Today, June 10, 2003, Toronto began issuing valid marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

[talktooloose]

Ontario Appeal Court rules in favour of same-sex marriage

Canadian Press

Toronto - The right to marry should be extended to same-sex
couples, Ontario's Appeal Court ruled Tuesday in a decision
that effectively deems Canadian law on traditional marriage
unconstitutional.

"The existing common law definition of marriage violates the
couple's equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation
under [the charter]," the 61-page written ruling said.

The court also declared the current definition invalid and
demanded the law be changed. It ordered the clerk of the City
of Toronto to issue marriage licences to the same-sex couples
involved in the case.

The ruling came after a federal government lawyer argued that
marriage is a universal concept based on the union of man and
woman that cannot be extended to gay and lesbian couples.

Roslyn Levine, on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada,
said the concept of marriage has always been based on two
genders brought together, built on the ideals of children,
permanency and fidelity.

Ottawa was challenging a controversial lower court ruling that
said Canadian law is unconstitutional because it recognizes only
opposite-sex unions. Common law defines marriage as "the union
of one man and one woman" ˜ a violation of the equality section
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the divisional court said.

The court then gave the federal government two years to revamp
its laws, in effect clearing the way for same-sex marriage.

Ontario's Appeal Court decision joins court rulings in British
Columbia and Quebec that also back same-sex unions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal said May 1 that governments
should recognize gay marriage when it overturned a British
Columbia Supreme Court ruling that said marriage should be
restricted to heterosexuals. It gave Ottawa until July 12, 2004
to change the law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has until June 30 to ask the
Supreme Court of Canada to review the B.C. ruling or the decision
will stand.

A Quebec court has also backed same-sex marriage rights and asked
Ottawa to re-examine marriage laws.

An all-party committee is drafting a much-anticipated report on
how Parliament should handle the difficult social issue.

Polls indicate a slight majority of Canadians favour legalization
of same-sex marriages.

Comments

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

No, the whole public ceremony thing does very little for me. Snake and I know who we are. Furthermore, same-sex couples already have the rights afforded married and opposite sex common-law couples. This is only about the right to call the union "marriage".

It's interesting in that the pissing rights over the word "marriage" have been a litmus test of public opinion, political will and judiciary balls. So, yay, they realized that it's unconstitutional to deny a new use of this word. At the same time, I think the queer rights movement (I do like that word, sorry) has been diverted by this topic in a way that saps energy from more important issues. Too much time is being spent giving fags the right to act like an artificial het-majority image. Next: tax breaks for buying his and his SUVs.

[epanastatis.livejournal.com]

At the same time, I think the queer rights movement (I do like that word, sorry) has been diverted by this topic in a way that saps energy from more important issues. Too much time is being spent giving fags the right to act like an artificial het-majority image.

Agreed, but I'm still pleased that a majority of Canadians are not so caught up in the fetishism of the word "marriage" that they want to defend it against the homosexual hordes, or at least, even if they buy into the fetishism they don't want to be exclusivist about it.

Given that Ontario is civilized enough that there weren't any actual legal rights other than the word involved in this decision--which I didn't know until you mentioned it--I agree that its political import is limited. Generally speaking, my attitude is that the more the rights and obligations of coupledom are disentangled from the state and left to the persons concerned, the better.

Actually

[snowmit.livejournal.com]

I'd say that it makes the political import even greater. I mean they'd already quietly paved the way for giving same-sex couples tax benefits or whatever. But to have it be something that you can march down to the local judiciary office and demand that they sign is, I think, more than just a word. It's in peoples faces now. It's actively legitimate, not quietly under the couch legitimate.

Common law couples kind of fall into being "married" whereas the ones that get licenses get to have ceremonies. State recognized ceremonies. And if you're the kind of person who is more interested in integrating your life into society than totally revamping society in all kinds of exciting and radical ways, that's pretty good news.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

A recent Environics (http://www.environics.ca) poll showed that only 52% of Ontarians favour gay marriage. However, under the age of 35, the figure is 75%, compared with only 35% in those over 65. This indicates that, with time, the percentage in favour will increase. Also, notes an Environics pollster, older people will likely come out more in favour when they "realize that the sky hasn't fallen."

It has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in Ontario since the mid-80s.