Re Same-Sex Marriage

Re Same-Sex Marriage

-! bgcolor="6699FF" | Case opinions
- |

"Reference re Same-Sex Marriage" [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79, was a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage in Canada. The ruling was announced December 2004, following arguments made two months prior.

Background

Prior to this case the issue regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage had been considered by several of the provinces appeal courts, all of them holding that it was constitutionally valid. In response to this, the Government of Canada submitted three questions to the Supreme Court regarding the validity of the proposed same-sex marriage legislation.:1. Is the Act within the authority of Parliament? If not, to what extent?:2. If so, is section 1 of the Act, consistent with the Charter? If not, to what extent?:3. Does section 2(a) of the Charter, guaranteeing freedom of religion, protect religious officials who do not believe in same-sex marriage?

Later, an additional question was added:
:4. Is the opposite-sex requirement established in the common law and Quebec law consistent with the Charter? If not, to what extent?

Opinion of the court

The court responded to the questions as such:

:1. With respect to s. 1: Yes. With respect to s. 2: No.:2. Yes.:3. Yes.:4. The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.The Court began by considering the argument that the questions are not justiciable (i.e. the court did not have the authority to answer) based on it being a political question. The Court resolutely dismissed this claim for the reasons it gave in the "Quebec Secession Reference".

The first question required the court to determine which head of power the law falls under. It was clearly determined that the pith and substance of the law was federal as it concerned marriage which is in the absolute federal jurisdiction under section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court then considered the impact of the common law definition of marriage on the new law. The applicable definition was from "Hyde v. Hyde" (1866) a polygamy case where Lord Penzance stated:

"What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in Christendom?...If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must needs have some pervading identity and universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."
The Court rejected this definition by applying the living tree doctrine used in the famous "Persons case", analogizing the exclusion of women from the common law definition of "persons" to that of same-sex couples.

The interveners had argued that the meaning of marriage is fixed into convention beyond the reach of the constitution as its old meaning is in practice for thousands of years across the entire globe. Moreover, they argued that the living tree doctrine is constrained within the "natural limits" of interpretation and cannot be stretched to anything the court would like it to be.

The Court rejects these claims, stating that they are not trying to find the definition of marriage, but are only looking if a proposed meaning is within the definition. The meaning of marriage is not fixed to what it meant in 1867, but rather it must evolve with Canadian society which currently represents a plurality of groups.

However, the Court made sure to say that the legislation was only concerning "civil marriage as a legal institution" and has no effect on religious marriage.

Furthermore, civil unions are solely in the domain of the provincial domain and have no relevance here. As such, section 2 of the legislation is "ultra vires" the federal government. Any legislation protecting freedom of religion with respect to marriage must be done through provincial legislation.

On considering the second question, the Court not only affirms the validity of the legislation, they add that its purpose "flows from" the Charter. They further find that equality right of religious groups and opposite-sex couples are not undermined by the legislation, on the basis that the expansion of the Charter enriches society, and equality cannot be supported by denial of others from a benefit. When conflicts between rights arise, the Court says, it must be solved by internal balancing of those rights, not denial of rights.

On the third question, the Court found that the religious freedom guarantee will protect those who disagree from performing same-sex marriages or even protect those who disagree from renting religious spaces for the purpose of same-sex marriage. Again, the Court reiterated that it is up to the provinces to legislate protection for religious groups.

The Court decided not to answer the fourth question as it served "no legal purpose". The federal government had already decided not to appeal the Halpren case in Ontario on the very issue and so there was no point examining it again. Also, the court wishes to respect the lower-court decisions upholding same-sex marriage by letting them stand.

Implications

In terms of rights for same sex couples, a few have speculated that this case does not add muchref|murphy. However, by pre-litigating the following Civil Marriage Act, it effectively precluded court challenge of the act, thereby hastening its acceptance.

References

#Ronalda Murphy, "Same sex marriage and the same old constitution" (2005) 14:3 Constitutional forum

ee also

*List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
*Living tree doctrine

External links

*lexum-scc|2004|79
* [http://www.ojen.ca/eng/resources/documents/SummaryofMarriageReference.pdf case summary]


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем сделать НИР

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Same-sex marriage and procreation — is an issue that lawmakers and judges have used to determine whether or not same sex marriage is legal. One such use occurred in the 2006 Washington state Supreme Court decision, Andersen v. King County [… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage legislation around the world — Same sex relationships legal …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in California — Same sex marriage is valid and recognized in California. California is the second U.S. state, after Massachusetts, to make marriage licenses available to same sex couples. The status of same sex marriage in California has been a contentious… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in North America — Same sex marriage is a divisive subject in North America as it is elsewhere. Within the United States there is significant variation between different States; periodically suggestions are made to amend the constitution to prohibit Same sex… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in New Mexico — Same sex marriages are not performed in the state of New Mexico, which also does not provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. New Mexico is one of three states (the others being New York and Rhode Island)… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in Alberta — Same sex marriage in Alberta: The province of Alberta began granting marriage licences to same sex couples on July 20, 2005 upon the granting of Royal Assent to the Civil Marriage Act. Alberta has historically been Canada s most conservative… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in British Columbia — Same sex marriage in British ColumbiaBackgroundOn July 08th, 2003, the Canadian province of British Columbia became the second region in Canada to legalize same sex marriage, behind Ontario, after a series of court rulings which ultimately landed …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island — Same sex marriages cannot currently be performed under the laws of the state of Rhode Island. However, several bills are pending before the Rhode Island General Assembly which would provide for same sex marriage and civil unions under Rhode… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in Washington — Same sex marriage is not recognized in Washington state. The Washington Supreme Court would have made Washington the second U.S. state to recognize these unions if it had decided differently in two cases that had been consolidated for appeal.… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in France — Same sex marriage is not legal in France. As of 2006, one same sex marriage ceremony has been conducted in France and was declared void. France has a statute authorizing civil unions, known as PACS, between same sex and unmarried opposite sex… …   Wikipedia

  • Same-sex marriage in New Brunswick — Same sex marriage in New Brunswick: The province of New Brunswick began issuing marriage licences to same sex couples on July 4, 2005, pursuant to a June 23 court ruling.Court rulingIn April 2005, four same sex couples filed a court challenge… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”