As I am sure most Canadian readers are aware, last month the boundaries of Canadian multiculturalism were clarified. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the state can uphold a civil contract that concerns religious matters--in this case, a prenuptial contract stipulating a get upon civil divorce. For the particular story, check out this piece from Macleans (from 2006 when the court agreed to hear the case), followed by this recent op-ed piece in The Toronto Star which strongly supports the court's decision.
I am not here to advocate for or against Canada's multicultural settlement, though I do agree with the court's decision in the Canadian context: the state and religion in Canada are already intertwined (I am recognized as an agent of the state for marriage officiation solely due to my being a rabbi). Canada could choose to fully separate church and state (such as in France, which does not grant such recognition to religious leaders, instead requiring a separate civil wedding officiated by a secular agent of the secular state). Barring this, however, it seems a natural corollary that the secular state can enforce what is a "religious" contract ending marriage [get], just as it does the "religious" contract establishing marriage [kiddushin].
I know the matter does not end so simply: multiculturalism and the beit din [now no longer officially sanctioned by the state, but formerly recognized within Ontario], multiculturalism and religious school funding [yes, only Catholic schools are state funded in Ontario (and yes, it does need to be reiterated: my preferred solution is one publicly funded secular school system)]...the list goes on. But these are for other postings...
I don't know. It's a tricky issue. In the Maclean's article, Teitel nails it by asking: "What if the religiously oriented items either party has agreed to are abhorrent in the eyes of civil law?"
Posted by: Jay Palter | January 04, 2008 at 09:14 AM