussen, associate director of the Johnson-Shoyama graduate school of public policy, said moral issues have traditionally had little traction in a provincial political scene that has focused on the pocketbook and issues such as health care.

The Sask. Party’s record in office is indicative of the relative weakness of the social conservative movement in Saskatchewan, he said.

"If there is a movement here, there is no centre of gravity," Rasmussen said in an interview this week.

"I don’t think it would be much of a concern the party had. They can be ignored, I guess."

The government declined to comment for this story but Morgan told the Regina Leader-Post Tuesday he knew there would be disappointment with the government’s decision on the marriage commissioner case.

"We didn’t do this for political popularity; we did it because we were faced with two court challenges and it was a situation where no matter what the determination of the court was, there would be people that would not be happy with it."