There is a certain danger in commenting on something that you obviously haven’t a clue about.

This was my brief response.

Hi,
 
I just read your editorial today with some incredulity.  It seems to me that either you are woefully misinformed, or intentionally trying to mislead.
 
I’ll just make two points.
 
“For starters, marriage is a provincial matter and best left to legislatures to legislate. But when the feds did meddle in marriages in their 2005 landmark same-sex legislation, they enshrined ample protection against anyone being forced to perform ceremonies against their faith.”

This is contradictory – as you say marriage is a provincial matter, therefore it’s doubtful to say the least that federal safeguards are worth the paper that they are written on.  If you doubt me, check this: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111604.html. (UPDATE:  this is probably a little better http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071403.html)
 
“But what about gay newlyweds banned from celebrating their happy union in a hall owned by an anti-same-sex church, one official wondered. Good grief. Has it really come to this sort of extreme theoretical? Besides, what happy homosexual pair would want to hold their reception in a deeply religious congregation’s hall where, aside from being a sinful coupling in the landlord’s eyes, there probably isn’t any booze allowed either?”

Sorry to say, but it’s only extremely theoretical if you’re extremely ignorant of the facts.  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120901.html

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Peter