Responding to the Supreme Court's decision on the same-sex marriage reference, Alberta's justice minister says his province won't invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the decision.

Prime Minister Paul Martin and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler are pledging to table legislation on same-sex marriage when Parliament reconvenes in the new year.

Should that legislation become law, Alberta Justice Minister Rob Stevens said his province won't invoke the clause because provinces can't define marriages; only Ottawa can. Provinces simply issue licences based on Ottawa's laws. 

"You cannot use the notwithstanding clause relative to a matter that is not within your jurisdiction," Stevens said Thursday.

"Since the court ruled the authority over same-sex marriage falls to the federal government, it is only the federal government who can invoke the notwithstanding clause to maintain the traditional definition of marriage," he added in a statement.

"The court clearly said that provinces could not refuse to issue licences or register same-sex marriages."

Nevertheless, for now, Stevens said, Alberta stands behind its own marriage law, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And that, he added, reflects what he believes to be the values of most Albertans.

"There are differing views on this point, but my own sense of it is that in Alberta, as of today, the majority of Albertans are in support of the traditional definition of marriage," he said.

Watching from Ottawa, CTV's Mike Duffy said the unusually restrained reaction suggests recently-reelected Ralph Klein is carefully considering his options.

"It tells me that Klein is holding back, waiting to see which way the wind's blowing," Duffy said. "And also that he's prepared to reconsider this whole issue."

In the meantime, same-sex couples hoping for a marriage licence in Alberta are out of luck, since no court in Alberta has struck down the current marriage definition.

"The definition of marriage in this province is the traditional one," Stevens said, "And so a same-sex couple that would seek a marriage licence today in Alberta would be declined."

Reaction in Ottawa

In Ottawa, critics and proponents of same-sex marriage were also quick to weigh in with their reaction.

Immediately following the release of the ruling, lawyer Martha McCarthy told reporters the decision is a "clear green light" to same-sex couples who have already tied the knot in Canada.

"It means that the marriages of the couples which have already been solemnized across this country are valid and are entitled to ongoing protection," she said.

Cotler said Wednesday that if the ruling was favourable, he would move legislation very quickly.

With that prospect now a step closer to reality, Conservative Senator Anne Cools told reporters that would be a mistake.

"This entire debate has been conducted by elites, " she said. "I believe it's time to go to the people of Canada to inquire what they really want."

Addressing reporters at a news conference a short while later, however, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said he's not interested in a national referendum.

"That's not what we're asking for," he said. "We are asking simply that parliament get the vote on this."

But from his perspective, Philip Horgan of the Catholic Civil Rights League believes it's imperative that citizens have their say.

"I think what we lack is the views of Canadians," he said, noting that 11 states voted against same-sex marriage when Americans went to the polls on Nov. 2.

Egale Canada executive director Gilles Marchildon doesn't agree.

"It's our view that the question's already been answered and politicians have been told by courts across the country that this is what equality means," Marchildon said.

When the matter is put to a vote in the House, Marchildon says he hopes lawmakers won't dash the work of the Supreme Court and seven of its provincial and territorial counterparts.

"Given the positive ruling, I think that this is going to convince a few MPs that were maybe sitting on the fence."

Senator Cools, however, had a different take on the high court's influence. Calling its decision "far from fair," she suggested the prime minister would use it to compel his caucus to vote against their beliefs.

"I would submit to you that the government in the first place came to this court to get a big stick to beat its own members over the head with," she told a crush of reporters.

For lawyer Douglas Elliot, however, the decision is anything but an authoritarian decree. Instead, he argued that it's a recognition religious and civil freedoms must co-exist.

"The court has made a very strong statement in support of religious freedom," the lawyer for the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto told reporters.

"This is the concern, the bogeyman that has been trotted out by our opponents -- and the Supreme Court of Canada has said in the strongest possible terms that the courts and human rights commission will extend their protection to religious officials who disagree."

Nevertheless, Horgan says the issue is far from a political solution.

"We're not at the end of the story," he told CTV Newsnet. "There are parliamentarians who have yet to speak on the issue and I suspect many Canadians will recognize the importance of these issues going forward and have their influence before this is done."