37 years from pariah to citizen

[jawnbc]

December 9, 1967: Justice Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, in announcing plans to decriminalize homosexuality, asserts "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

December 9, 2004: The Supreme Court of Canada rules in favour of same-sex marriage, and asserts "the word 'marriage' in does not exclude same-sex marriage."

37 years, less than 4 decades.

Next stop: (trans)gender equality

Comments

[wonderboynj.livejournal.com]

Wow, I was even in Canada today!

What an amazing day to be there!

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

Yay Canada!!

[danthered.livejournal.com]

Yeahwell, don't let's get all celebratory just yet. Already opposition groups like EMC ("Enshrine Marriage Canada") are organising and fundraising to get Marriage defined Federally as "The union of one man and one woman".

[aadroma.livejournal.com]

... which would really question why it's taking us so fucking long to get to that same point.

[poohbearjim.livejournal.com]

And it happened on my birthday! Yay!

[jawnbc]

You've not lived in Canada long enough to realize there is no chance of their getting to anything about it. They have no standing in the case, and in Parliament the support of 80% of the Bloc, 90% of the NDP and 50% of the Liberals (plus the odd Conservative) means it'll be fine.

The only way to amend Canada's Constitution is for the government to bring in legislation first. This one won't. And if the Conservatives get in and try to do it, it won't stand the constitutional test (as outlined in today's ruling).

It's ironclad, just a matter of timing.

So I am all celebratory.

[danthered.livejournal.com]

For real? You sure? I'm sure you're right and everything, but it's difficult to unlearn the conditioning that comes from growing up in a reactionary, backwards, fearful country where being gay is still all but criminal.

[jawnbc]

You betcha. It all comes down to:

Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Acknowleding complexity while keeping principles at the fore

We're good, we're safe. Even if we lost the Commons vote, the courts would rule the law unconstitutional due to the lower court rulings.

[jawnbc]

And I know what you mean, it takes a while to both remember that Canada's different, and to adjust to the US when you go back from time to time.

[jawnbc]

It all happened because of you! Thanks!

[jawnbc]

And we're glad you came! Over, I mean!

[jawnbc]

Yea Massachusetts (Morman arsefooked guv'nor aside)!

[danthered.livejournal.com]

You wuz saying...?

[jawnbc]

Waddya mean?

[danthered.livejournal.com]

I mean, it's looking more and more like the uncertain...maybe...sometime...eventually...with restrictions and asterisks and conditions that I saw much earlier in this thread, and less and less like the the slam-dunk E-Z pass you saw!

[jawnbc]

Not at all. Why would you think that? The most that could happen in Parliament is a delay until Sept/October.

Even if the government fell, the Tories got in (won't happen under harper), and they brought in a law that rescinded it, the courts would rule the law unconstitutional.

The only new thing I've seen is possibly allowing civil servants to decline to perform same-sex marriages if their faith deems such unions to be unacceptable. If that is added it won't stand the constitutional test either. Court precedent says that civil servants cannot deny access to civil entitlements for any reason, including their personal beliefs: either they provide the service or lose that job.

For the record, I never said it was a slam dunk; I said it was inevitable. I stand by that.

[danthered.livejournal.com]

I donno. Seems to me as though there's a lot of time between now and Sep/Oct.

Civil servants being allowed to decline to perform SSM is just what I was talking about with the conditions/exceptions/restrictions/asterisks thing. This (http://www.3dgameman.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36920) does not make it look like a "possibly", but rather like a "definitely".

[jawnbc]

Whomever posted that edited it--purposely and inaccurately it seems. the 4 bulleted items were discussed, not agreed to.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118143795876_12/?hub=TopStories

Already Manitoba and BC have made it clear that civil celebrants (those paid by the province) must perform same-sex marriages if the applicants meet the requirements.