LeGaLE’s International News

This is not an attempt to cover all overseas news items, but rather is a selection of some of the key items of particular interest or relevance to us here in New Zealand.

There may be other events about which I have gathered information and I am more than happy to forward by e-mail copies of any news items that I have in my files, but which I have not posted here.

Please note that I am currently preparing a long-overdue update of this page and the rest of this site - there will be more information provided over the next short while ...

Supreme Judicial Court Rules Civil Unions Aren't Enough, Same-Sex Couples Entitled To Marriage

The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

Click here for a complete article on this decision.

Associated Press

4 February 2004

Supreme Judicial Court Rules Civil Unions Aren't Enough, Same-Sex Couples Entitled To Marriage
By Jennifer Peter

BOSTON -- The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. The bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, is makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory
status for same-sex couples."

The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits -- but not the title of marriage -- would meet constitutional muster.

The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers -- and advocates on both side of the issue -- uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.

President Bush immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry.

And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- thus expressly making same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts.

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006.

What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex.

Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.

Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to the court's ruling -- or if actual marriages were required.

When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.

The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.

The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding
and cherished institutions."

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent

http://www.glad.org/marriage/SJC_Advisory_Opinion_020404.shtml

Same-Sex Marriage In Court: Couples Seek Benefits, Rights – Boston Globe

Finns Celebrate First Gay Weddings On Women's Day – Reuters

Sweden's Parliament To Decide On Gay Adoption – Reuters

Gay Partnerships Legalised In Finland – Ananova

Belgium Approves Gay Marriage
By Jon ben Asher

Brussels - Belgium has become the second country in the world to give gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Parliament passed the legislation Thursday joining neighboring Holland in abolishing laws which prevented gay marriage. But, unlike Holland, gay couples in Belgium will not be allowed to adopt.

The bill passed 91-22 in the Chamber of Deputies. It passed the Senate last year.

"It makes it clear that any enduring and loving relationship is appreciated in the same way in our modern society," said Kristien Grauwels, a Green party member in the ruling coalition.

A dozen gays and lesbians held hands in the visitors gallery as the chamber voted.

Grauwels said she was disappointed the parties would not back the approval of adoptions for such couples. "It still was a step too far for several parties" in this country, which has a long Roman Catholic tradition, she said.

The law will come into effect once it is signed by the King and published. That should take about four months.

Belgium already was one of several European countries, including Denmark, Hungary, France and Portugal, which have laws recognizing same-sex unions and granting legal, tax and property rights.

Under the new law at least one partner must be a Belgian citizen. Couples who do marry and go abroad could face having their marriage not recognized. New York City is the only area outside of Belgium ad Holland that will recognize a gay marriage from another jurisdiction. New York City also recognizes civil unions from other areas even though the state does not.

Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network
30 January 2003

Belgium Approves Same-Sex Marriage

On Thursday [30 January 2003], Belgium became the second country in the world -- after the Netherlands -- to legally recognize gay marriages.

According to the Associated Press, lawmakers in the House of Representatives approved the measure by a 91-22 vote, after the bill had already passed in the Senate.

"It makes it clear that any enduring and loving relationship is appreciated in the same way in our modern society," said Kristien Grauwels, a Green Party member in the ruling coalition.

The new law, unlike its counterpart in the Netherlands, does not allow same-sex married couples to adopt children.
"It still was a step too far for several parties," Grauwels said, referring to the other political groups in the government coalition.

Like other European nations, Belgium had already granted limited legal protections to same-sex unions, including tax and property rights. The new law's expansion of those rights was celebrated as a "breakthrough" by many.

And We Can Get Married

Thursday evening at 9.15 pm the Chamber definitely approved gay marriage. This had already happened in the Senate.

Because of the new law, gays and lesbians will have the same rights as married people of different sex. For them also there will also be community of property and the obligation of mutual assistance.

Only the adoption of children will not be allowed for gay and lesbian couples. About 100 gays and lesbians had come to the Chamber to witness the vote. After the Netherlands, Belgium will be the second country in the world that recognises marriages between gays and lesbians. Source. Vrt Teletekst (Flemish Commercial Television.)

The Holebifederatie is very pleased with the approval of the bill on the opening of (civil) marriage for couples of the same sex. This marks an important moment in the history of the gay, lesbian and bi-sexual movement. It makes Belgium the second country in the world to decisively choose for equal treatment of same-sex couples. This is an important step in the legal equal treatment in matters of inheritance, taxes and social security. But most of all the approval of this bill is an enormous step in society's acceptance that same-sex couples are equal.

The Holebifederatie thanks the politicians who supported her to achieve this. The Holebifederatie regrets that a veto made it impossible to enter talks about regulations of parenthood for same-sex couples. We count on the fact that this discussion will soon start as a number of political parties already have proposed bills that offer possible solutions.

Furthermore the Holebifederatie regrets the fact that the approved bill does only allow marriage between Belgians or between Belgians and people from countries where a marriage of same-sex couples is also allowed, which for the time being would only be the Netherlands. The Netherlands chose for another option, there everybody that has a permanent residence in the country can marry according to Netherlands Law, also foreigners.

Source: Holebi Federatie.

Belgian Gays: Children First, Then Marriage
By our correspondent Joris van Poppel

The first I-do will take another four months, but Anke Hintjes of the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexuals Federation will party tonight. After four years of struggle Belgian Parliament will approve gay marriage this afternoon. Belgian "holebi's" as homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals call themselves, can hardly wait. Some even went to the Netherlands to get married. Gay marriage, announced four years ago, has proven to be tough business for the Belgian government of green and left-wing parties. Especially people from the French speaking Walloon provinces were opposed.

"They absolutely didn't want to know about it" says parliament member for the green party Kristien Grauwels. "Only because it was put in the coalition agreement in 1999, they had to approve. Reluctantly."

The Flemish (Dutch speaking) parties, except for the ultra-conservative Flemish Block, on the other hand, applaud the opening of marriage with great enthusiasm. A difference in tradition, calls Anke Hintjes of the Holebi-Federation this. Where in Dutch speaking provinces you see posters in schools to make homosexuality debatable, in the French speaking provinces there is still a big taboo on this subject.

Even Elio DiRupo, the flamboyant gay front man of the Walloon socialists, has hardly spoken in the discussions of equal rights for gays. "In Flanders people are troubled by foreigners", says Grauwels, "in the Walloon provinces by homosexuals."

To get the French speaking parties this far, the Flemish, Dutch speaking parties had to make important concessions. The adoption of children is a definite no-no for married same-sex couples. Unlike in the Netherlands, adoption is strictly forbidden. "For the French speaking parties marriage was already actually a bridge too far, not to mention adoption" says Grauwels. "They threatened to be in the way for the opening of marriage altogether if adoption would be made possible."

The Holebi-Federation is still pleased about the new law. "The symbolic value is huge", according to Hintjes. "And marriage and parenthood are two different things. If we got one, the other may still be possible."

Moreover, the Flemish gay-movement has found a creative solution. "We advise our people to adopt children first, and to get married afterwards", says Hintjes. "Because that is allowed."

The Law has another oddity: gays may not marry foreigners, except citizens from the Netherlands. Belgian Law dictates that foreigners stick to the rules of their native country. And even though Scandinavian countries and Germany know registered partnerships, only Belgian and Netherlands "holebi's" may lawfully give their promises.

Parliamentary Vote Turns Belgium Into Second Country To Approve Gay Marriage

BRUSSELS (AP) - Belgium became the second country in the world to officially recognize gay marriages when parliament backed the move with a large majority on Thursday.

The Netherlands approved same-sex marriages two years ago but, unlike its northern neighbour, Belgium did not go as far to allow such couples to adopt children. The principle of approving gay marriages was already a breakthrough in itself.

"It makes it clear that any enduring and loving relationship is appreciated in the same way in our modern society," said Kristien Grauwels, a Green party member in the ruling coalition.

In the House of Representatives, the bill prevailed in a 91-22 vote with nine abstentions, with the opposition Christian democrat CdH and the extreme right Vlaams Blok voting against. The bill was already approved by the Senate.

Belgium already was one of several European countries, including Denmark, Hungary, France and Portugal, which have laws recognizing same-sex unions and granting legal, tax and property rights.

Grauwels was disappointed the parties would not back the approval of adoptions for such couples. "It still was a step too far for several parties" in this country, which has a long Roman Catholic tradition, she said.

In the Netherlands, one in every 13 same-sex couples, mostly women, have by now adopted children.
During the public debate and vote, dozen of lesbian and homosexual couples attended the proceedings, some holding hands as the legislators approved the breakthrough legislation.

Because of international legal constraints it will be tough for Belgians to enter same-sex marriages with foreigners, since only the Netherlands now has a similar system in place.

But even Belgian same-sex couples wanting to live abroad could well encounter difficulties, warned Justice Minister Marc Verwilghen.

The first such marriages will only be concluded four months after the publication in Belgium's official journal.

The law was years in the making and even had to overcome criticism of the country's top administrative court, which ruled that the concept of marriage legally represented "union between a man and woman."

The government parties decided the ignore the legal advice and proceeded with the bill nevertheless.

Gays Adoption

Homosexual couples in this country could soon be allowed to adopt children. The country's two largest parties, the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, have both said that they are ready to discuss a proposal by the Social Liberal Party that would give gay couples the same rights as heterosexuals. 'We're in a dilemma, because the only arguments against allowing homosexuals to adopt are emotional, and I can't stand up in Parliament and argue about emotions, says the Liberal Party's Irene Simonsen.

Belgian Senate Approves Gay Marriage Bill
Jon ben Asher - European Bureau Chief

Brussels - Belgium has moved closer to becoming the second country in the world to permit gay marriage. The senate approved legislation Thursday to recognize gay and lesbian marriage, but not to permit adoption.

The bill was approved by 46 votes in favor and 15 against. Four senators abstained. It still must be approved by the lower house.

The legislation recognizes gay marriage in the areas of inheritance and pensions.

The bill has the support of Belgium's Rainbow Coalition.

"Mentalities have changed. There is no longer any reason not to open marriage to people of the same sex," Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said last year, when he first launched the proposal.

The Dutch parliament passed a gay and lesbian marriage law in 2000, although it only applies to Dutch nationals or people who have a residence permit in the Netherlands.

The Belgian bill would open marriage up to anyone, whether or not they are citizens.

Belgium Bill To Grant Gay Marriage Gains Approval

Brussels - Belgium is positioned to become the second country in the world to legalize gay marriage.

The Senate's Justice Commission voted Wednesday 11-4 in favor of a bill ending the country's ban on gays and lesbians from marrying.

The only other country which permits gay marriage is neighboring Holland.

''This proposal will put right what many homosexuals view as discrimination -- the ban on marriage until now,'' Green Senator Josy Dubie told Belgian radio Wednesday.

The bill must still be passed by both houses of Parliament. Three parties oppose the legislation, the Francophone Liberals, the Vlaams Blok and the Francophone Christian Democrats, but most political observers say the bill has enough support to pass.

Although the Netherlands has recognized registered gay partnerships since 1998, it only passed laws allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children in December 2000.

Definition Of Marriage Discriminatory: Quebec Must Register Gay, Lesbian Marriages, Judge Rules
By Nelson Wyatt

Montreal - The opposite-sex definition of marriage is discriminatory and unjustified under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled in a landmark decision rendered late Friday.

Justice Louise Lemelin echoed an Ontario court ruling in July that said that province's government had to register gay and lesbian marriages. Ontario Superior Court suspended that ruling for two years to give the federal government time to redefine the term marriage.

"The court has ... sent the message loud and clear to Parliament: stop discriminating against same-sex couples and respect the Constitution," said John Fisher of the gay-rights lobby group Egale Canada, in a statement. "We call on Parliament to act now in accordance with the court's decision and allow same-sex couples to marry. How long must Canadians in same-sex relationships wait for equality?"

Lemelin's ruling recognized that the 30-year relationship between plaintiffs Michael Hendricks and Rene LeBoeuf was already a marriage in everything but name. Lawyers for the Montreal couple had argued that only their sexual orientation had caused them to be given different treatment under the law when it came to marriage.

Catholic and Protestant lobby groups argued that redefining marriage would threaten the institution and said it was clear that the architects of the Constitution intended the union to be between men and women.

But after reviewing jurisprudence pertaining to marriage and common law unions, as well as recent efforts to expand conjugal rights for gays and lesbians, Lemelin found that "the definition of marriage imposes a discriminatory distinction in excluding couples of the same sex." She said that it would be simple to modify the wording of the Charter from saying marriage is between "a man and a woman" to read "between two persons." But she left no doubt legislators would have to address the issue. "The state has the benefit of mechanisms for consultation and diverse methods of easing the dialogue among Canadians," she said. "It can solicit expertise to illuminate (the issue). Legislators must judge the impact of the changes in respect to social, religious and cultural values to better respond to needs." Lemelin said she approved of the Ontario court's decision to give the government two years to act and said "the court prefers to leave the initiative to the legislators."

Last May, Quebec Justice Minister Paul Begin tabled a draft bill eliminating the heterosexual wording from the definition of marriage and allowing same-sex partnerships in civil unions, a special status just short of wedlock. Unlike marriages, which fall under federal jurisdiction, civil unions are a provincial responsibility.

A British Columbia judge ruled last October that while Canada discriminates against same-sex couples by refusing to allow them to marry, it is justified under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Law Commission of Canada, in a study released in January, said restrictions on same-sex marriage are discriminatory and should be removed.

Two years ago, Parliament revised several laws to ensure same-sex couples have the same benefits and obligations as other common-law couples, but it excluded same-sex couples from legal marriage. Many MPs continue to support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

If Quebec's legislation is passed, it will join Nova Scotia as the only provinces to recognize civil unions for gays and lesbians, though not marriage. Gay couples can adopt children in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta.

In a court proceeding last year, lawyers representing the federal government argued that if same-sex weddings are permitted, marriage as it is now known would be gone.

Same-Sex Marriage Heading To Court: ICLU, 6 Plaintiffs Plan To Sue To Demand Right To Wed In Indiana, The First Such Suit In State
By Matthew Tully

Three local homosexual couples are expected to file a lawsuit today demanding the right to marry here, making Indiana the latest battleground in the fight over same-sex marriages. "We just want to be treated like any other couple," said Teresa Stephens, 45, of Indianapolis. "We expect to spend the rest of our lives together."

Stephens and Ruth Morrison, 42, are among the six plaintiffs filing the suit - which names Gov. Frank O'Bannon and the clerks of Marion and Hendricks counties as defendants. County clerks issue marriage licenses.

The couples already have traveled to Vermont to enter into civil unions, which provide the same rights, benefits and responsibilities given to heterosexual couples there but don't carry any legal standing in Indiana or other states. Legal standing is exactly what is being sought with the lawsuit. It's about things like hospital visitation rights, legal standing when one partner dies and health care benefits for domestic partners.

The legal fight, the first of its kind in Indiana, will be the most recent in a battle that has played out over the past decade. Leading Indiana conservatives criticized the lawsuit, and gay rights advocates acknowledge the effort is a long shot. "A family is a man and a woman, and that is a bedrock of society and of our culture. It should remain that way," said Eric Miller, founder of Advance America and a likely Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2004.

On Wednesday, after she and other plaintiffs involved in the suit met with their lawyers at the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Stephens admitted the chances of winning the court case are slim.

But, she said, it's worth the fight.

It's an issue that doesn't draw nearly as many headlines as it did two years ago, after Vermont passed a same-sex civil unions law, or in the 1990s, when Indiana joined more than 30 other states and Congress in passing "defense of marriage" laws.

Indiana's 1997 law prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages "solemnized" in other states. State law already had banned same-sex marriage.

But the emotion connected to the issue has not died down.

"Once you define marriage as something beyond a man and woman, there's no logical stopping point," said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association. "What about three men? What about two men and a woman?"

State Rep. Woody Burton, R-Greenwood, who authored Indiana's law, said he will seek further legislation if the lawsuit succeeds. "The relationship between a man and a woman as a man and wife has been the standard since this country was founded," he said.

Gay rights advocates, pointing to a large number of domestic partner ordinances passed around the country, say the national mood is swinging their way. Recent polls, however, disagree. A 2001 poll sponsored by the Pew Center for People and the Press found that only 35 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriages.
Brian Vargus, director of Indiana University's Public Opinion Laboratory, said the public is more evenly split when the question is whether same-sex couples should receive the same benefits as married couples. The word marriage, he said, inspires strong emotions. "When you're dealing with values, and in this case religious values, they are among the deepest and strongest commitments that people have," he said.

Stephens and Morrison, who have been together more than four years, say they already have lives similar to many married couples. They built a home together and share the same bills. They have a joint bank account.

They love each other.

They want to be married.

So lawyers will walk into Marion County Superior Court this morning and file the lawsuit on behalf of Stephens and Morrison and two other couples. With the filing, Indiana will join New Jersey and Massachusetts as states heading to court for refusing to bend from the age-old standard that marriage be limited to couples of the opposite sex. Sean Lemieux, an attorney at the ICLU, which is paying for the suit, said the case will take a long time to play out because one side or the other undoubtedly will appeal lower court decisions.

"We're in it for the long haul," he said.

The other couples filing the lawsuit are:
** David Wene, 46, and David Squire, 36. The two Indianapolis men, who entered into a civil union in Vermont on Dec. 13, 2000, have been together for more than four years. They met at Jesus Metropolitan Community Church in Indianapolis, where both are active members.
** Charlotte Egler, 30, and Dawn Egler, 27, of Hendricks County. They had a civil union ceremony July 5, 2000, in Vermont and have been together for more than five years. This May, their son, Drew, was born from Dawn's egg, fertilized with donated sperm that was then implanted in Charlotte's womb. The young boy is one of the main reasons the two women joined the case. Dawn has so far been unable to get her name on the birth certificate, and the couple had to go to court to make sure Dawn would have custody of their son if something happened to Charlotte.
"What we would like to see is legal recognition of us, and others like us as being family and having the same protections and rights as anyone else," said Charlotte Egler.

Ottawa Seeks Appeal On Same-Sex Ruling
By Allison Dunfield

The lawyer for eight Ontario same-sex couples says she will carry the fight for legalized homosexual marriages to the Supreme Court of Canada after the federal government announced it would seek leave to appeal an Ontario court ruling which would have paved the way for such unions.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Monday that his department must challenge the July 12 ruling to be unconstitutional because it allows only opposite-sex unions.

"There is no consensus, either from the courts of among Canadians, on whether or how the laws require change," Mr. Cauchon said in a statement.

"The government believes it is the responsible course to seek further clarity on these issues."
The federal government is ultimately responsible for defining marriage in Canada.

Martha McCarthy, lawyer for high-profile Toronto couple Michael Leshner and Michael Stark - who tried and failed to get a marriage license from the city last week - said the government is purposely dragging its feet. "It is time for the government to stop fighting and pass legislation ... There are no issues to study," Ms. McCarthy told a Toronto press conference on Monday.

"Same-sex marriage is inevitable. The only question is when. Our clients say now," Ms. McCarthy, who also represents seven other same-sex couples in Toronto, said.

Gays and lesbians have already been granted spousal status across the country through other legislation, she said.
"Marriage is virtually the only right that is still withheld," Ms. McCarthy said.

Ottawa has two choices, Ms. McCarthy said. Either introduce legislation immediately which would allow same-sex marriages, or continue on with litigation, spending perhaps "tens of millions" of taxpayers' money.
"We are here for the long haul if that's what the government wants," she said.

On July 12, an Ontario court ruled that the prohibition against legally sanctioned gay and lesbian unions is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The ruling was cheered by gay and lesbian rights activists, who for years had argued that they should be given the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples. The decision gave Parliament two years in which to produce a new designation that includes same-sex couples.

The three Ontario Superior Court judges, who determined that the present definition of marriage violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, said they suspended their ruling for this period to give members of Parliament the necessary time to consider a new definition that better reflects Canadian values.

Ms. McCarthy told globeandmail.com last week that she fully expected the federal government to launch a leave to appeal.

She was also disappointed that the city of Toronto denied her clients, Mr. Leshner and Mr. Stark, a marriage license last week. Ms. McCarthy said that the city clerk was advised by the city's legal counsel that she was not obligated to issue the license until the expiry of the 24 month period or the absence of an appeal. "She played an apolitical role," Ms. McCarthy said.

Mr. Leshner told Monday's press conference that he and his partner planned to continue to fight. "This decision is a political decision that tries to marginalize gays and lesbians," Mr. Leshner said. He called on federal cabinet ministers, including Toronto-area MPs Allan Rock and Shelia Copps, to make a public stand. "I will continue from this day to call that [the Justice Department] the department of injustice," Mr. Leshner said.

Mr. Cauchon reportedly cancelled a scheduled press conference on the issue on Monday afternoon.

John Fisher, executive director of EGALE, a national organization that advocates for gays and lesbians, said Monday that the government's lack of action indicates an "abdication of responsibility."

But Opposition justice critic Vic Toews told globeandmail.com that Mr. Cauchon did the right thing as Justice Minister. "His responsibility is to uphold the decision of Parliament," Mr. Toews said. To simply abandon legislated jurisdiction in favour of the court would be wrong." He said it is Parliament's responsibility to uphold an obligation they made three years ago reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage.

It is a position that the Canadian Alliance agrees with, Mr. Toews said.

"Our party has adopted the definition as being one man, one woman to the exclusion of all others," he said. Mr. Toews said his office has been flooded with calls from people saying that the traditional definition should be upheld.
Ms. McCarthy's clients Joyce Barnett and partner Allison Kemper of Toronto said they were saddened by the federal government's decision.

"It dismays me to think - my parents aren't so young - how devastating it would be if they didn't get to dance at my wedding," Ms. Barnett said.

365Gay.com

27 July 2002

Rights Watchdog Tells Feds To Legalize Gay Marriage
By Ben Thompson - 365Gay.com National Editor

Ottawa - The Canadian Human Rights Commission is endorsing gay and lesbian marriage. The Commission called on Ottawa to "do what's right".

"There are many gay and lesbian Canadians living today in long-term committed relationships, caring for each other and raising families together. They are deserving of respect and dignity, including the recognition in law of their union," said Anne Adams, acting chief commissioner.

The Commission is the latest to endorse gay marriage, and follows a landmark court decision in Ontario that banning gays and lesbians from marrying violates the Canadian Constitution.

Time is running out for the federal government to appeal the ruling. The deadline is Monday night. So far the Chretien government has been silent on what it intends to do. If Ottawa decides not appeal, the court gave the federal government two years to amend the Marriage Act or gay marriage will become legal in Ontario.

The court ruling does not affect other provinces, and similar constitutional challenges are ongoing in British Columbia and Quebec. Unless parliament acts first, the issue is expected to wind up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Earlier this week, a survey conducted for the ruling Liberal Party of Canada, showed that public support for gay marriage is growing. In addition, the Law Commission of Canada, which advises the government on legal matters has also endorsed gay marriage.

Love Wins Over Hate!

Toronto - An historic judgement was delivered today at Osgoode Hall, when a decision from a three-justice panel was released which unanomously declared any restriction to same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The court gave the Canadian government up to 24 months to take legislative action to remedy the issue and declared that any remedy has to treat gays and lesbians with full equality. They declared an end to treating gay & lesbian families as second class.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/ontario_case/Decision.htm#july12

Love,

Kevin and Joe

************

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/ontario_case/Decision.htm#july12

12 July 2002

The Decision

It was with some trepidation that we mounted the steps of Osgoode Hall this morning at 9:00 am. We joined the line of lawyers and press people anxiously standing outside the office where the judgement that held the fate of the 10 Ontario couples would be distributed at 9:30.

The 130 page document was available at the appointed hour and there were a few seconds of scrambling for copies , followed by a racket of anxious page flipping as we all collectively held our breath. Soon however, Douglas Elliott, his hands shaking with emotion looked at us and beamed, "We won".

There were tears, hugs and as the lights of the media closed in, I fell into the arms of the man who now was legally recognized as my husband and cried!

After the first few moments of elation, we looked at the document and flipped through, seeing what remedy the courts had decided upon.

The courts have declared that any restrictions on same sex marriage are unconstitutional and that the legislatures of both the Province of Ontario and the federal government have up to 24 months to fix the problem. Any solution that is devised by the government MUST afford gay and lesbian couples the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples enjoy. No separate, but equal regimes! No second class status.

If at the end of 24 months, the governments have failed to act or if they have failed to act appropriately, the court has ruled that their inaction will be seen as a choice to allow the court to make the law and the court has crafted a law which would change the common law definition of marriage from:

"the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" to "the voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others".

This change would automatically occur.

As our smiles grew broader, we kept reading and with hearts melting and tears in our eyes, we saw in print the words that we had dreamt of hearing from our judiciary so many months ago:

I declare that the marriages of Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell and of Elaine Vautour and Anne Vautour are valid legal marriages. I order that the Registrar General is required to accept registration of the documents evidencing these two marriages.

And so on to London Pride, and a celebration of the victory of love ...

Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa

************

Egale Canada

12 July 2002

Halpern and MCCT v. Canada (A.G.)

Halpern v. Canada (A.G.) is a judicial review application seeking full and equal marriage for same sex couples.

ight same-sex couples applied for civil marriage licences from the City of Toronto over the summer of 2000. The City, unsure of its legal obligations, has held their applications in abeyance pending directions from the courts. The couples are represented by Martha McCarthy and Joanna Radbord of Epstein Cole.

On January 14, 2001, two same-sex couples were married pursuant to a publication of banns at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto.

The Province refused to register their marriage licences. These couples are represented by Douglas Elliott, Trent Morris and Victoria Paris of McGowan, Elliott & Kim.

Egale Canada, a national organization committed to promoting equality for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people, intervened in support of the same-sex couples and the MCCT. Counsel for Egale are Cynthia Petersen and Vanessa Payne of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell.

The two cases were heard together on November 5, 2001 by Regional Senior Justice Blair, Associate Chief Justice Smith, and Justice Laforme, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court), Toronto.

The applicants' cases for equal marriage were vigorously opposed by the federal government, which has jurisdiction over capacity to marry.

Today, the Ontario Divisional Court has unanimously ruled that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Justice Blair wrote:

There is thus a short answer to the question posed by the Applicants in these two proceedings. It is this: the constitutional and Charter-inspired values which underlie Canadian society today dictate that the status and incidents inherent in the foundational institution of marriage must be open to same-sex couples who live in long-term, committed, relationships - marriage-like in everything but name - just as it is to heterosexual couples. Each is entitled to full and equal recognition, and the law must therefore be adapted accordingly. (p. 20)

Justice LaForme wrote:

The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This is turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage. For those same-sex couples who do wish to marry, impugned restriction represents a rejection of their personal aspirations and the denial of their dreams. (p. 118)

Further, I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry. ... I cannot conclude that freedom of religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage. (p. 118)

[T]he denial of equal marriage can - and no doubt does - reflect and reinforce existing, inaccurate understandings of the merits, capabilities and worth of lesbian and gay relationships within Canadian society. ... Excluding gays and lesbians from marriage disregards the needs, capacities, and circumstances of same-sex spouses and their children. It declares an entire class of persons unworthy of the recognition and support of state sanction for their marriages. (p. 204)

I do not accept that the objective of procreation is a basis that can support the restriction against same-sex marriage. Rather, it could reasonably be argued ... that it appears to be a mere pretext used to rationalize discrimination against lesbians and gays. (p. 114)

The effect of the decision has been suspended for up to 24 months to enable Parliament and the provinces to comply with the decision.

*************

From: EJ Graff

Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:11 AM

Subject: [*M*] congratulations CANADA!!!

Congratulations to all our Canadian friends for their hard work!!! ...

EJ

*************

Associated Press

12 July 2002

Ontario Court Orders Government To Recognize Gay Marriages

TORONTO - An Ontario court ruled Friday that Canada's policy of refusing legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages was unconstitutional.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ontario Superior Court is a major step toward the formal recognition of homosexual marriages in Canada.

Under existing laws, marriage certificates are issued only to heterosexual couples, though gay and lesbian couples can get similar rights and privileges as licensed marriages. Justice Heather Smith suspended Friday's ruling for two years to give the federal Parliament time to redefine the term "marriage" in Canadian law.

The case decided Friday involved two couples - one gay and one lesbian - married in 2001 using a Christian tradition of reading banns, or asking in church on three Sundays if anyone objects to a couple's marriage.

After the ceremony at the Metropolitan Community Church in downtown Toronto, the couples were given marriage certificates from Rev. Brent Hawke. When they tried to have the marriages registered, provincial officials refused.

On Friday, the gay couple shared a celebratory kiss and wept at news of the ruling.

"We're no longer second-class citizens in this country and the time has come for change," said Joe Varnell, who sued the provincial government for the right to marry another man. "My relationship is validated and nobody can say we're not a real family anymore."

Government lawyer Roslyn Levine called the ruling "historic" and "unprecedented."

"It means marriage is no longer limited to one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others," she said.

In the decision, the judges ruled that denying legal recognition to gay and lesbian marriages violated Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Douglas Elliott, the lawyer for the gay couple, said he expected the government to appeal Friday's ruling, with the case eventually reaching Canada's Supreme Court.

The only country that legally recognizes same-sex marriages is The Netherlands. In the United States, Vermont enacted a domestic partnership law in 2000 that allows gay couples to enter into civil unions that resemble marriage. No other state has such a law.

************

Canadian Press

12 July 2002

Ontario Must Recognize Gay Marriages, Court Rules

A gay couple shared a celebratory kiss and wept tears of joy today after an Ontario court decision brought them giant steps closer to having their church marriage legally recognized.

The precedent-setting decision is expected to have ramifications across Canada and around the world.

"We're no longer second-class citizens in this country and the time has come for change," said Joe Varnell, a member of a Toronto church that sued the Ontario government for the right to marry another man.

"My relationship is validated and nobody can say we're not a real family anymore."

Prohibiting gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the three-judge panel ruled in a unanimous decision.

Justice Robert Blair wrote in the decision that marriage "must be open to same-sex couples who live in long-term, committed, relationships - marriage-like in everything but name - just as it is to heterosexual couples."

A lawyer for the federal attorney general - who opposed same-sex marriages - agreed the decision was momentous.
"Certainly it is an historic decision and it is unprecedented," Roslyn Levine, counsel to the federal attorney general, said outside the courthouse.

"It means marriage is no longer limited to one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

But the decision doesn't mean that Varnell and his partner Kevin Bourassa, who were wed in a Toronto church ceremony in January 2001 along with a lesbian couple, are legally married yet.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Heather Smith suspended Friday's ruling in favour of gay marriages for two years, giving Parliament time to redefine the term "marriage."

"If no steps are taken by the (federal) government, at the expiration of the two-year period, the (Ontario) common law will be rewritten and gays and lesbians will have the right to marry," said Martha McCarthy, a lawyer for eight same-sex couples seeking marriage licences from the City of Toronto.

The decision allowed Toronto to begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex partners, and the Ontario government to register those marriages, Bourassa and Varnell's lawyer, Douglas Elliott, said.

But Ontario's attorney general interpreted the decision differently, saying Tim Hudak, minister of consumer and business services, still has no authority to register same-sex marriages.

He won't have that authority until the Ontario court or the federal government instructs him to, said Christopher Eby, Hudak's spokesman.

City lawyers were reviewing the decision, city spokeswoman Margaret Dougherty said, and as of Friday afternoon had not issued any licences to same-sex couples who had applied.

Varnell and Bourassa married in 2001 using an ancient Christian tradition of reading banns - asking in church on three Sundays if anyone objects to a couple's marriage - to avoid having to get city-issued marriage licences.

After the ceremony at the lesbian- and gay-friendly Metropolitan Community Church, which received media attention from around the world, the couples were given marriage certificates from Rev. Brent Hawke.

But when they tried to have the marriages registered with the province, Bob Runciman - then-minister of consumer affairs - refused.

The couples and the church then launched a lawsuit to have their unions recognized.

The case was heard last November in conjunction with a lawsuit brought earlier by the gay and lesbian couples who had been refused marriage licences by Toronto.

Not everyone, however, celebrated Friday's ruling.

Derek Rogusky, spokesman for Christian group Focus on the Family, said the court ruling would definitely not make his group reconsider its opposition to same-sex marriages.

"Social science evidence is very clear that relationships between a man and a woman in committed marriage results in great benefit to the couple and their children," Rogusky said.

"We're confident that the Canadian government will maintain its definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman."

Same-sex marriages are not recognized in any Canadian province.

Vermont enacted a domestic partnership law in 2000 allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions that resemble marriage. No other state has such a law.

The only country where same-sex marriages are legally acknowledged is the Netherlands.

A ruling against gay marriages in British Columbia is expected to be heard by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia early next year, and a judge in Montreal has reserved judgment on a similar case in Quebec.

The province has 15 days to launch an appeal to the decision, something Elliott sees as inevitable.

The Supreme Court will likely end up hearing the B.C., Quebec and Ontario cases together, Elliott said.

Marriage Law Becomes Gay Priority
By Deb Price

A wonderful development in Connecticut hints at a dramatic change in the mind-set of the gay rights movement: Same-sex marriage - considered by most gay people to be all but impossible to ever achieve only a decade ago - is now widely viewed as both achievable and necessary to our fight to become equal citizens.

Recently, Connecticut's Legislature passed a compromise granting some marriage-like rights to gay couples and requiring a report on same-sex marriage and civil unions by next January. Republican Gov. John Rowland has promised to sign the compromise into law. It was reached as lawmakers weighed measures to create "civil unions" - a system pioneered by Vermont in 2000 to extend all the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay couples - or to simply allow same-sex couples to marry, as The Netherlands does.

Throughout the haggling, Connecticut's state gay rights coalition, Love Makes a Family, stressed that its ultimate goal is same-sex marriage. And it and its allies in the Legislature insisted that the compromise include a study on opening marriage to those of us who're gay.

"Including the study in the legislation made clear that our goal was marriage and that we weren't going away with the granting of this handful of rights," says coalition president Anne Stanback.

"What was interesting about the debate is that our opponents seemed to think of same-sex marriage as inevitable and that they were wanting to keep it from happening for as long as possible. But there's a general resignation (among them) that eventually it's going to happen, that this is the direction Connecticut and the world are going," she adds. The spunkiness and determination in Stanback's voice reflect an amazing change in the self-confidence of everyday gay Americans around the marriage issue.

When Hawaii's steps toward legalizing gay marriage led to a backlash in Congress and many states in the mid-1990s, some gay-rights advocates felt the need to pooh-pooh the "slippery slope" argument by foes that we'd ultimately try to push beyond any piecemeal rights thrown our way and would be satisfied with nothing less than full marriage. But not anymore.

"Our foes kept saying 'This is a slippery slope to marriage,' and we kept nodding our heads, 'Yep,'" says Stanback, unabashedly embracing marriage as the goal, just as do the movement's two top political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

And a Zogby/GL Census Partners Poll (released here for the first time) spotlights the strong consensus among gay Americans that marriage should be our movement's top priority. (See www.glcensus.org)

• A whopping 83 percent say gay marriage should be one of the top three goals. Nothing else comes close. Working for equal job rights is second, at 52 percent.
• Overall, 47 percent say legal recognition of same-sex marriage should be the No. 1 goal. Among lesbians, 57 percent say marriage is the top goal.
• Gay people under 25 are the most ardent about seeking marriage. That's exciting news since they can pump all their youthful energy into the issue without the psychological baggage that we older, once-in-the-closet types sometimes still carry.

"These numbers are phenomenal," exclaims attorney Evan Wolfson, who has been steering the drive for marriage for more than a decade. "Gay people now believe this is within reach, which is the necessary precursor to reaching it. And it shows that we shouldn't be dumbing down the definition of equality when we talk to non-gay people."

A crass election-year ploy last week by some members of Congress, who proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, offers yet another prime opportunity for gay people and our allies to speak out: The protection that only marriage can provide is an essential option for all couples.

UN Rejects US Bid To Define Marriage As Hetero

New York - The United Nations has rejected American pressure to press a conservative agenda on the General Assembly's special session on children.

Friday agreement was reached on the final language on a formal document titled "A World Fit For Children".

The paper focuses on four areas: promoting healthy lives, access to and completion of quality education, protection of children against abuse violence and exploitation and fighting HIV and AIDS.

To promote family values, the United States had pressed for the family to be defined as marriage between a husband and wife, in an effort to prevent the UN from sanctioning gay marriage.

But diplomats said the final document will preserve past language which takes into account "that in different cultural, social and political systems various forms of the family exist."

The Bush administration had also pushed to have its "abstinence" stand on AIDS and abortion inserted in the document. The move had the backing of the Vatican and several Muslim states. That too was rejected.

Nevertheless, the Child Rights Caucus, which represents over 100 international nonprofit organizations, called the document "weak," saying it did not spell out "the rights of adolescents to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education, information and services."

The US was the last state to sign off on the paper. The convention has been ratified by 191 countries - all nations except Somalia and the United States.