Cdn. Supreme Court rules on gay marriage tomorrow

[Psycho Smiley]

Just a refresher:

The Supreme Court has to look at this draft bill:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

and answer the following questions:

1. Is the draft bill within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?
2. Is the section of the draft bill that extends capacity to marry to persons of the SAME SEX consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3. Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by the charter protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the SAME SEX that is contrary to their religious beliefs?
4. Is limiting common-law marriage to opposite-sex couples unconstitutional?

If they go for it, the feds either have to change the laws or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Here's hoping the whole country gets to have gay marriage!

[Aaron]

Just a refresher:

The Supreme Court has to look at this draft bill:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

and answer the following questions:

1. Is the draft bill within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?
2. Is the section of the draft bill that extends capacity to marry to persons of the SAME SEX consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3. Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by the charter protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the SAME SEX that is contrary to their religious beliefs?
4. Is limiting common-law marriage to opposite-sex couples unconstitutional?

If they go for it, the feds either have to change the laws or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Here's hoping the whole country gets to have gay marriage!

They don't really have much choice but to pass it. The only Canadians that seem majorally opposed to this seem to live in Alberta, and we all know the political leanings in that province.

[Psycho Smiley]

This is true, but it'll still be nice when everything is official. There will be much kicking and screaming from the Conservatives.

[Aaron]

This is true, but it'll still be nice when everything is official. There will be much kicking and screaming from the Conservatives.

That is true, but when it comes down to it, their not a very effective party. They'll just bitch and moan so that everyone in Canada knows for sure that their bigoted assholes.

[brianeyci]

Good shit, good shit. Finally, this is going to be over. Now, how long can the Conservatives delay the bill. The Bloc, the NDP are left-leaning.

The problem is it might come to a "free-vote", and I think Martin said it would come to a free vote. That means some Liberals will be voting against gay marriage.

We'll have to wait and see.

Brian

[Aaron]

Good shit, good shit. Finally, this is going to be over. Now, how long can the Conservatives delay the bill. The Bloc, the NDP are left-leaning.

The problem is it might come to a "free-vote", and I think Martin said it would come to a free vote. That means some Liberals will be voting against gay marriage.

We'll have to wait and see.

Brian

The thing is that a free vote doesn't mean that they can vote how they want. The MP's should be voting on what their constituents want. And I'd say it's pretty obvious that most Canadians want this. We'll ignore Alberta, it's the land of troglodytes.

[brianeyci]

The MP's should be voting on what their constituents want.

How are they going to judge that. We learned from BvK USA that "people do go out in large numbers to protect the status quo" (forgot who said that, someone intelligent from this forum). If the MP's get a lot of phone calls to their office, are they going to judge "what their constituents want" from that? Unless we have a referendum, I don't see how that happens.

There might be trouble ahead.

Brian

[Aaron]

How are they going to judge that. We learned from BvK USA that "people do go out in large numbers to protect the status quo" (forgot who said that, someone intelligent from this forum). If the MP's get a lot of phone calls to their office, are they going to judge "what their constituents want" from that? Unless we have a referendum, I don't see how that happens.

There might be trouble ahead.

Brian

Phone surveys of their ridings may be of use. Surveys sent in the mail, perhaps door to door canvessing. There are a multitude of methods that could be used to determine what their folks want.

Personally I think we should have a referendum, then there will be no doubt what Canadians want. The only downfall will be the Conservitives complaining about the lack of "family values" in Canada.

[Psycho Smiley]

Well, there was talk about letting MPs vote "according to their consciences" but the Justice Minister expects the legislation to be pushed through quickly, possibly introducing it by the end of the month. (linky)

[Enforcer Talen]

I yearn for the day when such sensible policies are imported south.

[DPDarkPrimus]

We need this bill to be sent to SCOTUS.

[mauldooku]

We need this bill to be sent to SCOTUS.

A bit of a nitpick, but IIRC, SCOTUS doesn't have to review bills before they're debated in Congress.

And I'm to finally see some sense in the world, although it does to hurt that it isn't in my home country.

[mauldooku]

And I'm happy to finally see some sense in the world, although it does hurt that it isn't in my home country.

Grrr.

[J]

What concerns me is that we have a minority government, and it's entirely possible for the Bloc & PC to stall the bill while mounting a negative media campaign against it in hopes of toppling the Liberals from power. The gay marriage bill and the proposed decriminalization of marijuana are where the PC feel they can do significant damage to the credibility & image of the Liberals, and that has me worried. I fear they will be fucking over the public for power.

[xcr]

Except that the bloc will likely support the Bill. And the liberals+NDP+Parish+1 other person are enough, assuming they all turn up.
It is to be a free-vote for back benchers, with Cabinet ministers expected to support the bill. Some liberals may not. The NDP will, including the Christian members like Blakie. The Tories, of course, are opposed. If they were in power I would not even be surprised to see the use of the notwithstanding clause.

[dr. what]

It's now official

Supreme Court OK's same-sex marriage

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 41209.html

[brianeyci]

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

...

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

It doesn't take a legal hawk to see that same sex marriage is consistent with Canadian values. The only thing I was holding my breath for was whether or not they would force religious institutions to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. That is going over the line to me and would never work.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

I can't wait for the conservative imbeciles to pretend that the judges were being "activist" rather than simply interpreting the constitutional guarantee against gender discrimination in the only possible way it could be interpreted. Of course, it's often difficult to explain to these moronic fuckwits that gender preference is automatically protected against discrimination if gender itself is thusly protected, because they honestly can't understand that the only difference between "Man+Woman" and "Man+Man" is the gender of one partner. That, of course, is due to them having the intelligence of lab rats.

[Aaron]

I can't wait for the conservative imbeciles to pretend that the judges were being "activist" rather than simply interpreting the constitutional guarantee against gender discrimination in the only possible way it could be interpreted. Of course, it's often difficult to explain to these moronic fuckwits that gender preference is automatically protected against discrimination if gender itself is thusly protected, because they honestly can't understand that the only difference between "Man+Woman" and "Man+Man" is the gender of one partner. That, of course, is due to them having the intelligence of lab rats.

What can you expect Mike? Most of them are from the land of religious fervor in Canada, it's like someone replicated Texas up north. This issue more than any other is rapidly turning me away from the Conservative Party.

[Stormbringer]

Which might well be what happens if gay marriage ever gets before the Supreme Court. We only have two activist-conservatives (Thomas and Scalia) and against that are three constructionists (Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy) and two-wishy washy constructionist-activists (Ginsburg, Stevens , Breyer) and one liberal activist (Souter). All in all a bunch as like to allow gays right as not; they've uphelp abortion rights before in several cases; gay marriage has a reasonable shot.

Well I hope they would never try to go that far. I would be vehemently vocal against forcing Churches to marry homosexuals. I'm one myself, and I would totally defend their right to discriminate in this instance.

I don't AGREE with them of course, but they should have the right to keep their "version" of marriage inviolate.

The chances of them forcing churchs to marry gays is so utterly infentismal as to be laughable. The real issues is whether they'll actually allow full gay marriage or if it'll be some weak half measure such as civil unions.

What I think most likely is the exactly sort of ruling that Canada just had; provided a case ever makes it before the Supreme Court. So the gloating over a Canadian ruling is a bit premature.

[Stormbringer]

Which might well be what happens if gay marriage ever gets before the Supreme Court. We only have two activist-conservatives (Thomas and Scalia) and against that are three constructionists (Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy) and two-wishy washy constructionist-activists (Ginsburg, Stevens , Breyer) and one liberal activist (Souter). All in all a bunch as like to allow gays right as not; they've uphelp abortion rights before in several cases; gay marriage has a reasonable shot.

Well I hope they would never try to go that far. I would be vehemently vocal against forcing Churches to marry homosexuals. I'm one myself, and I would totally defend their right to discriminate in this instance.

I don't AGREE with them of course, but they should have the right to keep their "version" of marriage inviolate.

The chances of them forcing churchs to marry gays is so utterly infentismal as to be laughable. The real issues is whether they'll actually allow full gay marriage or if it'll be some weak half measure such as civil unions.

What I think most likely is the exactly sort of ruling that Canada just had; provided a case ever makes it before the Supreme Court. So the gloating over a Canadian ruling is a bit premature.

[Ma Deuce]

This issue more than any other is rapidly turning me away from the Conservative Party.

Same here, but where are we going to turn to? Canadian federal politics stink like pigshit, as they have for the past decade: lets review the choices that were on my local ballot last federal election:

Liberals: Arrogant, corrupt sleazebags who just can't get enough pork and seem to want our military to vanish. 'nuff said
Conservatives: Socially regressive religious retards. 'nuff said
NDP: The Communist Party. 'nuff said
Green Party: No expanation needed

With choices like this, I might not even vote at all next federal election.

[dr. what]

Interesting take on this from CNN:

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- In a landmark opinion, Canada's Supreme Court said Thursday that proposed legislation allowing gay marriage is constitutional, but the government cannot force religious officials to perform unions against their beliefs.

The Liberal government had sought the court's opinion, which is strictly advisory, as the House of Commons determines whether to legalize gay marriage at a federal level.

Judges in six provinces and one territory have already allowed same-sex marriage.

Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands in allowing gay marriage if the law is passed.

"Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples," the court said in its opinion.

"The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."

The legislation is expected to be introduced early next year. The federal Conservatives and even some Liberal lawmakers were expected to wage a bitter battle to limit marriage to heterosexuals.

The gay marriage law needs the backing of at least 155 legislators in the 308-seat House of Commons to pass. It has the backing of the 38 Liberal Cabinet members and is believed to be supported by nearly all legislators in the Bloc Quebecois and New Democrat parties, which have 54 and 19 seats.

Supporters now need support from about half the 95 Liberal backbenchers. However, there is some dissent in the ranks.

"I do personally have a problem with redefining marriage and I'm sure some of my colleagues do as well," said Liberal lawmaker Roy Cullen.

Public opinion in Canada is evenly divided on the matter, and both sides are preparing for the next phase of the battle.

"This is a victory for Canadian values," said Alexander Munster of Canadians for Equal Marriage.

Gordon Young, pastor of the First Assembly of God Church in St. John's, Newfoundland, was highly disappointed.

"It's a sad day for our country," Young told CBC television news. "God is in the DNA of this nation. We believe that changing the definition of marriage is changing the divine institution that God put in place for the order of our society."

The Liberal government had asked the court to consider whether the federal government has the authority to define marriage, meant as a pre-emptive strike against provincial attempts to overturn a gay marriage law that might be passed. It also asked the court to consider whether religious groups must perform gay weddings and whether the proposed law is constitutional.

Also on Thursday, New Zealand's Parliament approved a bill that recognizes civil unions between unwed gay and straight couples but stops short of legalizing same-sex marriages.

--------------------------------------------------------

They have one of those semi-annoying 'Quickvote' polls on the page--so far the numbers are:

Do you agree with the Canadian court ruling allowing gay marriages?

Yes 69% 5279 votes

No 31% 2378 votes

[Darth Wong]

I like the way newspeople almost never mention the fact that laws against gender discrimination also prevent discrimination based on gender preference, when talking about this issue. It's an open-and-shut legal case, yet they make it seem as if it's all about politics and lobbyists.

[RedImperator]

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

...

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

It doesn't take a legal hawk to see that same sex marriage is consistent with Canadian values. The only thing I was holding my breath for was whether or not they would force religious institutions to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. That is going over the line to me and would never work.

Brian

I don't see how anyone could possibly believe the state would force religions to recognize gay marriages unless he was completely paranoid. Religions are private organizations with no special legal standing save tax exemption. There's no need to force them to recognize anything--it's not as if it means something if they refuse, and it's within their rights to do so. Nobody forces the Catholic Church to recognize divorces and second marriages, do they?

The irony is, if you're in favor of giving religious organizations power beyond what other private organizations get (such as distributing Federal charitable funds), then there IS a case for for forcing them to recognize marriages they don't like, because they're no longer fully private organizations. Of course, people advocating for expanding religious power in the public life probably don't anticipate gay marriages being legalized, but they open themselves up for it. Strict separation works both ways and it mutually beneficial, though apparently the fundies are counting on having enough clout to make sure all the meddling is moving in one direction when they scheme to tear down the wall.