BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Legal Challenges of Traditional Marriage

Bill C-23, which provided benefits to same-sex couples identical to those given to heterosexual couples, was passed by Parliament in June 2000. Shortly after, the Ottawa based homosexual lobby group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) sent out an e-mail to its members requesting that co-habiting same-sex couples across the country come forward to launch court challenges to the law on marriage in Canada.

EGALE then selected couples in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec who began the legal challenges by applying for marriage licenses in their respective provinces. When the licenses were refused, these same-sex couples then had a pretext to launch a court action claiming discrimination against their relationship under the Charter of Rights. These legal challenges are all being funded by Canadian taxpayers by way of the notorious federal Court Challenges Programme. The chairperson of the Equality panel of the program is well-known lesbian Sheilagh Day, former Vice President of NAC (National Action Committee on the Status of Women).

It is not by chance that these legal challenges are taking place in the provinces of B.C., Ontario and Quebec as it is these provinces that have the most judicially active judges. EGALE is confident that the judges in these provinces will serve their purposes by dutifully striking down the marriage law which limits marriage to heterosexual couples only.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
The same-sex legal challenge in B.C. is being greatly assisted by the NDP's B.C. Attorney General, Andrew Petter, who will be supporting the arguments of the same-sex couples in their court action. Mr. Petter also wrote directly to Justice Minister, Anne McLellan, stating "rather than waiting for the courts to determine the issue, the federal government should change the federal law to allow for equality for all couples who are in a committed relationship." Nevertheless, there is some good news in B.C. The court challenge is scheduled to be heard in late July, but the unpopular NDP government must call an election by June, at the latest, when it is highly unlikely that it will be returned to power. The Liberal party in B.C. is expected to win the provincial election hands down, and it will probably support the traditional understanding of marriage in the courts.

EGALE has been granted intervenor status in this B.C. case. However, a coalition of pro-family groups, including the B.C. Chapter of REAL Women, Focus on the Family and the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice (an organization of mostly Christian Chinese Canadians) has also been granted intervenor status. They are banding together under the name "The Association for Marriage and the Family in B.C." A coalition of faith groups has been granted intervor status. Its members include the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, the Catholic Civil Rights League, the B.C. Muslim Association and the Sikh community.

ONTARIO
The Ontario legal challenge is expected to be argued in September 2001. EGALE has been granted leave to intervene, as well as the pro-family Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario, which includes REAL Women and the faith groups. In addition, the homosexual church in Toronto called the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, under its homosexual pastor, the Reverend Brent Hawkes, has also been granted intervenor status.

PUBLICITY STUNT IN TORONTO BY HOMOSEXUAL CHURCH

As a publicity stunt designed to advertise the legal challenge of marriage, the above-mentioned Brent Hawkes attempted to conduct a form of marriage with two same-sex couples on January 14, 2001. Despite his pronouncements, his action is meaningless in law.

As a pastor, Brent Hawkes knows that there is an obvious legal impediment to same-sex marriages in Canada since such couples do not have the capacity to enter into a valid marriage under federal law, which restricts legal marriage to a union between a man and a woman only.

The media, however, obligingly gave the story front page coverage as though the performance of these marriages was legitimate, which it was not. (See article, re-printed from London Free Press, January 17, 2001, as well as a number of other major newspapers, by Gwen Landolt, National Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, (page 8.)

Ontario Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Robert Runciman was justified in his refusal to register any marriage certificate issued by the Reverend Hawkes under these bizarre circumstances.

Quebec
A same-sex lawsuit was commenced in Montreal on August 24 by a couple who allege they have co-habited for 27 years. When they applied to receive a marriage licence, the refusal to grant the licence was based on Article 365 of Quebec's Civil Code which provides that: "Marriage may be contracted only between a man and a woman expressing openly their free and enlightened consent." This Quebec case is expected to be argued in September, 2001.

The French-speaking organization, "Alliance Française des Protestants Évangilistes du Québec" (Alliance of Evangelical Protestants of Quebec), and the Catholic Civil Rights League have applied for intervenor status in this case.

CONCLUSION
REAL Women and other pro-family and faith groups are engaged in one of the most serious legal cases ever. By defending traditional marriage in the courts, we are committing ourselves to enormous expense. The three legal challenges will go through three different court levels; the trial level, the provincial Court of Appeal level, and then finally, the Supreme Court of Canada, where the case will probably be argued in the year 2003. The journey will be long, expensive and emotionally trying - but it must be done.

How REAL Women of Canada, which depends solely on its donations and membership fees, will manage this financial undertaking is of deep concern to our Board of Directors. However, it is essential that the voice of pro-family women from across Canada, representing many denominations, be heard in this court struggle which is of such crucial importance to the future of our country. Hence our decision to proceed with the case.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS