Attention gay folks!

[Harry Seldon]

I actually live in an area that's heavily gay and it's the best place to live in town. Houses run about $250,000 for a rundown dump. Must be all the rainbows.

[Spiffor]

The more I learn about it, the more I like Canada. I wouldn't expect such an open country would exist in North America

[Ben Kenobi]

"the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Why exclusionary?

Define union.

Is marriage under the domain of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Define orientation, vis-a-vis the Charter.

AFAIK none of these questions are answered under the decision.

[MrFun]

Interesting article -- just another example that the United States is not necessarily the freest or the most progressive country in the world.

Originally posted by Asher
Hopefully the "Liberals" don't appeal it.

President Bill Clinton decided to be a dumbass and sign the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 -- and he's a Democrat.

But what exactly do you mean by the quotations and the word, Liberal?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
But what exactly do you mean by the quotations and the word, Liberal?

Because it's just a front.

They pretend to be Liberal to get elected, then all they do is throw money around to their cronies and make boneheaded political decisions, diplomatic ****ups, etc.

Senate committees recommended the legalization of marijuana, the Liberals did their usual appeal, stall, kill tactic. Same thing with the previous two provincial courts (Quebec, BC) that said Gay Marriage must be legal: appeal, stall, kill...

Same thing will happen here.

[mindseye]

Hooray for Canada!

Between gay marriage and cannabis legislation, Canada is looking better and better all the time!

Honestly, I am growing convinced that China will have gay marriage before the US.

[Harry Seldon]

I thought Vermont had legally recognized gay marriages? Am I wrong on that?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
I thought Vermont had legally recognized gay marriages? Am I wrong on that?

The state of Vermont as gay civil unions, which are not recognized by the Federal government, nor are other states required to recognize them. If a gay couple moved out of Vermont, their union would not be legally valid in their new state.

[Flubber]

Good show-- I was a little suprised that they did not delay implementation of their decision as the Courts of Appeal in two other provinces had done but I think their reasoning was that there was no exclusionary rewrite that would pass so why wait


Note that Alberta Premier Klein has stated he will use the notwithstanding clause ( which allows laws to violate charter rights) to ensure that marriage in Alberta remains a heterosexual institution.

The "Liberals" are listed as such because while their party name is big L liberal, thir policies are often NOT little l liberal

[Flubber]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Why exclusionary?

Define union.

Is marriage under the domain of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Define orientation, vis-a-vis the Charter.

AFAIK none of these questions are answered under the decision.

Exclusionary I think was meant to include only unions of two people.

marriage is a legal institution in canada governed by statutes and as such those statutes ( provincial laws) cannot infringe on an individual's Charter rights UNLESS the province invokes the notwithstanding clause.


I don't know why anyone would have to define orientation but I believe that there are a large number of prior human rights decisions where sexual orientation are " written in" to human rights codes by the courts. I imagine those decisions defined it quite well. I don't think that the type of relationship that would qualify has changed much ( except now the genders of the married couple need not be the same)

I will be reading the whole decision but here is the Synopsys as psted on the Ontario Court of Appeal website http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decis...rnsynopsis.htm



Synopsis of Halpern et al v. Attorney General of Canada et al

Overview:


From April 22 to 25, 2003, a panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, composed of Chief Justice McMurtry and Justices MacPherson and Gillese, heard a constitutional challenge to the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage, which is found only in the common law, requires that marriage be between “one man and one woman”. This opposite-sex requirement was challenged by eight same-sex couples (“the Couples”) as offending their right to equality as guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”) on the basis of sexual orientation. The opposite-sex requirement was also challenged by the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (“MCCT”) as violating its right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter and its equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter on the basis of religion.


On July 12, 2002, the Divisional Court (Associate Chief Justice Smith, Regional Senior Justice Blair and Justice LaForme) unanimously held that the opposite-sex requirement of marriage infringed the Couples’ equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter and was not saved as a justifiable limit in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter. The Divisional Court was also unanimous in ruling that the rights of MCCT as a religious institution were not violated. The Court was divided on the issue of remedy. The formal judgment of the Court declared the common law definition to be inoperative. The declaration was suspended for two years to enable Parliament to fashion an appropriate remedy. If Parliament failed to act within two years, then the common law definition of marriage would be automatically reformulated by substituting the words “two persons” for “one man and one woman”.


In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal upholds the decision of the Divisional Court that the common law definition of marriage offends the Couples’ equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter in a manner that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. The Court further agrees that MCCT’s rights as a religious institution are not violated. On remedy, the Court declares the current definition of marriage to be invalid, reformulates the definition of marriage to be “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others”, and orders the declaration of invalidity and the reformulated definition to have immediate effect.


Violation of Equality Rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter:


The Court holds that the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships is violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.


The opposite-sex requirement in the definition of marriage creates a formal distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex couples on the basis of sexual orientation, an analogous ground of discrimination under s. 15(1) of the Charter.


A law that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying does not accord with the needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are capable of forming long, lasting, loving and intimate relationships. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry perpetuates the contrary view, namely, that same-sex couples are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships, and thus same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships. Moreover, same-sex couples can choose to have children through adoption, surrogacy and donor insemination. Importantly, procreation and child-rearing are not the only purposes of marriage, or the only reason why couples choose to marry.


The Court does not accept that, given recent amendments to federal law extending benefits to same-sex couples, same-sex couples are afforded equal treatment under the law. In many instances, statutory rights and obligations do not attach until the same-sex couple has been cohabiting for a specified period of time. Married couples, on the other hand, have instant access to all attendant rights and obligations. Additionally, not all marital rights and obligations have been extended to cohabiting couples. Further, s. 15(1) of the Charter guarantees more than equal access to economic benefits; it requires a consideration of whether persons and groups have been excluded from fundamental societal institutions. Exclusion from marriage – a fundamental societal institution – perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships. In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships.


Violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter:


The Court holds that the Attorney General of Canada has failed to demonstrate that the violation of the equality rights of the Couples is justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter.


First, the Attorney General of Canada did not demonstrate any pressing and substantial objective for maintaining marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. A law whose purpose is uniting the two opposite sexes has the result of favouring one form of relationship over another, and suggests that uniting two persons of the same sex is of lesser importance. The encouragement of procreation and child-rearing does not require the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Heterosexual couples will not stop having or raising children because same-sex couples are permitted to marry. An increasing percentage of children are born to and raised by same-sex couples. Although a union of two persons of the opposite sex is the only union that can “naturally” procreate, it is not a sufficiently pressing and substantial objective to justify infringing the equality rights of same-sex couples.


Second, the Attorney General of Canada did not demonstrate that the means chosen to achieve its objectives are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. The opposite-sex requirement in marriage is not rationally connected to the encouragement of procreation and child-rearing. The law is overinclusive because the ability to naturally procreate and the willingness to raise children are not prerequisites of marriage for opposite-sex couples. The law is underinclusive because it excludes same-sex couples that have and raise children. Companionship also is not rationally connected to the exclusion of same-sex couples. Gay men and lesbians are as capable of providing companionship to their partners as persons in opposite-sex relationships. Additionally, the opposite-sex requirement in the definition of marriage does not minimally impair the rights of the Couples. Same-sex couples have been completely excluded from a fundamental societal institution. Complete exclusion cannot constitute minimal impairment.


Remedy:


The common law definition of marriage is inconsistent with the Charter to the extent that it excludes same-sex couples. The remedy that best corrects the inconsistency is to declare invalid the existing definition of marriage to the extent that it refers to “one man and one woman” and to reformulate the definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others”. This remedy achieves the equality required by s. 15(1) of the Charter but ensures that the legal state of marriage is not left in a state of uncertainty.


The Court does not accept that the only remedy that should be ordered is a declaration of invalidity and that the declaration should be suspended to permit Parliament to respond. A declaration of invalidity alone fails to meet the Court’s obligation to reformulate a common law rule that breaches a Charter right. A temporary suspension allows a state of affairs that has been found to violate standards embodied in the Charter to persist for a time despite the violation. A temporary suspension is warranted only in limited circumstances, such as where striking down the law poses a potential danger to the public, threatens the rule of law, or would have the effect of denying benefits under the law to deserving persons. There is no evidence that these limited circumstances exist here.

[Zylka]

"the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Can I legally marry a willing 8 year old boy, now? Or my cousin (YUM)

Food for thought

[Boris Godunov]

Can an 8-year-old legally consent? What, no? Then I guess not.

As for your cousin...well, I don't see why not. Up until about 100 years ago, marriages to cousins were perfectly normal. Hell, in the Bible, people are porking their siblings and parents all the time. I'll let others figure out where Cain's wife came from.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Zylka
"the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Can I legally marry a willing 8 year old boy, now? Or my cousin (YUM)

Food for thought

the traditional definition was the voluntary union for life of of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others

All of the statutes I am aware of have age requirements for marriage and this remains unchanged. Ditto for any family restrictions. you don't have to be intentionally obtuse.

[Zylka]

Why is this obtuse? Marriage is based on the union between man and woman... I'm sorry, but it's not between father and son, nor woman and horse, nor alien and plank with a dildo on it, nor these two:



Marriage is by definition heterosexual, that's just the way it is. Of course "me too" culture must eventually spread to and make a mockery of all aspects of tradition, so I guess this is progress. CANADA

[Boris Godunov]

Ah, the incest and bestiality red herrings all in one package. And here I thought you were beyond such banal, trite things.

Marriage is how the society involved defines it. Remember how, not too long ago, interracial marriage was compared to the same things. The definition of "voter" also used to be white male property holder. Definitions change over time. And to be perfectly pedantic, one of the dictionary definitions of the word "marriage" is "any close or intimate relationship."

If society wishes to allow gays the right to marry whom they love, then that is what marriage will be. If it doesn't fit your definition of marriage, then I have but one suggestion: Don't get married to another man. Think you can refrain?