Same-sex marriage in Canada

Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day.

Same-sex marriage has been legal:

• in the province of Ontario since 10 June 2003;
• in the province of British Columbia since 8 July 2003;
• in the province of Quebec since 19 March 2004;
• in the Yukon territory since 14 July 2004;
• in the province of Manitoba since 16 September 2004;
• in the province of Nova Scotia since 24 September 2004;
• in the province of Saskatchewan since 5 November 2004;
• in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador since 21 December 2004;
• in the province of New Brunswick since 23 June 2005

Passage of the Civil Marriage Act made same-sex marriage legal in the provinces of Alberta and Prince Edward Island and the territories of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories effective 20 July 2005

Same-sex marriage was originally legalized as a result of court cases in which provincial or territorial justices ruled existing bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Since then, many gay and lesbian couples have been able to obtain marriage licences in these provinces. Couples (both straight and gay) do not need to be residents of any of these provinces in order to marry there.

File:CanSSM.jpg

Provinces and territories with same-sex marriage before its nationwide legalization on 20 July 2005

The status of marriages for same sex couples created in these jurisdictions existed in somewhat of an interim legal capacity. According to the Constitution of Canada, the definition of marriage is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government—this interpretation was upheld by a December 9, 2004 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada (Re Same-Sex Marriage). Until July 20, 2005, the federal government had not yet passed a law redefining marriage to conform to recent provincial court decisions. Until the passage of Bill C-38, the previous definition of marriage was binding in the four jurisdictions where courts had not yet ruled it unconstitutional, but void in the nine jurisdictions where it had been successfully challenged. Given the Supreme Court ruling, the role of precedent in Canadian law, and the overall legal climate, it would have been highly unusual for any challenges in the remaining four jurisdictions not to result in the legalization of marriage between same-sex individuals there as well. Indeed, federal lawyers had ceased to contest such cases and only the Alberta provincial government remained officially opposed, threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which many law experts argued would not have actually worked. Ralph Klein, premier of Alberta, has since recanted and Alberta now allows equal marriage providing no government officials or marriage commissioners who oppose same-sex marriage are forced to perform them.

Bill C-38, introduced on February 1, 2005, by Justice minister Irwin Cotler, legalized the marriage of same sex persons across Canada. Although supported by the Martin government, it was subject to a free vote in the House of Commons by backbench MPs. Defeat of the bill in Parliament would have continued the status quo, and incremental legalization on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis would likely have continued via court challenges; this trend could have been reversed only through Parliament passing a new law that explicitly restricted marriage to opposite sex couples notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' protection of equality rights, or by amending the Canadian constitution by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", as was recommended by several conservative groups and politicians. Given the composition of the House of Commons at the time, the passage of such a measure would have been very unlikely. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein proposed putting the question to the public at large via a national referendum, but this was rejected by all four party leaders.

A draft of what would become Bill C-38 was released on 17 July 2003 by then-Justice minister Martin Cauchon. Prior to its introduction, he submitted the bill as a reference to the Supreme Court, asking the court to rule on whether limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if same-sex civil unions are an acceptable alternative. On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the marriage of same-sex couples is constitutional, that the federal government has the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's protection of freedom of religion grants religious institutions the right to choose not to perform the marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples if they see fit.

In the 2006 federal election, the Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper won a minority government. Harper, a known homophobe, had campaigned on the promise of holding a free vote on a motion restoring the traditional definition of marriage. However, he effectively nullified this promise by stating that he would not use the notwithstanding clause (or amend the constitution), which is believed by practically all constitutional scholars, but not by Mr. Harper, to be required to revert to a heterosexual definition of civil marriage by overriding s. 15 of the Charter. If the motion passes, which is doubtful given the overall support for same-sex marriage by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois, a bill restoring the "traditional" definition of marriage, would be drafted. It is also thought that the Liberal-dominated Senate may delay the passage of such a bill on the grounds that it would be taking rights away from a minority group. The Senate traditionally does not vote against bills that have been approved by the House of Commons. As a last resort and given her progressive views, the Governor General may elect to withold her signature from the bill, although this is unlikely given the ceremonail role she plays in Canadian politics and government.

History

Court rulings

Background

• EGALE: A chronological listing of court documents

In 1999, same-sex couples in Canada were entitled to receive many of the financial and legal benefits commonly associated with marriage in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in M. v. H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3. However this decision stopped short of giving them the right to full legal marriage.

In 2002 and 2003, court decisions in the federal courts of three provinces then required the federal government to implement full same-sex marriage within the next two years:

• in Ontario: Halpern et. al. v. Canada (Ontario Superior Court, July 12, 2002)

• in Quebec: Hendricks v. Quebec (Quebec Superior Court, September 6, 2002)
  • Text of ruling (in French)

• in British Columbia: Barbeau v. British Columbia 2003 BCCA 251 (Court of Appeal for BC, May 1, 2003)
  • Text of the ruling

The federal Liberal government had sought leave to appeal the constitutionality of these rulings to the Supreme Court of Canada, though as above the government in June 2003 indicated that they would stop appealing.

The Ontario decision

Main article: Same sex marriage in Ontario

In 2003, the couples in Halpern appealed the decision, requesting that the decision take effect immediately instead of after a delay. On 10 June 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that current Canadian law on marriage violated the equality provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in being restricted to heterosexual couples. The court did not allow the province any grace time to bring its laws in line with the ruling, making Ontario the first jurisdiction in North America to recognize same-sex marriage. Consequently, the City of Toronto announced that the city clerk would begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. The next day, the Ontario attorney general announced that his government would comply with the ruling.

The court also ruled that two couples who had previously had a wedding ceremony in the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto using an ancient common-law procedure called the reading of the banns would be considered legally married.

On September 13, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared the Divorce Act also unconstitutional for excluding same-sex marriages. It ordered same-sex marriages read into that act, permitting the plaintiffs, a lesbian couple, to divorce. [2]

The B.C. decision

Main article: Same sex marriage in British Columbia

A ruling, quite similar to the Ontario ruling, was issued by the B.C. Court of Appeal on 8 July 2003. Another decision in B.C. in May of that year had required the federal government to change the law to permit same-sex marriages (see above). The July ruling stated that "any further delay... will result in an unequal application of the law between Ontario and British Columbia." A few hours after the announcement, Antony Porcino and Tom Graff became the first two men to be legally wed in British Columbia.

• Barbeau v. British Columbia (A.G.) 2003 BCCA 406 (Court of Appeal for BC 8 July 2003) - text of the ruling (canlii.ca)
• The Globe and Mail

Unlike the Netherlands, a couple need not reside in Ontario or B.C. or be Canadian citizens in order to be granted a marriage licence there. (However, one must be an Ontario resident for a year in order to divorce.) For this reason, many same-sex couples from the US and other countries have come to Canada to marry. (See Same-sex marriage in the United States.)

The Quebec decision

Main article: Same sex marriage in Quebec

Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf marry on 1 April 2004

On March 19, 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeals ruled similarly to the Ontario and B.C. courts, upholding Hendricks and Leboeuf v. Quebec and ordering that it take effect immediately. (365gay.com) The couple who brought the suit, Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, immediately sought a marriage licence; the usual 20-day waiting period was waived, and they were wed on April 1 at the Palais de justice de Montréal.

At the time of the Quebec decision, more than two-thirds of Canada's population lived in provinces where same-sex marriage had been legalized.

• Catholic Civil Rights League v. Hendricks (Quebec Court of Appeal, 19 March 2004) - in French
• Unofficial English translation, .doc format

The Yukon decision

Main article: Same sex marriage in Yukon

On the July 14, 2004, in Dunbar & Edge v. Yukon (Government of) & Canada (A.G.) 2004 YKSC 54, the Yukon Territorial Supreme Court issued another similar ruling, effective immediately. Rather than reproducing the Charter equality arguments used by the other courts, the Court issued an innovative ruling: since the provincial courts of appeal had ruled that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional (a position strengthened by the Attorney General's refusal to appeal those rulings), it was unconstitutional across Canada, and to continue to restrict marriages in Yukon to opposite-sex couples would result in an unacceptable state of a provision's being in force in one jurisdiction and not another. This argument could be used in future decisions in other provinces and territories.

The plaintiff couple, Rob Edge and Stephen Dunbar, were married on 17 July. [3]

• Dunbar & Edge v. Yukon & Canada 2004 YKSC 54 (canlii.ca) - text of the ruling.

On August 16, 2004, federal justice minister Irwin Cotler indicated that the provinces or territories. government would no longer resist court cases to implement same-sex marriage in pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1092694223358&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

The Manitoba decision

Main article: Same sex marriage in Manitoba

On September 16, 2004, Justice Douglas Yard of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench declared the then-current definition of marriage unconstitutional. The judge said that his decision had been influenced by the previous decisions in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. [4] This decision followed suits brought by three couples in Manitoba requesting that they be issued marriage licences. Both the provincial and federal governments had made it known that they would not oppose the court bid. One of the couples, Chris Vogel and Richard North, had legally sought marriage in a high-profile case in 1974 but had been denied. (365gay.com)

The Nova Scotia decision

Main article: Same sex marriage in Nova Scotia

In August 2004, three couples in Nova Scotia brought suit (Boutilier et al. v. Canada (A.G) and Nova Scotia (A.G)) against the provincial government requesting that it issue same-sex marriage licences. (365gay.com) On September 24, 2004, Justice Heather Robertson of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled the then-current law unconstitutional. Neither the federal nor the provincial governments opposed the ruling. (CBC)

The Saskatchewan decision

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Saskatchewan

Two couples brought suit in Saskatchewan for the recognition of their marriage in a case that went to trial in mid-October 2004. As with the previous two cases, the provincial government announced that they would not oppose the suit. (CBC Saskatchewan) On 5 November 2004, the judge ruled that a Charter right to same-sex marriage existed and that the common-law definition was discriminatory, thereby bringing same-sex marriage to Saskatchewan. (CBC News)

The Newfoundland and Labrador decision

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Newfoundland and Labrador

Two lesbian couples brought suit on November 4 to have Newfoundland and Labrador recognize same-sex marriage. As with the previous decisions, the provincial government did not oppose the suit; moreover, the federal government actually supported it. The case went to trial on December 20 and the next day, Mr. Justice Derek Green ordered the provincial government to begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples, an order with which the provincial government announced it would comply.

The New Brunswick decision

Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Brunswick

Two same-sex couples brought suit in April 2005 to request an order requiring the government of New Brunswick to issue same-sex marriage licences. This was granted in June 2005.

The Progressive Conservative premier of New Brunswick, Bernard Lord, had previously said that his government would not recognize same-sex marriage until required to do so by the courts or by Parliament.

Proceedings in the Northwest Territories

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the Northwest Territories

On May 20, 2005, a gay male couple with a daughter brought suit in the Northwest Territories for the right to marry. The territorial justice minister, Charlie Dent, had previously said that the government would not contest such a lawsuit. The case was to be heard on May 27 but has been delayed.(CBC North)

Discussion in Parliament, 1999-September 2003

The shift in Canadian attitudes towards acceptance of same-sex marriage and recent court rulings have caused the Parliament of Canada to reverse its position on the issue in recent years.

On June 8, 1999, a resolution was introduced in the House of Commons to re-affirm the definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." The resolution was overwhelmingly passed, and had the support of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Liberal Party, along with the opposition Reform Party. The following year this definition of marriage was included in the revised Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, which continued to bar same-sex couples from full marriage rights.

In early 2003, the issue once again resurfaced, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights proceeded to undertake a formal study of same-sex marriage, including a cross-country series of public hearings. Just after the Ontario court decision, it voted to recommend that the federal government not appeal the ruling.

• Proceedings of the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights during the same-sex unions hearings

Civil status is of provincial jurisdiction in Canada. However, the definition of marriage is a federal law. On June 17, 2003, then Prime Minister Chrétien announced that the government would not appeal the Ontario ruling, and that his government would introduce legislation to recognize same-sex marriage but protect the rights of churches to decide which marriages they would solemnize.

A draft of the bill was issued on 17 July. It read:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The draft bill was subsequently referred to the Supreme Court; see below.

On 16 September 2003, a motion was brought to Parliament by the Canadian Alliance to once again reaffirm the heterosexual definition of marriage. The same language that had been passed in 1999 was brought to a free vote, with members asked to vote for or against the 1999 definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." Motions are not legislatively binding in Canada, and are mostly done for symbolic purposes. The September vote was extremely divisive, however. Prime Minister Chrétien reversed his previous stance and voted against the motion, as did Paul Martin and many other prominent Liberals. Several Liberals retained their original stance, however, and thus the vote was not defined purely along party lines. Controversially, over 30 members of the House did not attend the vote, the majority of whom were Liberals who had voted against same-sex marriage in 1999. It was speculated that they had ignored the vote on the wishes of Chrétien, who did not want to have the symbolic importance of the moment undermined by his own party. In the end, the motion was narrowly rejected by a vote of 137-132. See also: How the MPs voted

Supreme Court Reference re. Same-Sex Marriage

Main article: Re Same-Sex Marriage

In 2003, the Liberal government referred a draft bill on same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court of Canada, essentially asking it to review the bill's constitutionality before it is introduced. The reference as originally posed by Prime Minister Chrétien asked three questions:

1. Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is section 1 of the proposal, which extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?

3. Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs? (Department of Justice)

Prime Minister Paul Martin later added a fourth in January 2004:

4. Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in s. 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

The addition of a fourth question considerably delayed the opening of the court reference until well after the June 2004 general election, raising accusations of stalling. The consultative process was held in the autumn of 2004.

In its hearings that began in October 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada accused the government of using the court for other goals when the Government declined to appeal rulings that altered the definition of marriage in several provinces.

"Justice Ian Binnie said it 'may not fulfill any useful purpose' to examine traditional marriage all over again, 'given the policy decision of the government.'"(Toronto Star)

See also: The full text of the 9 December decision

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government has the authority to amend the definition of marriage, but did not rule on whether or not such a change is required by the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court stated that such a ruling is not necessary because the federal government had accepted the rulings of provincial courts to the effect that the change was required. The Court also ruled that given freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights, and wording of provincial human rights codes, it was highly unlikely that religious institutions could be compelled to perform same-sex marriages, though because solemnization of marriage is a matter for provincial governments, the proposed Bill could not actually guarantee such a protection.

Debate prior to C-38's introduction

On December 9, 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin indicated that the federal government would introduce legislation expanding marriage to same-sex couples. The government's decision was announced immediately following the court's answer in the Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage reference question.[5]

The upcoming Parliamentary bill has caused rifts in the House of Commons, especially among the governing Liberals. Many Liberal MPs indicated that they would oppose the government's position in favour of same-sex marriage at a free vote. The Conservative Party is almost unanimously against the bill; the New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois are almost unanimously in favour of it.

In 2000, Alberta amended its Marriage Act[6] to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The law includes a notwithstanding clause in an attempt to protect the amendment from being invalidated under the Charter. However, the amendment in invalid since, under the Canadian constitution, the definition of marriage is a federal right. To achieve his goal, Klein could attempt to pass legislation explicitly discriminating against same-sex marriages and then use the notwithstanding clause to defend it against legal challenges. This would likely be useless as well as the courts would likely rule that the Alberta government is acting ultra vires or beyond its jurisdiction. Many political observers see the Klein statement as mere political posturing.

Complicating matters, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper has indicated that he would be willing to re-examine the legislation, if the Conservative Party achieves a majority in a general election. Paul Martin has stated that he would only invoke the notwithstanding clause to reconcile a potential conflict with freedom of religion. However in the Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage reference question decision the Supreme Court ruled that churches have the right to set their own criteria for marriage. Most observers regarded such a ruling as highly likely, since churches are permitted to choose whom they will marry in other circumstances; for example, some churches restrict marriage to those of certain religions, or those who have not previously been divorced.

In December 2004, Premier Klein suggested that a national plebiscite be held on same-sex marriage, a measure Prime Minister Martin rejected. (CBC)

On 14 December, Minister Cotler attempted a concession to those opposed to same-sex marriage by indicating that the bill would allow civic officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages; however, this is beyond the reach of federal legislation as civic officiaions are regulated by the provinces. (365gay.com) Saskatchewan has terminated the employment of one civic official who declined to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies of religious grounds.

Legislative progress

Main article: Civil Marriage Act

Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, was introduced to Parliament for its first reading in the House on February 1, 2005. Prime Minister Martin launched the debate on February 16. The bill passed second reading on May 4 and third reading on June 28, with votes of 164-137 and 158-133, respectively. It then moved to the Senate, and received its first reading on June 29. Debate was launched on July 4, and a Liberal closure motion limited debate on the bill to only four hours. Second reading and committing the bill occurred on July 6, with a vote of 43-12. The Senate passed Bill C-38 on third reading by a margin of 47 to 21 on July 19, 2005. It received Royal Assent, at the hand of the Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin (in her capacity as the Deputy Governor General), on July 20, 2005 (Hansard).

See [7] for the entire legislative process of this bill.

Other same-sex partner benefits in Canada

Other kinds of partnership

As mentioned above, Canadian cohabiting same-sex couples are entitled to many of the same legal and financial benefits as married opposite-sex couples. In 1999, a Supreme Court ruling allowed same-sex couples to have the same benefits as opposite-sex common-law couples.

The province of Quebec currently recognizes civil unions. Nova Scotia's Domestic partnerships offer similar benefits.

In 2003, Alberta passed a law that recognized Adult Interdependent Relationships. They are similar to civil unions, but provide fewer marriage benefits and are avialible to any two unrelated adults that are in a "relation of interdependence."

Recognition in other provinces and territories

The legal status of same-sex marriages in provinces and territories that did not perform them was uncertain prior to the passage of the Civil Marriage Act. One of the couples who brought suit in Nova Scotia did so in order that their Ontario marriage would be recognized.

The Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, wanted to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized in Alberta, but eventually admitted that the province's chances of doing so were slim to none, and said Alberta would obey the legislation. (The Globe and Mail) See Same-sex marriage in Alberta. By contrast, the other remaining province without SSM, Prince Edward Island, announced that it would voluntarily bring its laws into compliance with the federal legislation.

Immigration

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) acknowledges same-sex marriages contracted in Canada between immigration applicants and Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Canadians may also sponsor their same-sex common-law or civil union partners for family-class immigration, provided they meet various requirements, including proof of legitimacy, and co-habitation for at least one year.

However, despite the passage of the Civil Marriage Act into law, the revised immigration policy (as of October 2005) still considers all same-sex marriages which took place outside Canada (e.g., The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain) to be invalid. For example, a Canadian citizen, legally married in The Netherlands to his same-sex Dutch partner, may not sponsor his Dutch partner for immigration as a spouse, despite the fact that both Dutch law and Canadian law make no distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriages, and despite the fact that CIC does recognise a Dutch opposite-sex marriage. See CIC

Military

Since September 2003, military chaplains have been allowed to bless same-sex unions and to perform these ceremonies on a military base.[8] The military have also granted spousal benefits to same-sex couples.[9]

On June 15, 2005, the first same-sex marriage in the Canadian military was announced, having been presided over in May by a United Church minister at CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia.[10]

Survivor benefits

On December 19, 2003, an Ontario court ruled that Canadians whose same-sex partners died after 1985 are entitled to survivor's benefits, though the federal government is appealing this decision.[11]

Same-sex divorce in Canada

With all the debate on same-sex marriage that has occurred in recent years in Canada, little attention has been given to the issue of same-sex divorce.

On September 13, 2004, a lesbian couple known as "M.M." and "J.H." in Ontario were granted Canada's first same-sex divorce. Their initial divorce application had been denied based on the fact that the federal Divorce Act defines spouse as "either of a man or a woman who are married to each other". However Madam Justice Ruth Mesbur of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the definition of "spouse" in the Divorce Act was unconstitutional; her reasons for the decision have yet to be released. [12] [13] [14]

In June 2005, a lesbian couple in British Columbia, whose names cannot be released, obtained a similar ruling. [15]

Bloc Québécois MP Richard Marceau, who has advocated in favour of same-sex marriage, requested that Justice Minister Irwin Cotler add a provision to the same-sex marriage bill altering the Divorce Act to permit same-sex divorce. Canoë (in French) Section 8 of the Civil Marriage Act amended the Divorce Act to permit same-sex divorce.

Acceptance among population

Opinion polls

Public opinion on same-sex marriage in Canada has fluctuated greatly in recent years. In 2001, only 30% of Canadians surveyed were said to support same-sex marriage.

On September 5, 2003, the NFO CF Group released the results of a survey that they had done on Canadian attitudes toward same-sex marriage during late August. 46% of respondents said they supported same-sex marriage while 46% said they did not.

File:March-of-hearts.jpg

A protest march on Parliament Hill in March 2004 in favour of same-sex marriage

In other 2003 polls, the percentage of support had risen to slightly over 50%, and two thirds of Canadians now believe that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This includes almost 40% of those who oppose the change in the definition of marriage. The debate in Canada is more about the use of the word marriage than about giving legal recognition to same-sex couples.

A February 2005 poll by the National Post and COMPAS showed that 68% were in favour of a referendum deciding the issue of same-sex marriage, and the population was split nearly evenly among the three main options of allowing the word "marriage" to apply irrespective of gender; allowing full legal rights to same-sex couples but reserving the name "marriage" for heterosexual couples (the "separate but equal" option); and extending no legal status at all to same-sex couples.

After Bill C-38 passed the House of Commons in June 2005, a poll taken by Strategic Counsel asked "Do you think Bill C-38 should stand or be repealed by the next government?" 54% of respondents said "Bill C-38 should stand" while 39% said "Bill C-38 should be repealed." [16][17]

In November 2005, a poll taken by Environics Research said 66% of Canadians considered the issue of same-sex marriage "settled and it's time to move on."[18] Another Environics poll taken January 2006 said 66% of Canadians were against bringing the issue of same-sex marriage back to Parliament.[19]

Pro and anti groups

Those who support or oppose the change in the definition of marriage can generally fall into distinct demographic groups. Supporters tend to be younger and live in urban areas. Opponents tend to be older and live in rural areas. The strongest support is concentrated in the largest metropolitan areas, particularly in and around the three largest urban areas of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The strongest opposition is found in the Prairie Provinces, the interior of British Columbia, much of southern Ontario outside the Greater Toronto Area and in southern and western New Brunswick.

Notable groups advocating in favour of same-sex marriage include Egale Canada, the United Church of Canada, and Unitarian Universalist congregations. Groups opposed include REAL Women of Canada, Canada Family Action Coalition and other religious organizations.

The Famous Players movie theatre chain received death threats after it allowed 15-second advertisements sponsored by Canadians for Equal Marriage, a pro–same-sex marriage group, to air in its theatres. A separate boycotting group believed the ads were free, and refused to air their own ad once they learned it was a paid advertisement. The theatre chain removed the ads in response to the threats.

Church and State

The survey shows that a strong majority of Canadians reject the idea that the churches have any role in what they see as a political, not religious, debate.

In July 2003, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Canada launched an attack against the Chrétien government's plans to change the definition of marriage. This is significant because Catholicism is the most popular religion in Canada with 43% of the population being followers. The church criticisms were accompanied by Vatican claims that Catholic politicians should vote according to their personal beliefs rather than the policy of the government.

Amid a subsequent backlash in opinion, the Church remained remarkably quiet on the subject, at least in public, until late 2004, when two Catholic bishops stated their opposition to same-sex marriage in no uncertain terms. The Bishop of Calgary, Frederick Henry, even called on the government to outlaw homosexuality altogether. [20] A human rights complaints was filed against Henry soon afterwards, using Section 319 (Hate Propaganda) section of the Criminal Code of Canada[21]

The largest Protestant denomination in the country, the United Church of Canada, offers church weddings to same-sex couples and is in favour of legalizing same-sex marriages, testifying to this effect during the cross-country Justice Committee hearings. Unitarian Universalist congregations have also supported same-sex marriages, as have the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), progressive Jewish congregations, the Metropolitan Community Church, and some parts of the Anglican Church.

In an incredibly rare move, the Hutterite Brethren spoke out against gay marriage [22]. The sect has historically not involved themselves with politics.

See also

• Gay rights in Canada
• Gay rights timeline
  • 2005 in gay rights
• Marriage in Canada
• Members of the 38th Parliament and same-sex marriage
• Religion in Canada

External links

• Egale Canada Inc.
• Canadians for Equal Marriage
• Same-Sex Marriage Canada
• Marriage Vote Canada
• Defend Marriage Canada
• Redefining Marriage? A Case for Caution Brief to the Parliamentary Justice Commitee
• CBC News Indepth: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada
• Full text of NFO CF Group survey (PDF)
• CTV news item
• Supreme Court OK's same-sex marriage