Canadian Gay Marriage Rulings Cannot Be Appealed Supreme Court Says

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/100903scocAppeal.htm

Court rulings in Ontario and British Columbia giving same-sex couples the right to marry cannot be appealed the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous decision a five-judge panel said that conservative religious and family groups could not challenge to the provincial decisions to the full court.

The Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario and the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family had hoped to appeal the rulings after the federal government refused to do so.



Whoo hoo!!!!! So happy for our Canadian brothers and sisters

[bushisanidiot]

1. It Is Sooooooo Tempting To Move To Canada Where People Are Truly Free

but we have so much work left to do here.

[J B]

2. Free until the Supreme Court rules.

In a constitutional case of this type, the elected government is not permitted to oppose the court.

EVER.

No constitutional amendments re: "human rights" provisions, simply interpretation by the courts and legislation to implement the rulings.

That's how it was designed, for better or worse.

When the Supreme Court rules, at least in this case, democratic input ends.

[Maple]

4. Because the Supreme Court

has to uphold the constitution that selfsame elected Parliament approved.

And the constitution says 'equality'

No exceptions.

[iverglas]

12. what the hell?

"In a constitutional case of this type,
the elected government is not permitted
to oppose the court.
EVER."

What abject, false nonsense is this?

Are you Canadian? Have you been reading too much National Post?

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Section 15 is the "equality rights" section under which the finding that denying marriage licences to gay/lesbian couples is an unconstitutional violation of rights was made.

Section 15 may be overridden by Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, any bloody time it wants.

This was the compromise reached back in 1982 to accommodate the historical tradition we call parliamentary supremacy -- that the elected Parliament gets the final word -- while at the same time stressing the profound importance of fundamental rights. If Parliament decides that there is some objective of great importance that requires that an equality right be denied, it must expressly say in the law that it passes that it is overriding the constitution.

Discussion of the notwithstanding clause is usually a tiresome damned if you do, damned if you don't back-and-forth. Those who want an equality right overridden, for whatever reason they may have, deplore the supposedly iron-clad nature of constitutional rights in Canada. Those who want to protray Canada's guarantees of rights as weak deplore the fact that Parliament may override the constitution. Overriding constitutional rights is a solemn matter, and must be treated as such if it is ever done.

And the discussion is really a great big yawn.

The equality rights set out in the constitution are the subject of a deep, broad consensus in Canadian society. No government in its right mind is going to propose to override them without demonstrating some urgent need that can't be met any other way.

But no government's hands are in any way tied. A simple majority of the House of Commons and Senate (or of a provincial legislature) can override equality rights, as long as it has the guts to do it.


"No constitutional amendments re: 'human rights' provisions,
simply interpretation by the courts and legislation to implement
the rulings."

Try reading the constitution. It contains amending formulas. Why would you say something like this?


"When the Supreme Court rules, at least in this case,
democratic input ends."

The Canadian form of government is not just "democratic"; Canada is a liberal democracy, one that recognizes and protects minorities against that old tyranny of the majority. Again: read that 1982 constitution, and the 1867 one while you're at it. Canada very existence is founded on the recognition of minority rights.


Do I suspect that you may have some problem with this notion? Or maybe only when it is applied in order to protect someone else?

.

[Sephirstein]

13. Many opponents of same-sex marriage don't even want to invoke Section 33..

And quite frankly, I don't blame them.

Currently, it's associated with fascist language laws and union-busting...Not exactly positive imagery, especially considering that social conservatives despise separashits even more than I do in general.

[iverglas]

17. and in point of fact

The exercise of rights can be interfered with without invoking 33. It happens every minute of the day.

People have the right to liberty, yet we lock them up when they're convicted of crimes. People have free speech, yet we lock them up when they commit perjury or cause disturbances.

If the govt. can demonstrate that its objective is sufficiently compelling and can't be achieved any other way, and that the interference with rights is not disproportionate to that objective, it may interfere with rights. Same as in the US, under its own similar rules of constitutional scrutiny.

In Canada, the rule is in the constitution, and the Supreme Court has developed tests for scrutiny under the rule:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

If the bigots and fascists want the govt. to defeat same-sex marriage without invoking 33, all they gotta do is persuade the court that denying equality in this respect is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" -- just like the govt. would have to persuade the court of that for any other discriminatory legislation it wanted to implement if it didn't have the guts to invoke 33.

Me, I haven't been hearing much demonstration or justification. Just a whole lot o' bashing and whining and dishonest fear-mongering.

.

[Spazito]

3. Wow! I am SO proud right now!

Take that Ralphy Boy and stuff it up your butt! (Ralphy Boy is the premier of Alberta, and has a habit of making noxious, grunting noises on this issue!

[David__77]

5. I hope Canada moves quickly on this matter.

The sooner this thing is set in stone the better for us in the US too. I want an example of freedom on the northern border. We can point to this as an example of why people needn't fear gay/lesbian equality.

[Maple]

7. I do too, but

it's difficult moving past our opposition while we're being beaten over the head with trade sanctions and insults etc.

80% plus of our trade is with the US, and of course there is the common border.... and the current US govt has made it very plain they do not like or approve the direction we're going in regarding Iraq, pot or gay rights.

[Spazito]

9. Ahhh, but we are the 2nd biggest exporters of oil to the US, they need us.

so I don't take Bush's threats to much too heart.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

15. 2nd biggest? Really?

I didn't know that.

Does that include the "free" oil they're mooching out of our territory in the Arctic because we don't have a naval presence to defend it? If not, it's quite possible we're actually their biggest supplier.

[Selwynn]

6. Why do I even waste time with this country (US)?

And before you get upset, I'm being serious...

Why oh why do I even bother in the fact of the absolute insane ignorance going on in this country...

I must confess there is a part of me that would greatly like to move to canada and never look back. Sorry if that's unpopular, but that's how I feel sometimes.

[arwalden]

8. Oh... You're Not Alone... No Apology Necessary.

The christian fundamentalists who are in control of this country politically are the biggest thorn in the side of everything that's right and fair.

I'd consider leaving to Canada as well.

I'd consider New Zealand too.

-- Allen

[thebaghwan]

10. Only 120 miles to freedom

From where I live it is only 120 miles to Vancouver B.C. Mvy swife and I are sorrily tempted to leave but there is still work to be done here.

I guess I don't understand why there are not more demonstrations against Bush. I lost my job, next week we find out if my wife looses here job. My brother already knows he is losing his job at the end of the year. Why aren't there people out there demonstrating for jobs???? We need to bring the real face of the economic and civil rights struggle center stage in front of the American people!!!

[TrogL]

14. There's little work in BC

I was talking to some people while I visited there and jobs are tight, including in IT. My father-in-law is imminently qualified in business and he can't find anything except basically door-to-door insurance.

If you are serious about moving to Canada, go to the immigration website (google, I'm busy right now) and read the rules. They've just been slackened off a bit, but you still need a job offer, cash and other stuff.

[reprobate]

11. Selwyn, my wife and I would move too in a minute, but.......

.....for a boy from florida that would be a traumatic change. I love the idea of a democracy, cause I'm old enough to remember when we had one here, in the times before raygun.

The only thing stopping us is the climate. It would take years to acclimate and my wife says she'd move as long as we never got beyond the length of an extension cord for the electric blanket she'd have to wrap in 24/7.

[Minstrel Boy]

18. Don't worry about too much about the cold; global warming

seems to be lengthening our summers. (Unfortunately, that's something to really worry about!)

I'd love to welcome another wave of progressive, dissenting Americans. You guys gave our left a shot in the arm in the '60s.

[iverglas]

16. it's those strange bedfellows again

"The Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario and the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family had hoped to appeal the rulings after the federal government refused to do so."

Ah, the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family. Sounds so ecumenical, so progressive.

http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/tfn/2003/070803.html

In a parallel move, the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family - comprising the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops - announced that it too will ask the Supreme Court for leave - or permission - to appeal the Ontario ruling.

Oops.



("Leave to appeal" is what Canadians seek from the Supreme Court, where USAmericans would seek certiorari from theirs.)

.

[TrogL]

19. How Ralphie is going to get around it

He's going to refuse to grant licenses.

The workaround - Federally issues licenses.