Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

Shi Huangdi · June 17, 2003, 20:56

It appears not only will the Ontario ruling not be overruled, but instead extended to all of Canada. From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...-Marriage.html

Quote:

Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriages
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 8:37 p.m. ET

TORONTO (AP) -- Canada will change its law to allow homosexual marriage, joining Belgium and The Netherlands as the only countries where same-sex couples can legally wed, Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced Tuesday.

Chretien said the new law would be drafted within weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for review, then put to a Parliament vote. His Liberal Party has a commanding majority in the legislature, though the issue has caused division in the Liberal caucus.

The announcement means the government decided against appealing recent court rulings that declared the nation's definition of marriage as unconstitutional because it specified the union of a man and woman.

An Ontario appeals court last week declared that wording invalid, changing it to a union between two people.

``There is an evolution of society,'' Chretien said in making the announcement after a Cabinet meeting. He said the law would allow religions the right to decide what marriages should be sanctified.

An Anglican diocese in Vancouver has approved a blessing for same-sex unions, which it says is separate from marriage. The blessing ceremony, performed once so far, caused a split in the diocese with some churches dissociating themselves.

Opinion polls indicate a slight majority of Canadians favor legalizing same-sex marriages. After the Ontario appeals court ruling and similar previous ones by courts in British Columbia and Quebec, the government was under pressure to change the law or file appeals that would have left the issue unsettled.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Tuesday it was time for change.

``We have decided not to appeal those rulings ... and proceeded with draft legislation that will be ready shortly ,'' he said. The new law would redefine marriage as called for by the courts while protecting religious freedoms, according to Cauchon.

``We're talking about essential freedoms here,'' he said.

Svend Robinson, a Parliament member for the leftist New Democratic Party who has pushed for same-sex marriages in Canada, praised Chretien's government for showing leadership. He rejected opposition by conservative political groups, who argue that changing the definition of marriage uproots a fundamental tenet of Canadian society.

Dozens of homosexual couples have obtained marriage licenses in the week since the court ruling, with at least one wedding taking place.

In the United States, homosexual marriage lacks full legal recognition in all 50 states. Vermont recognizes civil unions that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage but are separate from legal marriage.

``Americans now have the chance to see a society can treat gay people with respect,'' said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York-based Freedom to Marry organization promoting homosexual marriage. ``Families are helped, and no one is hurt.''

Asher · June 17, 2003, 20:59

It won't happen in Alberta, Klein has vowed to use the notwithstanding clause to declare that it doesn't apply to Alberta.

Shi Huangdi · June 17, 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
It won't happen in Alberta, Klein has vowed to use the notwithstanding clause to declare that it doesn't apply to Alberta.

Can a Canadian province simply defy the national government like that?

Asher · June 17, 2003, 21:02

Yeah, that's exactly the purpose of the notwithstanding clause.

Boris Godunov · June 17, 2003, 21:12

Under what conditions can they use the notwithstanding clause? Any? Can they reject any law from the central government?

But, overall, good news. Chretien came down on the right side of the issue.

Asher · June 17, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

The nothwithstanding clause (or override power) is the name of the legislative power under section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The federal Parliament or a provincial legislature may declare a law or part of a law to apply temporarily "notwithstanding" certain sections of the Charter. Essentially, using it to negate any federal, provincial or judicial review by overriding the rights enuciated in the Charter for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law specifically specifying which rights have been overridden. Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although it may be re-enacted indefinitely. The rationale behind having a five year expiry date is that it is also the maximum amount of time that the Parliament or legislature may sit before an election must be called. Therefore, if the people wish for the law to be repealed they have the right to elect representatives that will carry out the wish of the electorate. Although, if fundamental rights such as - freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association - can be overridden, then this begs the question of whether or not the people do have the right to do so.

The use of this clause is most noted for its inclusion in the Quebec language law, known as Bill 101, after sections of that law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.). On December 21, 1989 the Premier of the Province of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression (section 2b), and freedom equality (section 15). This allowed the Province of Quebec to continue the restriction against the posting of any commercial signs in languages other than French.

The only other use of the notwithstanding clause to date was with respect to a labor law passed by the Province of Saskatchewan. In this case the law was later ruled to be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making the use of the clause unnecessary. However, Ralph Klein, Premier of the Province of Alberta has declared that he will implement the nothwitstanding clause to prevent any Supreme Court of Canada order that allows marriage between same sex partners.

The use of this clause has come to be seen as an increasingly dangerous political option for governments.

DinoDoc · June 17, 2003, 22:34

Why pretend that it is a temporary measure in light of the Quebec example?

Asher · June 17, 2003, 22:39

We also have a Senate whose only purpose is to temporarily delay bills 60 days if they don't like them.

And Senators are appointed for life by the Prime Minister.

Asher · June 17, 2003, 22:42

Also, this doesn't mean it'll be legalized.

It means they'll propose a bill in the House of Commons to legalize it, and if a majority in the house votes, then it'll be passed. If the majority reject it, it won't pass.

And Chretien is letting the Liberals (who hold the majority) to "vote their conscience" rather than "vote the party line", which means it's not guaranteed (the Liberals are split on it internally).

Mr. President · June 17, 2003, 22:47

Another thing to blame Canada about!

cinch · June 17, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

It won't happen in Alberta, Klein has vowed to use the notwithstanding clause to declare that it doesn't apply to Alberta.

Why is Klein such a bastard? He and Smith are both so very undeserving of their offices. Watching Smith nearly burst into tears as he was forced to declare Gay Pride Day made my stomach turn.

I bet Raj Pannu would never invoke 'the Clause'...

VOTE NDP!

Asher · June 17, 2003, 23:06

Meh, Klein's being stupid, but he's gone on the record of supporting the same legal rights for gays, he just takes issue with using the term "marriage" since marriage is, in his opinion, a religious institution.

The whole issue of gay marriage is largely symbolic only, the legal rights already exist aside from that.

BTW, the last time I saw Raj he was standing in a corner of Mac Hall at the UofC talking to an enthused crowd of about a half-dozen or so.

Boris Godunov · June 17, 2003, 23:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. President
Another thing to blame Canada about!

Yes, we can blame Canada for being a progressive country which grants rights to all of its citizens without discriminating! DAMN THEM TO HELL!

Lorizael · June 17, 2003, 23:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
We also have a Senate whose only purpose is to temporarily delay bills 60 days if they don't like them.

And Senators are appointed for life by the Prime Minister.

That sounds a lot like the British House of Lords.

and yay gay marriages!

St Leo · June 17, 2003, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
BTW, the last time I saw Raj he was standing in a corner of Mac Hall at the UofC talking to an enthused crowd of about a half-dozen or so.

What's wrong with being in touch with one's electorate? Are expensive dinners in stilted suits with a reserved company of about a half-dozen or so that much better?

Asher · June 17, 2003, 23:30

It's not wrong, it's funny that even at a university where there's disproportionate numbers of lefties, nobody cared.

Giant_Squid · June 18, 2003, 00:01

Ah, God bless Canada; you can always count on them to make the right decision a couple of years ahead of the real world.

Mr. President · June 18, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Yes, we can blame Canada for being a progressive country which grants rights to all of its citizens without discriminating! DAMN THEM TO HELL!

Learn to take a joke, or shut up.

Shi Huangdi · June 18, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. President

Learn to take a joke, or shut up.

I think Boris has come under the influence of Mr.Fun

Worthingtons · June 18, 2003, 00:26

Great News that is
Why dont all government's act like Canada? since doing actions which can cause no harm and benefit people is good.

Al B. Sure! · June 18, 2003, 00:39

Worthingtons:

because most people in other countries are opposed to gay marriage...

monolith94 · June 18, 2003, 00:45

Would you rather live in Canada or inner Philly, Speer?

Al B. Sure! · June 18, 2003, 00:49

Monolith:

i believe you know the answer to that and as a red-blooded american (i hope), i'm sure you'd make the same decision

Lancer · June 18, 2003, 00:55

No wonder all the cute Canadian girls come south. Maybe all the US gays will go north to get married? Hey, when they do we close the borders with huge highway sized butt plugs...

notyoueither · June 18, 2003, 00:58

You'll give your's up, Lancer?

Zylka · June 18, 2003, 01:02

I'm borderline opposed to the federal decision... but still wonder how healthy Klein's response will be in terms of further isolating Alberta. Oh, and NDP??? HAHAHAHAHAHA there's always at least one of them on campus stopping students to talk, or losing a debate at the rickety "Speaker's Corner", or asking random people for spare cigarettes and bus fare

Keep in touch with your electorate, indeed - because we all know how intelligent the average University student pulling a B average in HUMAN GEOGRAPHY, LOGISTICS PHILOSOPHY, BASKET WEAVING etc is...

Lancer · June 18, 2003, 01:07

"You'll give your's up, Lancer?"

Nice comeback

monolith94 · June 18, 2003, 01:11

"i believe you know the answer to that and as a red-blooded american (i hope), i'm sure you'd make the same decision"

If I had a choice between inner-city Philly or Canada, I'd take Canada in a heartbeat. I fully admit that I couldn't survive in your world, Speer. I'm looking forward to a healthy, calm young adulthood, working for some company, and not scrapping by in the ghetto, as character building as that activity can be.

notyoueither · June 18, 2003, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
"You'll give your's up, Lancer?"

Nice comeback

Thanks.

Ben Kenobi · June 18, 2003, 01:27

Quote:

Can a Canadian province simply defy the national government like that?

I hope so, but much remains to be seen. They still need to pass a bill in the house of parliament upholding the ruling of the Ontario court, since the Ontario court cannot make a law, they can only rule according to the law.

Rest assured, any such bill to reach parliament will tear apart the Liberal caucus. The committee only voted 9-8 in favour of not appealing the decision.

Also, two bills died on the order paper, bill C-250 and C-13, hate crimes and reproductive technologies respectively. We will see whether the bills return next session, with the turnover in the Liberal party leadership.