Going to the Chapel
Nov. 23rd, 2003 08:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojOK, I hope ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
heathers and sangerin don't mind if I post their comments here. If so, please let me know and I'll just paraphrase them:
I posted a story about the Massachussets Supreme Court saying that banning gay marriages was unconstitutional.heathers replied:
==========
heathers
2003-11-23 12:53
That's nifty.
The sad thing about the Mass ruling is that it really holds no value if you don't live there. Employers are still only bound to federal legislation as far as same sex benefits. If the marriage is only legal in one state it's a rather hollow victory. Especially since in the current leadership will do everything in his power to shoot the ruling down with federal legislation of his own in the name of protecting the sanctity of marriage.
At least in Canada it's a federal ruling (though, I don't know if you call it that there?) and is supposed to be recognized everywhere. I don't know how that's working in theory, but it's a bit more encouraging. Especially since it is a human rights issue and not an "agenda" that so many people would make it out to be here.
-H
==========
sangerin
2003-11-23 13:13
At least in Canada it's a federal ruling
I thought it was only at provincial level. Wasn't the ruling in the Ontario superior court? I'm not sure there's really much difference, except in the government reaction (Ontario decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court, whereas Gov Romney is talking about changing the constitution), and the size of the state/province. But I may be wrong.
==========
heathers
2003-11-23 16:29
I thought that the marriages were acknowledged throughout Canada. You may not be able to get married in, say, Alberta, but your marriage certificate from BC or Ontario would be legal in Canada as well as several European countries. The reason I was under that impression was because the ruling was based on the Charter of freedoms which is the equivalent of the US Constitution isn't it? And as far as I knew the Federal ruling is anticipated in February and it is speculated that they will affirm the BC and Ontario rulings but in the mean time it was binding. I could be wrong, that's just how I understood it. I get rather confused with the terms between the two countries. The processes are similar enough, but still not the same.
-H
==========
So, here I go, talking without really being sure of my facts. I may be completely off-base here, so please, anybody who knows better, jump in.
Here's my understanding of the situation in Canada: federal law says gays can't marry. BC and Quebec provincial courts both said that was unconstitutional, and advised the Fed government to rectify the situation. But their decisions had no tangible effect because they only declared the law unconstitutional - they did not change it.
Then the Ontario Supreme court declared that not only was the law unconstitutional, but that the Feds had had long enough to get off their butts and change it. And they basically wrote in a new law, which the courts have the power to do, that said that in Ontario, gays can get married. *
AFAIK, this means that your marriage also must be recognized country-wide. Alberta may not let you marry, but they cannot declare your Ontario marriage invalid. Not sure what this means in solid terms of getting pension benefits and substitute decision making power and all that in Alberta.
The Ontario gov said they weren't going to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. And then the Feds said that they would actually go through and change Federal law to make same-sex marriage not only not-illegal, but actually legally recognized.
Before they do that, they're going to ask the Supremes to hear a "reference" - this is where the Supremes give a (non-binding, but legally persuasive) opinion on the matter of same sex marriage. They're being asked three questions re. same-sex marriages, and at this moment I only remember one: can the provinces (ie Alberta) use the Notwithstanding clause of the Charter to declare same-sex marriage illegal in their province? (The answer, BTW, is no, because defining marriage is a federal thing. I think deciding who to marry can be done provincially, but once another province marries a couple, you can't declare them unmarried in your province.)
The Federal Alliance party put forth a motion to declare marriage a matter between a man and a woman only. The Feds voted on it. AFAIK, the Liberals were given the option to vote according to their consciences, not their party, but I'm not sure who else got that option (Canadian pols vote along party lines, except in very rare occasions). The motion was narrowly defeated, with 50 Liberals breaking ranks and voting that marriage was het. Alliance voted the same way, but the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP (Socialists) voted unanimously (I think) that it wasn't.
And that's my understanding of it. Right now, gays can only marry in Ontario, but their marriage must be recognized in the rest of the country.
Please, like I said, anybody who knows better, please jump in. I may be totally off-base here.
* By the way, although all Provincial Supreme Courts are technically equal in terms of binding legal precedent (ie what the Ontario Supremes decide has no legally binding effect on the Nova Scotia Supremes) in reality, the Big Three Courts are Ontario, Quebec, and BC. If the PEI Supremes had made this decision, the country probably would have thought it quaint and charming ("oh look honey, the land of Anne of Green Gables is going to marry gays") but it would have had little effect on anyone other than P E Islanders. But Ontario, Quebec and Ontario all weighing in, and all on the same side... that's not legally binding, but certainly persuasive, to the rest of the country.
Except, of course, for Alberta ;)
heathers and sangerin don't mind if I post their comments here. If so, please let me know and I'll just paraphrase them:I posted a story about the Massachussets Supreme Court saying that banning gay marriages was unconstitutional.
heathers replied:==========
heathers2003-11-23 12:53
That's nifty.
The sad thing about the Mass ruling is that it really holds no value if you don't live there. Employers are still only bound to federal legislation as far as same sex benefits. If the marriage is only legal in one state it's a rather hollow victory. Especially since in the current leadership will do everything in his power to shoot the ruling down with federal legislation of his own in the name of protecting the sanctity of marriage.
At least in Canada it's a federal ruling (though, I don't know if you call it that there?) and is supposed to be recognized everywhere. I don't know how that's working in theory, but it's a bit more encouraging. Especially since it is a human rights issue and not an "agenda" that so many people would make it out to be here.
-H
==========
sangerin2003-11-23 13:13
At least in Canada it's a federal ruling
I thought it was only at provincial level. Wasn't the ruling in the Ontario superior court? I'm not sure there's really much difference, except in the government reaction (Ontario decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court, whereas Gov Romney is talking about changing the constitution), and the size of the state/province. But I may be wrong.
==========
heathers2003-11-23 16:29
I thought that the marriages were acknowledged throughout Canada. You may not be able to get married in, say, Alberta, but your marriage certificate from BC or Ontario would be legal in Canada as well as several European countries. The reason I was under that impression was because the ruling was based on the Charter of freedoms which is the equivalent of the US Constitution isn't it? And as far as I knew the Federal ruling is anticipated in February and it is speculated that they will affirm the BC and Ontario rulings but in the mean time it was binding. I could be wrong, that's just how I understood it. I get rather confused with the terms between the two countries. The processes are similar enough, but still not the same.
-H
==========
So, here I go, talking without really being sure of my facts. I may be completely off-base here, so please, anybody who knows better, jump in.
Here's my understanding of the situation in Canada: federal law says gays can't marry. BC and Quebec provincial courts both said that was unconstitutional, and advised the Fed government to rectify the situation. But their decisions had no tangible effect because they only declared the law unconstitutional - they did not change it.
Then the Ontario Supreme court declared that not only was the law unconstitutional, but that the Feds had had long enough to get off their butts and change it. And they basically wrote in a new law, which the courts have the power to do, that said that in Ontario, gays can get married. *
AFAIK, this means that your marriage also must be recognized country-wide. Alberta may not let you marry, but they cannot declare your Ontario marriage invalid. Not sure what this means in solid terms of getting pension benefits and substitute decision making power and all that in Alberta.
The Ontario gov said they weren't going to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. And then the Feds said that they would actually go through and change Federal law to make same-sex marriage not only not-illegal, but actually legally recognized.
Before they do that, they're going to ask the Supremes to hear a "reference" - this is where the Supremes give a (non-binding, but legally persuasive) opinion on the matter of same sex marriage. They're being asked three questions re. same-sex marriages, and at this moment I only remember one: can the provinces (ie Alberta) use the Notwithstanding clause of the Charter to declare same-sex marriage illegal in their province? (The answer, BTW, is no, because defining marriage is a federal thing. I think deciding who to marry can be done provincially, but once another province marries a couple, you can't declare them unmarried in your province.)
The Federal Alliance party put forth a motion to declare marriage a matter between a man and a woman only. The Feds voted on it. AFAIK, the Liberals were given the option to vote according to their consciences, not their party, but I'm not sure who else got that option (Canadian pols vote along party lines, except in very rare occasions). The motion was narrowly defeated, with 50 Liberals breaking ranks and voting that marriage was het. Alliance voted the same way, but the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP (Socialists) voted unanimously (I think) that it wasn't.
And that's my understanding of it. Right now, gays can only marry in Ontario, but their marriage must be recognized in the rest of the country.
Please, like I said, anybody who knows better, please jump in. I may be totally off-base here.
* By the way, although all Provincial Supreme Courts are technically equal in terms of binding legal precedent (ie what the Ontario Supremes decide has no legally binding effect on the Nova Scotia Supremes) in reality, the Big Three Courts are Ontario, Quebec, and BC. If the PEI Supremes had made this decision, the country probably would have thought it quaint and charming ("oh look honey, the land of Anne of Green Gables is going to marry gays") but it would have had little effect on anyone other than P E Islanders. But Ontario, Quebec and Ontario all weighing in, and all on the same side... that's not legally binding, but certainly persuasive, to the rest of the country.
Except, of course, for Alberta ;)
