Supreme Court OKs Same Sex Marriages

[Prince Metternich]

The numbers might jump around for a bit, but the legislation for SSM will pass.

WHY ?

[maplesyrup]

Because whoever assembled the website doesn't know everything, and look at all the supposed uncertain ones.

I saw other figures tonite on the news and it will pass.

[maplesyrup]

Martin can expect 101 Liberals to support him along with nearly all of the 54-Bloc caucus and the 19-seat NDP caucus, more than the 155 votes needed to get the bill through the House.

Liberals (102) + Bloc (54) + NDP (19) = 175 votes

155 votes needed to pass.

There are some Conservatives, who knows how many as well which will support SSM.

[Prince Metternich]

Because whoever assembled the website doesn't know everything, and look at all the supposed uncertain ones.

Yes, and the uncertain ones could just as easily go "nay!".

Quit passing off your fond wishes as reality.

[maplesyrup]

If someone wishes to marry some one of their own sex it is none of yours, or anyone else's business, except their prospective partner - that is why the SSM legislation will pass.

As I said there are 175 votes for, and only 155 are needed for it to pass. As I have said before, it's a slam dunk!

[playfullfellow]

As I said there are 175 votes for, and only 155 are needed for it to pass. As I have said before, it's a slam dunk!

Is this anything like your predictions for the NDP in the last election? This should be a free vote so the MP's can vote the way their constituents want them to. As far as I am concerned, no matter what happens, I can personally say that I won't recognize ssm.

[ceemes]

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.

Actually, New Zealand is also ready to accept Gay Marriages or civil unions .

[ceemes]

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?

approx 71% pro civil unions and a 50/50 on the legal use of the term marriage according to global tonight.

[maplesyrup]

Welcome victory for gays, lesbians

Even without the Supreme Court's opinion, however, there are compelling and urgent reasons for MPs of all political stripes to support the bill.

It has been 35 years since then prime minister Pierre Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality and almost 10 years since the Supreme Court ruled the Charter bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Canadian society has changed dramatically since then, as have our norms and values. Just as women were once denied the vote and it was once acceptable to discriminate against Jews and blacks, so gays and lesbians have not enjoyed full civil rights in this country.

But we can no longer refuse rights to some citizens that are granted to others without question. It is a matter of dignity and fundamental human rights. Martin phrased it elegantly when he said yesterday: "I do not believe you can have two classes of citizens."

It is time to make same-sex marriage legal across the country. And while the Supreme Court opinion came as no surprise, it does provide a welcome legal advisory that Martin is on the right track in extending rights in this field to a disenfranchised minority.

We need much more tolerance in our society.

[realwannabe]

There are two Tories voting in favour. Anyone know of any other possibles?

Also, now that I've seen the Supreme Court decision, it is far from an endorsement of same sex marriage. The Court has in effect sent the issue back to Parliament by saying that Parliament has the right to decide this issue.

I think Harper's take on the Court's decision is right.

Incidentally, I see that the BQ's position is that it shouild be a free vote. Duceppe is letting members vote as they please. I know of no BQ member voting against. Are there any?

If you didnt think the Supreme Court endorsed SSM, you clearly havent seen the written decision. How misinformed you are.

The Supreme court has rejected ALL the arguments against same sex marriage, the only reason they didnt answer the fourth question is because of procedure issue.

Read , than speak.

Lord Sankey acknowledged, at p. 134, that "several centuries ago" it would have been understood that "persons" should refer only to men. Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today.

Some interveners submit that the mere legislative recognition of the right of same-sex couples to marry would have the effect of discriminating against (1) religious groups who do not recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry (religiously) and/or (2) opposite-sex married couples. No submissions have been made as to how the Proposed Act, in its effect, might be seen to draw a distinction for the purposes of s. 15, nor can the Court surmise how it might be seen to do so. [ same sex marriage ] withholds no benefits, nor does it impose burdens on a differential basis. It therefore fails to meet the threshold requirement of the s. 15(1) analysis laid down in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497.

46 The mere recognition of the equality rights of one group cannot, in itself, constitute a violation of the rights of another. The promotion of Charter rights and values enriches our society as a whole and the furtherance of those rights cannot undermine the very principles the Charter was meant to foster.

48 The first allegation of infringement says in essence that equality of access to a civil institution like marriage may not only conflict with the views of those who are in disagreement, but may also violate their legal rights. This amounts to saying that the mere conferral of rights upon one group can constitute a violation of the rights of another. This argument was discussed above in relation to s. 15(1) and was rejected.

[realwannabe]

And why does politicans have a right to vote on a human right issue? Of course it shouldnt be a free vote. This is an issue of human right , and it only concerns with minority group as far as i am concerned. Allowing same sex couples to marry does not infringe whatsoever on the right of the heterosexuals' couples.

And all of the major polls have shown that the support for SSM is rising , and a good majority now supports this legislation with only 30 to 40 percent disagreeing.

The fundies are always the ones making the biggest noise. Most Canadians do not care about this issue , if you think this will create instability, you are kidding yourself.

85 percent of Canadians already have same sex marriage legalised.

[maplesyrup]

realwannabe...welcome to mapleleafweb.

Thank you for a heathy and informative dose of reality, which is often not very apparent here.

/375

[realwannabe]

I just couldnt bring myself to not say anything!

Harper was obviously very desperate to make it looks like today's decision was a victory for the Conservative, he used all his time to mislead us why the fourth question wasnt answered and didnt talk about the rest of the decision which unconditionally, unequivocally and fully endorsed SSM.

But now i gotta go to bed, nice to meet you maplesyrup! goodnight

[maplesyrup]

Gays cheer ruling

Canada's highest court gave its constitutional blessing to same-sex marriage yesterday, a decision hailed as a landmark victory by gays and civil libertarians but panned by religious groups who say the centuries-old institution has been "hijacked." In a 28-page opinion that backs the Liberal government's plan to legalize gay nuptials, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Parliament has the exclusive power to redefine marriage. The non-binding judgment also offered assurance religious officials won't be forced to marry gays against their beliefs.

"This is victory for all Canadians, a victory for Canadian values, a victory for the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, and for the principles of equality and dignity and respect that it embodies," said Alex Munter, a spokesman for Canadians For Equal Marriage.

Well somebody's happy!

[Argus]

The numbers might jump around for a bit, but the legislation for SSM will pass.

SSM will not be imposed on any religious groups.

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate.

[Argus]

And why does politicans have a right to vote on a human right issue? Of course it shouldnt be a free vote. This is an issue of human right ,

Marriage is not a "human right". Every loud pressure group likes to use that term about whatever it is they're being denied, from more generous welfare to having sex with their horse.

[scribblet]

The fundies are always the ones making the biggest noise. Most Canadians do not care about this issue , if you think this will create instability, you are kidding yourself.

85 percent of Canadians already have same sex marriage legalised.

If by 'fundy' you are referring to a Christian fundamentalist or maybe a Muslim fundamentalist, are they not entitled to a political voice, or does democracy only extend to some people.

While I don't believe we should be in the nations's bedrooms, I do have a problem with changing the definition of marriage. It is only a matter of time before religious rights will be struck down and along with that all religious marriages.

[August1991]

If you didnt think the Supreme Court endorsed SSM, you clearly havent seen the written decision. How misinformed you are.

First of all, RealWannabe, welcome to this forum. I hope you stay and discuss here.

You make good points. I think what I meant to say was that Supreme Court has stated that it has no objection to same sex marriage but that the Parliament must also decide in favour.

This is not a bad way to "amend" the Charter and follows parliamentary tradition.

On a related point though, rights granted this easily can be taken away easily too.

Marriage is not a "human right".

Argus, the State should treat people of the same sex in a marriage identically to people of opposite sex, including the use of the same word "marriage" for both situations.

It is this right which is in question.

If we were serious about this, there would be an explicit an amendment to the Charter itself.

[Black Dog]

OMG, Black Dog calls ordinary people rabble! BD, are you a social democrat or a social fascist?

Ordinary people? No. As I said, they are too busy worrying about things that actually affect them. The rabble that I'm talking about are the social dinosaurs who feel it is their democratic right to dictate the terms of other people's relationships.

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate.

ANy evidence? Proof? Or just paranoia?

[PocketRocket]

It's nice to finally find a decent Canadian-based forum.

I've been doing the forum thing for a while now, but mostly on American forums, where there is more partisan bickering and name-calling than there is legitimate debate.

After reading some of the stuff here, I've found the level of civility to be truly amazing. I think I've found a new home. I hope you all don't mind me hanging around for a while.

To the issue......

As to whether or not Gay Marriage will be legalized across the country, we can still only speculate despite all the info that's in so far. In the wonderful world of politics, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and we won't be sure until all is said and done.

But on the issue of whether or not it SHOULD be legalized....

Those against it seem to fall into two camps.

One of these is the fundamental religious camp. "It's against God's will", they say.

To that, the simple answer is that we live in a country governed by a secular system. To enact a law, ANY law, based on the beliefs of a religion is not only against the whole governmental system, it could also be seen as discriminating against other religious groups.

There is no place for religion in our political system, and therefore religion cannot be legitimately used as an argument within that system.

The second argument is usually that Gay marriage will "Invalidate" traditional, heterosexual marriage.

Again, I have to disagree with this.

Those who would use this argument can only be seen as being insecure in their own marriages.

When I took my wedding vows, I was making a vow to one woman, and to myself. My vow was not to the minister who performed the ceremony, nor to my family, nor to God.

It was to my wife.

That vow, and that vow alone, is what constitutes a marriage.

As long as a couple, whether gay or straight, hold THEIR OWN vows as being sacred, then no one else's actions can invalidate either those vows, or the marriage they have established.

[Black Dog]

Marriage is not a "human right". Every loud pressure group likes to use that term about whatever it is they're being denied, from more generous welfare to having sex with their horse.

Marriage may not be a basic human right, but the principle of equality under the law is universally recognized. And that's the issue here. Through the instituition of marriage, heterosexuals are entitled to legal benefits and privileges, not afforded to gays by virtue of their sexual orientation. That's pure discrimination.

[maplesyrup]

pocketrocket....welcome to mapleleafweb.

All churches have rules. If one does not like the rules change churches. If your church decides to marry gays & lesbians and you don't like it, change churches.

That should take care of the concerns about religion in this SSM issue.

[realwannabe]

The fundies are always the ones making the biggest noise. Most Canadians do not care about this issue , if you think this will create instability, you are kidding yourself.

85 percent of Canadians already have same sex marriage legalised.

If by 'fundy' you are referring to a Christian fundamentalist or maybe a Muslim fundamentalist, are they not entitled to a political voice, or does democracy only extend to some people.

While I don't believe we should be in the nations's bedrooms, I do have a problem with changing the definition of marriage. It is only a matter of time before religious rights will be struck down and along with that all religious marriages.

ok August, Thanks for clearifying..

I just think there is alot of red herring in regard to this issue. Religions will not go away as same sex couples get married, in fact, many same sex couples share religious beliefs and many religious institutions support same sex marriage, so one is not support the freedom of religon by opposing SSM.

As well, churches and priests always have the choice to marry whoever they want, they have the choice of not marrying interracial couples and couples who have had divorces in the past, so the same will happen for gay couples.

No one is going to force any churches to recognize anything. Theres always other churches that will accept other gay couples, no one cares to pick a fight with what a private church chooses to do in their own space. Thats just silly.

And it hasnt happened, SSM has been legal in Ontario for a year and a half, no priest has been hold hostage by gay couples so far.

And Argus, i dont think beastality should be compared with same sex relationships. Horses are not protected under the Charter, so there would be no human - animal marriage , how silly. Seriously, get a grip.

[realwannabe]

And why does politicans have a right to vote on a human right issue? Of course it shouldnt be a free vote. This is an issue of human right ,

Marriage is not a "human right". Every loud pressure group likes to use that term about whatever it is they're being denied, from more generous welfare to having sex with their horse.

Marriage is a right because any willing heterosexual can join this institution except couples of the same sex. The only basis for this discrimination is due to sexual orientation. This violates the Charter that endorses equality right, its not rocket science here.

[ticker]

The numbers might jump around for a bit, but the legislation for SSM will pass.

SSM will not be imposed on any religious groups.

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate.

I am waiting for the feds to say we won't force churches to perform SSM ; by the way remember the special tax status you once had..... we are not forcing you ... do you want to play ball or loose it.