gay news worldwide 2

Canada moves to allow same-sex unions

OTTAWA (CP) - (17 Jun 03) The Canadian federal government will overhaul the age-old definition of marriage and make Canada the world's third country to recognize same-sex matrimony, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced today.

The landmark legislation will be drafted within weeks, then sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for fine-tuning and put before the House of Commons in a free vote by MPs months from now.

But the prime minister made it clear Ottawa would not impose the new law on religious groups, who can still refuse to perform same-sex weddings.

Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only countries allowing gay and lesbian weddings.

"What we're doing at this moment might put Canada at the forefront of any solutions that exist," Chrétien said.

"What is important for me is the freedom of the churches to interpret according to their faith."

Huddled around a cabinet table, ministers sensed they were making history today as they spent a good part of the day haggling over details of the plan.

"There were a lot of vibes around the table," Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said.

"It's always special to be around the table when such an important decision is about to be debated."

One source said ministers unanimously supported the principle of same-sex marriage, but spent most of the time discussing how to navigate what could be a political minefield.

Polls have suggested Canadians are almost evenly split on the issue. Alberta immediately announced it would fight the move with all the jurisdictional clout at its disposal.

The law covering the changes will be ready within weeks - unusually speedy for such contentious legislation.

It will balance the need for equality with religious freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, Chrétien said.

The religious exemption is also intended to help assuage the fears of some skeptical members of the Liberal caucus and make the bill easier to pass.

"We don't want there to be a long period of uncertainty," Chrétien said.

"We want to complete this file and deal with it as quickly as possible, and as soon as we have the reference, then the House of Commons will vote."

Bitterly divided federal Liberals did not willingly become trailblazers.

The government was forced to act after a series of court rulings struck down marriage laws. Some MPs had been urging Chrétien to fight the lower court rulings to the finish in the Supreme Court.

Courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have ruled that the exclusion of gays and lesbians unjustifiably violates equality rights.

Ottawa was already preparing its response to those verdicts when it was last week by a bold ruling in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Gays and lesbians were allowed to marry immediately after the Ontario verdict, and did so, under a new right denied to them throughout most of human history.

Ottawa was left with two major options: fight the ruling in the Supreme Court or rewrite the law.

Cauchon convinced his cabinet colleagues to drop their gloves.

"It's a great day for Canada," he said. "I'm very proud to be part of this country.

"This (decision) is important for freedom, for values, for what we believe and what we have in our Charter of Rights and freedoms."

One Canadian Alliance critic denounced the move as an abdication of parliamentary responsibility.

"The announcement . . . has cemented the irrelevance of Parliament on a fundamental social policy matter," said justice critic Vic Toews.

"The Liberals have abandoned their responsibility to the courts, and Parliament will not have its voice heard."

But the NDP and Bloc Quebecois will likely overwhelmingly support the bill, perhaps along with some Conservative MPs.

Parliament's most vocal gay-rights advocate was clearly overjoyed.

"I feel very proud to be a Canadian today," said Svend Robinson, an openly gay NDP MP.

"I salute the prime minister. I think that Jean Chrétien has shown courageous leadership here."

Robinson said memories flooded into his minds while listening to the announcement.

The first one was of sitting across a negotiating table from Chrétien in 1981, while parliamentarians were drafting clauses for the Charter of Rights.

He challenged Chrétien - justice minister at the time - to include gay and lesbian rights in the charter.

"(He responded) right back to me that, `This isn't an issue that Canadians are prepared to accept.' " Robinson recalled.

"Well we've come a long way."

The announcement was expected to meet some provincial resistance.

Quebec and Manitoba immediately endorsed the federal announcement, and Ontario is already issuing same-sex marriage licences because of the appeals-court ruling.

But Alberta appears headed for further court battles.

The right to marriage may be defined by Ottawa but it's up to the provinces to issue the licences, Alberta Justice Minister David Hancock said.

And Alberta has no intention to hand them out to same-sex couples, he said.

Instead, the province will invoke the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if Ottawa tries forcing it to hand out same-sex marriage licences.

The controversial clause allows governments to supersede parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a five-year period.

The historic view of marriage as a heterosexual institution was thought to be so obvious that it was never explicitly included in federal statutes.

It only became enshrined in federal law in recent years, including a bill in 2000 that extended full federal tax and social benefits to same-sex couples.

Gays and lesbians weren't satisfied with the changes.

They argued that current laws have resulted in a patchwork of inequality, as some provinces extend full benefits while others don't.

And, they argued, the issue at stake is human rights.

Canadian Supreme Court approves same-sex marriage

(Ottawa 9 Dec 2004) The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the government has the right to legalize same-sex marriage, but it didn't say whether the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

The court's non-binding opinion, which was unanimous in a vote of 9-0, is in reference to four questions on the federal government's proposed legislation changing the definition of marriage.

The court said today that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly protects religious freedoms, but that times have changed and that the legal definition of marriage should also change.

"Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples.

"The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."

Prime Minister Paul Martin applauded the decision, and said the government would now move forward with the legislation. He said the bill would be tabled in the House of Commons after the holiday break.

"We are proceeding because quite simply we believe in the Charter of Rights and the guarantee it provides to equality," Martin said in a statement read to reporters in Ottawa.

He said it was a decision he has personally struggled with "but fundamentally it comes down to the equality rights under the Charter."

Three of the questions were put forth by the government under former prime minister Jean Chretien in July 2003.

First question: Does Parliament have the exclusive legislative authority to change the legal definition of marriage?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes


Second question: Is extending the capacity to marry persons of the same sex consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes


Third question: Are religious leaders protected under the Charter of Rights from having to marry same-sex couples?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes


After taking over from the Chretien government, Prime Minister Paul Martin added a fourth question:

Fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?
Supreme Court's answer: The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.


Calling the decision a "huge victory" for the Conservative position, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said he is encouraged by the court's muted rebuke of how the federal government has handled the issue.

"We're encouraged also by the fact that the government was effectively chastised by the court for not appealing lower court decisions."

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler rejected that assessment, saying the court went as far as it could to support the draft bill, and is now handing it over to Parliament.

"They can't direct us as to what we should now do but they've gone as far as they could legitimately go," Cotler said.

He said the court is essentially affirming the decisions handed down by lower courts in seven jurisdictions that ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

"Now it's up to us to assume the responsibilities as a government, and happily we've got the Supreme court's support to assume that responsibility."

Martin will hold a "two-line whip" on the vote, meaning cabinet ministers will have to vote for the bill. However, backbench MPs will be free to vote as they choose.

"Individual members of Parliament should be and will be free to vote as they see fit. However, the position of the government is definitive. For that reason, cabinet members will be required to vote in favour of the legislation," Martin said.

Political analysts suggest the bill will likely pass, but only by a small margin.

New York appeals gay marriage ruling

Christopher Curtis, Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network
Tuesday 8 February, 2005

 Before New York City's LGBT community could officially celebrate Friday's landmark ruling that asserted marriage rights for same-sex couples, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city will appeal the decision to the state's highest court.

In a statement Saturday, Bloomberg said he wanted "to expedite the appeal directly to the highest court," the state's Court of Appeals, "so that people will have a right once and for all to know where they stand."

The New York Times reported Sunday that Bloomberg personally favours same-sex marriage. According to his aides, this was the first time he has so clearly stated his position in public.

Bloomberg's action now prevents same-sex couples from getting married until a higher court makes a ruling.

The conflicting signals from Bloomberg drew a mixed reaction from participants of a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) dinner. On Saturday Bloomberg told guests at the Waldorf-Astoria that he would "work with you to change the law" in Albany if the lower court ruling was struck down.

"I think people have the right to love, to live with and to marry whoever they want, regardless of their sexual orientation," the mayor said in a quote published by The Times.

While that statement received cheers, the same audience booed Bloomberg when he said once again that the city would appeal Friday's ruling by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan.

Ling-Cohan ruled New York's Domestic Relations Law violated the state's constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

"Same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing," she wrote in her ruling.

Bloomberg has told reporters that city attorneys claim the ruling "was incorrect, that the current state Constitution does not permit same-sex marriages."

According to The Times, the mayor's decision to appeal nearly guarantees that the state's highest court, the seven-member Court of Appeals, will make a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage.

While once considered liberal, New York's Court of Appeals has become more conservative, with appointees of Republican Governor George E Pataki, who has tapped four of the court's seven judges.

When asked about Ling-Cohan's decision for same-sex marriage, a spokesman for Pataki told The Times that the governor "strongly believes that the judge's decision is wrong."

A local LGBT group, the Empire State Pride Agenda, scheduled a rally for Monday that is expected to draw "several hundreds of people," according to Joe Tarver, the group's spokesman.

"This is going to be a time to celebrate the ruling as well as let the community vent their emotions about the mayor's decision to appeal," Tarver said.

Tarver added that the mayor's position on marriage comes "a day late and a dollar short. We needed our mayor to come out and voice his support for our right to marry over a year ago. We now need him to take action and let us marry. Instead he has chosen to appeal the ruling. We need our mayor to support equality for all New Yorkers."

"We need him to be on our side, and he's not there right now," he added.