(from an article in the Leader-Post)

This historical search for compromise is inescapable in the Liberals' approach to same-sex marriage. It has been bubbling away for some years; it was forced by a number of judicial decisions that said there was no legal reason to prevent it. "Legal" was in italics because the laws that govern us as citizens should not, must not, be confused with the moral rules that religions set for their members.

If churches disagree with the effects of our laws, they are free to offer their views and advice to citizens, including politicians. The Catholic hierarchy certainly did so on this issue. But it's up to legislators whether they take it, or reject it.

In that context, the federal government's proposal to handle this thorny issue is a sincere attempt at compromise. Had it appealed the decisions permitting gay marriage, it is not impossible the Supreme Court of Canada would have upheld these decisions, holding that the Charter of Rights forbids governments from treating gay and straight couples in different manners.

And then what? Would churches opposed to gay marriages thus have been legally compelled to perform them?

The beauty of the government's approach is that it may legally shelter churches from any potential requirement of this sort. We might well be nearing the point where there will be two "types" of marriages: a legal one and religious one, quite separate and apart.