Should same sex marriage be allowed. It may be law soon in Canada.
B.C. appeal court overturns supreme court decision banning same sex marriage
AMY CARMICHAEL
Canadian Press
VANCOUVER (CP) - Governments should change with the times and recognize gay marriage, the B.C. Appeal Court said Thursday when it joined two other provinces in clearing the way for same sex unions.
The province's highest court overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals. In its decision the court gave the federal government until July 12, 2004 to change the law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon hasn't decided whether to appeal the B.C. judgment, he said Thursday outside the Commons.
"It's an important social issue for Canada," Cauchon said. "When you look at the situation in Canada, people are divided."
He said he would first study the "very important" ruling along with related recommendations expected soon from the Commons all-party justice committee. Its members recently toured Canada, gathering opinions for and against same-sex unions.
Cauchon has always said he appealed a similar Ontario judgment because courts across Canada are also split on same-sex marriage.
He now concedes that the Ontario, Quebec and B.C. judgments "are going exactly in the very same direction. So I have to take that into consideration as well."
The panel of three judges with the B.C. appeal court wrote that they would reformulate the law, making it read "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others," as opposed to the union of man and woman.
A Quebec court has also backed same-sex marriage rights and asked Ottawa to re-examine marriage laws.
A lawyer for the couples, Joe Arvay, said the B.C. decision went farther than some others that also called on parliament to reopen the debate by July 12, 2004.
"The only reason for the suspension until 2004 is to allow parliament, the federal government, the provincial government, to enact whatever sort of ancillary or consequential legislation they need to, to give effect to the judgment."
Arvay said the B.C. decision applies across the country, because the law it ruled unconstitutional is federal common-law.
His clients were ecstatic.
"I can't believe how happy I am about this ruling," said Joy Masuhara. "For me personally, it means I can do what I've wanted to do for the past 10 years, which is marry my partner."
"Marriage as an institution has been very symbolic in terms of recognizing partnerships. We need to have that. I know most Canadians are wanting this to happen as well."
Two years ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled against same-sex marriages, finding that "marriage" can refer only to the union of couples of the opposite sex.
The judge also found that although the common-law prohibition of same-sex marriages violates Section 15 of the Charter, it was a legally justifiable limit under Section 1.
The ruling that was overturned Thursday had dismissed a petition by the eight couples seeking a declaration that the issuer of marriage licences under Section 31 of the Marriage Act is permitted to issue licences to same-sex couples.
In an explanation for their decision, the appeal judges wrote "that the common law definition of marriage contravenes the Charter and it cannot be justified in contemporary Canadian society."
Courts, they said, have not given enough consideration to the extent to which society's views on gay and lesbians have changed.
Michael Martens, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the decision and that the issue should be debated in government.
He said the judges haven't taken into consideration the benefits for society which marriage provides.
"Marriage is a social institution, institutions are not about rights, they're about serving society, and marriage does a very good job of that," Martens said outside the court.
"No other relationship provides the unique benefits that marriage does for kids, for the parents themselves and for people who aren't married."
Since the decriminalization of homosexual relationships in Canada in 1969, there has been a steady expansion of the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexuals reflected in human rights legislation.
"These developments have substantial public support, although the matter remains controversial," the appeal court said. "This evolution cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory treatment."
The couples who challenged the law are Murray Warren and Peter Cook, Elizabeth and Dawn Barbeau, Melinda Roy and Tanya Chambers, Robin Roberts and Diana Denny, Jane Hamilton and Masuhara, Tess Healy and Wendy Young, Shane McCloskey and David Shortt, and Bob Peacock and Lloyd Thornhill.
Some of the couples have lived together for 30 years and have children.
Last week the federal government began its challenge to a controversial lower court ruling in Ontario that said Canadian law is unconstitutional because it recognizes only opposite-sex unions.
Common law defines marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" - a violation of the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the divisional court said.
B.C. appeal court overturns supreme court decision banning same sex marriage
AMY CARMICHAEL
Canadian Press
VANCOUVER (CP) - Governments should change with the times and recognize gay marriage, the B.C. Appeal Court said Thursday when it joined two other provinces in clearing the way for same sex unions.
The province's highest court overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals. In its decision the court gave the federal government until July 12, 2004 to change the law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon hasn't decided whether to appeal the B.C. judgment, he said Thursday outside the Commons.
"It's an important social issue for Canada," Cauchon said. "When you look at the situation in Canada, people are divided."
He said he would first study the "very important" ruling along with related recommendations expected soon from the Commons all-party justice committee. Its members recently toured Canada, gathering opinions for and against same-sex unions.
Cauchon has always said he appealed a similar Ontario judgment because courts across Canada are also split on same-sex marriage.
He now concedes that the Ontario, Quebec and B.C. judgments "are going exactly in the very same direction. So I have to take that into consideration as well."
The panel of three judges with the B.C. appeal court wrote that they would reformulate the law, making it read "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others," as opposed to the union of man and woman.
A Quebec court has also backed same-sex marriage rights and asked Ottawa to re-examine marriage laws.
A lawyer for the couples, Joe Arvay, said the B.C. decision went farther than some others that also called on parliament to reopen the debate by July 12, 2004.
"The only reason for the suspension until 2004 is to allow parliament, the federal government, the provincial government, to enact whatever sort of ancillary or consequential legislation they need to, to give effect to the judgment."
Arvay said the B.C. decision applies across the country, because the law it ruled unconstitutional is federal common-law.
His clients were ecstatic.
"I can't believe how happy I am about this ruling," said Joy Masuhara. "For me personally, it means I can do what I've wanted to do for the past 10 years, which is marry my partner."
"Marriage as an institution has been very symbolic in terms of recognizing partnerships. We need to have that. I know most Canadians are wanting this to happen as well."
Two years ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled against same-sex marriages, finding that "marriage" can refer only to the union of couples of the opposite sex.
The judge also found that although the common-law prohibition of same-sex marriages violates Section 15 of the Charter, it was a legally justifiable limit under Section 1.
The ruling that was overturned Thursday had dismissed a petition by the eight couples seeking a declaration that the issuer of marriage licences under Section 31 of the Marriage Act is permitted to issue licences to same-sex couples.
In an explanation for their decision, the appeal judges wrote "that the common law definition of marriage contravenes the Charter and it cannot be justified in contemporary Canadian society."
Courts, they said, have not given enough consideration to the extent to which society's views on gay and lesbians have changed.
Michael Martens, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the decision and that the issue should be debated in government.
He said the judges haven't taken into consideration the benefits for society which marriage provides.
"Marriage is a social institution, institutions are not about rights, they're about serving society, and marriage does a very good job of that," Martens said outside the court.
"No other relationship provides the unique benefits that marriage does for kids, for the parents themselves and for people who aren't married."
Since the decriminalization of homosexual relationships in Canada in 1969, there has been a steady expansion of the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexuals reflected in human rights legislation.
"These developments have substantial public support, although the matter remains controversial," the appeal court said. "This evolution cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory treatment."
The couples who challenged the law are Murray Warren and Peter Cook, Elizabeth and Dawn Barbeau, Melinda Roy and Tanya Chambers, Robin Roberts and Diana Denny, Jane Hamilton and Masuhara, Tess Healy and Wendy Young, Shane McCloskey and David Shortt, and Bob Peacock and Lloyd Thornhill.
Some of the couples have lived together for 30 years and have children.
Last week the federal government began its challenge to a controversial lower court ruling in Ontario that said Canadian law is unconstitutional because it recognizes only opposite-sex unions.
Common law defines marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" - a violation of the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the divisional court said.
And as for children - I think children need a good loving stable family. Whether gay or hetero doesn't really matter to me.
