22:
99:
436:
521:
532:
617:
What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in
Christendom?...If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must needs have some pervading identity and universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for
639:
The Court rejected these claims, stating that they were not trying to find the definition of marriage, but were only examining whether a proposed meaning was within the definition. The meaning of marriage is not fixed to what it meant in 1867, but rather it must evolve with
Canadian society which
635:
The interveners had argued that the meaning of marriage is fixed into convention beyond the reach of the constitution as its old meaning is in practice for thousands of years across the entire globe. Moreover, they argued that the living tree doctrine is constrained within the "natural limits" of
654:
On the third question, the Court found that the religious freedom guarantee will protect those who disagree with performing same-sex marriages and even protect those who disagree with renting religious spaces for the purpose of same-sex marriage. Again, the Court reiterated that it is up to the
650:
On considering the second question, the Court not only affirmed the validity of the legislation, they added that its purpose "flows from" the
Charter. They further found that equality right of religious groups and opposite-sex couples are not undermined by the legislation, on the basis that the
658:
The Court decided not to answer the fourth question as it served "no legal purpose". The federal government had already decided not to appeal the
Helpren case in Ontario on the very issue and so there was no point examining it again. Also, the court wished to respect the lower-court decisions
651:
expansion of the
Charter enriches society, and equality cannot be supported by denial of others from a benefit. When conflicts between rights arise, the Court said, it must be resolved by internal balancing of those rights, not denial of rights.
245:
Prior to this case the issue regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage had been considered by several of the provinces' appellate courts, all of them holding that it was constitutionally valid. In response to this, the
646:
Section 2 of the Act was considered to be ultra vires to
Parliament, as its pith and substance related to who may (or must) perform marriages and falls within the subject matter allocated to the provinces under s. 92(12).
250:
submitted three questions to the
Supreme Court regarding the validity of the proposed same-sex marriage legislation (the Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes):
482:
478:
266:
789:
577:(i.e. lacks sufficient legal content, or where the nature of the question or the information provided does not permit the Court to give a complete or accurate answer) based on it being a
699:
682:
560:
581:. The Court resolutely dismissed this claim for these political considerations provide the context for, rather than the substance of, the questions before the Court, as in the
207:
51:
749:
422:
408:
643:
However, the Court made sure to say that the legislation was only concerning "civil marriage as a legal institution" and has no effect on religious marriage.
503:
764:
553:
394:
754:
259:
769:
345:
759:
667:
In terms of rights for same sex couples, a few have speculated that this case does not add much. However, by pre-litigating the following
628:
546:
511:
507:
779:
387:
359:
282:
4. Is the opposite-sex requirement established in the common law and Quebec law consistent with the
Charter? If not, to what extent?
73:
601:
The Court then considered the impact of the common law definition of marriage on the new law. The applicable definition was from
583:
401:
784:
610:
590:
The first question required the court to determine which head of power the law falls under. It was clearly determined that the
774:
594:
of the law was federal as it concerned marriage which is in the absolute federal jurisdiction under section 91(26) of the
366:
429:
373:
352:
34:
380:
312:
234:
44:
38:
30:
415:
55:
632:, analogizing the exclusion of women from the common law definition of "persons" to that of same-sex couples.
718:
705:
226:
104:
595:
499:
230:
731:
459:
98:
713:
687:
623:
247:
270:
669:
591:
578:
465:
222:
156:
167:
709:
255:
1. Is the proposal for the Act within the authority of
Parliament? If not, to what extent?
179:
673:, it effectively precluded court challenge of the act, thereby hastening its acceptance.
191:
187:
743:
525:
237:. The ruling was announced December 2004, following arguments made two months prior.
163:
120:
602:
536:
636:
interpretation and cannot be stretched to anything the court would like it to be.
574:
183:
175:
171:
606:
143:
Parliament has the authority to legislate in regard to same-sex marriage.
700:
Centre for
Constitutional Studies: Reference re Same-sex Marriage (2004)
573:
The Court began by considering the argument that the questions are not
273:, protect religious officials who do not believe in same-sex marriage?
304:
4. The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.
618:
life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
258:
2. If so, is section 1 of the proposed Act consistent with the
15:
435:
655:
provinces to legislate protection for religious groups.
683:
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
295:
1. With respect to s. 1: Yes. With respect to s. 2: No.
659:upholding same-sex marriage by letting them stand.
622:The Court rejected this definition by applying the
202:
197:
147:
137:
129:
119:
112:
91:
790:Supreme Court of Canada reference question cases
43:but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
291:The court responded to the questions as such:
554:
8:
640:currently represents a plurality of groups.
504:Adult interdependent relationship in Alberta
561:
547:
307:
74:Learn how and when to remove this message
277:Later, an additional question was added:
724:
493:
488:
472:
446:
310:
88:
750:Canadian freedom of religion case law
7:
512:Common-law relationships in Manitoba
732:SCC Case Information - Docket 29866
508:Domestic partnership in Nova Scotia
125:3 S.C.R. 698; 2004 SCC 79 (CanLII)
14:
221:3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79, was a
765:Section Fifteen Charter case law
530:
519:
434:
97:
20:
755:Canadian LGBTQ rights case law
454:Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage
218:Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage
92:Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage
1:
770:Supreme Court of Canada cases
489:Same-sex marriage by province
269:of the Charter, guaranteeing
86:Supreme Court of Canada case
760:Same-sex marriage in Canada
313:Same-sex marriage in Canada
235:same-sex marriage in Canada
113:Hearing: October 6–7, 2004
806:
584:Quebec Secession Reference
115:Judgment: December 9, 2004
780:2004 in Canadian case law
262:? If not, to what extent?
152:
142:
96:
29:This article includes a
734:Supreme Court of Canada
706:Supreme Court of Canada
227:Supreme Court of Canada
105:Supreme Court of Canada
58:more precise citations.
785:LGBT marriage case law
708:decision available at
620:
596:Constitution Act, 1867
500:Civil unions in Quebec
615:
460:Halpern v Canada (AG)
775:2004 in LGBT history
688:Living tree doctrine
624:living tree doctrine
287:Opinion of the court
248:Government of Canada
203:Unanimous reasons by
626:used in the famous
271:freedom of religion
670:Civil Marriage Act
592:pith and substance
579:political question
466:Civil Marriage Act
223:reference question
157:Beverley McLachlin
31:list of references
571:
570:
526:Canada portal
214:
213:
168:Michel Bastarache
84:
83:
76:
797:
735:
729:
563:
556:
549:
537:LGBTQ portal
535:
534:
533:
524:
523:
522:
438:
437:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
319:
308:
161:Puisne Justices:
148:Court membership
101:
89:
79:
72:
68:
65:
59:
54:this article by
45:inline citations
24:
23:
16:
805:
804:
800:
799:
798:
796:
795:
794:
740:
739:
738:
730:
726:
696:
679:
665:
567:
531:
529:
528:
520:
518:
510:
506:
502:
463:
457:
442:
441:
440:
439:
433:
426:
419:
412:
405:
398:
391:
384:
377:
370:
363:
356:
349:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
316:
289:
278:
243:
180:Marie Deschamps
159:
114:
108:
87:
80:
69:
63:
60:
49:
35:related reading
25:
21:
12:
11:
5:
803:
801:
793:
792:
787:
782:
777:
772:
767:
762:
757:
752:
742:
741:
737:
736:
723:
722:
721:
716:
702:
695:
694:External links
692:
691:
690:
685:
678:
675:
664:
661:
569:
568:
566:
565:
558:
551:
543:
540:
539:
515:
514:
496:
495:
491:
490:
486:
485:
475:
474:
470:
469:
449:
448:
444:
443:
427:
420:
413:
406:
399:
392:
385:
378:
371:
364:
357:
350:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
336:
335:
306:
305:
302:
299:
296:
288:
285:
284:
283:
275:
274:
263:
256:
242:
239:
231:constitutional
229:regarding the
212:
211:
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
192:Louise Charron
188:Rosalie Abella
154:Chief Justice:
150:
149:
145:
144:
140:
139:
135:
134:
131:
127:
126:
123:
117:
116:
110:
109:
102:
94:
93:
85:
82:
81:
39:external links
28:
26:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
802:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
756:
753:
751:
748:
747:
745:
733:
728:
725:
720:
717:
715:
711:
707:
704:Full text of
703:
701:
698:
697:
693:
689:
686:
684:
681:
680:
676:
674:
672:
671:
662:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
637:
633:
631:
630:
625:
619:
614:
612:
611:Lord Penzance
608:
604:
599:
597:
593:
588:
586:
585:
580:
576:
564:
559:
557:
552:
550:
545:
544:
542:
541:
538:
527:
517:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
497:
492:
487:
484:
480:
477:
476:
471:
468:
467:
462:
461:
456:
455:
451:
450:
445:
432:
431:
425:
424:
418:
417:
411:
410:
404:
403:
397:
396:
390:
389:
383:
382:
376:
375:
369:
368:
362:
361:
355:
354:
348:
347:
338:
337:
315:
314:
309:
303:
300:
297:
294:
293:
292:
286:
281:
280:
279:
272:
268:
264:
261:
257:
254:
253:
252:
249:
240:
238:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
210:
209:
205:
201:
198:Reasons given
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
164:John C. Major
162:
158:
155:
151:
146:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
122:
118:
111:
107:
106:
100:
95:
90:
78:
75:
67:
57:
53:
47:
46:
40:
36:
32:
27:
18:
17:
727:
719:Case summary
668:
666:
663:Implications
657:
653:
649:
645:
642:
638:
634:
629:Persons case
627:
621:
616:
603:Hyde v. Hyde
600:
589:
582:
572:
464:
458:
453:
452:
428:
421:
414:
407:
400:
393:
386:
379:
372:
365:
358:
351:
344:
311:
290:
276:
267:section 2(a)
244:
233:validity of
217:
216:
215:
206:
160:
153:
103:
70:
61:
50:Please help
42:
609:case where
575:justiciable
184:Morris Fish
176:Louis LeBel
64:August 2012
56:introducing
744:Categories
483:39th House
479:38th House
473:Parliament
241:Background
172:Ian Binnie
130:Docket No.
613:stated:
605:(1866) a
208:The Court
121:Citations
677:See also
607:polygamy
265:3. Does
494:Related
301:3. Yes.
298:2. Yes.
260:Charter
225:to the
138:Holding
52:improve
714:CanLII
333:
330:
327:
324:
321:
318:
133:29866
710:LexUM
447:Legal
37:, or
712:and
178:,
746::
598:.
587:.
481:·
430:NU
423:NT
416:YT
409:NL
402:NS
395:PE
388:NB
381:QC
374:ON
367:MB
360:SK
353:AB
346:BC
190:,
186:,
182:,
174:,
170:,
166:,
41:,
33:,
562:e
555:t
548:v
77:)
71:(
66:)
62:(
48:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
