BabyPhat21
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,094
- Reaction score
- 1
Canada Proposes Same-Sex Marriage Law
By TOM COHEN, Associated Press Writer
TORONTO - Canada's government proposed Thursday that marriage be defined as the "lawful union of two persons," which would legalize same-sex marriage throughout country.
The draft bill, presented to the Supreme Court for judicial review before Parliament considers it, is the government's reaction to court rulings that have allowed same-sex marriages in Ontario and British Columbia.
Hundreds of homosexual couples have gotten married in recent weeks, and the proposed law showed Prime Minister Jean Chretien's intention to make Canada the fourth nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, after Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.
"The bill is very short, just two sections, but I believe it speaks volumes about who we are as Canadians and the rights that we share," Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said at a news conference.
He said changing the definition of marriage does nothing to erode the institution or diminish the rights or status of heterosexual marriage.
Titled the Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage, the proposal says: "Marriage for civil purposes is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
Under current law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. Courts in Ontario and British Columbia have ruled that language unconstitutional, but religious groups and social conservatives say the traditional definition of marriage dates back thousands of years and is a cornerstone of society and procreation.
The proposed new law states that religious communities can define marriage as they wish, an attempt to appease opponents of homosexual marriage.
"We also live in a society that believes in freedom of religion," Cauchon said. "I believe the draft bill strikes the proper balance, and by taking this approach, the government of Canada is doing the right thing at the right time in our history."
In its submission to the Supreme Court, the government asked for answers to three questions involving the proposed new law. Is the law within the exclusive authority of the federal government? Does it respect constitutional rights? And, do guarantees of religious freedom in Canada's Constitution permit some religious groups to refuse to sanctify same-sex marriages as a violation of their beliefs?
It was unclear when the Supreme Court would respond. It is setting its calendar for the rest of the year, and Cauchon conceded an answer may not come until 2004.
Once the Supreme Court has responded, he said, the measure would go to Parliament for a free vote, meaning legislators could vote their conscious rather than follow party discipline.
Cauchon also noted a possible legal challenge by opponents of same-sex marriage who are seeking intervener status to challenge the Ontario court ruling. He said the federal government would likely oppose allowing outside groups to intervene.
By TOM COHEN, Associated Press Writer
TORONTO - Canada's government proposed Thursday that marriage be defined as the "lawful union of two persons," which would legalize same-sex marriage throughout country.
The draft bill, presented to the Supreme Court for judicial review before Parliament considers it, is the government's reaction to court rulings that have allowed same-sex marriages in Ontario and British Columbia.
Hundreds of homosexual couples have gotten married in recent weeks, and the proposed law showed Prime Minister Jean Chretien's intention to make Canada the fourth nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, after Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.
"The bill is very short, just two sections, but I believe it speaks volumes about who we are as Canadians and the rights that we share," Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said at a news conference.
He said changing the definition of marriage does nothing to erode the institution or diminish the rights or status of heterosexual marriage.
Titled the Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage, the proposal says: "Marriage for civil purposes is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
Under current law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. Courts in Ontario and British Columbia have ruled that language unconstitutional, but religious groups and social conservatives say the traditional definition of marriage dates back thousands of years and is a cornerstone of society and procreation.
The proposed new law states that religious communities can define marriage as they wish, an attempt to appease opponents of homosexual marriage.
"We also live in a society that believes in freedom of religion," Cauchon said. "I believe the draft bill strikes the proper balance, and by taking this approach, the government of Canada is doing the right thing at the right time in our history."
In its submission to the Supreme Court, the government asked for answers to three questions involving the proposed new law. Is the law within the exclusive authority of the federal government? Does it respect constitutional rights? And, do guarantees of religious freedom in Canada's Constitution permit some religious groups to refuse to sanctify same-sex marriages as a violation of their beliefs?
It was unclear when the Supreme Court would respond. It is setting its calendar for the rest of the year, and Cauchon conceded an answer may not come until 2004.
Once the Supreme Court has responded, he said, the measure would go to Parliament for a free vote, meaning legislators could vote their conscious rather than follow party discipline.
Cauchon also noted a possible legal challenge by opponents of same-sex marriage who are seeking intervener status to challenge the Ontario court ruling. He said the federal government would likely oppose allowing outside groups to intervene.
I have to agree with you on this phat.... I wonder what really went more wrong with the USA. But however it seems so weird passing the civil rights bill in 1960s and further the years go, the more congress pass more stricter laws and shortchanged the constitution. Plus what more im recognizing that congress is much dominated by the so-called religious right that want to clamp down on other peolpe's rights and freedoms.
Isn't that Deaf258? 
