the high court answers
Dec. 9th, 2004 18:54![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranha- does the federal government have exclusive authority to define marriage?
yes
- does the charter protect religious groups from having to perform gay weddings against their beliefs?
yes
- is the proposed same-sex marriage law constitutional?
yes
- is the traditional definition of marriage - between one man and one woman - also constitutional?
no answer. because 1) the federal goverment has stated it will address the issue regardless of the court's opinion, 2) couples that have been allowed to marry under various provincial laws have acquired rights which are now entitled to protection, and 3) a reply might not result in the government's goal of uniformity across canada.
so, the court has ruled that the federal government's draft marriage law encompassing gay unions is constitutional. this throws a big spanner into alberta's threat to use the notwithstanding clause (yay), and it cuts the phoney bogeyman down at the knees (that of clergy being forced against their will and their churches' decrees to marry gays). this is, and always has been, about civil recognition. martin has said they'll go forward with the legislation after the winter holidays.
of course this won't stop certain conservatives and religious groups from fighting, but i am happy that i am living in a country that takes its separation of church and state somewhat more seriously than its neighbour to the south.
court opinion.
timeline of same-sex marriage in canada.
yes
- does the charter protect religious groups from having to perform gay weddings against their beliefs?
yes
- is the proposed same-sex marriage law constitutional?
yes
- is the traditional definition of marriage - between one man and one woman - also constitutional?
no answer. because 1) the federal goverment has stated it will address the issue regardless of the court's opinion, 2) couples that have been allowed to marry under various provincial laws have acquired rights which are now entitled to protection, and 3) a reply might not result in the government's goal of uniformity across canada.
so, the court has ruled that the federal government's draft marriage law encompassing gay unions is constitutional. this throws a big spanner into alberta's threat to use the notwithstanding clause (yay), and it cuts the phoney bogeyman down at the knees (that of clergy being forced against their will and their churches' decrees to marry gays). this is, and always has been, about civil recognition. martin has said they'll go forward with the legislation after the winter holidays.
of course this won't stop certain conservatives and religious groups from fighting, but i am happy that i am living in a country that takes its separation of church and state somewhat more seriously than its neighbour to the south.
court opinion.
timeline of same-sex marriage in canada.
no subject
on 2004-12-10 03:51 (UTC)I love my country.
no subject
on 2004-12-10 03:57 (UTC)You have courts up there who are willing to acknowledge it when the zealots step on the most fundamental rights guaranteed by your constitution -- unlike our Supreme Court, who weaseled out on a technicality when asked to explain how inserting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance was anything other than establishing God-worship as the official religion.
Got any tiger sanctuaries up your way needing a resident photographer and uncredentialed keeper?
no subject
on 2004-12-10 04:12 (UTC)no subject
on 2004-12-10 13:57 (UTC)The effect of Church-State separation, or otherwise, is interesting - I mean, here we are in the UK with two Established Churches and legislation for both civil partnerships (which it seems will be indistinguishable from civil marriage for any practical purpose anyone has yet been able to discover) and gender recognition. We also have no major political party opposed to our abortion law. I'm reading a book at the moment on English canon law, which suggests that the real distinction is not been establishment and separation, but between interventionism and non-interventionism on the part of both the Church and the State, in each other's affairs and, I would perhaps add, in the affairs of citizens or believers.