NewsWrap for the week ending September 20, 2003 (As broadcast on This Way Out program #808, distributed 9-22-03) [Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Fenceberry, Rex Wockner, and Greg Gordon] Anchored by Cindy Friedman and Dean Elzinga The Canadian Parliament opened this week with fiery debates on gay and lesbian issues. In an important victory for gays and lesbians, the House of Commons approved a bill to add "sexual orientation" as a category protected under the national hate propaganda law. The incitement of hatred law currently covers color, ethnicity, race, and religion, and can be sentenced with up to 5 years' imprisonment. The vote was a rare success for a private member's bill from a minor party MP -- openly gay New Democrat from British Columbia Svend Robinson -- and it came with an unexpectedly strong 12% margin. Despite a clause specifically exempting religious texts and speech based on them, some religious groups insist the measure could make it illegal to preach sections of the Bible and Qur'an that condemn homosexuality. Those groups ran full-page newspaper ads against the bill, and one is considering a legal challenge should the measure go on to Senate approval and enactment. Robinson -- who was Canada's first openly gay MP, and who's been seeking this legal change for more than 20 years -- called the opposition "fear-mongering". He added, "How can anyone seriously suggest that quoting from the Bible could in fact lead to a criminal prosecution for willfully inciting hatred and violence against gays and lesbians?" He said that argument "is a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law." But equal marriage rights were the first to take center stage in the Canadian Parliament. In the wake of recent provincial appeals court rulings that denying legal marriage to same-gender couples violates the national Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Liberal Party Government drafted a bill to amend the federal definition of marriage accordingly. The Government had planned to bring that bill before the Parliament only after a review by the Canadian Supreme Court, but the high court refused to fast-track it and won't respond before April. National elections are anticipated for early 2004 as well. The main Opposition Party -- the Canadian Alliance -- vehemently disapproves of marriage equality and didn't wait to make its views known. The Alliance introduced a non-binding resolution stating, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada." Just four years ago a similar message passed the House by a nearly 4-to-1 margin, with supporters including Prime Minister Jean Chretien and other leading Liberals. But this time it sparked a passionate 6-hour debate as the Government defended equality. Alliance Party Leader Stephen Harper announced the motion saying: {:10 soundbite: "attack on all cultures and faiths"} Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, who's been travelling the country trying to drum up public support for marriage equality, fired back: {:10 soundbite: "we believe in religious freedom and equal rights"} But Harper also denounced the Liberals' casting of marriage equality as a civil rights issue, saying that "to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting." Openly lesbian New Democratic Party Member of Parliament from British Columbia Libby Davies told Harper, "Nobody is forcing the leader of the Canadian Alliance to marry a man if he doesn't want to. I think this motion displays a very homophobic attitude." NDP MP Svend Robinson actually called for a show of hands from any MPs who seriously believed that gay and lesbian marriages would threaten their own. No hands went up. Yet it was clear that the outcome would be close, thanks to division in the large Liberal caucus. Late in the debate, the Alliance sought to gain a few more votes with an attempt to remove the "all necessary steps" clause. That language was understood to include Parliament using the so-called "notwithstanding" clause to override the legal system on equality issues, something it has never done in the more than 20 years since the Charter's adoption. The attempted amendment received a tie vote, the first deadlock in 40 years to require a decisive vote by the Speaker of the House, who turned it down. The official announcement of the final tally on the Alliance motion: {:10 soundbite: "132 yea, 137 nay"} By a scant 5 votes, the motion failed. Although the session was well attended, about 10% of MPs did not vote. All 63 Alliance MPs supported their party's resolution, joined by more than 1/3 of the 150 Liberals despite their Government's heavy lobbying. Of course the Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia are already licensing gay and lesbian marriages. One couple to wed in Toronto this week were gay Hong Kong civil rights activists Roddy Shaw Kwok-wah and Nelson Ng Chin-pang, who hope to use it for tax advantages back home. The relevant Hong Kong tax statute says it includes "any marriage, whether or not so recognized by the law of Hong Kong, entered into outside Hong Kong according to the law of the place where it was entered into and between persons having the capacity to do so." But same-gender marriages don't always cross borders, as the very first gay couple to marry in Toronto discovered this week. Heading for a human rights conference, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell were stopped at the airport by U.S. Customs because they identified themselves as a family and used a joint declaration form. They could have filled out two separate forms as "single" individuals and proceeded, but refused to "divorce themselves" for that purpose. Actually they'd entered the U.S. with a joint declaration on 3 previous occasions. But a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa defended the Customs agent's stopping them as upholding the States' so-called Defense of Marriage Act. The men's attorney has contacted Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, who's promised to discuss the matter with the U.S. Ambassador. But California's registered domestic partners continue to gain legal status. This week embattled Democratic Governor Gray Davis signed into law a bill that expands their legal recognition to a level second only to Vermont's civil unions. Davis declared, "I think we are at our best when we extend rights to every Californian no matter who they are or who they love." When the new law goes into effect in January 2005, registered partners will have all the state-level rights, protections, benefits, obligations, and duties of legally married spouses in the areas of property, children, survivor status, and dissolution. It will not provide for joint tax returns and some other issues because of possible conflicts with federal law. The new law was authored by openly lesbian Democratic Assemblymember for Los Angeles Jackie Goldberg and passed the legislature by narrow margins. Last week Governor Davis signed into law a bill regarding children in foster care which explicitly protects them from discrimination and harassment based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". Australia's federal Senate this week for the first time passed a bill towards equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples in pension benefits. For the first time it was the Australian Labor Party that introduced the measure -- the same ALP that has previously failed to support 11 similar pension reform bills introduced by the Australian Democratic Party. Openly gay Green Party Senator from Tasmania Bob Brown called the vote "monumental," even though the bill is widely expected to fail once it reaches the Coalition-dominated Lower House. As passed by the Senate the bill referred to the private sector, although moves were underway to try to extend it to the public sector and the military. Britain's Armed Forces will be extending marital pension benefits and other compensation to partners of unmarried servicemembers who register them, the Ministry of Defence announced this week. To register an unmarried partner -- regardless of gender -- the servicemember will have to present evidence of what the ministry called "a substantial relationship" and a long-term commitment. The new plan, which responds to a series of legal decisions, will go into effect in April 2005. And also in Britain, the last nail was driven into the coffin of the infamous anti-gay law Section 28 this week as this year's edition of the Local Government Act received royal assent. Section 28 prohibited local governments from using resources to "promote homosexuality" and from teaching that same-gender relationships are what it called "a pretend family". Although there never was a prosecution under Section 28, it created fear and confusion among local authorities as well as outrage among gays and lesbians and their allies. Its repeal has been a top target of gay and lesbian civil rights activists ever since its introduction under the Thatcher administration some 15 years ago, but the Conservative Party -- led by the late Baroness Janet Young -- staunchly and successfully defended it until this year. Repeal in Britain is effective November 18th. Scotland had already repealed its version despite a divisive million-pound religious right campaign in its support. And finally... Canada's federal legislature -- among others -- may be struggling over the definition of marriage, but the "Canadian Oxford Dictionary" is not. Editor-in-chief Katherine Barber told CanWest News Service that the new edition coming out next year will have an inclusive definition: "The legal or religious union of two people." Barber made the change following the landmark ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeals in June. CanWest went on to crack Skeat's "Etymological Dictionary of the English Language" and discovered that the Latin root "mari" means male, so the English word "marry" properly means "to provide with a husband." Since the Latin word for wife "marita" means literally "joined to a male," one can only conclude that while it properly applies to gay male couples, on this basis lesbian couples would be excluded.