Finally!

[c9]

Now they can all beat their chests about it for a couple months and it will be over.*

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38.html

BILL C-38

An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil
purposes

WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada is committed to upholding the Constitution
of Canada, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law and has
the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination;

 WHEREAS the courts in a majority of the provinces and in one territory
have recognized that the right to equality without discrimination requires
that couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex have equal
access to marriage for civil purposes;

 WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that many Canadian
couples of the same sex have married in reliance on those court decisions;

 WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the
right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and
civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them
that equal access and would violate their human dignity, in breach of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

 WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Parliament of
Canada has legislative jurisdiction over marriage but does not have the
jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for couples of
the same sex;

 WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section
2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

 WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience
and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups
to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of
religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance
with their religious beliefs;

 WHEREAS, in light of those considerations, the Parliament of Canada's
commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination precludes
the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny
the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to marriage for civil
purposes;

 WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the
Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution
because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the
foundation of family life for many Canadians;

 AND WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality
consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to
marriage for civil purposes should be extended by legislation to couples of
the same sex;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.

2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the
exclusion of all others.

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to
perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only
that the spouses are of the same sex.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS (partial list)

Divorce Act

8. (1) The definition "spouse" in subsection 2(1) of the Divorce Act is
replaced by the following:

"spouse" means either of two persons who are married to each other;

Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act

13. Subsection 2(2) of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act is replaced by
the following:

(2) No person shall marry another person if they are related lineally, or as
brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister, including by adoption.

Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act

15. Section 1.1 of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and the
heading before it are repealed.

* except for adamos and evad_cgy. Alberta's gonna continue kicking up a fuss and will require another year or so of court time.

Comments

[evad-cgy.livejournal.com]

Oh don't pick on the Albertans :P

Anyway this means we have to have our wedding out of town... which also means there will be far less family members there... resulting in both more friends being able to attend and less money being spent!

I'm so tired about looking at the front page of the papers and seeing the words "Same-Sex" "Gay" "SpongeBob SquarePants?!?"

Unfortunately I'm sure I'll be seeing it for quite some time :P

[c9.livejournal.com]

Having held a wedding 'out of town', I must respectfully disagree on the cost issue. No matter what you do, it'll cost a pile. Or it'll be all dry and boring. :)

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

But, will Harper use the Notwithstanding Clause against SpongeBob SquarePants? TUNE IN NEXT WEEK!

[zoltrix.livejournal.com]

Rick Mercer even touched on it last night at the concert. Although his direction was more: "Canada should do what it wants and not be so concerned with what the US thinks. We're a sovereign nation. Who cares that we have a tiny army!"

[c9.livejournal.com]

Oops, sorry Ryan, forgot to list you in my footnote!

[canuckboy.livejournal.com]

(2) No person shall marry another person if they are related lineally, or as
brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister, including by adoption.

I wonder what the objection is to step-siblings getting hot, heavy and married. If it's good enough for Shannon and Boone, why isn't it good enough for Canada?

*snicker*

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

I don't know if the provision covers step-siblings per se. I have four step-siblings, acquired during adulthood. Their mom never adopted me, so I don't know if they're related to me "as brother or sister" or not.

The old (current) definition specifically says "as brother and sister by consanguinity, whether by the whole blood or by the half blood; or as brother and sister by adoption". So I know we're not caught by that. The new definition, with "including", is more vague.

The lesson here is to marry your step-siblings now, while there's still time.

[miket61.livejournal.com]

Although... the purpose of not allowing blood relatives to marry is to prevent the nasty freaks of nature that are caused by inbreeding.

I'm trying to figure out if Dr. James Dobson is the result of inbreeding or if he had a really fantastic homosexual experience as a teenager that he's still feeling very guilty about.

Anyway, the thing is, what I really mean... why can't same-sex couples who are blood relatives get married? Not that I have any blood relatives I'd marry, but just asking.