# Gay marriage now legal in all of Canada! Yay! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 9, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937 "2004-12-09T16:18:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/21 "2004-12-10T00:00:36Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Good Luck! Here’s hoping! > > Can American’s get marriend in Canada? How’s that work? Sure. The simplest way would be to get in touch with a city hall in a province that has had gay marriage for a while already. The only problem is that the marriage probably would not be recognized in jurisdictions that only have opposite sex marriages. Dr. Richard Burge and airline pilot Craig Dusseau are coming up from Lancaster, Kansas, to Thunder Bay, Ontario, this Saturday to get married. ---
**Author:** ![Dark\_Side\_of\_the\_Floyd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Dark\_Side\_of\_the\_Floyd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dark_Side_of_the_Floyd)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/22 "2004-12-10T00:16:05Z")
This is indeed a good day for equal rights. If only that was the case here. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/23 "2004-12-10T00:37:52Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Sure. The simplest way would be to get in touch with a city hall in a province that has had gay marriage for a while already. To add to this, the provinces where same-sex marriage is legal (Ontario, Quebec, BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia, plus the Yukon Territory) don’t have any residency requirement to issue marriage licences. However, Quebec requires a 21-day delay, IIRC. On the other hand, Ontario (and possibly the others) requires you to be a resident for a year before you can _divorce._ ---
**Author:** ![Lathe\_of\_Heaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Lathe\_of\_Heaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lathe_of_Heaven)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/24 "2004-12-10T01:03:43Z")
Congratulations Canux! You really ARE a more advanced civilization. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_C.Mulligan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3be4f8/32.png) [@Chad\_C.Mulligan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chad_C.Mulligan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/25 "2004-12-10T01:04:19Z")
> [@lexi](#): > > Yay! I wonder what King Ralphy in Alberta will say? He’ll probably decide to ignore this ruling and keep Alberta in the dark ages like he does with the health act. While I’m no great friend of Ralph’s, I have to object to this. Alberta is not currently in contravention of any part of the Canada Health Act, as far as I’m aware, unlike say, Quebec, where there are numerous private, for profit clinics operating. True, Ralph keeps threatening to allow two-tier health care, or some experimentation outside the Act. To the great frustration of those of us who see the current system as broken, however, he never actually follows through and does anything about it. And if a majority of Albertans oppose SSM - no idea if they do - there’s nothing wrong with Ralph using the Notwithstanding Clause to set aside the Charter for five years. After all, that was the whole point of the notwithstanding clause. In a Confederation, provinces must retain some ability to dissent from the majority’s wishes. And I would point out that the biggest user of the Notwithstanding Clause in Canada is Quebec, not Alberta, which has only invoked it once. ---
**Author:** ![Liz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/liz/32/17737_2.png) [@Liz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liz)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/26 "2004-12-10T01:06:38Z")
Go, Great White North! Little annoyances like having to wear extra socks is looking better and better to **Mrs. Chatelaine** and myself all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/27 "2004-12-10T01:11:35Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > On the other hand, Ontario (and possibly the others) requires you to be a resident for a year before you can _divorce._ To get divorced anywhere in Canada, or for a foreign divorce to be recognized in Canada, at least one of the parties must reside in the jurisdiction granting the divorce for at least one year prior to the application for divorce. (There is also some stuff in the Divorce Act that is geared toward encouraging couples to not get divorced. Rather paternalistic if you ask me.) [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/D-3.4/49118.html#rid-49150](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/D-3.4/49118.html#rid-49150) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/28 "2004-12-10T01:17:59Z")
On the federal level, it looks like there will be legislation introduced for gay marriage in the new year. But that is nothing when compared to Ontario, where in the new year there will be legislation introduced to permit the use of studs. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dark\_Side\_of\_the\_Floyd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Dark\_Side\_of\_the\_Floyd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dark_Side_of_the_Floyd)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/29 "2004-12-10T01:24:06Z")
> [@DarkSideoftheFloyd](#): > > This is indeed a good day for equal rights. > > If only that was the case here. Argh, by “here”, I meant America. ---
**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:** [December 10, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/30 "2004-12-10T02:27:29Z")
> [@Chad C. Mulligan](#): > > And if a majority of Albertans oppose SSM - no idea if they do - there’s nothing wrong with Ralph using the Notwithstanding Clause to set aside the Charter for five years. After all, that was the whole point of the notwithstanding clause. In a Confederation, provinces must retain some ability to dissent from the majority’s wishes. Well, no, nothing wrong with Ralph using the Notwithstanding Clause to set aside the Charter. Procedurally, at least. Thing is, it’s not up to Ralph. That’s the thing about the decision - it made it quite clear that the feds have jurisdiction. If **Curious Canuck** ’s numbers are right, sometime in spring the new bill will pass into law. And Ralph can’t use the Notwithstanding Clause to set aside federal legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/31 "2004-12-10T03:39:00Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > The simplest way would be to get in touch with a city hall in a province that has had gay marriage for a while already Toronto City Hall on [marriage licenses](http://www.toronto.ca/depts/legserv_marriage.htm). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/32 "2004-12-10T03:44:19Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Well, no, nothing wrong with Ralph using the Notwithstanding Clause to set aside the Charter. Procedurally, at least. Thing is, it’s not up to Ralph. That’s the thing about the decision - it made it quite clear that the feds have jurisdiction. If **Curious Canuck** ’s numbers are right, sometime in spring the new bill will pass into law. And Ralph can’t use the Notwithstanding Clause to set aside federal legislation. Could Ralph just make a law that marriage commissioners are not allowed to marry, or else could choose not to marry, same-sex couples in defiance of their charter rights, and then use the NWC to back it up? ---
**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:** [December 10, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/33 "2004-12-10T04:11:01Z")
And here’s the Alberta Attorney General’s reaction: [Alberta rules out notwithstanding clause](http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102608109348_98017309/?hub=TopStories). They seem to be making two points. 1. Alberta won’t try to use the notwithstanding clause: > [@](#): > > Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision on the same-sex marriage reference, Alberta’s justice minister says his province won’t invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the decision. > > Prime Minister Paul Martin and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler are pledging to table legislation on same-sex marriage when Parliament reconvenes in the new year. > > Should that legislation become law, Alberta Justice Minister Rob Stevens said his province won’t invoke the clause because provinces can’t define marriages; only Ottawa can. Provinces simply issue licences based on Ottawa’s laws. > > “You cannot use the notwithstanding clause relative to a matter that is not within your jurisdiction,” Stevens said Thursday. 1. Until Parliament passes a SSM law, the traditional definition is still in force in Alberta: > [@](#): > > In the meantime, same-sex couples hoping for a marriage licence in Alberta are out of luck, since no court in Alberta has struck down the current marriage definition. > > “The definition of marriage in this province is the traditional one,” Stevens said, “And so a same-sex couple that would seek a marriage licence today in Alberta would be declined.” ---
**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:** [December 10, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/34 "2004-12-10T04:25:19Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Could Ralph just make a law that marriage commissioners are not allowed to marry, or else could choose not to marry, same-sex couples in defiance of their charter rights, and then use the NWC to back it up? Ralph has a very tough row to hoe here. It is _just barely_ conceivable that he might successfully argue that provincial jurisdiction over the administration of marriages entitles him to have provincial marriage commissioners refuse to marry same sex couples, and to refuse to register such marriages enacted by someone else. Assuming he’s willing to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause, of course. But that still won’t do him much good, so far as I can tell. Since it’s up to the feds to define who’s qualified to marry, as today’s decision makes clear, Alberta’s going to have to recognize marriages enacted in other provinces. The Notwithstanding Clause can’t help him here. And he can’t refuse married gays entry or residency, because mobility rights aren’t “notwithstandingable” - the clause doesn’t allow legislatures to take a pass on just any bit of the Charter, but only the specified ones, and mobility rights ain’t among them. So, in conclusion, at absolute best, Ralph can turn Lloydminster and Ferny into gay marriage destinations, and even that’s in doubt. On preview, I see **Northern Piper** says he won’t even try. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/35 "2004-12-10T05:13:11Z")
Matt, the more I think of it, the more I believe that you are right and I am wrong with respect to gay marriage now being legal across Canada. The Canadian Constitution includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const\_en.html](http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html) The Charter prohibits the government from discrimination based on sex (s.15 [http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const\_en.html#egalite](http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html#egalite) ), and the Supreme Court of Canada has previously found that discrimination based on sexual orientation is analogous to discrimination based on sex. Therefore, discrimination by the government based on sexual orientation is illegal because it violated the Charter. By invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter (s.33 [http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const\_en.html#charte](http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html#charte) ), the federal government can enforce a federal law notwithstanding that such law violates the Charter, but only for five years at a time. The notwithstanding clause does not permit a province to opt out of the enforcement of a federal law. The federal government has control over marriage and divorce, but so far has only handled divorce, and has let provinces handle marriage. Any time the federal government wants, it can start handling marriage, whether the provinces agree or not. Today’s court decision has confirmed this. The moment the federal government enacts a gay marriage law, it will trump a provincial marriage law, so Ralph’s use of the notwithstanding clause will be moot because his anti-gay law will no longer be in force. By invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter, a provincial government can enforce its own provincial law notwithstanding that such laws violates the Charter, but only for five years at a time. In 2000, Ralph invoked the notwithstanding clause concerning the Alberta Marriage Act (s.2 [http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/m-5/20041104/whole.html](http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/m-5/20041104/whole.html) ), which is in violation of the Charter because it defines marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman (s.1©). This overriding of the Charter will only last for one more year, at which time Ralph has the option of renewing it again. In any event, in my opinion (and I may be wrong), today’s decision invalidates Ralph’s use of the notwithstanding clause, for he used it to restrict marriage rights that have now been decreed to be in the fed’s bailiwick. Since, as per today’s decision, the restriction of marriage rights is in the federal jurisdiction, then the use of the notwithstanding clause concerning them is in the federal, not provincial, jurisdiction. This is the crux of where you and I disagree, for if I am wrong, and the provinces retain the authority to use the notwithstanding clause on their own legislation while the federal government remains silent, then gay marriage will not be legal across all of Canada for so long as such provinces as Alberta regularly re-enact notwithstanding clauses without the feds becoming involved. Why I am thinking that I am wrong is because as long as the feds are silent, then why should the provinces be able to make some restrictions on capacity (such as age or mental disability), but not others (such as gay marriage), and regardless of the feds having paramountcy, as long as the provincial laws stand due to federal silence and as long as the notwithstanding clause is strictly interpreted, then the provinces should have recourse to that clause. Thanks for pointing out my error. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/36 "2004-12-10T05:21:27Z")
Too bad Ralph is married. If he wasn’t, some fellow should get him liquored up and marry him just for the hell of it. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/37 "2004-12-10T05:41:04Z")
(Acck! I forgot to finish the final paragraph before posting my last long post on whether or not marriage is legal across Canada.) So that leaves us with Ralph not permitting gays to get married in Alberta, but also leaves us with with the Supreme Court of Canada having found today that the feds have the authority to permit gay marriage, meaning that gay marriage is not illegal. Because it is the Supreme Court of Canada, it’s decision is binding across Canada. In short, once a gay couple is married, that marriage is legal across all of Canada, but a couple may have to go to another province to get married in the first place. I hope that clears it up a bit. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/38 "2004-12-10T05:41:17Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > This is the crux of where you and I disagree, for if I am wrong, and the provinces retain the authority to use the notwithstanding clause on their own legislation while the federal government remains silent, then gay marriage will not be legal across all of Canada for so long as such provinces as Alberta regularly re-enact notwithstanding clauses without the feds becoming involved. I don’t think you and I necessarily disagree on this point. When I say gay marriage isn’t yet legal, what I mean is that the ruling didn’t require provinces to immediately start issuing licences, and we haven’t had any of the remaining provinces say, “Well, the Supremes ruled, so I guess we’ll start issuing licences,” as the 6+1 did when their own courts forced them to do so. To the contrary, [Bernard Lord said](http://nb.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=nb-same-sexnb20041209) that New Brunswick would recognize SSM when Parliament legalizes it, and presumably not before, unless a court orders them to do so. From where I’m sitting, the Supremes’ decision not to rule on whether SSM is a charter right is a sort of balancing act: By saying “what do you need us for? you already agree with the provincial courts,” they are 1) tacitly acquiescing to the provincial courts’ saying that it’s a charter right, and 2) steering clear of forcing the remaining provinces and territories to start marrying now, as the provincial courts did. Obviously, any challenges in the remaining provinces and territories will be even more set-em-up, knock-em-down than they’ve been up until this point; but I expect that challenges would be needed to get them to start marrying before Parliament decides. That’s what I mean when I say that it’s not yet ‘legal’. Maybe I should say that they’re not yet being performed. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/39 "2004-12-10T05:46:49Z")
[Meanwhile, while plonking away at his keyboard, Muffin failed to notice that Gorskan and Northern Piper already covered the matter clearly and concisely. Muffin hangs his head in shame.] ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937/40 "2004-12-10T05:52:13Z")
> [@Kid\_A](#): > > 308 ridings in the country and I get it the most useless MP in the country. [I beg to differ.](http://www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_announce/2001/000577.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-all-of-canada-yay/278937.md?page=3)