A reference for equal marriage - Legislation review by the Supreme Court of Canada (SELECT to read the AGC factum)

Factum of the Attorney General of Canada: Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

External link to OutPersonals

 

 

 

 

Banner 10000047

 

 

Click here to buy posters!
Click here to buy posters!

 

 

External link to morons.org

 

 

The Best Deals on News Magazines

 

 

 

 

Send this page to a friend!

 

Legal Canada - A reference for same-sex marriage

October 31, 2003

A reference for same-sex marriage
Legislation review by the Supreme Court of Canada

"New appreciations thrown up by new social conditions or reassessments of old appreciations which new or altered social conditions induce make it appropriate for this court to re-examine courses of decision on the scope of legislative power when fresh issues are presented to it ..."
Laskin, C.J.C, for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Zelensky (1978)


The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) issued a factum to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) yesterday "in the matter of a reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposal for An Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity For Marriage For Civil Purposes." The factum or Reference to the SCC "affirms the validity of proposed federal legislation" that "would provide a uniform law across the country extending the capacity to marry to same-sex couples."

The Supreme Court of Canada delivers another victory for same-sex marriage! (SELECT for the decision).The SCC will hear the arguments for and against the new legislation on April 16, 2004.

Half of Canada's population currently lives with full equality for gays and lesbians (Ontario and British Columbia), and while there is nothing other than political will preventing the rest of Canada from complying with the new common-law definition of marriage ("two persons"), the AGC's reference to the SCC will force the other provinces into compliance.

Is the proposed legislation within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?

The AGC points out that the new legislation would change one aspect of the legal capacity to marry for civil purposes, by stating that marriage "is the lawful union of two person to the exclusion of all others." The legal capacity to marry is Canadian government will defend same-sex marriage against faith -based bigotry.Parliament's exclusive domain. The Constitution Act (1867) gives Parliament jurisdiction over "capacity", such as "prohibited degrees of consanguinity or the existence of a prior marital relationship. The provinces have jurisdiction over pre-ceremonial requirements and the qualifications of the person performing the ceremony."

Contrary to the claims of faith-based opposition, marriage has always been evolving, and the AGC illustrates in its Factum examples where Parliament has modified the terms of capacity.

"In 1882, for example, Parliament passed legislation repealing the prohibition against marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife. In 1990, Parliament replaced the old law on prohibited degrees of consanguinity with the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, which provided that persons may not marry if they are lineally related by consanguinity or adoption or if they are brother and sister by consanguinity or adoption. Parliament, therefore, has historically legislated with respect to certain aspects of capacity to marry. The legislative proposal before the Court in this Reference would be another exercise of the same federal jurisdiction."

Parliament's jurisdiction over these matters was to ensure that "a uniform law of marriage" existed across Canada and to "avoid a patchwork situation" such as what now exists in our country where half the population lives in a province that denies full and equal access to marriage."This case is solely about the legal institution of marriage. It is not about the religious validity or invalidity of various forms of marriage. We do not view this case as, in any way, dealing or interfering with the religious institution of marriage."
Court of Appeal for Ontario, June 10, 2003

The Constitution Act's use of the word "marriage" should not be restricted to an 1867 meaning, the AGC says. Such a "frozen concepts" approach would be contrary to the "living tree" principles that the SCC consistently takes in constitutional interpretation.

"The Constitution must be continuously adapted to new conditions and new ideas ... a progressive analysis has been used in the past to accommodate social, economic and Blind Faith: Faith based bigotry seeks state support against same-sex marriagetechnological developments that did not exist, and could not have been contemplated, when the constitutional provision at issue was entrenched ... In the 21st century, marriage can include same-sex couples who want to unite in this institution and whose unions share in the current understanding of the essence of marriage, including in some cases the rearing of children."

The AGC agrees with the B.C. court judgment which found that marriage must be interpreted "as describing a subject for legislation, not a definite object" and thus it is "within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada."

Is the new legislation consistent with the Charter?

The second question of the Reference examines whether the new "two persons" definition of marriage is consistent with our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The marriage cases in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have all confirmed that it is unconstitutional discrimination to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

The faith-based bigots and conservative extremists are unwilling to admit to their prejudices so they will likely continue to make bizarre and illogical claims that marriage equality for gays and lesbians somehow violates the hate-filled existence of homophobes. The AGC proactively addresses any concerns that the new definition of marriage will somehow impair their freedom of religion.

The new legislation states that "Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." This is redundant protection, duplicating the already existing protections that exist in section 2(a) of the Charter.

"In an earlier time, when people believed in the collective responsibility of the community toward some deity, the enforcement of religious conformity may have been a legitimate object of government, but since the Charter, it is no longer legitimate ... it has become the right of every Canadian to work out for himself or herself what his or her religious obligations, if any, should be and it is not for the state to dictate otherwise."
Dickson, C.J., Supreme Court of Canada, Big M Drug Mart (1985)

This is not a matter of religion, the AGC says, agreeing with the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. "... what is at issue is not the validity or invalidity of various forms of religious marriage, but the state's decision to extend legal recognition for civil purposes to same-sex unions."

Of course, faith-based bigots aren't really concerned about their own religious freedom to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. What they really want is to have their religious Our Charter under attack: opponents of same-sex marriage are taking shots at the Supreme Court of Canadabeliefs imposed on others through Parliament.

Religious freedoms, the AGC points out "enshrines no right to demand that the state withhold recognition or accommodation of practices that might be contrary to particular religious beliefs ... this freedom certainly does not extend to a right to compel others to act, or to limit their ability to act, in accordance with a religious belief."

"The recognition of same-sex unions does not marginalize or stigmatize any individual belonging to a religious or cultural group that may hold a different understanding of marriage," the AGC says.

The Inquisition targets same-sex marriage - Document promotes hateWhat does stigmatize religious groups, however, is their insistence on imposing their views on others. A bigot isn't one who is opposed to same-sex marriage. It's one who tries to impose (not just express) those views on others in the public square, as we recently saw through the disgraceful actions of the Pope this past summer.

Are religious officials protected from being compelled to perform a same-sex marriage?

The AGC cites the Big M Drug Mart case to confirm that religious officials are indeed protected from being compelled to solemnize a gay marriage: "Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience."

"Coercing a religious official to perform a marriage ceremony, contrary to his or her religious beliefs, cannot be justified in order to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others," the AGC says.

Of course religious officials are protected, just as gay and lesbian couples are, at last, protected from them.


Please join us in a letter writing campaign to demand our rights from politicians - Click here to learn more


Join us as we legalize same-sex marriage.  Subscribe to our free newsletter

Please help us pay for our advocacy expenses in support of same-sex marriage.
MailLink to our media coverage of related issues.