Clever Clogs
Posts: 548 
Location: Kamloops, BC
Location: Kamloops, BC
July 30th, 2002, 02:39 PM
Ottawa to appeal same-sex ruling
Terse statement highlights Liberal divide
By CAMPBELL CLARK
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 – Page A1
OTTAWA -- The federal government will appeal an Ontario court ruling that would have forced it to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, and stall for time before deciding its policy on the sensitive issue.
Ottawa's decision to contest the ruling before the Ontario Court of Appeal was attacked by gay-rights activists and political opponents as showing a lack of leadership on a controversial decision that will be stuck in court for years while the government fails to take a stand.
"This decision is cowardly and contradictory," Bloc Québécois MP Réal Ménard said. "This question will remain in limbo for five or six years, and no one gains by living in that uncertainty. The government does not want to make the political decisions that it should."
Along with the government's challenge, three different provincial appeal courts -- in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- are now hearing cases on the issue. Those rulings are widely expected to then go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The politically charged issue splits Canadians -- 48 per cent favour same-sex marriage and 43 per cent oppose it, according to a recent survey by Liberal Party pollster Pollara Research Inc.
The subject, which has been hotly debated at past Liberal Party conventions, is a tricky one for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who is facing a tough leadership-review battle and whose caucus includes MPs on both sides -- including a clutch of social conservatives adamantly opposed to redefining marriage.
Pollara president Michael Marzolini said the poll he conducted after the Ontario court decision showed Liberal supporters slightly more favourable to same-sex marriage, but still split, 51-42.
Older Canadians, and those in small towns and rural areas, are more opposed.
"This is almost a litmus test for the question of whether you are a social liberal or a social conservative," Mr. Marzolini said.
The government's decision yesterday means that federal lawyers will contest the ruling that Ottawa's definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(Provinces regulate marriage and municipalities issue licences, but Ottawa decides who can marry.)
The terse statement from Justice Minister Martin Cauchon announcing the decision to seek leave to appeal gave no hint of how the government will handle the issue -- except to underline how hard it is to decide what to do.
"At present, there is no consensus, either from the courts or among Canadians, on whether or how the laws require change. The government believes it is the responsible course to seek further clarity on these issues," Mr. Cauchon said in the statement. He did not speak to reporters.
On July 12, three Ontario Superior Court judges ruled that a traditional common-law definition of marriage used in Canada -- one man and one woman -- violates Charter guarantees of equality.
Mr. Justice Robert Blair wrote that the government could not show that there was any pressing societal need that justified the discrimination inherent in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Lawyers for the Justice Department said yesterday that the government was faced with conflicting court decisions. These include a ruling in British Columbia in a case brought by gay-rights group Egale that concluded that the current definition of marriage does not violate the Charter.
In the past, the Liberal government has expanded pension and benefit rights for same-sex partners, but has insisted it will not change the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage.
In 1999, Mr. Chrétien and most Liberals voted in the Commons to endorse that definition, but a spokesman for the Prime Minister, Duncan Fulton, expressed a less definite view yesterday. "Since that bill was passed, several different legal opinions have been brought forward and are under consideration. We will wait to see the outcome of those considerations," he said.
However, the Justice Department has begun drawing up policy options, from enshrining the status quo to recognizing gay marriage to getting the state out of marriage. That last proposal would see the state sanction a form of civil union for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, leaving it to churches to enshrine marriages as they see fit. However, this option would not allow for civil weddings.
Mr. Cauchon's decision to appeal was supported by Canadian Alliance justice critic Vic Toews, who said that Ottawa must fight off court interference in an area that Parliament should decide. He said that issue was decided by the 1999 resolution endorsing the opposite-sex definition of marriage.
Ottawa to appeal same-sex ruling
Terse statement highlights Liberal divide
By CAMPBELL CLARK
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 – Page A1
OTTAWA -- The federal government will appeal an Ontario court ruling that would have forced it to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, and stall for time before deciding its policy on the sensitive issue.
Ottawa's decision to contest the ruling before the Ontario Court of Appeal was attacked by gay-rights activists and political opponents as showing a lack of leadership on a controversial decision that will be stuck in court for years while the government fails to take a stand.
"This decision is cowardly and contradictory," Bloc Québécois MP Réal Ménard said. "This question will remain in limbo for five or six years, and no one gains by living in that uncertainty. The government does not want to make the political decisions that it should."
Along with the government's challenge, three different provincial appeal courts -- in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- are now hearing cases on the issue. Those rulings are widely expected to then go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The politically charged issue splits Canadians -- 48 per cent favour same-sex marriage and 43 per cent oppose it, according to a recent survey by Liberal Party pollster Pollara Research Inc.
The subject, which has been hotly debated at past Liberal Party conventions, is a tricky one for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who is facing a tough leadership-review battle and whose caucus includes MPs on both sides -- including a clutch of social conservatives adamantly opposed to redefining marriage.
Pollara president Michael Marzolini said the poll he conducted after the Ontario court decision showed Liberal supporters slightly more favourable to same-sex marriage, but still split, 51-42.
Older Canadians, and those in small towns and rural areas, are more opposed.
"This is almost a litmus test for the question of whether you are a social liberal or a social conservative," Mr. Marzolini said.
The government's decision yesterday means that federal lawyers will contest the ruling that Ottawa's definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(Provinces regulate marriage and municipalities issue licences, but Ottawa decides who can marry.)
The terse statement from Justice Minister Martin Cauchon announcing the decision to seek leave to appeal gave no hint of how the government will handle the issue -- except to underline how hard it is to decide what to do.
"At present, there is no consensus, either from the courts or among Canadians, on whether or how the laws require change. The government believes it is the responsible course to seek further clarity on these issues," Mr. Cauchon said in the statement. He did not speak to reporters.
On July 12, three Ontario Superior Court judges ruled that a traditional common-law definition of marriage used in Canada -- one man and one woman -- violates Charter guarantees of equality.
Mr. Justice Robert Blair wrote that the government could not show that there was any pressing societal need that justified the discrimination inherent in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Lawyers for the Justice Department said yesterday that the government was faced with conflicting court decisions. These include a ruling in British Columbia in a case brought by gay-rights group Egale that concluded that the current definition of marriage does not violate the Charter.
In the past, the Liberal government has expanded pension and benefit rights for same-sex partners, but has insisted it will not change the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage.
In 1999, Mr. Chrétien and most Liberals voted in the Commons to endorse that definition, but a spokesman for the Prime Minister, Duncan Fulton, expressed a less definite view yesterday. "Since that bill was passed, several different legal opinions have been brought forward and are under consideration. We will wait to see the outcome of those considerations," he said.
However, the Justice Department has begun drawing up policy options, from enshrining the status quo to recognizing gay marriage to getting the state out of marriage. That last proposal would see the state sanction a form of civil union for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, leaving it to churches to enshrine marriages as they see fit. However, this option would not allow for civil weddings.
Mr. Cauchon's decision to appeal was supported by Canadian Alliance justice critic Vic Toews, who said that Ottawa must fight off court interference in an area that Parliament should decide. He said that issue was decided by the 1999 resolution endorsing the opposite-sex definition of marriage.
Member
Posts: 234
Location: BC
Location: BC
July 31st, 2002, 01:48 PM
I would like to see a poll that excluded the openly religious. They have had the bias bashed into their heads. Many of these people dont even know a gay person!
This whole issue comes down to this in my mind. People have the inherant right to do what ever the hell they want as long as no harm comes to others. What harm comes from a marriage of two people of the same sex? Really? I would really like to know.
Before some churchie spews off that the bible says this or it says that; its YOUR bible not mine. I dont have to live under YOUR rules and you dont have to live by mine. If you want to continue to be homophobic go ahead that is your right, but stop pushing your values onto others.
You can bet your bottom dollar that insurance companies are lobbying the government with unprecedented $$'s to stop the ruling cold. they dont want to have to pay out more to insure an increase in married couples. It always comes back to $$ with these people.
I would like to see a poll that excluded the openly religious. They have had the bias bashed into their heads. Many of these people dont even know a gay person!
This whole issue comes down to this in my mind. People have the inherant right to do what ever the hell they want as long as no harm comes to others. What harm comes from a marriage of two people of the same sex? Really? I would really like to know.
Before some churchie spews off that the bible says this or it says that; its YOUR bible not mine. I dont have to live under YOUR rules and you dont have to live by mine. If you want to continue to be homophobic go ahead that is your right, but stop pushing your values onto others.
You can bet your bottom dollar that insurance companies are lobbying the government with unprecedented $$'s to stop the ruling cold. they dont want to have to pay out more to insure an increase in married couples. It always comes back to $$ with these people.
August 3rd, 2002, 12:14 PM
Czardogs, there has been a now poll created for the home page of Canadian Content. Check it out at www.canadiancontent.net and place your vote.
We can get an idea of what our users think of the topic.
Czardogs, there has been a now poll created for the home page of Canadian Content. Check it out at www.canadiancontent.net and place your vote.
We can get an idea of what our users think of the topic.
Member
Posts: 234
Location: BC
Location: BC
August 4th, 2002, 01:29 AM
I am not gay myself but I can look at their situation and see it for what it is. They are consenting Canadian adults who want to make a personal choice for themselves. Like my earlier post, who are they harming? Just because they harm YOUR way of thinking is no reason to deny them their right to do what they please. Once one segment of the population decides what is morally correct for everyone we cease to have any democratic or social rights.
Quote:
The fastest growing segment of the population that is actively adopting is non heterosexual couples. Heteros are great at procreating but not always so great at taking care of their own. By all accounts children that grow up in a gay household DO NOT grow up to be gay themselves.
Nature intended man and women together not man and man because heterosexual couples can procreate. I don't see gay people doing that
I am not gay myself but I can look at their situation and see it for what it is. They are consenting Canadian adults who want to make a personal choice for themselves. Like my earlier post, who are they harming? Just because they harm YOUR way of thinking is no reason to deny them their right to do what they please. Once one segment of the population decides what is morally correct for everyone we cease to have any democratic or social rights.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 548
Location: Kamloops, BC
Location: Kamloops, BC
August 4th, 2002, 09:54 AM
The country and its citizens are a lot more aware of things than they have been in the past, and a lot more open minded. I don't mind if gay/lesbian couples get married, I just dont want to hear about their encounters, as Im sure most people wouldnt want to. I know some pretty cool people who are gay or lesbian, and they are some of the nicest people you could ever meet.
I think its wrong to appose same sex marriages, after all, they are human as well, they are citizens, and they should have every right us heterosexual couples have as well. :mrgeen:
Quoting
Everyone has their right to choose what they want to do with their lives, who they will marry, etc. I dont think that should be changed just because someone is gay/lesbian. They should have the same rights as everyone else in this country, they afterall are EQUAL citizens of this weird and wacky land.
I am not gay myself but I can look at their situation and see it for what it is. They are consenting Canadian adults who want to make a personal choice for themselves. Like my earlier post, who are they harming? Just because they harm YOUR way of thinking is no reason to deny them their right to do what they please. Once one segment of the population decides what is morally correct for everyone we cease to have any democratic or social rights.
The country and its citizens are a lot more aware of things than they have been in the past, and a lot more open minded. I don't mind if gay/lesbian couples get married, I just dont want to hear about their encounters, as Im sure most people wouldnt want to. I know some pretty cool people who are gay or lesbian, and they are some of the nicest people you could ever meet.
I think its wrong to appose same sex marriages, after all, they are human as well, they are citizens, and they should have every right us heterosexual couples have as well. :mrgeen:
Member
Posts: 234
Location: BC
Location: BC
August 4th, 2002, 01:07 PM
Quote:
Well said, throughout the whole debate that one part seems to be forgotten, that is that they are fellow human beings. they just express their sexuality different thats all. NO harm no foul. I will also agree with you about not wanting to hear about any exploits, but that goes for just about everything. What you do in the comfort of your own home should stay there.
I think its wrong to appose same sex marriages, after all, they are human as well, they are citizens, and they should have every right us heterosexual couples have as well.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 548
Location: Kamloops, BC
Location: Kamloops, BC
August 4th, 2002, 02:58 PM
Quoting
Agreed, it would be like me posting my sex life on the net for the world to read/see. Private things between a man/woman or a man/man or a woman/woman should remain between them. At the same time, I respect them as long as they respect me. Some gay/lesbian think they are "above" heterosexual people. I havent seen the bar move from a level playing field, have you?
Quote:
Well said, throughout the whole debate that one part seems to be forgotten, that is that they are fellow human beings. they just express their sexuality different thats all. NO harm no foul. I will also agree with you about not wanting to hear about any exploits, but that goes for just about everything. What you do in the comfort of your own home should stay there.
I think its wrong to appose same sex marriages, after all, they are human as well, they are citizens, and they should have every right us heterosexual couples have as well.
Member
Posts: 181
Location: Montréal, Quebec
Location: Montréal, Quebec
December 31st, 2002, 01:03 PM
I agree with "Anonymous". Marriage is a religious thing, it's a marriage of two people before god. And ofcourse it varies among religions, the church should not be asked to change their ways because some canadian politician wants to gain support among a minority.
It might be a different story about the commonlaw thing. But whatever, not like the opinion of the Canadian population have a say it a democratic society!
I agree with "Anonymous". Marriage is a religious thing, it's a marriage of two people before god. And ofcourse it varies among religions, the church should not be asked to change their ways because some canadian politician wants to gain support among a minority.
It might be a different story about the commonlaw thing. But whatever, not like the opinion of the Canadian population have a say it a democratic society!
