A rchive Date
[ 08-07-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/05/02/78045-cp.html
Groups plan to fight same-sex ruling
By JIM BROWN
Mon, July 7, 2003
OTTAWA (CP) - Religious and family groups opposed to same-sex marriage want to take their case to the Supreme Court of Canada, a move that could complicate the federal government's plan to legalize gay and lesbian unions.
"The federal government has abdicated its leadership role," Derek Rogusky of Focus on the Family, a conservative lobby group, told a news conference Monday. "This matter has far-reaching consequences nationwide, and the nation's highest court should be permitted to consider the fundamental issues."
The current debate was sparked by an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that struck down the traditional definition of marriage as a union between man and woman, thus opening the way for same-sex partners to wed.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced last month that Ottawa would not appeal the judgment.
Instead, federal lawyers have been drafting a new law that will be referred to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on whether it conforms to the Charter of Rights.
Sources say the legislation - which could be sent to the high court by Justice Minister Martin Cauchon before the end of this week - will accept the reasoning of the Ontario court and legalize same-sex marriage across the country.
The impact would be confined, however, to the sphere of civil law. Churches would remain free to decide whether or not to solemnize same-sex vows for religious purposes.
Ottawa is also expected to ask the high court for a ruling on whether the legal definition of marriage lies solely within federal jurisdiction.
A federal victory on that question would head off threats by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein to override the Charter of Rights and use provincial law to continue restricting marriage to heterosexual partners.
Many opponents of gay marriage contend the legal issues framed by federal lawyers are too narrow.
"This is a very limited action," said Gwen Landolt of Real Women of Canada. "It is not settling the matter at all."
Focus on the Family, Real Women and the Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario want the Supreme Court to broaden its horizon and consider additional legal arguments.
So does the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage, a collection of Roman Catholic, evangelical Protestant and Islamic organizations opposed to gay marriage.
"We are dismayed that the Ontario Court of Appeal would declare heterosexual marriage - an institution which has served humankind for millennia - is unconstitutional," said Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
"No court in the world, outside of Canada, has ruled that the recognition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates human rights norms."
The groups plan to ask the Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Ontario judgment - in effect opening a second judicial track that would be separate from the government reference.
The Canadian Alliance supports the coalition's move to intervene in the case, Vic Toews, the party's justice critic, said Monday. "We in the Canadian Alliance support the Interfaith Coalition's application to seek leave to appeal the decision, because we stand behind our words of 1999, when we voted, along with the government, to take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage," Toews said in a release. "That includes an appeal of this decision to the Supreme Court."
Legal experts say it would be unusual, but not unprecedented, for the high court to allow an outside intervenor to appeal the judgment when the government has already decided not to do so.
There's no question the move, if successful, would change the nature of the case, said Eugene Meehan, an Ottawa lawyer and veteran Supreme Court watcher.
"It could be a much broader and more direct question - is gay marriage in Canada constitutional or not," said Meehan. By contrast, if the government has its way the ruling will likely centre on one particular policy option. Meehan said it's possible the Supreme Court could wrap the two requests together, hear arguments from all parties, and issue a single sweeping decision.
No matter what happens in court, legislative action remains months away.
Chretien and Cauchon have said that once the Supreme Court rules - a process that could take up to six months - the matter will go back to the House of Commons for further debate and a free vote in which MPs won't be bound by party discipline.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|