|
Here
are two questions (part of a larger document available
here) that went to all Liberal MPs and Senators I
am told. Why ? So the Liberals can all give the "patsy"
answer when asked about the issue. And so the Court will
know what the government wants from it so the government
can have a reference answer which will justify the desired
plan of action the Martin government wants to impose.
This is very telling of the plans that Martin and crew
have - after the election. Next election is time to "fix"
this problem. Vote the Liberal government out.
Q.
Why is the Government adding a new question to the reference?
A.
Many Canadians have expressed the concern that the
reference did not ask the question of whether the opposite-sex
requirement for marriage is constitutional. By not including
the question, some thought that the Government was prejudging
the Court's advice on this important issue. The Government
remains of the view that the courts of appeal were correct
in their legal conclusions, and that the Charter requires
the Government to provide equal access to civil marriage
to same-sex couples.
However,
the Government believes that it is important to be responsive
to these concerns, and that the opinion of the Supreme
Court on this additional question will provide clarity
on this key issue of concern, so that future discussions
and debate in Parliament will be fully informed and
constructive.
Q.
Why didn't the Government ask the Court whether a parallel
to marriage for same-sex unions, such as a "civil
union", is a viable option?
A.
The Government continues to believe that a parallel
system, even one that would give the same legal treatment
as marriage, would be less than equal and therefore contrary
to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - this
conclusion has already been reached by the lower courts
in three provinces. Civil unions present significant legal
difficulties in terms of jurisdiction and would likely
raise additional issues that would make it difficult to
implement them within the Canadian legal framework. For
example, since Parliament does not have the constitutional
jurisdiction to set up a new civil union for all purposes,
any federal legislation to set up a new civil union as
a parallel to marriage would only be valid for federal
purposes, and would likely have no effect on the range
of benefits and obligations within provincial jurisdiction.
Interveners that disagree with the Government's position
will be able to put their arguments before the Court.
Click
here to open the original source document:
Amended
Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada
Civil Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
|
