Supreme Court OKs Same Sex Marriages

[Black Dog]

Link.

The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal government can change the definition of marriage, giving gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.

...

The court rejected the argument that the traditional definition of marriage is rooted in history, saying times have changed.

[August1991]

That was a really big surprise. The government will have to submit legislation.

I wonder how this will play in the foreign press. What other countries have same sex marriage?

[Black Dog]

I wonder how this will play in the foreign press. What other countries have same sex marriage?

MLW page

Canada will be one of the first countries in the world to recognize same sex marriages as opposed to "civil unions" or some such.

[Stoker]

I wonder how this will play in the foreign press. What other countries have same sex marriage?

I think the Dutch have allowed it.

All in all, I think this was a positive (almost) end result for gay marriage. My only complaint, is that (as Harper alluded to) there needs to be stronger safeguard to protect religious freedoms. I hope this puts this topic to rest.

[Prince Metternich]

Let me get this straight: The Liberal government fires off three banal questions in order to validate legislation it has already written to a court stacked with Liberal appointees and, most recently, explicitly pro- gay marriage justices (Hi Lady Abella), and people think this is news?

[Stoker]

Let me get this straight: The Liberal government fires off three banal questions in order to validate legislation it has already written to a court stacked with Liberal appointees and, most recently, explicitly pro- gay marriage justices (Hi Lady Abella), and people think this is news?

I think this is very valid, positive news, in that the legislation will be voted on in the house of commons and will truley reflect the views of Canadians (unless your MP is in cabinet and you don't share the same views of the government).

This is what the Tories wanted after all.

[maplesyrup]

Time to move on. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

[Stoker]

Time to move on. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

Isn't that whats being done?

[Prince Metternich]

I think this is very valid, positive news, in that the legislation will be voted on in the house of commons and will truley reflect the views of Canadians

Except that the lower courts have already made it clear that to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying is an infringement of their Charter rights. So while today's ruling just adds a little judicial clout to the legislation the Liberals wanted to introduce anyway, it also reminds us that the court would eventually move against any state of affairs, including inertia, which restricted the rights of men or women to marry.

The Liberals wanted gay marriage, the court said they can go ahead, Cotler is on TV now saying that he now has a constitutional obligation to move forward on the legislation, and everyone knows the courts will bring about same-sex marriage if the government doesn't anyway. A good day for democracy? I don't think so.

[maplesyrup]

Canada is the third country to legalize same-sex marriage.

Previous countries:

The Netherlands in 2001

Belgium in 2003

I wonder where Sweden, Norway, Finland, & Iceland are on this issue.

[fellowtraveller]

The Liberals wanted gay marriage

Perhaps, it's hard to tell. After all, they voted strongly against it in 2000, then for it-barely- in Sept 2003.

The next few weeks will be interesting. MPs from all parties will be hard pressed by constituents to vote both ways. Now we're going to see which parties allow their members to vote freely.

In the last vote, the motion supporting same sex marriage carried only when the Liberals bullied their members.

In the end, it's likely to pass and about time too.

[Newfie Canadian]

The government will have to submit legislation.

I would imagine Cotler has it in his back pocket, although it looks like it will be early in the new year for it.

everyone knows the courts will bring about same-sex marriage if the government doesn't anyway

I believe there is a way to get around the judiciary. Use the "Notwithstanding Clause."

I haven't seem any recent national polls on the issue of same sex marriage. Anyone out there see any lately?

[Black Dog]

I haven't seem any recent national polls on the issue of same sex marriage. Anyone out there see any lately?

I posted some somewhere, but can't be bothered to find them Most Canadian polls show a growing majority in favour of SSM. Support is strongest in Quebec and B.C., weakest in (surprise!) Alberta, where the conservative ethos of individual rights apparently only applies to heterosexuals .

In any case, this is an instance where legislators need to do the right thing and put an end to institutionalized discrimination, not bow to the demands of the ever-shrinking number of social dinosaurs and religious zealots.

[August1991]

Let me get this straight: The Liberal government fires off three banal questions in order to validate legislation it has already written to a court stacked with Liberal appointees and, most recently, explicitly pro- gay marriage justices (Hi Lady Abella), and people think this is news?

That's more or less it.

From the MLW link BD provided:

In December, 2000, the Netherlands went further and passed a bill allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry and adopt children.

My query is rather how newspapers and editorialists in places such as Tokyo, Delhi and Pretoria are going to report this - if at all.

Time to move on. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

That's an argument I've never been comfortable with. The Nazis and Communists used it when referring to a New World order and so on. Just because something is new does not mean it is necessarily good. Alot of harm has come to people in the name of "progress" and being "progressive" just for that sake alone.

The issue of same sex marriage should be considered on its own merits.

In Canada, I think there's a majority in favour of accepting "civil unions". So, now it is merely a question of how to define the word "marriage".

I go on the side of minority rights. That's a good measure of civilization. Anyway, if the Dutch do it - then we're in good company.

[Argus]

Let me get this straight: The Liberal government fires off three banal questions in order to validate legislation it has already written to a court stacked with Liberal appointees and, most recently, explicitly pro- gay marriage justices (Hi Lady Abella), and people think this is news?

I think this is very valid, positive news, in that the legislation will be voted on in the house of commons and will truley reflect the views of Canadians (unless your MP is in cabinet and you don't share the same views of the government).

This is what the Tories wanted after all.

The curious thing is that two years ago the views of Canadians were against same-sex marriage by a substantial percentage. But there has been relentless propaganda from our liberal media organs. I have not seen a single anti-same-sex news story on any TV/radio station or in any newspaper, although the media have blanketed this issue with wall to wall coverage since the initial ruling.

Even so, only in Quebec and BC do majorities favour same-sex marriage.

And as has been said, this was hardly a surprise. The Supreme Court ceased to have even any pretence of neutrality some years ago. It's now just another patronage board stacked with liberal appointees put in place to vote the party line.

[Argus]

I haven't seem any recent national polls on the issue of same sex marriage. Anyone out there see any lately?

I posted some somewhere, but can't be bothered to find them Most Canadian polls show a growing majority in favour of SSM. Support is strongest in Quebec and B.C., weakest in (surprise!) Alberta, where the conservative ethos of individual rights apparently only applies to heterosexuals .

It is strongest in Quebec and weakest in Alberta because Quebecers don't care about marriage and Albertans do. Most Quebec children are now born out of wedlock, and I think few young Quebecers bother with marriage any more.

I'm not sure a culture so self centred they refuse to commit to marriage so the parties can split up more easily in the event they are unhappy is one which ought to be held up as a shining light of the future.

[Newfie Canadian]

Here's what I found on the Ipsos site:

a poll of Canadians finds that a full majority (71%) support the concept of same sex marriage. However, these Canadians are split in how they would like the union recognized: four in ten (39%) believe same-sex marriage should be “fully recognized and equal to conventional heterosexual marriages”, while and 32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weight as a conventional marriage”.

I couldn't access all the info as a membership is required, so I wouldn't take it as dogma.

[maplesyrup]

Time to move on. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

That's an argument I've never been comfortable with. The Nazis and Communists used it when referring to a New World order and so on.

Are you now inferring that someone who supports SSM is a Nazi or a Commie?

Trudeau got it right - the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, so why can't people be left alone to do their own thingy, whatever their own thingy is. No one is being forced into SSM.

This really is a human rights issue - thank goodness for our Charter of Rights that protects our citizens from all sorts of abuses.

[Stoker]

Trudeau got it right - the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, so why can't people be left alone to do their own thingy, whatever their own thingy is. No one is being forced into SSM.

This really is a human rights issue - thank goodness for our Charter of Rights that protects our citizens from all sorts of abuses

I agree with you MS. With that said, do you think the state has no business in the kitchens and living rooms of Canadians also? If not, why draw a line between who Canadians sleep with and what they eat (no pun)?

[I miss Reagan]

My query is rather how newspapers and editorialists in places such as Tokyo, Delhi and Pretoria are going to report this - if at all.

As much as Canadians think they matter, this decision will recieve little more than a page 10 one sentence mention in the world papers. Canada is irrelevant.

[Black Dog]

The curious thing is that two years ago the views of Canadians were against same-sex marriage by a substantial percentage. But there has been relentless propaganda from our liberal media organs. I have not seen a single anti-same-sex news story on any TV/radio station or in any newspaper, although the media have blanketed this issue with wall to wall coverage since the initial ruling.

That's probably because anti-SSM folks can't seem to formulate a decent argument against it. I've certainly yet to see one.

Even so, only in Quebec and BC do majorities favour same-sex marriage.

Also Ontario. Last I saw, Atlantic Canada was smack in the middle.

[shackwacky]

Stoker, well done.

[maplesyrup]

Lord Tories will accept same-sex marriages

'It's definitely a step in the right direction. The war is not over by a long shot but it's one more battle won' – Wayne Toole, gay rights activist

The anit-SSM folks must be feelin' more and more lonely these days.

[Stoker]

The anit-SSM folks must be feelin' more and more lonely these days.

Why? They are going to let their voice be heard and will have their religions protected from what they deem a sin.

[maplesyrup]

My goodness, even Ralph Klein?

Alberta rules out notwithstanding option