# Gay Marriage in Canada **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774 "2005-02-01T14:42:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MrFantsyPants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@MrFantsyPants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrFantsyPants)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/1 "2005-02-01T14:42:19Z")
Okay, so this is going to sound a bit lazy, but I’m swamped with work right now. There’s been a lot of buzz lately in the news about Stephen Harper’s confidence that he can stop national gay marriage from becoming a reality in Canada. Is this in fact that case? If it is, what can I do to fight the good fight? (I’ve already sent letters to the PM, my MP, and signed at least two petitions supporting SSM) Where’s the best place to expend my limited effort. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/2 "2005-02-01T15:26:48Z")
Not unless the NDP and Bloq suddenly become Tory members. ---
**Author:** ![scule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/3 "2005-02-01T16:38:31Z")
It seems to me that Harper (like pretty much every politician) just likes to hear the sound of his own voice, and is blathering on about this to score visual points with close-minded rednecks who support him because it’s easier to fall back on their support than to court the favour of the rest of the country. He’s a lazy politician who could have changed the face of government in Canada and has failed. I doubt he’ll last another leadership convention, unless the Conservatives continue their recent history of in-fighting and poor campagining. Either way, I’m not worried about gay-marriage getting defeated, because enough people support it to win the good fight. ---
**Author:** ![scule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/4 "2005-02-01T16:39:52Z")
Rather, that should have been “_assuming_ the Conservatives continue their recent history…” ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/5 "2005-02-01T16:41:35Z")
You might want to write Harper and tell him to drop the “polygmy” boogieman. I don’t imagine it winning anyone new over and it’s kind of a mixed bag as far as drawing the immigrant vote (one of it’s stated purposes). The tactic looks like flailing. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/6 "2005-02-01T16:52:45Z")
Agreed. No matter how they meant it (i.e. appealing to the uncertainty it may introduce to family structure, the primacy of Parliament, an appeal to bigots, etc.) it has nicely 1. Placed them on the defensive (again!) from the charge of being knuckle dragging throwbacks. 2. Completely undone any gains they may have been making in Quebec 3. Placed them in the difficult position of explaining that their use of the not withstanding clause as constitutional tool is constitutional. 4. Distracted them from obvious easy targets presented by a minority government. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victors. That’s them there Tories. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/7 "2005-02-01T18:36:03Z")
Let’s face it, aside from the minor details this is a done deal. Bringing this before the Supreme court before teh Law has even been passed was obviously a Liberal stalling technique but the side benifit is that the basic law as it stands can not be easily questioned as unconstitutional. For all those screaming for a referendum let them scream. This is a minority rights issue and as such should never be decided by plebicite. As for Harper, he has doomed the Conservative party again. We need the old fashioned Red Tories back in the driver seat. Fiscally Conservative socially liberal is the only way to win over the most voters. This fringe politics the Conservatives have carried from the Reform/ Canadian Alliance Party will never win them Eastern votes, they will be relegated to the Bloc of the West. Now how about taking a swipe at Ole Jean chretien trying to derail the Sponsership Scandal commission. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/8 "2005-02-02T00:09:38Z")
I have to agree with the consensus here. Best case for Harper: he succeeds in swaying enough Liberal backbenchers to defeat the bill introduced today. What happens then? Well, nothing, really. All the provincial court decisions would remain in effect, and gay marriage would continue to be legally sanctioned in most of the country. Should the bill fail, you should expect to see immediate court challenges in the remaining three provinces, all of which will be successful. Then Alberta will appeal the decision there to the Supreme Court, and lose decisively, and Harper will finally have to stop pretending that he can get his way on this without the Notwithstanding Clause. So what then? The Conservatives might conceivably introduce a bill invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. Martin’s on record saying that any vote on the Notwithstanding Clause would _not_ be a free vote for the Liberal party, and one would expect to see that bill defeated handily, as it won’t have any support in the Bloc or NDP. If Harper is smart, he should be playing to lose this one. He should be kicking up just enough of a fuss to appease his social conservative base in Alberta without upsetting too many of the more libertarian fiscal conservatives out east, because should he succeed in bringing down the government over this (I’m assuming that any vote on the Notwithstanding Clause would include a confidence motion), I think he guarantees himself significant losses amongst Ontario conservatives in the ensuing election, and Martin would be back in with a majority. Dammit, I want a credible national opposition party to hold those damn Liberals accountable, but here Harper goes marginalizing the Conservative Reform Alliance Party again. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_loblaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@bob\_loblaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_loblaw)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/9 "2005-02-02T03:27:34Z")
[full text](http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38-4E.html) of the bill as presented to parliament today. here is the main part: > [@](#): > > BILL C-38 > > An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes > > Preamble > > WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada is committed to upholding the Constitution of Canada, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination; > > WHEREAS the courts in a majority of the provinces and in one territory have recognized that the right to equality without discrimination requires that couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex have equal access to marriage for civil purposes; > > WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that many Canadian couples of the same sex have married in reliance on those court decisions; > > WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity, in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; > > WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Parliament of Canada has legislative jurisdiction over marriage but does not have the jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for couples of the same sex; > > WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; > > WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs; > > WHEREAS, in light of those considerations, the Parliament of Canada’s commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination precludes the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to marriage for civil purposes; > > WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians; > > AND WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended by legislation to couples of the same sex; > > NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: > > 1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act. > > 2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. > > 3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. > > 4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex. there’s no way around it, it is happening, and if the paleo-cons don’t like it well too bad. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-in-canada/287774/10 "2005-02-02T09:39:46Z")
That is the most beautiful piece of legislation I have ever read.