![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
| ||
|
Case For Legal Recognition
The influence of traditional Christian views about marriage began to erode at
the same time as the liberalization of laws regulating homosexual acts. Divorce,
officially forbidden in both the Catholic and Anglican churches, became more freely
available under the law. In the 1970’s, the law began to recognize the rights
and obligations of so-called “common law” heterosexual couples. These were unmarried
heterosexual couples who were previously referred to as living “without benefit
of clergy”, or “living in sin.” Despite the fact that such relationships are officially
sinful according to the official dogma of many Christian churches, there seems
to be widespread support for this recognition. There has been no great outcry
of opposition about legal recognition of common law heterosexual unions from those
who accuse our community of undermining marriage. The Supreme Court in Miron
v. Trudel[23] has confirmed that under section 15(1) of the Charter,
legal distinctions made between married and unmarried heterosexual couples are
likely to be invalid. [23] [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418 [24] (1990), 109 N.R. 300 (F.C.A.) [25] [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3
| |||
| ![]() |