Legal marriage for homosexuals?????

I have just herd this in the news today. The supreme court of Ontario has passed a bill that allows homosexuals to be leagaly married in Ontario. Also a gay couple were married in Toronto five hours after the bill was passed leagally.

In my own opinion this is not something that should be happening. I know this is Canada and we are ALL entilted to our freedoms, but has it gone to far now???

Please shed some light on this topic to me. Maybe then I can figure out WHY!!!!! Or worse yet how.

My take is that they are not "MARRIED" in the true sense, but are recognised as a couple for pension and other purposes... I hope they arent married. But thats the way I was brought up..

http://www.630ched.com/news/detail.cfm? ... =n0610132A

Ontario Appeal Court deems same-sex marriages a protected right
at 22:03 on June 10, 2003, EST.
CASSANDRA SZKLARSKI
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 reactions in other provinces, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein said his province remained opposed to same-sex marriages.

"The law in Alberta is very clear," Klein said. "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."

The notwithstanding clause allows Parliament or a legislature to make a law exempt from certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for five years.

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 ruling was met with opposition by some groups in Ontario.

"We're really disappointed, particularly because the courts here have ruled that this decision has to take place immediately and we think that's really usurping the role of our elected officials," said Derek Rogusky of the group Focus on the Family.

Gwendolyn Landolt of the group Real Women of Canada said the court imposed its own vision of the country.

"They managed to set aside a definition of marriage that transcends history, culture, time and reach their own determination," she 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.

I have no problem at all with same sex marriages, and i think in Canada it should be allowd, its there right as Canadians. But i was brought up in a different times.

I don't understand the controversy. I want to know why the government is involved a religious rite at all...if you tell them you're married, they should just accept it.

WHAT I REALLY WANT TO KNOW , IS WHAT IS THE POINT??? SO YOUR PROUD TO BE "FEMININE", YEE HAW, NOW SHUDDUP AND SIT DOWN, AND WHAT IS REALLY NUTZ, IS THE AMERICANS COMING HERE TO GET HITCHED, JUST TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT NOT ONLY WONT RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGE, BUT IT CANNOT DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE, EITHER, ONE OR BOTH PARTNERS MUST HAVE LIVED HERE FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR TO DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE, SO HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Y DO THEY MAKE IT SO EASY TO GET INTO BUT NOT OUTTA.... THOSE FLAILERS, WILL BE STUCK AND TOOOOO DAM BAD

Well, I have no problem with people having same sex marriages....that's none of my business but here in Alberta, Ralph Klein and Bill Smith here in Edmonton have a serious problem with it.

Last month Bill smith actually allowed the Gay pride parade to actually go through but he wasn't going to at first...

I guess alberta will be known as the "homo-phobic" province of canada

What do you mean; will be???

I just wish Ontario would be too...

Marriage, I believe, is strictley a religious matter. The government has no right to define marriage. Seperation of church and state works both ways.

Let them be known as a couple sure... but marriage is a bond between a Man and a woman, thats how I see it.. But I dontb have a problem with same sex couples being considered a couple for pension and other benefits tax, medical, estates etc..

That's called "being married," RH.

The legislation the government sent to the Supreme Court to be checked out specifically says that Churches do not have to perform same-sex marriages, so the religious vs civil and separation of church and state arguments do not apply to this issue.

Let me ask you this question, polemarch:

Just how, exactly, does it harm one little hair on your head? How does it hurt you or your family? How has your safety been threatened by gay marriage?

Oh, or maybe you just dont like it?