Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[blackice]

obiwan18: Gee, do they have any jurisprudential statements to defend this claim?

The Law on Marriage in Canada

Jurisdiction
In Canada the legal definition of marriage comes under federal jurisdiction, with the provinces having jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. The definition of marriage is not found in federal legislation but in the common, or judge-made law.

Legal recognition of a pre-existing institution

The earliest case relied on is the 1866 decision of the English House of Lords (Hyde v Hyde) which recognized marriage as a pre-existing institution which defined itself as the “voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

Mr. Justice Gonthier said in the December 19, 2002, Supreme Court of Canada decision of Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Walsh:

“Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature; but rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social importance.”

House of Commons Motion supports definition of marriage

The common law definition of marriage was overwhelmingly supported in the House of Commons on June 8, 1999, when members passed the following motion by a vote of 216-55:

“That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.”

Definition of Marriage reaffirmed in recent federal legislation

In February 2000 the Federal Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-23, The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. The objective of the Bill was to amend 68 separate pieces of federal legislation to extend benefits and obligations to same-sex partners on the same basis as opposite-sex common-law couples. In response to concerns from the public, including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Bill was amended in March to include in the preamble this clause: “For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word ‘marriage’, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Marriage in the Province of Ontario

Marriage is defined by federal common law as, "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others". This definition was recently confirmed by the federal government in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.
The Constitution Act, 1867 divides jurisdiction over marriage between the federal government and the provinces. Under Section 91, the federal government has jurisdiction over who may marry whom, while under Section 92, the provinces have jurisdiction over the process of solemnization of marriages.
Currently, there is litigation underway concerning the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples in Ontario. Crown Law Office (Constitutional) is representing the Province in this litigation.
In Ontario, the Office of the Registrar General (ORG) administers the Marriage Act which governs how a person may get married. Under this Act, no marriage may be solemnized except under the authority of a licence issued in accordance with the Act or the publication of banns, provided no lawful cause exists to hinder the solemnization.
In addition to the federal definition of marriage, other examples of lawful causes that would hinder the solemnization of a marriage include: a prior existing marriage; a relationship within the prohibited degrees (e.g. brother marrying sister); failure to comply with the prescribed formalities under the Marriage Act; being underage; being impaired (e.g. drugs or alcohol); lack of consent (e.g. coercion or duress); mental disability or illness. These impediments have been established by both common law and legislation.
Marriage in Ontario is a two-step process. The first step is to either obtain a marriage licence or have banns read. Whether the marriage is solemnized by licence or banns all applicable provincial and federal laws which govern marriage must be complied with. The second step is the solemnization/registration of the marriage.

Marriage by Banns

Publication of banns refers to public notice given in a place of worship, that a marriage between two people is to take place. This gives the congregation an opportunity to voice knowledge of any impediment to the marriage. This is a traditional method of solemnizing a marriage, which has been practised for many years by some denominations and continues to be practised by them.
Once a marriage has been solemnized, the person solemnizing the marriage must forward the required forms to the ORG for registration. Upon review, if the documents appear to comply with the law, the ORG registers the marriage. This does not mean the marriage is valid. Only a court may determine whether any marriage is valid.
The marriage forms include a portion that can be detached and given to the parties as a record or souvenir of the ceremony. It is not an official document nor is it a certificate of the marriage.
If such a person does not follow the requirements of the marriage, the ORG will address the issue with the solemnizer of the marriage and may advise the denomination's governing body.

Off topic: I won both my court cases BTW.

[Ben Kenobi]

obiwan: What do you lose from letting gays marry?

Does it tempt you too much or something?

Asher:

Agathon, this goes for you as well.

It's like using a crucifix to masturbate. That's my first reaction to what this ruling does to marriage licenses across the country.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Justice Gonthier said in the December 19, 2002, Supreme Court of Canada decision of Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Walsh:

“Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature; but rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social importance.”

Thanks blackice.

Now, not only is the article wrong, but we have evidence, from the latest court decision, less than 2 years ago. The government does not have the power to redefine marriage.

Congrats on winning your case.

[blackice]

Thanks obiwan18 by the calls I have received it seems a change to the current laws are forth comming. I may not have to challenge them on a constitutional basis.

Already my cases have been used to successfully challenge the current laws by at least three other fathers.

While the Feds can not redefine marrages, they do have the power to dictate who can marry whom.

Seems good old Ralph cram'em in Alberta would rather face constitutional challenges and law suits, with the people's money I may add. Rather than just conceed the point gay marriages are here to stay.

[blackice]

Barbara Billingsley, a constitutional law specialist at the University of Alberta, said that: "It's never been decided in court -- is sexual orientation an issue of procedure or of capacity? If it's an issue of capacity, then the federal government has jurisdiction." 1 Julie Lloyd, a lawyer specializing in gay rights cases in Alberta, was more definite. She said: "The province of Alberta cannot unilaterally create its own definition of marriage any more than it can create its own criminal code. For the province of Alberta to suggest they can has no academic currency at all."

Probably a near consensus of Canadian constitutional experts would agree that the decision of whether same-sex couples can marry is a matter of capacity, and that a province or territory must follow whatever the federal marriage act states. "While the notwithstanding clause does allow provincial governments to shelter their laws from some key sections of the Charter, it cannot be used to opt our of federal legislation. The statue on marriage falls squarely within federal jurisdiction."

Now that being said Kill'em Kline has not a leg to stand on. If we go back to the other conversation on the constitution. We see it is established that in fact the marrage law is unconstitutional as it short changes or excludes a group of people from services and or right common to everyone else:

Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)

Suck it up Ralph you can only harm so many people while in your dictatorship....

And for your enjoyment The Constitution Act, 1867 section 91:

VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Powers of the Parliament

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--


1. Repealed. (44)
1A. The Public Debt and Property. (45)

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

2A. Unemployment insurance. (46)

3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.

4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.

5. Postal Service.

6. The Census and Statistics.

7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.

8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.

9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.

10. Navigation and Shipping.

11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.

12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.

14. Currency and Coinage.

15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.

16. Savings Banks.

17. Weights and Measures.

18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

19. Interest.

20. Legal Tender.

21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

22. Patents of Invention and Discovery.

23. Copyrights.

24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.

25. Naturalization and Aliens.

26. Marriage and Divorce.

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.

29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

Bye Ralph thanks for comming out....

[Starchild]

Excellent. In one swift stroke, this has proven three facts I hold dear to my heart:

1) Canada is a progressive nation that believes in tolerance.
2) Ontario rules Canada with an iron fist.
3) Alberta is run by a nutter.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Asher:

Agathon, this goes for you as well.

It's like using a crucifix to masturbate. That's my first reaction to what this ruling does to marriage licenses across the country.

Oh yeah?

Don't you see how stupid you're being?

Your religion is not the government. Get over it.

Your religion doesn't have to provide gay marriages, but stop being so authoritarian and egotistical to let you and your religion dictate policy over a huge nation full of many cultures and ideas.

There is more to this world than your crutch of religion, and stop using it to oppress people.

If I had a crucifix, I would use it to masturbate just to piss you off.

As for the laughably stupid idea that it somehow devalues marriage...do you guys think marriage licenses are run like a stock market, or what?

Just because men and women can love someone of the same sex and marry them doesn't "devalue" marriage. People get married because they love eachother, period.

A far more accurate analogy is you and other religious nutcases hold gays' heads underwater because you fear them devaluing your air...

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Starchild
Excellent. In one swift stroke, this has proven three facts I hold dear to my heart:

1) Canada is a progressive nation that believes in tolerance.
2) Ontario rules Canada with an iron fist.
3) Alberta is run by a nutter.

Very astute!

[Asher]

blackice, you write like a 10-year old tabloid journalist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Agathon, this goes for you as well.

It's like using a crucifix to masturbate.

As far as I know, this is also legal in Canada. At least I hope it is... Otherwise I'll have to stop going to those Exorcist themed orgies.

[Berzerker]

optimus -

The next question becomes, though, whether fringe groups can push the equailty argument to further redefine marriage; could bigamists/polygamists argue that their equality rights are denied by not being allowed to marry more than one person, for instance?

First, bygamists wouldn't have to re-define marriage since bygamy/polygamy have been standard marriage practices throughout much of the world for eons. Second, yes, they have an even more valid equality argument since marriage is defined as opposite sexes joining together which still happens under polygamy.

Obiwan -

Berz:

Jesus rebukes everyone who persists in sin, not just homosexuals. That's the same reason I'm not afraid to encourage people to leave the lifestyle.

Jesus never rebuked homosexuality, and you aren't just rebuking homosexuals, you're asking government to prevent them from being "married".

Following your reasoning, the law discriminates against people who want to marry their dog, who want to marry 2 women at the same time, who want to marry their sister or brother, mother or father.

Not sure how a dog can consent to marriage , but the others are being discriminated against too.

The law does not treat homosexuals any different from heterosexuals, in marrying someone of the opposite sex.

The discrimination results from that last part - marrying someone of the opposite sex. Who said we can only marry the opposite sex? Someone who was discriminating against people who want to marry but don't want to marry the opposite sex.

Hence, the law is not discriminatory against the person, but against the act. Valid laws certainly can discriminate against acts, they do so all the time.

So if a law said only men can marry men and women can marry women, you'd say that law didn't discriminate against heterosexuals? I sure would...

Fair enough, but does 'respecting their associations' entail the legal privilege of marriage? Why can't they just let marriage be since they can live common-law here in Canada?

As I stated before, I'm opposed to homosexual "marriage" because the word "marriage" doesn't belong there. Marriage is defined as a union between men and women. But I don't consider marriage a "privilege" but as a right that depends first on the freedom of association, i.e., we don't have a right to marry since that imposes a burden on someone else. But if 2 people want to be married, then it becomes a right by virtue of an existing freedom (association). Having said that, I don't believe the state should be involved with marriage even if some people are claiming to be married when that word cannot logically apply to them, as with homosexuals. As to your second question, you'll have to ask Canadian homosexuals supporting this. I don't know their reasons. If there are no differences between common law and marriage, I see no reason to try and get legislation to re-define marriage to include homosexual unions. I know down here there are differences and that is the rationale given by homosexuals...

[Asher]

Why can't they just let marriage be since they can live common-law here in Canada?

The better, and more relevant question, is why can't you just let homosexuals be and let them get married if they want to?

Your reasons for denying equality are ridiculous and religious to the core, and it's the exact reason why you and your way of life are going out the door.

People are waking up to religion, more people realize it as a crock than before because people are more enlightened. You, too, will see the light someday.

Hell, you're already less religious than your parents, no?

Perhaps someday you'll evolve into something better.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Your reasons for denying equality are ridiculous and religious to the core, and it's the exact reason why you and your way of life are going out the door.

Did you mean for this to rhyme?

[blackice]

Your religion is not the government. Get over it.

Ignoring your childish comment, moving on to maturity, can you do that? I have seen you do it from time to time. Now was it not you assher that, correct me if I am wrong in a previous thread about this same topic. Defended "kick'em when they are down" Kline? Yes it was.... It was also you that stated that in fact K'em WTAD Kline was not against gay people. Yup sure was....

If you read the Marriage by Banns you will see any religion has the right to not allow SSM and in fact religious belief is very much part of society, and most governemnts around the world including ours. Religion is very much part of our laws and moral beliefs also. In fact religion is the base and founding start point of the "marrage" of two people. They too have an opinion and a voice much to your disliking, they too can voice that opinion...

“Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature; but rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social importance.”

2) Ontario rules Canada with an iron fist.

Clearly then democracy rules in Canada, that is of course if in a democracy the majority rules...

Agathon

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Ignoring your childish comment, moving on to maturity

Now was it not you assher

"kick'em when they are down" Kline

'nuff said.

If you read the Marriage by Banns you will see any religion has the right to not allow SSM and in fact religious belief is very much part of society, and most governemnts around the world including ours. Religion is very much part of our laws and moral beliefs also. In fact religion is the base and founding start point of the "marrage" of two people. They too have an opinion and a voice much to your disliking, they too can voice that opinion...

Well, that's great and all.
But I'm going to let you in on a little secret, smartass:

The law specifically says it will not force Churches to perform same-sex marriages.

Only churches that want to, will.

There is no excuse whatsoever to be against this ruling unless you wish to force your religious beliefs on other people. And if that's the case, you're an inconsiderate ***** and if there is a God, and if he truly was just, you'd go straight to hell.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
As I stated before, I'm opposed to homosexual "marriage" because the word "marriage" doesn't belong there. Marriage is defined as a union between men and women.

Is it defined solely as that? My dictionary also gives the definition as "Any close or intimate union." No man and woman specified.

At any rate, this is circular, as the debate is over what the definition of marriage should be. If Canadian society decides it should be between both men and women and other gender combination, that is what it will be.

We don't know for certain when marriages originated or when, but there is nothing to indicate there was always such a strict definition. We have many examples of ancient same-sex marriages, and the Christians were performing same-sex marriage rites in Europe for centuries after the fall of Rome.

[blackice]

There is no excuse whatsoever to be against this ruling unless you wish to force your religious beliefs on other people.

Yet gay people have a right to push thier beliefs on others?

Gay beliefs go against religious beliefs, deal with it, they too have rights, a vote and a voice.

It appears your as messed up as ever, one hand defending Kill'em Kline and now?

One hand saying a gay person has the right (s) and a religious person does not?



I truely believe you need your meds checked.

[Boris Godunov]

Allowing gays to be married infriges on what right held by religious people...?

[blackice]

Boris Godunov

At any rate, this is circular, as the debate is over what the definition of marriage should be.

yup.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Yet gay people have a right to push thier beliefs on others?

What beliefs are we forcing?
Are we outlawing heterosexual marriages?

Gay people aren't forcing beliefs by asking for equal rights under the law.

Nothing, whatsoever, changes for heterosexuals, while homosexuals get the same rights as heterosexuals.

The people whining are god-fearing cowards.

Gay beliefs go against religious beliefs, deal with it, they too have rights, a vote and a voice.

Hey, I'm not advocating taking them away.

It just so happens that gay people have rights, too, as the courts have ruled numerous times already.

We're not taking away anyone's rights, so stop trying to pretend like that's the case.

One hand saying a gay person has the right (s) and a religious person does not?



I truely believe you need your meds checked.

What kind of moron are you?
Where did I say, or even imply, that religious people don't have the same rights?

Christ man, you're the dumbest poster on Apolyton.

[monolith94]

"Christ man, you're the dumbest poster on Apolyton."
Don't forget Joe!

[blackice]

Have you looked at your track record?

It appears maturity is out of reach still, so be it give it time it happens sooner or later.

Allowing gays to be married infriges on what right held by religious people...?

Thier beliefs which are protected under the constitution. The government is putting this law to the supreme court judges to ensure that passing this law will not infringe religious constitutional rights already in the constitution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
People are waking up to religion, more people realize it as a crock than before because people are more enlightened.

Eh? You act as if homosexual marriages have never been preformed by Christian churches.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Have you looked at your track record?

It appears maturity is out of reach still, so be it give it time it happens sooner or later.

And what are you, 40 and still on the lookout?

You have the typing skills of a 8 year old and the mental capacity of a 6-year old. You continually ignore the valid points made against you because you have no case.

I really don't give a rats ass if I come across as mature here, there's more to maturity than being polite to ignorant ****** online. Maturity is respecting the rights of others, being supportive of people who need it, and generally having the thought capacity to make rational decisions.

You have demonstrated none of the above...

Thier beliefs which are protected under the constitution.

DUH.
Of course they are!

No one has even come close to saying we should ban their beliefs! They're welcome to worship broomsticks and Hugh Grant for all I care, no one's taking that away.

DinoDoc:

Eh? You act as if homosexual marriages have never been preformed by Christian churches.

They have been performed, I know. And I know quite a few Christian gays.

Of course not all religious people want to kill homosexuals or at the very least prevent them from having the same status as the "normals" under the government, but in 99% of the cases where people do not respect the rights of homosexuals, religion is the cause.

So forgive me if I seem a tad bit bitter that religion is such a pain in the ass for no good reason...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by blackice

Quote:

Allowing gays to be married infriges on what right held by religious people...?

Thier beliefs which are protected under the constitution. The government is putting this law to the supreme court judges to ensure that passing this law will not infringe religious constitutional rights already in the constitution.

Nonsense. The constitution protects their rights to hold certain beliefs, not to see them enshrined in the law. Allowing gay marriage does not in any way prevent them from holding their beliefs. It doesn't in any way force them to do something they morally oppose. They aren't obligated to condone, participate in or even watch gay marriages.

Under this logic, the government shouldn't allow homosexuality whatsoever, since it goes against some people's religions.

Gay marriage doesn't deprive anyone of a right, it recognizes the rights of a certain group that has had them denied. Unless you're going to make the claim that for every right recognized to one group, another group is deprived of one, and of course this argument holds no water.

[blackice]

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species and a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights. The institution of marriage handled both of these needs.

Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn't exist until medieval times, and the troubadours.

Pope Nicholas I, in A.D. 866, wrote in a letter, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void".

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. According to Tammi Sprout, marriage was seen as a way to "prevent men and women from sins, for companionship, and procreation. Love wasn't needed to marry a person and often had nothing to do with marriage."

Years later, the Puritans referred to marriage as "the highest and most blessed of relationships." They saw that every day in marriage is an opportunity to love, and a chance to forgive.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm
http://www.marriageequalityca.org/history_marriage.php

So when it all boils down the "marriage" as we know it today in reality and in law is religious and government based.
The rights of a gay couple to marry is sealed. The rights of a gay couple to the legal bennifits of marriage is sealed.
The rights of religious people who see "marriage" as something holy and devine in the eyes of god remains in question. This means that while gay marriages are a fore gone conclusion. Should the word "marriage" be used to describe thier union? Does this infringe on religious beliefs and rights protected under the constitution?
Let's face it religion and government ( http://www.cyberparent.com/women/marriage4.htm)invented "marriage" as it is today.

So do they have a right to protect that concept and wording under the constitution...That will be decided by the high courts and for the most part that right has been conceeded by the government. The mere fact they are sending the bill to the high courts for legal interpretation clearly acklnowledges that.

So yes religious people have protected rights and a right to protest something devine to them and in fact something they and the government invented.

I am sure most do not care provided it is not called a marriage per se.

Assher you have done nothing but prove my point about you over and over again. Thanks

[Asher]

I'm simply...astounded.

Wow.

[Sava]

Allowing gay marriage doesn't infringe on rights... that's the dumbest thing I've heard...

if you don't believe gay marriage is right, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE.

[Agathon]

The right to one's religious values does not extend to the capacity to impose them on others. What is really at issue is that some citizens would like to continue imposing their religious values on society - all this sophistry about tradition and custom is merely masking that fact.

The reason religious rights don't extend this far is that doing so in a pluralist society would result in social disintegration and mob violence.

The State runs marriages for the simple reason that marriages imply legal standing: i.e. certain rights and privileges. Not extending those to gay people is denying them equal treatment under the law. It's that simple. The State is not intefering in religious ritual simply because marriage qua a legal institution is the State's business and not that of any church or religious organisation.

The State does not infringe at all on the freedom of religious organisations to perform the sacrament of marriage in the way they see fit. Render unto Caesar.....

The same goes for abortions. The question of whether an abortion is right or wrong largely boils down to philosophical issues about the nature of personhood about which there is no real agreement in our society. That's why it's a matter of conscience and the real reason why the State allows abortion.

And, more importantly, that is why one can be a Christian or member of another religion and still support a liberal abortion policy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sava

if you don't believe gay marriage is right, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE.

That's a nice shiny new avatar there, Sava.