The Supreme Court of Canada has tossed the definition of marriage back to Parliament. The bill will go before the house again in January.
Ottawa has proposed changing the definition of marriage to the “lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” rather than the “lawful union of one man and one woman.”
Before taking it to Parliament, Chrétien referred the proposed bill to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to offer a non-binding opinion on three questions, including whether the government could redefine marriage, whether it supported the Charter of Rights and whether church groups had to perform the ceremonies.
When he became prime minister one year ago, Paul Martin added a fourth question: whether limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
Same sex marriage is legal in six provinces and the Yukon.
The questions for the court were as follows:
1) Does the federal government have exclusive authority to define marriage?
2) Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious groups from having to perform gay weddings against their beliefs?
3) Is the proposed same-sex marriage law constitutional?
4) Is the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman also constitutional?
The Supreme Court ruling is six months early. The decision handed down today was expected to go the way it did.
The vote in Parliament will be a free vote - which means MP’s of opposition parties and liberal back benchers may vote according to conscience and not the party position. However, Liberal cabinet ministers will have to vote in favour. If Parliament passes the bill, Canada will be the third country in the world to have a national law making same sex marriage legal. The Netherlands and Belguim have passed federal laws.
The bill will probably pass by a narrow margin. The government has the option of using the ‘not withstanding clause’. 155 votes out of 308 are needed for it to pass.
Many citizen groups are calling for a national referendum.
The legislation will make same sex marriage federally legal if performed in city halls, courthouses and religious institutions that chose to perform them. That is already the case in most provinces. The Court’s ruling is that same sex marriage is possible but not required - the traditional definition of marriage has not been declared unconstitutional.
The Vanier Institute released it’s report on the state of marriages in Canada the end of November. The report: Profiling Canada’s Families III can be found here. Briefly, common law relationships are more common than the traditional concept.
In 1981 65% of couples were married by age 50. That has now dropped to 51% of women and 48% of men. In the 2001 cenus 41% of couples with children under 25 were married. According to the Vanier Report and Stats Canada one in two hundred ‘common law’ couples were not heterosexual.
38% of marriages end in divorce. Common law couples are four times more likely to break up than married couples. The majority of common law couples are under 25, hetrosexual, and co-habitation is most common in Quebec.
Here is a timeline on equality and same-sex issues that have been before the courts and the governments in Canada.
There will be a lot of noise about this again. ‘Traditional’ marriage as we believe it - husband,wife,children is not and has not been reality for a long time in our culture and in our country.
I don’t think we can start screaming at the courts and politicans, the erosion of what we want to accept as the ‘norm’ has been steady since the middle of the last century. That has been reality whether conservative and liberal groups chose to acknowledge it or not. Marriage and family in the traditional sense is not being penalized by this decision. Given our proximity to the US, the ruling today and Parliment’s decision in January will create a lot of new chatter and debate.
Update: For religious people confused about the ruling The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has issued their react.
New Zealand’s parliament passed legislation on the same issue today. The Civil Union Bill goes into effect in April 2005.
Published 3 years, 11 months ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Thank God I don’t live in Canada.
What the Supreme Court did today was this:
ruled that equal rights and religious freedom — will be sustained.
I fully understand this is an emotional and core issue in any society.
Why would you be against the above rulings given the value of freedom in the US?
I could appreciate your ‘thank God’ if the court ruled against religious autonomy.
Do you think that tossing this back to parliament is a bad idea?
Why?
Doug: Here are some of the issues and options the Justice Department looked at.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/mar/
I suspect you’d be surprised at who argued what at lower and federal court levels.
Why should Ottawa redefine marriage in the first place? Here are my answers if I were a Supreme Court judge in Canada: to number 1) no 2) I don’t know probably needs to be stronger to protect religious groups 3) no 4) should be and I think it is and if not should be worded stronger. I value freedom but I also don’t want any sin to be promoted. That is where I draw the line. I know we can’t prevent people from sinning but that doesn’t change the fact that the standard should be voiced as to what the ideal should be and stated from the powers that be.
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. If I don’t, correct me.
Under our parliamentary system - the provinces were waiting for the federal court to rule. (so the feds could finish their task)
The Supreme Court is saying Parliament is not bound to change the definition of marriage.
The definition is a federal responsibility. Under that responsibility the federal government asked the top court to rule about the constitutionality of the upcoming decision and whether there was potential encroachment on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Parliament has asked for a court ruling in the past on other issues)
Provinces do the day to day of marriage administration. (licences, banns, fees etc)
As an example - provinces are now free to pass law (ie: New Brunswick will introduce legislation after Parliament votes) protecting any priest, minister or religious group who choses not to perform a same sex marriage. A common law same sex civil union has been legal since 1999.
It may sound a bit backward to American ears, but remember we are not a Republic, so ‘how’ we go about our law and our human rights are a bit different that what you’d be accustomed to.
Our federal and provincial marriage laws (traditional) foster family and provide incentives to mom, dad and the kids.
I’m genuinely curious. How could this ruling be worded more strongly? What do you believe or think has been taken away? Or, to use your words, what sin is being promoted?
BD I’m genuinely curious also, considering your input over at signposts - what’s your own position on homosexuality - do you think its a sin? To engage in homosexual sin that is?
I meant to say, to engage in homosexual sex, is that a sin do you think?
Interesting typos there George.
Let’s stick to topic.
The preamble of the Charter is a couple of posts down. That is essentially what was ruled on yesterday - how our federal body is to proceed.
Your minister, priest, rabbi, iman’s religious beliefs were affirmed yesterday. So was your rights as an individual in a country of 31 million.
BD I didn’t think I would get an answer from you but I thought I’d ask anyway.
Here’s the part of the Charter I’ll bet you haven’t seen discussed much lately in the mainstream press “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
The same sex marriage issue is just another indication of how far we are in this country of moving away from God and His principles as laid out in His Word. Its no surprise really.
We’ll see how the church of Christ in Canada responds to this in the coming months and years. This issue will likely separate the true church from the tolerant church or the Revelation described lukewarm church.
As this issue moves forward in Canada how will God work through His Church in addressing it?
Greater numbers of people will fall into the bondage of this sinful lifestyle as we tolerate it as a nation. Here’s the type of church God will be at work in I think: “The healing church - members believe in the infallibility and authority of Scripture. Homosexual acting out is sin, and this church knows it. But they also know that for homosexual involvement–as for any sin–there is a complete and sure cure in the blood of Jesus Christ. And so this church balances biblical truth about homosexuality with the compassion of God for homosexual people as revealed through both His Word and His Son.
Its leaders commit to using their gifts to assist men and women overcoming homosexuality, just as they use their gifts to help anyone else with life-dominating sins…Their actions exemplify the fullness of God’s Word; an important aspect of the healing church will be the presence of church discipline. If and when people exhibit a true lack of desire to repent…this church will have leadership able to discipline them…Ultimately, the healing church works because its leaders and members are committed to reaching out as individuals with mercy, grace, support and the sometimes-hard-to-hear truth.
That’s from Mike Haley’s book 101 questions about homosexuality. Mike was a practising homosexual before finding redemption in Christ.
The church will have its work cut out for it with respect to this issue.
Will the real church of Christ stand up?
Merry Christmas George, I trust you feel and believe you’ve been heard.
Bd
Thanks for the concilliatory response over at Dash. Peace to you my friend.
Sooo….given that I am generally ignorant about the workings of our parliament( as surely many non Christians are as well-lol), do you think it is possible for the government to affirm homosexual marriage as a gauranteed right under the charter, while at the same time affirming a particular churches right to deny that same right within their congregation? Seems like another make work project for the legal community to me.
Thats a really good question.
What has the trend been in other countries that permit same sex marriage?
There will be denominations that will uniformly refuse. Will the denomination face court challenges or will they be protected by this ruling?
Will an individual church within a denomination be challenged, even if the couple can go down the block? Or will the individual church, mosque, temple be protected under religious freedom and individual right?
I don’t know that they’ll make it to higher courts, could there be civil suits?
What do you think?
I’m no legal expert, nor am I familiar with the legal experiences in Holland and Belgium, the two countries, I THINK, have legalized homosexual unions.
I guess that if the government chooses to define the union in the same way it does a hetrosexual civil ceremony, there shouldn’t be any problems. At least from the perspective of litigation.
However if the state permits Christian churches to sanctify these unions, a gross perversion of the faith in my estimation, and some wantonly egalitarian, desperate for members, Protestant sect so chooses, a legal freeforall will likely ensue.