Just to drive a point home

[bcholmes]

Green provinces allow same-sex marriage; red ones don't. The relative sizes are based on population.

Comments

[skylark-10.livejournal.com]

is the method by which these rights are being advanced more like judicial review and interpretation of current law (what someone once called "the liberal legislation method"), or like actual direct reformation of the law itself - and in either case, with what reference to the will of the majority?

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

So far, they've all been rulings on lawsuits brought by people denied the right to marry. In each case, basically, the court has relied (I believe) on the Supreme Court decision on pensions a few years back - or was it Vriend? - that said that the Canadian Charter of Rights must have the right of freedom from discrimination "read in" for sexual orientation - that is, that the courts should treat the Charter as though it actually did say "sexual orientation".

Most of the polls I've seen have shown Canadians being fractionally in favour of gay marriage proper, and slightly more in favour of civil unions. However, the opinion is very strongly slanted by age, with the young, as you might expect, being much more inclined to be in favour. The courts are basically reflecting the will of the majority of Canadians, especially when one considers that younger Canadians are very strongly in favour, indicating the trend is upwards on broad societal acceptance.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Each provincial victory is the result of a lawsuit. In each lawsuit, the judges have ruled that the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage is unconstitutional and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Previous court cases have asserted that when the Charter ensures equality of the sexes, it must also mean equality of sexual orientation.

[chezmax]

Also, to be fair, the red ones should be labelled "not yet". Other than Alberta, I dont' see that the others won't follow suit if they were challenged.

[skylark-10.livejournal.com]

as far as you are concerned, then, the courts are a proper channel for the articulation and advancement of civil rights not necessarily made comprehensively explicit in the Charter?

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I believe that it is the job of the Charter to ensure that minority rights are protected (and, in essence, to ensure a "Just Society" ^TM), and I believe that it is the job of the courts to ensure that law is consistent with the Charter.

The Charter has two clauses that allow Parliament to override the rights in the Charter: the "limitations" clause and the "notwithstanding" clause. So, really, the government has lots of power to resist a ruling of the Supreme Court, if they so choose.

Alberta invoked the notwithstanding clause in Bill 202 (in 2000), which defined marriage as "one man/one woman". Whether or not the province has the authority to define marriage is a question before the court. Most people seem to believe that such authority is federal.

[skylark-10.livejournal.com]

then wouldn't you find the "congratulations" of someone who has taken a stand against similar arguments and procedures here in the US on this same issue, as well as in the area of trans rights - and who moreover reduces the claims of people who support this general approach toward rights advancement to a kind of whiny victimhood - to be more than a little disengenuous?

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Well, yes.

I think it's disengenuous to trumpet the "checks and balances" of the American government system and then complain when that system is used as designed.

I also think that it's disengenuous to support gay rights and to vote for a man who is making a point of impeding the rights of gays.

Actually, I think that disengenuous is too mild of a word in this case.