<font color="Purple">Looks, like it may be legal in Canada now for same sex couples to wed. I expect their will be an appeal to the Supreme Court as the decision seemed to upset many people including politicians. </font>

TORONTO (CP) - Two Ontario men became Canada's first same-sex couple to legally wed under a controversial court ruling Tuesday that called for Ottawa to immediately redefine its notion of marriage.

Michael Leshner and Michael Stark married in a quick civil ceremony observed by Leshner's beaming 90-year-old mother and about 50 friends and observers, most of them media.

"We're blissfully happy," Leshner, a Toronto Crown attorney, declared after exchanging rings with his partner of 22 years and offering a champagne toast outside the courthouse.

"The bench has wished us a long happy marriage and we hope to fulfil that."

The wedding came mere hours after Ontario's Court of Appeal ruled same-sex couples have the right to legally marry in the province, pronouncing Canadian law on traditional marriage unconstitutional, effective immediately.

Leshner, Stark, and other gay and lesbian couples involved in the court battle expressed relief and delight at a giddy news conference in which one lawyer broke into tears as she outlined the court decision and two couples happily announced wedding plans.

"The existing common-law definition of marriage violates the couple's equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under (the Charter)," the Appeal Court said in a unanimous, 61-page written ruling.

"Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships."

The Appeal Court also declared Ottawa's definition of marriage invalid and demanded it be immediately changed to refer to "two persons" instead of "one man and one woman."

Leshner, 55, and Stark, 45, picked up their marriage licence two hours after the decision was released, crossing out part of the form that read "Bride/Groom" and replacing it with "Spouse/Person."

"Go tell Jean Chretien, it's dead," Leshner implored reporters.

"The argument's over. No more political discussion, we've won, the Charter won, it's a great day for Canada."

Lesbian couple Joyce Barnett and Alison Kemper also picked up a marriage licence and planned to wed in July 2004.

The ruling is a personal victory for seven same-sex couples defending a lower court decision that said Canadian law violated their Charter rights by preventing them from marrying. Ottawa tried to overthrow that ruling, arguing that marriage is a universal concept based on the union of a man and woman.

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

However, it differs in that it calls for the new definition to take place immediately, allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry now.

It also effectively forces Ontario to recognize the January 2001 marriage of Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa, who were wed in a Toronto church ceremony using an ancient Christian tradition that allowed them to avoid having to get city-issued marriage licences.

If the Ontario government registers the marriage as demanded by the court ruling, theirs would be the first same-sex marriage in Canada.

Despite favourable reception in other provinces, Alberta's premier said his province remained opposed to same-sex marriages.

"The law in Alberta is very clear," said Ralph Klein. "It's as clear as crystal, and that is: If there's any move to sanctify and legalize same-sex marriages we will use the notwithstanding clause. Period. End of story."

Ontario officials would not say whether such a roadblock would face same-sex couples in that province. Leshner and Stark's wedding has yet to be registered by the province, a 12-week process the Consumer Affairs ministry said was governed by federal law.

"The federal government says who can marry whom," said spokesman Chris Eby.

"We've been following federal law and we will continue to follow federal law."

Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Ottawa recognizes it must move quickly toward a "national solution" to the same-sex debate.

"We see the direction that the courts are taking now," Cauchon said after a cabinet meeting. "I'm asking for a little bit of time to look at the decision and to come back with a statement."

A decision on whether Ottawa will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada had not yet been made, however because the Ontario ruling is effective immediately, such a challenge would not prevent same-sex couples from getting married in the interim, said the couples' lawyer Martha McCarthy.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien said the Justice Department was examining the decision and that he had nothing to add.

Deputy Prime Minister John Manley said he personally believed it was time "to recognize that same-sex marriages are part of our societal norm."


Ontario Premier Ernie Eves said there were still issues to be resolved.

"What two people do in a relationship with each other is really none of anybody else's business," he said.

"Now there are other issues of course that are involved with that and some of them are fiscal or monetary and some of them involve children. Those are different matters."

Eves says it's up to the federal government to decide if same sex marriages should be legalized in Canada.

"You go back to the issue of which government really has constitutional responsibility for the legalization of marriages and I believe courts have ruled previously that that is the federal government," he said.

The B.C. Appeal Court said May 1 that governments should recognize gay marriage when it overturned a B.C. 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.

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

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.

Barnett and Kemper's two children were ecstatic with the Ontario decision.

"I knew that nobody could say I didn't have a family," said Robbie, 11, who was born to Alison. "Canada has finally figured out it's unfair to deny this to anybody."

The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians on April 1, 2001.

Belgium became the second country to open marriage to same-sex couples on Jan. 30, however, important related legislation was not harmonized with the new marriage law.

In British Columbia, the Diocese of New Westminster, which includes 80 Vancouver-area churches, is the first in Canada to offer a blessing to gay and lesbian couples.

It is not considered the same as a marriage ceremony and has been compared by diocese officials to blessing a ship.

A gay Vancouver couple were the first to undergo the controversial new Anglican rite last month.

Some of what was said Tuesday in reaction to a decision by the Ontario Appeal Court allowing same-sex couples to marry:

"This is a historic day for gays and lesbians and I want to congratulate Michael Stark and Michael Leshner, who waited 20 years for this day to finally arrive." - Jack Layton, federal NDP Leader.

-

"This decision has deemed the government's definition of marriage as unconstitutional, and it is now Parliament's turn to end their long-standing discrimination against gays and lesbians and support same-sex marriage." - Svend Robinson, a federal New Democrat who is openly gay.

-

"The Canadian Alliance has consistently called for these decisions to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine if these lower courts have the jurisdiction to rule on social policies of this nature." - Vic Toews, justice critic for the Canadian Alliance.

-

"I think that it's time for us to recognize that same-sex marriages are part of our societal norm. I don't think religious denominations should be obliged to solemnize them, that's up to them to do." - John Manley, Canada's deputy prime minister.

-

"We have the equal right to marry and that equal right must be recognized as of today." - John Fisher, executive director of Equality for Gays and Lesbians (EGALE).

-

"You can't have a half equality. You can't say: 'Well, you're equal, but. . .' When you're speaking about equality you're talking about allowing people to exercise all rights under the law, including all rights that are available to all others." - Sheila Copps, Canada's heritage minister and Liberal leadership hopeful.

-

"It's very clear that if this is a question of rights, and that appears to be what the courts are saying, then the government is going to have to deal with that." - Paul Martin, federal MP and Liberal leadership candidate.

-

"We're gettin' married in the morning. Go tell Jean Chretien it's dead. The argument's over. No more political discussion, we've won, the charter won, it's a great day for Canada." - Michael Leshner, a 55-year-old Toronto Crown attorney who has fought for years for the right to marry his longtime gay partner.

-

"We see the direction that the courts are taking now. I'm asking for a little bit of time to look at the decision and to come back with a statement." - Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon.

-

"What two people do in a relationship with each other is really none of anybody else's business. Now there are other issues of course that are involved with that and some of them are fiscal or monetary and some of them involve children. Those are different matters." - Ontario Premier Ernie Eves.


"The only responsible course of action is to immediately appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. This will allow the democratically elected members of the Parliament to continue their work on this important social policy issue." - MP Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance justice critic.

-

"The law in Alberta is very clear, notwithstanding how some people might feel about it, it's very clear. It's as clear as crystal. And that is if there is any move to sanctify and legalize same-sex marriages, we will use the notwithstanding clause, period. End of story." - Alberta Premier Ralph Klein.

[ 06-10-2003, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Overhere we probably have a few divorced gay couples already. :D

Does it matter in all honesty? You'll probably find a lower divorce rate amongst same sex couples than you would heterosexual couples.

I feel like we are becoming more like a European country (decimalization of pot, gay marriages), I blame it on St. Pierre et Miquelon. Any chance of Canada joining the EU (I am joking of course).

Homophobes... if the gays want to marry...let them... we are (correctly) so much against racism... this is almost the same...

That is why the judge ruled that it violates the couple's equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under the Charter of rights and freedoms.

[ 06-10-2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

How so?

That's only because there aren't all that many married gay couples around yet. I bet if there were as many gay marriages as heterosexual ones, the number of divorces would be equally divided.
I know that marriage can be pretty rough from time to time, and it won't be different when you're gay. Ever seen two gays fight eachother ? I have, and it wasn't a pretty sight. :D
Instead of throwing punches at eachother, they were using their nails to scratch eachothers faces, pull hair, and call eachother bitch. You don't wanna get caught in the middle of something like that. :D

It was fun watching though.

How so? </font>[/QUOTE]My co-worker has been with his partner for 16 years, that is longer then most marriages nowadays [img]smile.gif[/img]

That's only because there aren't all that many married gay couples around yet. I bet if there were as many gay marriages as heterosexual ones, the number of divorces would be equally divided.
I know that marriage can be pretty rough from time to time, and it won't be different when you're gay. Ever seen two gays fight eachother ? I have, and it wasn't a pretty sight. :D
Instead of throwing punches at eachother, they were using their nails to scratch eachothers faces, pull hair, and call eachother bitch. You don't wanna get caught in the middle of something like that. :D

It was fun watching though. </font>[/QUOTE]That was the Jerry Springer show, dude! :D

Good for them.

Lets wish them many happy years together.

How so? </font>[/QUOTE]My co-worker has been with his partner for 16 years, that is longer then most marriages nowadays [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]My parents have been married 28 years. Guess that puts hetero marriages in front again :rolleyes:

There's nothing intrinsic to being heterosexual or homosexual that makes one union any more likely to last than any other.

How so? </font>[/QUOTE]Seems like same sex couples stand a better chance of understanding one another than their heterosexual couples.

how are two completely different individuals more likely to understand each other than two other completely different individuals?? gender is not the issue when it comes to mis-communication


and just an aside on the original post...
way to go Klein, good job reinforcing the stereotype that all Albertans are ignorant rednecks, go sober up you drunk and step into the next millennium, or atleast the 90's. and if you want me to substantiate that he is a drunk (other than the episode where he stumbled into a shelter and told them all the get a job) he drinks with my high school chem teacher, a lot.

hehehehe the only reason Klein hasn't had to endure Campbell's martini ordeal is because Klein utilizes a full time driver. :D

I'd say that if you had to fight 20 years to finally get maried, chances are that you won't divorce any time soon.

I wonder how are those same sex married couple going to produce offsprings? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

They don't. If they decided to get a child, they will have to go for adoption. In the case of lesbians, they could go for test tube babies / artificial insemination.

[ 06-11-2003, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

No way Animal, Jerry Springer is a hoax. This was in downtown Amsterdam, where those kind of things can happen. :D

How so? </font>[/QUOTE]Well I know the above is a well debated theory. I bet you can find the statistic/research on the net. ;)

Anyway, good for them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Callum, I disagree with you somewhat. All those apposing gay marriages are not homophobes. ;) Tradition is another major thing you know. ;)

I'm not too sure about my opinion on this same-sex wedding thing.

But it doesn't really concern me too greatly, I'm a heterosexual male. I suppose if that's what they want to do, they can do it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Adoption, which also is a very heated debate. I know lesbian couples are fighting for their right to have a child through arteficial insemination. A very interesting debate in which I don't know which side to support.

I was thinking about how gay/lesbian couples could have children. I thought that if they could somehow do it, chromosomes would be an issue. For instance, if a lesbian couple has a child, it can only be a girl. There are no Y chromosomes to make a boy. However, if two gays had a child, it could be male, female or it could end up with two Y chromosomes, which has never happened before. I wonder how a child with YY chromosomes could turn out. A super male? :confused:

Anyway, don't ask me how gay/lesbian couples can have children with each other. Maybe through implanting genetic data into a sperm/egg?

Admittedly not, but the current circumstances that gay relationships happen in (and lets not be naive - the circumstances they will probably happen in for a good few years to come yet) mean that any relationship that reaches the stage of marriage has already withstood a significant test of time and adverse surroundings. As Willow said; this has statistical evidence to support it. Not because being gay makes you more prone to longer relationships but ecause of the way gay relationships are treated at present.

No need to get a bee in the bonnet about this contention, its not attacking gays or putting them apart from straight people. The only difference I can see is that the theory observes that they are treated differently by society as a whole. Sadly thats pretty irrefutable.

As far as I know lesbian couple who wants to have children and actually carry them themselves usually get a close friend of theirs to donate the sperm and then they inseminate themselves with a big syringe.

Little fuss, cheap, no ambigous morality and it will be easy to tell their children who their biological father was.


As for the morality of bringing up children in a gay home I cannot find the big problem. After all many children have been brought up successfully by single parents. What, I think, matters is that there IS a parent.

Isn't Vermont the only US state that recognizes a gay union?

I heard this discussed on The View yesterday, and the lawyer was discussing the strict rules in Vermont in order to qualify for gay marriage, the fact that other states don't recognize these weddings, and the problems that have already been encountered regarding divorce. It was pretty interesting stuff.

I don't think closed minded people really want to consider that gay marriage may just be fair. It shouldn't be called marriage because that is a religious institution and they have no obligation to accept same sex union but like someone else said that just comes down to semantics. The government however is not a religious institution so must offer the same deals to people regardless of what the Vatican or good ol' Ralph says.

Of course its probably a lot about getting their hands on their spouses booty and why shouldn't they. I'm sure they pay as much into their CPP as any other religiously abiding canadian has and they have just as much right to have a say over their spouse's affairs as we do. If you take the time to talk to some gay/lesbian men and women you will quickly find that aside from the outspoken political minority they couldn't care less about being recognised but they would like to have the same rights with their loved ones as heterosexual couples have and that comes through legislation and official unions.

To those that complain of the courts taking precedence over parliament well so what? Why shouldn't they? Do YOU want to live in a country where the government has complete say over its people and the people have no recourse to appeal? I certainly don't. If the governments are that unhappy with the courts' decisions they can use the not withstanding clause. And the majority of Canadians? Many polls have shown majority support for legalised gay union.

Regardless of what your opinions are on the subject we luckily live in a country that has laws that we all must live by and must be enforced fairly. If you don't like it. Move to Alberta (Just Kidding :D ).

Hawaii too. The issues Hawaii had gave us a big heads up when we were working on the Civil Union Bill.

I don't care if you call it "marriage" or not, just so long as we allow gays to have equal rights to benefits, such as "next of kin" hospital rights, inheritance rights, joint tax returns, and shared medical benefits plans. We are simply experiencing growing pains as we redefine what "family" means. It is a trend that cannot be stopped.

And, is for the legislatures, I would say. I don't know how recent Canada's Charter is, or what it says, but courts APPLY law, legislatures CHANGE law.

The charter besides the language stuff it seems pretty basic:
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/c....html#libertes


I think this may be the section the judge used in determining the case.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Thanks, pritchke. As with our own equality rules, I note that list does not include protection based on sexuality. "Sex" means "gender" unless I'm mistaken.

True, but I assume the judge may have decided they were being denied certain rights as a couple because they were of the same sex. One of the problems with equality and freedom rules is that they are pretty general so not everyone will interpret them the same. I guess that is one of the reasons to have judges to rule on issues like this. I don't think the government will appeal this case to the supreme court in this case. They may redefine the law somewhat to recognize gay unions as equivalent to marriages under the law to somewhat appease those opposed, and allow gays to have the same rights has married couples.

[ 06-11-2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Don't be too sure. There is a gay couple in Connecticut that got married in VT last year or so, after years of waiting for some state to allow it. NOW they want a divorce and can't get one. CT says they aren't legally married, VT says you can't get a divorce there unless you've been a resident for years. Serves em right. These 2, not all gays. But I am Catholic by birth, my parents' religion is homophobic, a little rubbed off on me.

First of all, I'm not sure how your genetics works out - i'm not a biologist, but I do know a few things.

There are no such people as YY-chromosome males. Lack of an X-chromosome kills you. Howerver, there are XYY males. They are not exactly common, but not exactly rare either. About 1 in 1000 males will have an extra Y chromosome. XYY's tend to be physically strong, mentally slightly below-average, and also it was thought that it was linked to criminality. Recent studies have recanted this somewhat.

You also get XXX females, XXY males, XXXXX females (!) and many other combinations.

More info here [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/pentax.htm

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/klinefel.htm

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/xyy.htm

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/xx.html < XX males

Actually, I believe that you can to a certain extent.
For example, Japan was close to the west and the peasants were all disarmed and this kept the society stable and unchanging for hundreds of years, at the cost of social mobility and the change and innovation that this brings.

If you want to stop societal change, you need to stop the changing materiel conditions.

I think Amish people do it, I saw a video on them in philosophy.
Also, Because they all intermarry, They have strange genetics I think.

But you couldn't stop it in the wider sense of The western world today I think.
The handmaids tale will never happen! (probably, but don't quote me on that)

Admittedly not, but the current circumstances that gay relationships happen in (and lets not be naive - the circumstances they will probably happen in for a good few years to come yet) mean that any relationship that reaches the stage of marriage has already withstood a significant test of time and adverse surroundings. As Willow said; this has statistical evidence to support it. Not because being gay makes you more prone to longer relationships but ecause of the way gay relationships are treated at present.

No need to get a bee in the bonnet about this contention, its not attacking gays or putting them apart from straight people. The only difference I can see is that the theory observes that they are treated differently by society as a whole. Sadly thats pretty irrefutable. </font>[/QUOTE]I hope my comment didn't sound like I'm against gay marriage or think hetero unions are better than gay unions. Not at all. I think gay marriage should absolutely be allowed, for all the reasons Timber stated.

I totally agree with what you're saying. But I think the argument (and the statistics - data do not know where they come from after all - someone chose the groups, did the analysis, and interpreted the results ;) ) is flawed - you're comparing couples who are free to marry whoever they want whenever they want with couples who have to fight and lobby and overcome adversity who of course will be more committed from the effort - a more realistic comparison would be all the gay couples who would have got married had they been allowed - and there would be just as many poor choices, just as many whims, and eventually just as many marriages ending badly because, like you say, gay people aren't any better at maintaining long relationships than straight people. So the statistics don't really mean anything. I see in this thread that Animal for instance appears to be advocating gay marriage because they will be less likely to divorce - and that's a spurious reason because if there is open slather on gay marriage it will be no different to straight marriage.

I also disagree with Animal's contention that gay marriages would last longer because they are the same sex so they can understand each other better - I can't speak for anyone but myself, but 'not understanding men' hasn't been the reason for relationships that I have had not working. Gay people are just as able to find someone else, grow apart, have too different ideas, don't agree about religion, have differnt life goals, cheat on each other, fight about money, have communication problems, have different sex drives etc etc etc.

You watch The View???!!! :D

You watch The View???!!! :D </font>[/QUOTE]I'm "in touch" with my feminine side. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

That was my point Aelia - its not about because they're in a same sex relationship that makes it last longer, its the fact that same sex relationships are conducted in completely different circumstances to heterosexual ones. The statistics still mean something though, they just don't quite mean whats often inferred from them. They highlight that equality (and, dare I say it, liberation even) are one hell of a long way off still. What they don't mean is that gay people are somehow better at keeping a relationship together. The statistic still means something as long as its interpreted correctly.

If we are going to start comparing same sex relationships with conventional ones, there are a lot of things to point out. The first one I'll note is that it has been my experience (note: I lived with two gay men for a few years and have litterally tons of gay friends) that homosexuals tend to be a bit more promiscuous. "Tea Rooms" don't exist in the straight world, y'know.

Now, whether or not this extends or decreases the duration of same sex marriages is hard to discern, because I have not noticed many gay folks who rush to get married like heteros sometimes do. I will note that I know of several homosexual/bisexual relationships that have lasted for years and years.