Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:08:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Ron Buckmire Subject: Majority of Canadians says gay should be able to get married Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:17:26 -0400 From: Timothy Ross Wilson Toronto Globe & Mail, June 10, 1999 Toronto, Canada (E-MAIL: letters@GlobeAndMail.ca ) ( http://www.globeandmail.ca/ ) Most in poll want gay marriages legalized 53% support idea despite MPs' vote to uphold status quo ANNE McILROY, Parliamentary Bureau. Thursday, June 10, 1999 Ottawa - A majority of Canadians say gay couples should be able to legally get married, a new survey has found. The Angus Reid Group survey for The Globe and Mail and CTV found that 53 per cent of Canadians favour legal marriage for gays who want to tie the >knot, while 44 per cent were opposed and 3 per cent said they didn't know or were undecided. The results were released the day after the Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion that upholds the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The poll, a snapshot of public opinion, could indicate that MPs are not in tune with Canadians on this issue. Support for legal gay nuptials was highest in Quebec, where 61 per cent were in favour of recognizing unions between same-sex couples. It was lowest in the Prairie provinces, with 42 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and 43 per cent in Alberta favouring the idea. In B.C., 54 per cent were in favour, compared to 53 per cent in Ontario and 48 per cent in Atlantic Canada. Younger Canadians were much more comfortable with recognizing gay marriages than those over 55. Two-thirds of those aged 18 to 34 agreed that same-sex couples should be able to get legally hitched, compared to 57 per cent of those aged 35 to 54. Among Canadians 55 and older, 32 per cent thought gay couples should qualify for legal matrimony. Canadians with more formal education were also more accepting of gay wedlock, with 59 per cent of those with university degrees in favour, compared to only 38 per cent of those who had not completed high school. The survey of 1,500 Canadian adults was carried out between May 25 and May 30, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that an Ontario law was unconstitutional because it said the term spouse applied only to heterosexual couples. The court ruling stopped short of allowing gay marriages, and even of granting homosexual couples the same status as heterosexual couples in common-law relationships. Some legal experts believe these steps could soon follow if gay couples pursue equal treatment in court. Those surveyed were asked a variety of questions, including whether "homosexual couples who wish to marry should or should not qualify for legal recognition of the marriage." With a sample of this size, results are considered accurate to within 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error is higher for provincial breakdowns. The results showed that 56 per cent of Canadians supported the recent Supreme Court decision, compared to 44 per cent who opposed it. The ruling means that provincial governments across the country could have to rewrite laws regarding support payments or alimony, and possibly other statutes related to adoption, inheritance, insurance and pension benefits, to remove provisions that discriminate against gay couples. If they don't, those laws could be successfully challenged in court, because the Supreme Court ruling sets a precedent that lower-court judges must follow. The survey found that 44 per cent of respondents want the provinces to voluntarily comply with the law, while 25 per cent think provincial governments should wait until the courts force them to change the definition of spouse. But 28 per cent said governments should use an escape hatch in the Constitution known as the notwithstanding clause to opt out of having to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. People tended to respond differently on the issue of homosexual marriages depending on which federal political party they support. Bloc Quebecois, New Democratic Party and Liberal voters were more likely to say that gay couples should be able to have their marriages recognized by the state. Reform and Progressive Conservative voters were less likely to agree. The federal government is looking into ways to bring its statutes into line with several court rulings on same-sex benefits, and is considering a plan for an omnibus bill that would make all the necessary changes to federal legislation at once. The Reform Party, worried that the Liberals plan to go further and legally recognize gay marriages, forced a debate on a motion this week that said a legal marriage can take place only between a man and a woman. Justice Minister Anne McLellan has repeatedly said that Canadian law defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman and that Ottawa has no secret plan to change that. The Liberals voted with Reform on the Reform motion, and senior Liberal strategists said they were glad of the opportunity to reassure some Liberal backbenchers that they have no intention of changing the law to recognize gay marriages. However, some Liberals, including Toronto MP Carolyn Bennett, voted against the Reform motion because they believe it might require the government to use the notwithstanding clause in order to avoid complying with possible future Supreme Court decisions. "It said that we would use all measures, which to me [means] the notwithstanding clause, which I couldn't live with on this issue. To say that we would set in stone today terminology, in a society that is constantly evolving, I was very uncomfortable with that." GLOBE AND MAIL / CTV / ANGUS REID POLL RECOGNIZE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES? QUESTION: Do you think homosexual couples who wish to marry should or should not qualify for legal recognition of the marriage? REGION Total B.C Alta Sask./Man Ont Que Atlantic Yes, should 53% 54% 43% 42% 53% 61% 48% No, should not 44 43 56 53 44 36 49 Don't know 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 -** AGE GENDER 18 to 34 35 to 54 55+ Male Female Yes, should 66% 57% 32% 50% 56% No, should not 32 40 64 47 41 Don't know 2 3 3 3 3 SPOUSAL BENEFITS? QUESTION: Do you think gays and lesbians should or should not be entitled to spousal benefits? Yes, should 63% No, should not 35 Don't know 2 AYE OR NAY? QUESTION: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Ontario government's definition of "spouse" is unconstitutional because it applies only to heterosexual couples. The Supreme Court's decision says that the definition of "spouse" should also apply to same-sex couples. Do you support or oppose this Supreme Court decision? Strong support 34% Somewhat support 22 Somewhat oppose 10 Strongly oppose 34 Don't know 1 Source: Angus Reid Group Toronto Globe & Mail, June 10, 1999 Editorial: The love that dare not be legally recognized The government's archaic definition of marriage is out of step with most Canadians Well, now we know. Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples may fall in love, form long-term conjugal relationships, become parents and grandparents and be recognized as spouses for survivor benefits, support payments and immigration. They can invite friends and family to witness them exchange vows of devotion and commitment, >but they can't get married. Marriage is reserved for partners of the opposite sex. That's the way it was defined in the common law more than a century ago - back when men were the breadwinners in the family, women didn't have the vote, and contraception was unreliable at best. Then it made sense to enshrine marriage as an institution that protected children and the so-called "weaker" sex. The world has moved on. Even though many couples today choose common law unions over marriage, childlessness over procreation and openly gay lifestyles, Justice Minister Anne McLellan seems tied to an archaic era. In her view, the equality concerns of gays and lesbians aren't a big deal, certainly not enough to justify amending a law that does not reflect social diversity. "This government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or legislating same-sex marriage," she said in the House of Commons on Tuesday before voting in favour of a hugely popular Reform Party motion that affirmed the traditional view by 216-55. Ms. McLellan may be in step with federal politicians, but she is out of synch with recent court rulings that have broadened the definition of spouse to include same-sex partners. She is also out of touch with the views of most Canadians. An Angus Reid poll, released today and based on a telephone survey of 1,500 Canadian adults, found that 53 per cent of them believe that homosexual couples should qualify for the legal recognition of marriage. That being the case, what would Ms. McLellan's reaction be if a gay couple tested the definition of marriage on a Charter challenge in the courts and won? Would she accept the decision and introduce legislation to change the law, or would she fight it by invoking the notwithstanding clause? Canadians have a right to know whether the minister shares Reform's views on this issue, too. Human relations are complicated enough without politicians making the mix even more turbid. In Canada, divorce and marriage come under federal jurisdiction, but the provinces are in charge of the administration of justice and family law, including separation, custody and access arrangements. The Justice Minister's stubborn adherence to opposite-sex marriage follows on her foot-dragging response to amending the Divorce Act. After reviewing the extensive report and recommendations of a special joint committee, she called for another three years of consultations before she >would even think of introducing a report - not legislation - to Parliament. All of which makes it more than a little ironic that Alberta, the province that is most conservative - some would say right wing - on social issues, is ahead of the federal government on formalizing same-sex >relationships. Earlier this year, the Alberta government announced it was planning to study the concept of "registered domestic partnerships," where two people can enter into a formal contract and receive benefits if they split or die. Isn't Ms. McLellan from Alberta? Maybe she should go home for a visit. It might prove enlightening. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The message above was sent via the EGALE Queerlaw-Canada e-mail list. To unsubscribe send e-mail to queerlaw-can-request@egale.ca with unsubscribe as subject. For more info send e-mail to queerlaw-can-request@egale.ca with help as subject. --------------------------------------------------------------------