9.几百个政客,法官的判决就推反几千年的传统定义?
反同人士怀疑法官的判决的正确性,指责政府没有上诉,但第一,政府从最高法院那里获得的指引也已经清楚说明C-38草案符合宪法,而且该草案正是来源于宪法对少数族群的保护的结果(The Court agreed with the position of the Attorney General of Canada on the constitutionality of the draft bill, holding that the draft bill was not only consistent with the Charter but flowed from its protections )。第二,加拿大九个管制区的最高法院法官都做出了完全一致的裁决,这十个法院的法官都出错的机会有多大呢?即使联邦政府上诉,胜诉的机会哪怕连0.000001%的机会也不会有。
-----
In June 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision upheld the Divisional Court’s conclusions.(22) In per curiam reasons, the Court asserted, in part:
1)“Marriage” in subsection 91(26) has the “constitutional flexibility to meet … changing realities” without a constitutional amendment;
2)It is not enough to say marriage “just is” heterosexual. It is the opposite-sex component that requires scrutiny, in order to determine whether its impact on same-sex couples is discriminatory;
3)When compared to married couples, same-sex couples are not afforded equal treatment in matters of benefits and obligations owing, for example, to specific cohabitation requirements or the unevenness of benefits under provincial legislation and, of particular broader significance, exclusion from the fundamental institution of marriage and its corresponding benefits, whether economic or non-economic;
4)The opposite-sex requirement does not represent minimal impairment of the rights of same-sex couples:
4.A) Allowing same-sex couples to choose their partners and to celebrate their unions is not an adequate substitute for legal recognition. ... Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not result in a corresponding deprivation to opposite-sex couples.
4.B) Nor is this a case of balancing the rights of same-sex couples against the rights of religious groups who oppose same-sex marriage. Freedom of religion … ensures that religious groups have the option of refusing to solemnize same-sex marriages. The equality guarantee, however, ensures that the beliefs and practices of various religious groups are not imposed on persons who do not share those views.
The Court invalidated the existing common-law definition of marriage and reformulated it to refer to the “voluntary union for life of two persons” with immediate effect in Ontario. In July 2003, the British Columbia Court of Appeal and, in March 2004, the Cour d’appel du Québec also enabled same-sex couples to marry legally in their respective provinces immediately.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news.../doc_31376.html
The Court also indicated that other approaches, such as giving same-sex unions legal recognition by another name, such as civil union, were less than equal and so would not be consistent with the Charter, requiring the use of the notwithstanding clause.作者: 红蚂蚁 时间: 2005-8-8 10:42 标题: 在这个问题上, 我们地被马田政府剥夺了一次 近来关于同性恋婚姻合法性问题一直是网上被关注的焦点, 这一现象本身就说明了同性恋婚姻绝不是关乎一小部分人利益的事, 而是牵扯众多的人利益,乃至整个社会利益的大事. 然而不幸的是, 这样一件重要的事, 众多人的意见和感受却被甩在一边不与理睬, 众多人的利益被忽视, 众多人的民主权利被马田政府扎扎实实地剥夺了一次.