Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 19:42:00 EDT
From: Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

Two Canadian homosexuals demand rights as spouses

    By Dawn Brett

OTTAWA, Nov 1 (Reuter) - Two homosexuals asked Canada's Supreme Court on
Tuesday to give them the same government benefits as heterosexual couples
in a landmark challenge under the country's charter of rights and
freedoms.

James Egan and John "Jack" Nesbit, who have lived together for 46 years,
say they should be considered the same as other spouses so that Nesbit
can receive a federal pension benefit.

This the first gay rights challenge to the equality-rights section of
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms asking for same-sex benefits.

"They (the men) do not seek greater rights or privileges or benefits than
heterosexual couples, they come to this court with a simple plea they
want equality," lawyer Joseph Arvay told Canada's highest court.

The two men are looking for a spousal allowance they were refused about
seven years ago because the government does not see them as spouses. The
Canadian government says only a man and a woman can be considered
spouses.

The spousal benefit is an allowance for low-income couples made available
by the federal government for pensioners' spouses who are 60 to 65 years
old.

Egan, 73, and Nesbit, 67, are now too old for the benefit, but they could
be granted retroactive benefits if the court decides in their favour.

"My clients are a gay couple who have lived together in an intimate,
sexual, emotional and financial interdependent relationship for over 45
years, few heterosexual couples can make the same claim," Arvay said.

The two men, who live on Vancouver Island on the West Coast, are arguing
that Canada's charter of human rights gives them the right to receive the
same government benefits as any other couple.

Spouses are defined as persons who have lived with each other for one
year and have publicly represented themselves as husband and wife,
lawyers said.

The men are not asking the court to give them the legal status of
marriage but only recognition that their relationship is similiar enough
for them to receive the government financial benefits, they said.

REUTER