Canadian Supreme Court OK's Gay Marriage

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by CrzyCanuck@Dec 9 2004, 01:29 PM
So who will pair up with the minority liberals to get this passed? Free vote? Bring down the government?

(I' like getting my news from CP!)

My guess is a free vote. This is exactly the kind of issue that requires one, because it goes directly to the morality of peoples beliefs. As I said in an earlier thread, I'm for it in everything but name. Call it a civil union, call it whatever, but Marriage has a certain connotation that I think should be intact. Give them whatever rights/responsibilites come with marriage but don't call it that. In fact, there is a way around the situation. Why change the definition of marriage at all? Why not just write a new law that gives gay couples the same rights and call it something else. That way, you aren't messing with the traditional form of marriage, and you are still recognizing the rights of gay people. Of course then comes the hornets nest when a guy and his chick want to get one of whatever the gay people get to call it.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 11:29 AM
Also, your comment is not entirely accurate - you can choose to live a single lifestyle, a comunal llifestyle, a hedonistic lifestyle, a pagan lifestyle - freedom of religion, choice, to assemble, consenting adults, etc.

First, my "quote" is accurate -- you don't have blanket protection to live any lifestyle you choose. For example, you can't live in a conjugal relationship with a 6 year old.

However, what I actually meant to say here was that the Constitutional right to equality (which was the basis for ruling that same-sex couples can't be barred from marrying) is far from being so broad that a person is going to be guaranteed equal access to an institution like marriage irregardless of what choice they make

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Dec 9 2004, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Dec 9 2004, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The Supreme Court just said in this very ruling that a church has the right to refuse to marry homosexuals.

<!--QuoteBegin-Supreme Court of Canada
Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs

Case closed. [/b][/quote]
First - this is not a ruling - it's advice and opinion given to the government at the Librals request.

Second - it does not prevent an activist couple for taking the issue to court for a ruling. Some argumants I would put forth against the religious leaders are - do you allow homosexuals to pray in your sanctary? Do you offer them counseling? Does the counseling involved only deal with changing sexuality? Do you preform marraiges of converts? the notion being that if you accept them as they are then you must marry them as they are - your religious beleifs are flexible.

I know it all seems cut and dried - allow gay marriages but don't force religious leaders to perform them - but that is not how the world works, someone always wants to make a point or be the pioneer or prove that they are right and someone else is wrong.

live in interesting times. [/b][/quote]
I think we're all missing something here. There's a differnece between a civil ceremony and one at a church. the priest is involved so that the marriage is recognized by the church (ie God), and in the meantime, the priest is also doing all the legal stuff that is necessary for the province to recognize the marriage. So essentially, if you want to force a priest to marry you, you are basically trying to force something on God (or whatever diety you believe in), and from what I've heard, he's a pretty stubborn guy.

If I don't think I can fix your car, the government can't force me to try. Likewise, if a priest doesn't think he can change God's mind (and I can't think of any that think they can, not even good old J.P. II), so why would the courts try to make him.

Besides, if a case like this ever did come up, I'm pretty sure the response would be "We've already ruled on this, case dismissed" and once the SC says that, there really isn't much more you can do.

[MarchHare]

Give them whatever rights/responsibilites come with marriage but don't call it that. In fact, there is a way around the situation. Why change the definition of marriage at all? Why not just write a new law that gives gay couples the same rights and call it something else.

Are you familiar with the phrase "seperate but equal" and why it's a bad idea?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 9 2004, 07:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 9 2004, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:29 PM
Remember sexuality in the constitution is a recent thing. If society decides that polygamy is ok, then which lifestyle is next? (thoretically)

Thats sort of an odd argument. If society decides polygamy is acceptable then polygamy is acceptable to society. After that, who knows. Whatever society then deems acceptable will be acceptable to society.

If society (the majority of it's people anyway) decide that something is right and fair and acceptable, shouldn't the laws of that society reflect that? [/b][/quote]
Then why not just "give a blanket right to practice any lifestyle choice you feel like"? (from Mike F)

If society decides that practicing a homicidal lifestyle is ok, then is it?
If the majority of society decides to go back to practicing a patriarcal lifestyle (where women have no rights) is it ok? If the majority of society decides to practice a Christian lifestyle and wants their laws to reflect that, is that ok?

Scenario - our society elected MPs by majority vote - there is a free vote and the majority of MPs feel that their constituantes are against gay marriage and vote against it and the law is turned down - is that ok? I bet that activist gay couple runs with the issue back to the SC for a binding ruling.

Where do you draw that line in the sand and is that line ever imovable?

remember, this is not entirely about gays getting married, it is about the definition of marriage. Gay people are not denied and economic or social benefits (that I am aware of) because the do not have a marriage licence (as a growing segment of the wedding market, gay couple who purchase a wedding licence may add some cash to city coffers).

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 11:39 AM
First - this is not a ruling - it's advice and opinion given to the government at the Librals request.

So you're proposing that the Supreme Court of Canada would give an "opinion" on an issue in a reference, and then rule in the opposite direction just because someone brought it in a different form?

Sorry, but you're out to lunch.

In the early '80's the Trudeau government was prevented from unilaterally ammending the Constitution without provincial consent by a reference to the Supreme Court. You can bet that if the court's ruling was "just advice" to the government, Trudeau wouldn't have gone back and made the deals with the provinces

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:06 PM
If society decides that practicing a homicidal lifestyle is ok, then is it?
If the majority of society decides to go back to practicing a patriarcal lifestyle (where women have no rights) is it ok? If the majority of society decides to practice a Christian lifestyle and wants their laws to reflect that, is that ok?

Where do you draw that line in the sand and is that line ever imovable?

The Constitution draws the lines, and they're moved by ammending the Constitution.

If society decided that practicing a homicidal lifestyle is ok, you would need to:

1. Ammend the Constitution removing the guarantee to security of the person, and then

2. Repeal the law making homicide illegal.

Do those two things and practicing a homicidal lifestyle would be A-OK in Canada, and no one and no court could say otherwise

Scenario - our society elected MPs by majority vote - there is a free vote and the majority of MPs feel that their constituantes are against gay marriage and vote against it and the law is turned down - is that ok? I bet that activist gay couple runs with the issue back to the SC for a binding ruling.

The SCC ruled that the Federal gov't has the power to legislate with respect to marriage laws. If they decide not to legalize gay marriage, the SCC has said that's their decision

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Dec 9 2004, 07:55 PM

I think we're all missing something here. There's a differnece between a civil ceremony and one at a church. the priest is involved so that the marriage is recognized by the church (ie God), and in the meantime, the priest is also doing all the legal stuff that is necessary for the province to recognize the marriage. So essentially, if you want to force a priest to marry you, you are basically trying to force something on God (or whatever diety you believe in), and from what I've heard, he's a pretty stubborn guy.

If I don't think I can fix your car, the government can't force me to try. Likewise, if a priest doesn't think he can change God's mind (and I can't think of any that think they can, not even good old J.P. II), so why would the courts try to make him.

Besides, if a case like this ever did come up, I'm pretty sure the response would be "We've already ruled on this, case dismissed" and once the SC says that, there really isn't much more you can do.

If it is only a civil concern - then why try to change the definiton of marriage, why not apply the term civil union to everyone?

And if you are a licensed auto mechanic who thinks he can't fix my car because a (black/jewish/gay) person is driving it, and I can prove it, then I can take you to court a force you to pay for not fixing it.

If you are a preist who is licensed to preform marriages and have performed marriages for interfaith couples and allow homosexuals to partake in your ceremonies and services, then you MAY be forced to perform the ceremony. The activist couple does not see this as "going against" the diety - they just want to make the point.


And this is not a ruling - if it were then there would be no need for a vote in Parliment- it is an opinion, a strong one, yes, but still not a ruling.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Dec 9 2004, 02:06 PM

Are you familiar with the phrase "seperate but equal" and why it's a bad idea?

I suppose you have a point, but we already have somewhat of a situation like that. What's the difference between common law and actual marriages? Nothing but the name, except the common law people chose not to have a ceremony. Same rights/responsibilites and they seem perfectly happy.
I can totally see where you are comming from but segregation is not the same. We all know that the "Seperate But Equal" was a whole lot more seperate than it was equal. All I'm suggesting is comming up with a diferent name for gay marriages, but give it the exact same definition. JPs can still do it, priests still don't have to (just as they don't have to marry non catholics or whatever, if they don't want to). Is it a perfect solution? No, but I think it's a good middle ground, we get to keep the definition of marriage (leave the consitution alone, and avoid any anti-gay challenges) and create a new union that is for all intents and purposes a marriage except it's two chicks or two guys.

In fact, I'd like to propose that people suggest names for gay marriage (not durrogatory of course) then we can all refer to it as that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 01:06 PM
If society decides that practicing a homicidal lifestyle is ok, then is it?
If the majority of society decides to go back to practicing a patriarcal lifestyle (where women have no rights) is it ok? If the majority of society decides to practice a Christian lifestyle and wants their laws to reflect that, is that ok?

Is that ok? Well, yes.

You seem to be advocating a "wag the dog" scenario where the rules dictate society, not society dictates the rules.

Like it or not, things change. The line in the sand moves.

If 25 million Canadians wanted to go back to a patriarchal society then we would. It would happen and the laws would be changed to reflect that.

If we wanted to move forward to a homicidal society then we'd do that to. We would change the rules to reflect what we see as acceptable. It sounds like a real wild place so I might look into it.

If the majority of society wanted to live a Christian lifestyle then the majority of society would indeed live a Christian lifestyle and the rules would be changed.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:19 PM
And this is not a ruling - if it were then there would be no need for a vote in Parliment- it is an opinion, a strong one, yes, but still not a ruling.

They have to vote on it because the SCC didn't say gays have the right to marry, they said "the word "marriage" in s. 91(26) does not exclude same-sex marriage", and that the fed gov't has the power to legislate over marriage laws

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Dec 9 2004, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Dec 9 2004, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@Dec 9 2004, 07:55 PM

I think we're all missing something here. There's a differnece between a civil ceremony and one at a church. the priest is involved so that the marriage is recognized by the church (ie God), and in the meantime, the priest is also doing all the legal stuff that is necessary for the province to recognize the marriage. So essentially, if# you want to force a priest to marry you, you are basically trying to force something on God (or whatever diety you believe in), and from what I've heard, he's a pretty stubborn guy.

If I don't think I can fix your car, the government can't force me to try. Likewise, if a priest doesn't think he can change God's mind (and I can't think of any that think they can, not even good old J.P. II), so why would the courts try to make him.

Besides, if a case like this ever did come up, I'm pretty sure the response would be "We've already ruled on this, case dismissed" and once the SC says that, there really isn't much more you can do.

If it is only a civil concern - then why try to change the definiton of marriage, why not apply the term civil union to everyone?

And if you are a licensed auto mechanic who thinks he can't fix my car because a (black/jewish/gay) person is driving it, and I can prove it, then I can take you to court a force you to pay for not fixing it.

If you are a preist who is licensed to preform marriages and have performed marriages for interfaith couples and allow homosexuals to partake in your ceremonies and services, then you MAY be forced to perform the ceremony. The activist couple does not see this as "going against" the diety - they just want to make the point.


And this is not a ruling - if it were then there would be no need for a vote in Parliment- it is an opinion, a strong one, yes, but still not a ruling. [/b][/quote]
Firstly, of course it's not a ruling, there's no law, so there's nothing to rule on.

For those that are confused, this is advice from the supreme court to the government. The government asked the supreme court on the constitutionality of making a law that allows gay marriage, and the supreme court has said that yes, that law would be legal under the constitution, so if the govenment makes that law, and puts in the provision that the priests don't have to do it, then no one is gonna be able to argue that to the court, could they try? Sure, but the court has pretty much already said what the result of that challenge would be, and would outright dismiss it, just as any lower court could dismiss it on the same grounds.

As far as the priest goes, as far as he is concerned, he cannot marry two gay people, anymore than he can fly, why? Because as far as the church is concerned marriage is only between a man and a woman. Forcing a priest to do it would be just as descriminatory as me not fixing someone's car because he is black. No where in the bible (or anything the pope has said) does it preclude gay people from going to church, or does it say that catholics can't marry non catholics (using catholic as an example), but it does have a pretty clear set of rules for marriage, so saying they include them in their services isn't a valid arguement.

You ask me to build a brick house out of wood, and I can't do it regardless of whether you are black, white, gay, straight, or if I even care if you are. You can't build a brick house out of wood. Priests can't build a catholic marriage out of two men, or two women, because in either case they are missing a vital component. Is that right in the moral sense, some say yes, some say no, but the priest is definately saying yes, and making him do it would be just as illigal as anything you have put forth.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 9 2004, 08:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 9 2004, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 11:39 AM
First - this is not a ruling - it's advice and opinion given to the government at the Librals request.

So you're proposing that the Supreme Court of Canada would give an "opinion" on an issue in a reference, and then rule in the opposite direction just because someone brought it in a different form?

Sorry, but you're out to lunch.

In the early '80's the Trudeau government was prevented from unilaterally ammending the Constitution without provincial consent by a reference to the Supreme Court. You can bet that if the court's ruling was "just advice" to the government, Trudeau wouldn't have gone back and made the deals with the provinces [/b][/quote]
I agree, it is unlikely the SC would change it's opinion.

but, this may seem snide (sorry, I really do not mean to be rude) maybe Trudeau didn't think he could win and didn't want to put in the effort.

The activist gay couple, though they would like to win, are more concerned with "taking the issue all the way" and making a point. And of course the other side is also willing to "go all the way" and wants bigger headlines. These people do not have constituents to justify themselves to (they are the constituents), they do not answer to a political party, will put in the effort and both have what they feel is and absolute belief.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:37 PM
I agree, it is unlikely the SC would change it's opinion.

but, this may seem snide (sorry, I really do not mean to be rude) maybe Trudeau didn't think he could win and didn't want to put in the effort.

Sorry, but you just have a fundamental misunderstanding about this.

Any opinion of the Supreme Court is the same and has the same weight, whether it is offered by way of a reference from the government, a criminal case or a civil case. It is the final legal ruling on the matter.

It is now a fact of law that the Federal government has the power to legislate over marriage by virtue of the division of powers in the Constitution, and the only way to change that is to change the Constitution and then get a new opinion from the Court

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Dec 9 2004, 08:35 PM

As far as the priest goes, as far as he is concerned, he cannot marry two gay people, anymore than he can fly, why? Because as far as the church is concerned marriage is only between a man and a woman. Forcing a priest to do it would be just as descriminatory as me not fixing someone's car because he is black. No where in the bible (or anything the pope has said) does it preclude gay people from going to church, or does it say that catholics can't marry non catholics (using catholic as an example), but it does have a pretty clear set of rules for marriage, so saying they include them in their services isn't a valid arguement.

You ask me to build a brick house out of wood, and I can't do it regardless of whether you are black, white, gay, straight, or if I even care if you are. You can't build a brick house out of wood. Priests can't build a catholic marriage out of two men, or two women, because in either case they are missing a vital component. Is that right in the moral sense, some say yes, some say no, but the priest is definately saying yes, and making him do it would be just as illigal as anything you have put forth.

"No where in the bible (or anything the pope has said) does it preclude gay people from going to church, or does it say that catholics can't marry non catholics (using catholic as an example), but it does have a pretty clear set of rules for marriage"

The penalty for homosexuality is excomunication from the faith - those that have professed to a homosexual lifestyle are barred from the faith (including services in church) and the Bible commands Jews not to marry non-Jews or face the same penalty.
The Catholic Church does have a clear set of rules for marriage - they include catholics can't marry non catholics.

"Priests can't build a catholic marriage out of two men, or two women"

I think there are some gay couples and a few "Progressive" clergy who would dissagree with you there.


I'm just saying that the argument is possible. If the activist gay couple could prove that the clergyperson has been flexible in his beliefs and practices in the past, then the court may say that he/she must be flexible now

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 9 2004, 08:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 9 2004, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:37 PM
I agree, it is unlikely the SC would change it's opinion.

but, this may seem snide (sorry, I really do not mean to be rude) maybe Trudeau didn't think he could win and didn't want to put in the effort.

Sorry, but you just have a fundamental misunderstanding about this.

Any opinion of the Supreme Court is the same and has the same weight, whether it is offered by way of a reference from the government, a criminal case or a civil case. It is the final legal ruling on the matter.

It is now a fact of law that the Federal government has the power to legislate over marriage by virtue of the division of powers in the Constitution, and the only way to change that is to change the Constitution and then get a new opinion from the Court [/b][/quote]
You are right. I am not a lawyer and have never been to law school.

Just to help my education could you refrence your post? Are you a constitutional lawyer or in law school? Is there a book or an article about SC opinions vs rulings?

For my understanding, based on your post - the basic idea is that the Gov can now legislate over marriage and if they choose to define marriage as 1 man & 1 woman will the SC overturn that if a gay couple brings a lawsuit?

What's the purpose of just getting an opinion then? To show the conservatives that they could be facing a lawsuit if they don't vote in favour?

[Mike F]

Just to help my education could you refrence your post? Are you a constitutional lawyer or in law school?

Law school, and it's very confusing stuff so I don't think anyone not paying thousands of dollars to be taught this stuff should feel bad for not understanding

Is there a book or an article about SC opinions vs rulings?

Not on that specifically, but if you're interested in this kind of thing (and have a chunk o money to spare) the best book is Constitutional Law of Canada by Peter Hogg

For my understanding, based on your post - the basic idea is that the Gov can now legislate over marriage and if they choose to define marriage as 1 man & 1 woman will the SC overturn that if a gay couple brings a lawsuit?

Whatever law the Feds pass will be supported by the Supreme Court

What's the purpose of just getting an opinion then? To show the conservatives that they could be facing a lawsuit if they don't vote in favour?

As I understand it, the Federal Liberal gov't wants to pass a federal law legalizing gay marriage all across Canada, but a number of Provincial gov'ts oppose that and were arguing that it's the Provincial gov'ts that have the exclusive power to make laws regarding marriage.

Today the SCC said no, it's withing the power of the Federal gov't to make the law in this area.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 01:53 PM

I'm just saying that the argument is possible. If the activist gay couple could prove that the clergyperson has been flexible in his beliefs and practices in the past, then the court may say that he/she must be flexible now

Anything is possible. Who is to say a straight couple won't try to "make a point" and start a big beef because they can't get married in a Catholic church? I doubt there is any representative of any religion that would preside over a wedding ceremony involving me without having me jump through some Holy Hoops that I don't believe in.

Maybe I'll challenge them all to make a point about religious discrimination.

How far do you think I'll get?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Mike F@Dec 9 2004, 09:27 PM
Just to help my education could you refrence your post? Are you a constitutional lawyer or in law school?

Law school, and it's very confusing stuff so I don't think anyone not paying thousands of dollars to be taught this stuff should feel bad for not understanding

Is there a book or an article about SC opinions vs rulings?

Not on that specifically, but if you're interested in this kind of thing (and have a chunk o money to spare) the best book is Constitutional Law of Canada by Peter Hogg

For my understanding, based on your post - the basic idea is that the Gov can now legislate over marriage and if they choose to define marriage as 1 man & 1 woman will the SC overturn that if a gay couple brings a lawsuit?

Whatever law the Feds pass will be supported by the Supreme Court

What's the purpose of just getting an opinion then? To show the conservatives that they could be facing a lawsuit if they don't vote in favour?

As I understand it, the Federal Liberal gov't wants to pass a federal law legalizing gay marriage all across Canada, but a number of Provincial gov'ts oppose that and were arguing that it's the Provincial gov'ts that have the exclusive power to make laws regarding marriage.

Today the SCC said no, it's withing the power of the Federal gov't to make the law in this area.

Thanks, I do appreciate it.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 9 2004, 09:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 9 2004, 09:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 01:53 PM

I'm just saying that the argument is possible. If the activist gay couple could prove that the clergyperson has been flexible in his beliefs and practices in the past, then the court may say that he/she must be flexible now

Anything is possible. Who is to say a straight couple won't try to "make a point" and start a big beef because they can't get married in a Catholic church? I doubt there is any representative of any religion that would preside over a wedding ceremony involving me without having me jump through some Holy Hoops that I don't believe in.

Maybe I'll challenge them all to make a point about religious discrimination.

How far do you think I'll get? [/b][/quote]
With the right amount of money and a good lawyer or two - all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Anything is possible which brings up the odd questions and scenarios and leads to the debate, and the debate has been fun. thanks. Elvis is leaving the building.