Extract
Same-sex 'marriage' verdict.
Part I
The events On June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal of Ontario ruled: a) that same-sex unions must be part of the (federal) definition on marriage; b) that the existing definition of "the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life thereafter" is unconstitutional because it contradicts the equality clause (s. 15) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; c) that the new definition is the "voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others;" d) that this definition is of immediate effect (thereby bypassing both Parliament and an Appeal to the Supreme Court). e) that the Clerk of the City of Toronto must issue marriage licences forthwith to the [six] same-sex couples who applied for the appeal. The court case is known as Halpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (June 10, 2003). The three judges involved were Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Mr. Justice James MacPherson, and Madam Justice Eileen Gillese (a Catholic). The judgement was unanimous. Martin Cauchon Subsequent to the ruling, the Minister of Justice, Martin Cauchon, refused to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. Instead, on July 1...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
