Same-sex bill introduced in (Canadian) House of Commons

[Bragi]

<<

By ALLISON DUNFIELD
Globe and Mail Update
UPDATED AT 1:39 PM EST Tuesday, Feb 1, 2005

The Liberal government introduced its long-awaited and controversial same-sex marriage bill in the House of Commons Tuesday, containing two carefully worded sections providing protection for religious groups. The wording was aimed at calming opposition to the bill from some churches and the Conservative Party.

The legislation, introduced by Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, protects religious groups from performing same-sex marriages if they do not choose to do so...

The bill includes two references that protect the right of churches that don't wish to marry gays, one in the preamble and another in its body. It also contains a divorce section...

Prime Minister Paul Martin told reporters after a cabinet meeting that Canada is a country of minorities and that their rights must be protected...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050201.wgaym0102/BNStory/Front/

------

Our government sure isn't perfect, but while Bush and Co. are busy taking equality and human rights away, we're expanding them to include more people. I confess it's one of those days I'm feeling good about being a Canadian.

- B

[sw04ca]

1. It still boggles my mind how...

...he even got the authority to do this, since marriages in Canada are handled at the provincial level. Nevertheless, I would much rather he had simply got the government entirely out of marriage, and simply issued licences for civil unions between any two adults not related by blood, and let the two people concerned worry about whether to call it a marriage. It would have been a much more politically canny thing to do, unless he's gambling that he can get support from the gay community to replace the seniors and Christian Liberals he's going to lose. Of course, that's a stupid calculation on his part, since most of the gay organizations in the country are holding hands with the NDP. Of course, it's not certain the bill will pass at all, given the dissent from the Liberal backbench, although they can expect some support from the urban Bloc Québecois.

Of course, I'd like it even better if they hadn't had the Supreme Court hackney the constitution even more and simply let the provinces pass their own legislation, which they all would have anyways. Hell, even conservative Alberta was going to pass a civil union bill.

[Spazito]

3. On the contrary, the issue is equal right as espoused in

our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue is discrimination and the refusal of rights to some in contravention of the Charter. As such it is the federal government's duty to uphold the Charter.

[sw04ca]

4. While that might have been the excuse used...

...the Charter is crap, and always has been, due to it's vagueness. It's all to often simply an excuse for the federal government to do as it pleases. And besides, if it was simply that, then the courts wouldn't have ruled that the provinces can't use the notwithstanding clause if they wanted to block gay marriage.

The Supreme Court of Canada makes for poor jurisprudence, due to it's tendency to 'read things into' the charter to support whatever pet issues they want.

[Spazito]

5. ROFLMAO

You don't like the Federal Government, don't like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, don't like the Supreme Court, don't like the idea that the rights of all Canadians should and ARE equal. What exactly do you like, besides the right wing mantra of rights for only those who drink koolaid and vote 'right'?

[sw04ca]

6. Meh...

I don't have a problem with the federal government, but it would be nice if the seperation of powers would hold up. It's no way to run a country. But you're right that I don't like the current selection method for the Supreme Court, and I've never liked the Charter. Of course, you then go on to mischaracterize me, but that's hardly surprising.

Nevertheless, I do not think, nor will I ever think that the legal status of marriage is an inalienable right, for anyone, gay or straight.

[Spazito]

7. Ummm, Canada does not have separation of powers as

written in the US Constitution but rather a division of powers as dictated by the Canadian Constitution.

Here is a helpful link for you to understand how it is different from the US.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/special/gouv-gov/section2/infobox1_e.cfm

The Division of Powers
The Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government responsibility for matters that concern all Canadians, most notably matters that cross interprovincial and/or international borders, such as defence, foreign affairs, the regulation of interprovincial and international trade and commerce, criminal law, citizenship, central banking and monetary policy.

Provincial governments have jurisdiction in matters of local interest, for example, primary and secondary education, health and social services, property and civil rights, provincial and municipal courts, and local (municipal) institutions. Schools are generally run by school boards or commissions elected under provincial education acts.

Some areas of responsibility are shared by both levels of government. For example, in the area of transportation, the federal government has jurisdiction in matters involving movement across provincial or international borders (aviation, marine transport and rail), whereas the provinces look after provincial highways, vehicle registration and driver licensing. Control over agriculture, immigration and certain aspects of natural resource management are also shared; but if federal and provincial laws in these areas conflict, the federal law prevails.

Please note the first sentence:

"The Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government responsibility for matters that concern all Canadians". The question of equal rights for all is VERY MUCH a area of responsibility of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as per our Constitution.

[sw04ca]

8. Why would you think that I need a refresher in civics?

Marriage is handled at the provincial level in Canada. I know this, because I happen to live in a Canadian province (the same one that I was born in), and I happen to be getting married.

And, of course, the question of marriage is not an issue of equal rights for all Canadians any more than the federal government would be justified in taking over education under the pretense of securing 'equal education for all Canadians'. It's bad jurisprudence. Of course, I support the end result, extending the protection of the law to gay couples. However, the way in which it was done is troublesome.

[Lautremont]

9. The 'handling' of marriages done at the provincial level

is just paperwork and bureaucracy, and has nothing to do with the legislation being passed today.

[sw04ca]

10. The entire governmental involvement in marriage...

...is paperwork and bureaucracy. So what's your point?

[Lautremont]

15. I just wonder what you mean by handling.

The nuts-and-bolts paperwork and all that stuff is provincial business, but what does it have to do with the Civil Marriage Act?

[Spazito]

12. The question is not about marriage, it is about the right for ...

ALL citizens to marry and THAT is a federal area of responsibility. I think you need a lesson on civics for a few reasons, the key one being you don't seem to understand the issue, the issue being equal rights, including the right to marry, for all. I do find it interesting you say you reside in the Republic of Alberta, odd, my children live in the Province of Alberta which is in NO way a republic, another civic lesson needed it seems.

Marriage is not simply a religious issue which is the red herring put forward by the extreme right wing faux Conservative party to stop some Canadians from having the same rights as others.

[sw04ca]

14. A man can dream, can't he...

...where one day, he can live in a Republic with no remnants of the hated enemies who visited upon us the National Energy Program.

And as for the 'right' of citizens to marry, that doesn't actually exist. Marriage is a driver's licence, and not everyone has the right to get one of those either.

[Spazito]

16. Here is the Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage

and the RIGHT to marry;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/2004scc079.wpd.txt

Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Freedom of religion -- Proposed
federal legislation extending right to civil marriage to same-sex couples --
Whether guarantee of freedom of religion protects religious officials from being
compelled by state to perform same-sex marriage contrary to their religious
beliefs -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(a).

Re the right to dream, you have that right too, I am glad you realize it is only a dream, lol.

[sonicx]

so should the gov be able to...

tell everyone they can't get married, if they wanted to?

[sw04ca]

19. Sort of...

The government has the right to no longer offer marriage licences. Of course, they can't stop people from living together or having children.

Mind you, that would be stupid, since the main importance of marriage is the protection of the law, in regards to alimony, child support, etc. Now, a better Supreme Court ruling might have been that denying these things to gay couples is denying them the equal protection of the law, and forcing the governments concerned to address the issue. That is a ruling I would have supported wholeheartedly.

[Lautremont]

17. But everyone over 16 has the right to apply for a driver's license.

At the moment not everyone has the right to apply for a marriage license; at least not everyone who should have that right.

[sw04ca]

20. Not so.

Everyone can apply for a marriage licence.

[Lautremont]

21. With a reasonable expectation of being granted one?

[sw04ca]

22. Provided it's a man and a woman, yes. /nt

[sonicx]

11. don't most provinces have ssm because of court cases?

which ones have actually had to pass bills?

[Spazito]

13. Yes, only 3 provinces have yet to accede to the Supreme Court

ruling. 7 Provinces and 1 Territory have acceded to the ruling. Alberta is really the leader in the opposition to this and it, to our shame, can be described as the Canadian Texas.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. As well you should......

[arikara]

18. Good for Paul Martin

It is beyond me to understand how gays and lesbians getting married is a threat to anyone. I do somewhat agree that if a church doesn't want to do the ceremony that they shouldn't be forced to... but simply because I can't imagine a gay person wanting a church like that to perform it anyhow.

Now we have to get the PM to stop kowtowing to the chimp about missile defense.