A Supreme Court of Canada decision that upheld Quebec's laws which provide rights to married couples that do not apply to couples merely living together has been applauded by pro-family organizations as a recognition of the unique and distinctive role that true marriage plays in society.
In what has become known as the Eric and Lola case, pseudonyms designed to protect the couple’s three children, the court ruled that the Quebec law that excludes cohabiting couples from receiving spousal support in the event of relationship breakdown is constitutional and does not discriminate against couples who choose to live together without the benefit of marriage.
In a close 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin wrote, "Those who choose to marry choose the protections, but also the responsibilities, associated with that status. Those who choose not to marry avoid these state-imposed responsibilities and protections."
The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC) says that the decision accurately reflects the social science research which shows marriage to be substantively different from living common law.
15 Comments
This is all the more reason for Gay couples in Canada to get married, something they are legally allowed to do. And soon, Gay couples in the United States, also.
In Canada, where everyone has access to marriage (including same-sex couples), this ruling makes perfect sense.
When the special status of marriage is underscored in this way, it only strengthens the rationale for civil marriage to be available on a basis of equality. By raising up marriage, the test for excluding people from it becomes more demanding.
This is all the more reason why marriage must be clearly defined and rooted in natural law so as to protect this sacred institution from the encroachment of decadents seeking to appease their immutable and innate sense of guilt that always accompanies selfishness and immorality.
Immorality: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
Selfish: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
Decadent: a period of decline or decay
Natural law? Randy, for Gay couples, same-sex marriage IS as natural as opposite-sex marriage is for Straight couples.
Biological fact stands in opposition to the pseudo-scientific theory you pimp as the truth according to you so help you, you, Jeanette.
Everyone already does have access to marriage, Andrew, under the same terms and conditions as everyone else. Marriage is defined a being between a man and a woman because they form a biological procreative unit that produces children. That is the motivation behind the establishment of these state benefits in the first place, to make it easier to have and raise kids with a mother and a father. This is a situation that homosexuality does not cover - but does cover cohabitating couples of the opposite sex.
To hijack this court case as though it applies to homosexual relationships is just as misleading and as deceitful as the terms "marriage equality" and "civil rights."
Andrew no one-sexed scenario has access to marriage even in Canada. Fact.
The benefits at issue are not government granted. These benefits do not get delivered with the mislabeling of non-marriage as "marriage".
These benefits are achievable by lifing the marriage idea, not the SSM idea. Not the unwed cohabitation idea. Not by legal status but by living status ... living the conjugal relationship as husband and wife.
Oh Chairm. Fact: You are wrong. Fact: Marriage licenses are issued to same-sex couples throughout Canada, and have been for many years now. Fact: Those couples get married. Fact: The legal rights and legal responsibilities attendant to marriage in Canada are the same, regardless whether the legally married couple is composed of two men, two women, or one man and one woman.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Sounds as if you are trying to redefine what it means to be married in Canada...
The government can call a cat a dog too, Andrew. It can even legally redefine the word cat to mean a dog as well. But you know what? It will still be a cat. It will still be exactly the way God made it no matter what the government says and does at the behest of wealthy and politically influential special interest groups.
An apple is not an orange, a tree is not a car, a cat is not a dog, and a homosexual couple is not a married couple.
Theres no such thing as "marriage" in Canada, only when it is the union of husband and wife is it marriage, otherwise is merely a contract which the government has granted the label of marriage. Canadians (and Spaniards, Dutchmen, Danes, South Africans etc.) have fooled themselves if they think they can redefine what God instituted
This was a good decision on the part of the Canadian court because it helped to stave off the further deinstitutionalization and privatization of marriage that academics in the family diversity movement long for. Marriage is different from cohabitation according to the best social science available, so it should be granted special privileges.
For decades there has been a movement to blur the lines between marriage and cohabitation by giving marital benefits to the unmarried--benefits such as paternity rights. The American Law Institute and its Canadian counterpart, the Law Commission of Canada, are two very influential groups that have endorsed the treating of cohabitation as marriage. Maggie Gallagher, David Blankenhorn and others did an excellent critique of the ALI's 2001 proposal, criticizing it on several grounds. One ground being that marriage is, in fact, different from cohabitation and should be recognized as different. Another ground being that it's unethical to entrench people into the regulations of marriage if they didn't choose to enter that compact.
(Read the entire paper here: http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/future_of_family_law.pdf)
I'm glad the court agreed with marriage supporters on this one, but don't expect these sort of efforts to subside. There is a very strong stream of anti-marriage thought in academia, particularly among those who don't have a problem with ssm. In fact, the lawyer arguing for the unwed mother seeking spousal support from her billionaire ex is the attorney who won the court case that enacted ssm in Canada. Other lawyers working with this woman said that the fight to give the legal benefits of marriage to cohabitation will now go to the legislature.
Many scholars want to de-privilege marriage as a legal institution. Law professor Nancy Polikoff writes in the 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers:
"Marriage as a family form is not more important or valuable than other forms of family, so the law should not give it more value...Couples should have the choice to marry...[but] they should never have to marry in order to reap specific and unique legal benefits."
In that article titled, "Laws that Value All Families: Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage," she documents several cases of heterosexuals and homosexuals who couldn't or chose not to marry, but needed a legal benefit available only to the married.
Over 300 professors, activists, queer theorists and authors signed the "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" statement of 2006 which endorsed the de-privileging of marriage as a legal category and the extension of social support to all family types. The goal is not only to recognize unmarried sexual cohabitants, but to subsidize, affirm and support all caregiving networks. As noted in the Beyond SSM statement, why are seniors living together as caregivers, or relatives pooling resources, unworthy of societal support? Why single out sexual relationships for societal support, and only certain types of sexual relationships at that?
In the 2012 issue of the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and Law, Sacha Coupet writes in her article "Beyond 'Eros': Relative Caregiving, "Agape" Parentage, and the Best Interests of Children," that legal recognition of adult-child bonds should not depend on the sexual relationship of the adults, but rather on the relationship an adult develops with a child. Although she sees it as commendable that marriage is being decoupled from parenthood, and that children are treated the same regardless of their parents' marital status, the focus on eros, i.e. sexual relationships, is disadvantaging children raised in other types of caregiving networks; such focus on sexual coupling is functioning as the "new illegitimacy."
So, to scholars like the ones I cited, even what the Canadian court rejected doesn't go far enough. Marriage supporters won a big victory.
Andrew,
I said: "Andrew no one-sexed scenario has access to marriage even in Canada. Fact.
The benefits at issue are not government granted. These benefits do not get delivered with the mislabeling of non-marriage as 'marriage'.
These benefits are achievable by living the marriage idea, not the SSM idea. Not the unwed cohabitation idea. Not by legal status but by living status -- living the conjugal relationship as husband and wife."
You said I was wrong but then pointed to the law.
Do you agree that sometimes the law can get marriage wrong? Yes, that is what you argue where SSM is not entrenched in the law. Do you agree that sometimes the law can get marriage right? Yes, that is what you just claimed here.
But, Andrew, how can you say if the law is right or wrong if not for the independent reality -- a reality independent of the law -- of the type of relationship you have in mind for SSM?
Ah, now you might understand. Here, to push you a little further out of the pro-SSM bubble: If a license is issued to a man and his dog, does that make them married? No, you must say, of course it would not make a falsehood true.
You might even say that the dog cannot consent to a real marriage. But then you would have to acknowledge something very significant: that to which consent is given is the key, not consent itself. For we allow men to get licenses, without another human adult tagging along, for all kinds of things that the government regulates, including for their canine friends. The dogs do not consent to that licensing. Yet the license is enforced.
Now, you might object that a dog is not a person. Okay, but again you are going to have to specify the essentials of the type of thing that you have in mind for this SSM license. You cannot just say that it is exactly the same set of essentials as for the union of husband and wife. No, you cannot. Why? Because there is a legal requirement for bride and groom where you are objecting to the law. The law is the law, Andrew, you cannot argue that the law is right but then complain that the law is wrong. Not unless you can be more clear on that to which consent is to be given -- consent of the participants and consent of society via the license.
So, as I said, the benefits at issue are not sourced from a license but from living the core meaning of marriage. Even two-sexed scenarios that are licensed as marriages demonstrate this over and over again. Why would the one-sex-short scenario be different when it comes to SSM?
What are the nongovernmental benefits of the type of relationship that you have in mind for SSM? Do these depend on the license or on something else independent of the law?
Perhaps now you might reread my earlier comment and the light will come on for you. The SSM campaign teaches a great deal of ignorance and stupidity. The rhetoric in your rejoinder did not get at what I actually said. You disagreed, reflexively, without thinking clearly.
That is okay, people make mistakes just like the law is sometimes wrong about marriage.
Andrew, try, please try, to define "what it means to be married in Canada."
But take care not to mistake your own opinion" for the "facts".
Meanwhile you are openly trying to redefine marriage for all of society -- through the coercive powers of Government. As I said, the core meaning of marriage is that to which society consents -- the law ought to be drawn closer to the marriage idea but you demand that the law be drawn closer to the SSM idea.
The SSM idea is not marriage. It is something else. If you disagree, then, explain yourself with the facts -- before the law enters the picture. If you cannot, okay, concede that point and we can move on from there.
Yet here in the USA the co-habit couple is superior to the married couple. Is no Federal marriage penalty tax imposed upon the co-habits. The USA actually rewards those who choose not to be married.
Many States offer the co-habit relationship the same State benefits as the married relationship, while the Federal Government promotes co-habitation with the reduced tax burden.
Jeanette Exner said that the nongovernmental benefits of marriage provide "all the more reason for Gay couples in Canada to get married".
Those benefits come from living the core meaning of marriage. They are not possible in a non-marital scenario that expressly rejects the core meaning of marriage.
If you instead rely on government-granted advantages, then, you should look to government as the creator and owner of that type of relationship. If that is all the more reason to impose SSM, then, you might at least say so upfront instead of playing rhetorical games with the word, marriage, and its benefits.