# Canadian Federal Gov't Argues for Same-Sex Marriage in Supreme Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2004, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032 "2004-04-03T05:30:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/1 "2004-04-03T05:30:44Z")
When Prime Minister Martin took over from Prime Minister Chrétien, there was some thought that he would back away from Chrétien’s committment to legalising same-sex marriage across Canada. That doesn’t seem to be the case, judging from the feds’ submissions in the [Marriage Reference](http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2004/doc_31110.html). The feds are arguing for marriage to include same-sex couples: > [@](#): > > DENYING MARRIAGE TO GAYS UNFAIR, OTTAWA TELLS COURT > > Prohibiting same-sex marriage can no longer be justified in a nation where gays and lesbians enjoy virtually every other benefit attached to being married, says a federal government brief to the Supreme Court of Canada. > > Since large numbers of same-sex couples already live in “long-term, caring, loving and conjugal relationships,” many of which include children, it is profoundly unfair and out of step with the times to deny their unions legal recognition, it states. Moreover, it says, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage runs counter to the goal of promoting stable family units. (Full article [here](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040401/MARRIAGE01/TPNational/Canada).) So, while Governor Romney’s trying to stop the Massachusetts decision from coming into force at the state level, and President Bush is talking about amending the U.S. federal constitution, the federal government in Canada is pushing those activist judges to uphold gay marriage under the _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_. More and more, I think our two countries are trains on diverging tracks… ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/2 "2004-04-03T05:35:51Z")
America Jr. looks better every day… ---
**Author:** ![ctr22](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@ctr22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctr22)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/3 "2004-04-03T10:50:54Z")
Well the US and Canada are different in that your population is only about 10% of the US’s so we have a lot more people who want to maintain the status quo and block gay marriage. Canada seems ready for it and it may take the US more time, but we’ll get there eventually. To use your train analogy we are riding two seperate trains but they both arrive at the same station, ours is just late. ---
**Author:** ![elpadre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/838e76/32.png) [@elpadre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elpadre)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/4 "2004-04-03T11:43:50Z")
BullCaca. Homo marriage is already leagel in parts of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/5 "2004-04-03T13:03:39Z")
Do you always start your posts that way, **elpadre**? **Northern Piper** , I think the differences are far less than you imagine. The issue is being forced to the front in both countries, the courts and legislative systems are having to act, the societies are increasingly supportive of confirming this civil right. The difference you’re calling fundamental is that your federal executive branch is taking more of the initiative there, while here municipal executives, one state court, and one state legislature have taken the initiative. I see the tracks as parallel, often crossing, and still arriving at the same destination. Romney’s just talking, since you mention it - he has no authority to take any of the anti-SSM steps he has mentioned, none that the Mass SJC can’t or wouldn’t enjoin him from. I’m sure you’ll keep us posted on the Canadian ruling, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/6 "2004-04-03T13:07:13Z")
> [@elpadre](#): > > BullCaca. Homo marriage is already leagel in parts of the United States. Is that right? Isn’t it only the watered down “civil unions” that are legal? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/7 "2004-04-03T13:36:37Z")
Just out of curiosity, why is the government going before the Court to argue for gay marriages - couldn’t they just, y’know, pass a law? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/8 "2004-04-03T14:43:29Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Just out of curiosity, why is the government going before the Court to argue for gay marriages - couldn’t they just, y’know, pass a law? The Supreme Court is in the issue of preparing an advisory opinion on the matter. The general idea is to forestall a long run of legal challenges after the law is passed - or that’s the official reason. The real reason, I think, is to minimize political blowback by allowing Liberal MP’s to say to more conservative constituents ‘We had to vote for gay marriage. The only alternative was the Notwithstanding Clause, and good, decent folk don’t invoke that.’ ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/9 "2004-04-03T15:40:51Z")
> [@elpadre](#): > > BullCaca. Homo marriage is already leagel in parts of the United States. Wow. One expletive, one slur, one spelling mistake, and one factual error, all in a post of 12 words. That must be a record. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/10 "2004-04-03T15:51:17Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Just out of curiosity, why is the government going before the Court to argue for gay marriages - couldn’t they just, y’know, pass a law? One of the questions posed in the reference is whether the Charter rights of religious groups will protect them from having to solemnise gay marriages, if tht would be contrary to their own religious beliefs. Speculation in the media has been that the Chrétien gov’t thought it needed to reassure the religious groups on this point before passing the law, and the best way to do that would be by a reference. There’s also the point that **Gorsnak** made - the Liberal caucus appears to have been divided on this issue, and didn’t want the gov’t simply to accept the decisions of the lower courts without raising the issue in the SCC. So the gov’t (i.e. - the PM and Cabinet) have referrred the issues to the Court, but are arguing for same-sex marriage (and that religious groups are not required to perform the ceremonies if that would be contrary to their religious beliefs). ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/11 "2004-04-03T17:25:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Do you always start your posts that way, **elpadre**? Nah, he only does it about a quarter of the time. (Really. I swear. Look.) It’s so encouraging that things are going this way in Canada. I can only hope that the US progresses as fast. Since you guys got rid of your sodomy laws in 1969 and we got rid of ours in 2003, if gay marriage goes through for all of Canada in 2005, I’m hoping that we’ll come around in… lesse… maybe 2039 or so? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/12 "2004-04-03T23:58:41Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > More and more, I think our two countries are trains on diverging tracks… I’m thrilled we’re moving in this direction here, but you’re being unfair to the United States. Look at it this way; Gay marriage is a major topic in the USA. There are probably 150, maybe 160, maybe more countries in the world where the idea _isn’t even being seriously discussed,_ and in some of them bringing it up would probably get you imprisoned. The fact that it’s at least a going concern in the USA is obviously (to me, anyway) an indication that the USA is well ahead of most countries in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-federal-govt-argues-for-same-sex-marriage-in-supreme-court/238032/13 "2004-04-04T17:06:52Z")
**Rick** , I certainly agree that the U.S. is ahead of a lot of the world in having the debate, but as between Canada and the U.S., I think there is a clear divergence in orientation and results. When it’s seriously proposed in Massachussetts to abolish civil marriage to avoid complying with a court decision, and the President sees electoral mileage (at the very least) in pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, states rights be damned, it doesn’t look like gay marriage will be accepted in the U.S. any time soon.