the daily snivel

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in the Same-Sex Marriage Reference, and affirmed that it is within the power of the federal government to change the definition of marriage in Canada to include same-sex couples, that such a change is consistent with our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that such a change would protect the constitutional freedom of religion by not forcing churches to marry same-sex couples where it is contrary to their religious beliefs.

You can read the actual text of the SCC decision here:

Note that same-sex marriage is already recognized in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and the Yukon. If the government does nothing, the majority of the country is recognizing same-sex marriage. What this ruling does is give the government a legitimate authority to introduce a bill making same-sex marriage legal and universal across the entire country, making Canada a leader in recognizing this important right. And probably really pissing off a lot of Americans. Well, good.

I have a great deal of faith in Canada's commitment to human rights, and I hope the bill is introduced and passes soon. Anyway, I have to go write my immigration law exam, so for further reading, the CBC has a good breakdown here:

...
In a non-binding opinion released Thursday morning, the court reaffirmed religious freedoms under the Charter, saying religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.

It also declined to answer whether same-sex marriage was required by the constitution.

The Paul Martin government had asked the court to consider whether excluding gays and lesbians from legal marriage violated equality rights under the Charter.

But the court said that by failing to appeal a number of lower court rulings that said excluding gays from marriage was discriminatory, the federal government had already accepted that position.

"The government has clearly accepted these decisions and adopted this position as its own," the court wrote.

The court rejected the argument that the traditional definition of marriage is rooted in history, saying times have changed.

"Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today," wrote the court.

"I feel it is a clear green light in favour of equal marriage," said Martha McCarthy, a lawyer for same-sex couples.

Groups opposed to same-sex marriage reacted swiftly, as Gwen Landolt with Real Women and Catholic Civil Rights League member Richard Bastien called for a referendum on the issue. Landolt says the traditional definition of marriage should be enshrined in the constitution.

Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Monday he would take the bill to Parliament as early as this month.

Martin has asked MPs to support the bill, but has also told them it will be a free vote.

The Liberals hold a thin minority government, with 134 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, but should have the support of most or all of the 19 New Democrat MPs and 54 Bloc Québécois MPs.

NDP Leader Jack Layton has said his caucus will vote in favour of the bill, while Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose party is split on the issue, says it will be a free vote.

If passed, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands in making gay marriage legal nationwide.
...