Political Crossfire Forums

[Anson]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20041105/ca_pr_on_na/sask_gay_marriage

Quote: SASKATOON (CP) - Gay couples may now tie the knot in more than half of the provinces and territories in Canada after a Saskatchewan court ruled Friday that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional.


In a five-page ruling, Justice Donna Wilson sided with courts in five other provinces and one territory, saying existing marriage laws discriminate against gay couples.


"The common-law definition of marriage for civil purposes is declared to be 'the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,' " Wilson wrote.


"We've turned the corner," proclaimed Greg Walen, lawyer for the five gay couples who were challenging the law in Saskatchewan.


"We only have several other provinces to go."


At least one Saskatchewan couple planned to take advantage of the new law this weekend.


Erin Scriven and her partner, Lisa Stumborg, said they had a marriage ceremony last month and plan to make it legal on Saturday.


"It's about legitimacy," Scriven said. "This will probably continue to have an impact on us for the rest of our lives."


Courts in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, the Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already ruled in the same way Justice Wilson did. In fact, every recent challenge of marriage laws made has ended up winning, either at the introductory or appeal court level.


There are currently two couples challenging the law in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Supreme Court of Canada is evaluating a draft federal law that could make gay weddings legal from coast to coast. Alberta is the only province that argued for the traditional definition before the high court.


In many ways, Friday's ruling was a foregone conclusion, since the challenge was not contested by either the province or the federal government.


The federal government maintained it could not back a change because of the matter currently before the Supreme Court, while Saskatchewan's NDP government sidestepped the issue by saying marriage falls within federal jurisdiction.


Cicely McWilliam of Canadians for Equal Marriage said the Saskatchewan decision means 85 per cent of Canadians now have access to equal marriage.


"I think it shows that you can have equal marriage in this country and the sky will not fall," McWilliam said in an interview from Toronto.


"Of course we're anxious to see it in the rest of the provinces and territories and we're very anxious to have a final resolution at the federal level."


The challenge was spearheaded by Nicole White and Julie Richards of Saskatoon. Both have said they went ahead with it in part because they felt provincial justice officials were trying to skirt the issue. They plan to get married next Labour Day.


"We went and picked out wedding bands last night," Richards said. "One more step towards the final goal."





Not everyone in Saskatchewan was happy with Friday's ruling.

Cecilia Forsyth, president of the Saskatchewan chapter of REAL Women of Canada, said the ruling "destroys the unique meaning of marriage."

She was upset that the court would make the decision over elected officials.

"The definition of marriage is one of the most important public policy issues facing our nation," Forsyth said.

"This is not representative government and this is not democracy at work."

In Ottawa on Friday, a Nova Scotia Conservative MP introduced a private member's bill aimed at upholding heterosexual marriage.

"The bill will allow parliamentarians to determine the definition of marriage through a free vote in the House of Commons," said Fundy Royal MP Rob Moore. "In addition, it provides protections for the right of religious institutions to conduct ceremonies according to their own beliefs."

A vote on his bill would mark the third time MPs have voted on the issue in five years. In 1999, Parliament overwhelmingly approved a motion that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. But in 2003 a similar motion was defeated by five votes.

Albert LeGatt, the Roman Catholic bishop of Saskatoon, said he got a good response when asked his parishioners last year to write their MPs calling on them to defend traditional marriage.

"I'm disappointed and I regret the decision of the court here, as I regret the decisions of the courts of other provinces," LeGatt said Friday.

"Though the courts may have established a certain ruling, we hold on to our faith and our belief of what marriage is."

Wilson also ordered that a total of $10,000 in legal costs be paid to the five couples making the application. The tab was split evenly between the two levels of government.

[D@N]

Its good to hear that, help bring equality to all the people.

what are some other views on it?

[URallIgnorant]

I'm heterosexual but I think if sam sex couples want to get married then why not? Doesn't harm me, doesn't harm society, makes them happy.

[Diogenes]

If the residents of Saskatchewan are content to have the courts decide which social customs will be publicly accepted, then so be it. But here in the US, the people still govern themselves.

[Hawk]

the main issue here is they are changing a definition that has stood unchanged for thousands of years, and dam is it ever a stupid decision.

Think about it, homosexuality is dangerous mentally and damaging physically to both partners and to people that get involved in the relationship. They spread disease. They decay morals under the banner of tolerance and equality.

Gays should keep their business in the closet and try to save others from the disease, its hard to live and let live when they are constantly forcing everyone to accept this peversion of nature.

[URallIgnorant]

Hawk, is someone forcing you to marry them?!

Quick, call 911 we get help to you right away!!

[Secondary Oak]

Diogenes wrote: If the residents of Saskatchewan are content to have the courts decide which social customs will be publicly accepted, then so be it. But here in the US, the people still govern themselves.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone wants to marry anyone, how is that society's business? It's a strictly personal matter.

[Citizen of Canuckistan]

a great man once said that the government has no business in peoples bed rooms. Besides indirectly the people do choose judges becuase the PM appoints them. Let them marry because it wont harm the tradition of marrage and families because the only thing that can do that is bad parenting and bigotry.

[Diogenes]

Secondary Oak wrote: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone wants to marry anyone, how is that society's business? It's a strictly personal matter.
Marriage is a social institution. If you are content to have your social institutions dictated to you by a judge with no input from you, be my guest -- but here in the US, the society at large determines which customs are (and are not) acceptable.

[Citizen of Canuckistan]

If you read the article Diogenes you would have noticed this. "In many ways, Friday's ruling was a foregone conclusion, since the challenge was not contested by either the province or the federal government." So Both gov'ts chose to not oppose or legislate against this ruling, they could have used the non-withstanding clause in the constitution to by pass the courts decision. But they didnt thus the People decided. there were no reports of any protest from the people, thus the people chose this. Next time read the article, it might me helpfull.

[Diogenes]

Canuckistan wrote: So Both gov'ts chose to not oppose or legislate against this ruling, they could have used the non-withstanding clause in the constitution to by pass the courts decision. But they didnt thus the People decided. there were no reports of any protest from the people, thus the people chose this. Next time read the article, it might me helpfull.
So if a court ruling does not produce riots in the street, you consider that the court has expressed the will of the people? That strikes me as a peculiar substitute for voting, and I doubt that it would be acceptable in the US where the citizens are not so passive.

[Citizen of Canuckistan]

Well since the people voted both federaly and provincialy for a government which supports gay marrage they did vote for it. The fact that there were no protests against the ruling means that people really do not care one way or another about gay marrage. Its not that big a deal, all the ruling means is that making gay marrage illegal is a violation of there rights under the constitution. The citizens of Canada do make there voice heard if they are against an action planned by the gov't. The lack of any reaction to this means that the people are pleased or at least satisfied with this ruling. If action was to be taken against the ruling all they have to do is lobby the gov't to use the non-withstanding clause. With all respect to the US, Canada is not filled with religous fanatics so most people do not think about the ruling. .

[Diogenes]

Quote: With all respect to the US, Canada is not filled with religous fanatics so most people do not think about the ruling.
The objection to same-sex unions being called "marriage" is not driven by religious fanatics, although it may make you feel morally superior to believe that fantasy. The fact is that the citizens of the US prefer a more direct voice in our government, rather than being herded like cattle by an unelected judiciary.

[Citizen of Canuckistan]

Same sex unions are being called marriage because only civil unions, which are commonly called marriage, are effected. The province is not forcing any religous institution to marry them. Does the fact that neither gov't argue against the case escape you. Elected Judiciary and appointed judiciary shouldnt matter if the judge is doing his job, being impartial. No one argued against marrying gays/lesbians so the judge had no choice but to rule for gay/lesbian marriage. Even if the judge had been a neo-con it wouldnt have mattered, he would have been forced to rule for gay marriage. More often than not the judiciary rules for rights rather than against them. For example the federaly appointed judges continually rule against increasing federal power. Our judiciary is usually independant and usually rules against gov'ts increasing their power or any other occasion when gov't is not acting in the peoples best interest.