Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
We can't really do any of these things until we have a clear idea of how you form your conclusions. I think the issue here really is that I have yet to see a good argument for precluding same-sex couples from marriage. Can you provide one?
|
How about this, from the same
Egan v Canada decision I mentioned above.
Quote:
|
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage.
|
Source:
http://scc.lexum.org/en/1995/1995scr...5scr2-513.html
The Supreme Court has since ruled in ways that would overrule this text, but it remains a cogently stated argument.