Paul Martin's government will now have to move on the issue of same sex marriage. Back when Chrétien was still in charge, the whole issue was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for review and now the the Supremes have ruled.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the federal government can redefine the definition of marriage, giving gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.In a non-binding decision released Thursday morning, the court also said religious groups opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.
It also stopped short of ruling same-sex marriage was required by the constitution.
"I feel it is a clear green light in favour of equal marriage," said Martha McCarthy, a lawyer for same-sex couples.
Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Monday he would take the bill to Parliament as early as this month.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has asked MPs to support the bill, but has also told them it will be a free vote.
The Liberals hold a thin minority government, with 134 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, but should have the support of most or all of the 19 New Democrat MPs and 54 Bloc Qu?b?cois MPs.
NDP Leader Jack Layton has said his caucus will vote in favour of the bill, while Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose party is split on the issue, says it will be a free vote.
If Martin allows Liberal MPs to vote their conscience, things are still up in the air. This Toronto Star story, written before the Court's decision was announced, suggests there's pretty serious division in the Liberal caucus on the issue.
One Liberal MP called on Prime Minister Paul Martin to use a controversial override clause to bypass any court finding that gays and lesbians should be granted access to civil marriage."I think the court would be wrong to find it's a matter of human rights," said Pat O'Brien (London-Fanshawe). "That's the side of the argument that millions of Canadians side with."
O'Brien said he believes "a third to a half of the Liberal caucus members" oppose same-sex marriage, and the government should not accede to a judicial endorsement of gay marriage.
"Invoke the `notwithstanding' clause. Set aside the court ruling. There will be negative fallout whichever way this goes. The country is badly split on it. That's patently clear to anybody who takes a look at it."
The notwithstanding clause is the nuclear option here. And when I say that I find myself in agreement with, of all people, Reg Alcock.
"I think it would be a terrible abuse of the Charter, frankly," said Treasury Board President Reg Alcock. "I don't think it rises to the test that it would have to in order to start to use the notwithstanding clause. It's a very slippery slope."The purpose of the Charter is to protect minorities against the abuse of the majority," said Alcock, saying although the override clause is there, governments ought not to use it "except in extreme instances and I don't think this situation rises to that."
Predictably the Conservative caucus is split as well. We could still see a lot of fur fly on this before it's finally resolved.
But for all that, I think the outcome is inevitable. All that remains is to see how that outcome is finally acknowledged. If the government goes down to defeat on this, then the issue will bounce right back into the courts since several provincial supreme courts have already ruled in favour of same sex marriage and same sex couples in those provinces are already married. If it comes down to trying to take away that right from people who already have it, I really don't think it'll happen.
So it's just a matter of how long people flog this dead horse before we can drag the corpse away and give it a decent burial.
So the Liberals and Conservatives will allow their MPs to vote their conciences, but the NDP is cracking the whip:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/12/09/774539.html
Heh.
I like the Court ruling - allow all the legal protections & benifits of marriage to gays, but do not force churches into performing marriages if they find gay marriage morally unacceptable. That's a good blend of common sense and fairness.
Well, it's inconceivable the court could have ruled any other way, with respect to the churches.
Churches already have lots of rules about marriage (or any other religious practice) that would be completely unacceptably discriminatory in another context; for instance, in many churches, you have to profess to their faith before they will marry you. Government has always allowed churches to make those sorts of decisions.
If the bill passes, in some houses of worship you'll have to both be (say) Anglican for the church to agree to marry you; and in some others, you'll also have to be man and woman. And it's all good.
I'll just echo everyone else's comments, and say this is a welcome ruling. I also think that Mr. O'Brien is flat out wrong when he says this:
There will be negative fallout whichever way this goes. The country is badly split on it.
Maybe I'm delusional, but I just don't see much fallout from this at all. If the bill passes, the impact to *most* Canadians is virtually zero, unless they're gay and want to get married, in which case the fallout is decidedly *positive*.
Andrew, I never thought the supremes would ever force churches to perform weddings against their beliefs. I am glad it is on paper now, but the likelihood of any other ruling was extremely unlikely.
I'm surprised Reg Alcock sounds so moderate. He came off perviously as a slightly posher Roger Gallaway-type.
Other reports indicate the Liberals will have a two-line whip. Cabinet members will have to vote in favour, backbenchers can vote as they please. There should be enough support for it to pass.
Ralph Klein has said he will override the law. But I don't know if he can. The definition marriage is a federal responsibility, conducting marriages a provincial one. Can you use the notwithstanding clause to override a law that's not part of your constitutional authority?
Conservatives are split? I'd heard that only Belinda was voting in favour, and she might not show up.
Could you give me some names of Conservatives voting in favour of same sex marriage that I might educate the person who told me otherwise?
James:
I guess I didn't word that as carefully as I could have. The Conservative caucus is at least slightly split. That Star story describes both Stronach and BC MP James Moore as being likely to support the bill and says there are "at least two" who will.
Flynn- Ralph can't overide the law because it's a division of powers question. Notwithstanding clause is for the Charter only. Ralph's only way out is the Clarity Act (i.e. take the oil sands and run). More likely we'll see some frantic efforts to reach some type of "asymetrical" compromise or he will get the gov't out of the marriage biz altogether ( i.e. no civil weddings). He would have to issue licenses to same-sex couples who find a church that will marry them ( but only, I suspect after making one or two of them go all the way to the SCC) But at least he will be able to say the Gov't of Alberta doen't believe in, nor perform same-sex marriages.
also- it seems strange to me that the Conservatives would only be slightly split. I've visited a number of blogs ( that seem to be run by conservative leaning types) and most seem to support the concept of same sex marriage.
I wonder what the next polls will say. If I recall 18 months ago the answer to "do you favour..." was about 50-50 but if the ? was " if churches have a guarantee not to perform would you favour.." it was 60-40 for .
Well, we've got 18 of the 19 NDP who are in favour. 51 of 54 Bloc are in favour. My guess is that there are likely 5 or 6 Conservatives who are in favour. So, we've got close to 75 members there. The Liberal Cabinet will be wiped which puts us over 100. There will likely be a lot of no shows, but so long as a majority of the Liberal backbench supports the law, it should pass.
There really should be no trouble getting it past once the full reality of the reference sets in. It is this - Ralph Kline et al are snookered. If they don't pass the bill they MUST then introduce legislation to invoke "notwithstanding" in the jurisdictions where it is already the law. If a referendum were held the only meaningfull question to ask is "do you support invoking the notwithstanding provisions? The numbers have been steady all along - only slightly more than 30% would actually go that far.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_maro.htm
For a collection of polling numbers on this. From 50-50 on up, with younger generations consistently and largely favoring SSM over older.
I hope Martin et al. support this unequivocally. I think they will - both as a Charter issue and to bump up their nationalist street cred, given the direction of the debate on this in the USA.
And Klein should be forced to explain why letting a majority decide on minority rights is a good idea. He can write an essay on it, perhaps. I hear he's good at those.
He can write an essay on it, perhaps. I hear he's good at those.
Nasty. I like it.