Legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada

Legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada
Name
Course number
Instructor’s name
Date
How the definition of same-sex marriage changed
Decriminalization of same-sex marriages in Canada is entailed in the 2005 Civil Marriage Act. Section 2 of the Civil Marriage Act outlines the fact that civil marriage is a union where two people relate exclusively. The Act also resulted into amendments of other pertinent instruments such as the Divorce Act, and the Income Tax Act on their definition of a spouse. Before 1969, marriage was exclusively reserved for one man and one woman. At that time, marriage and religion were largely inseparable and homosexuality between adults was a crime (Bowal & Campbell, 2007).
In 1982, section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted. It bore the duty to afford all Canadians equal protection without discrimination on different grounds including sex. This marked the beginning of advocacy for homosexuals’ rights because it was not expressly prohibited as a ground of discrimination. There followed numerous changes to existing policies to extend consideration of homosexual couples on pension, employment, social assistance, and taxation that heterosexual couples enjoyed. One notable amendment was made on the Federal Modernization and Obligations Act which changed sixty-eight statutes to afford both the unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples equal rights. In the following years, some provinces such as Nova Scotia and Quebec allowed couples to register their civil unions (Bowal & Campbell, 2007).
There were several legal litigations against the state for refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in British Columbia. In 2003, a court in Ontario Canada issued the Halpern decision that considered the refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex partners as a violation of section 15 of the 1982 Charter. In June of 2003, the Supreme Court in Canada drafted a legislation that redefined civil marriage in gender neutral terms and protected the rights of religious groups that refused to solemnize same-sex marriages due to its conflict with their beliefs. The court also recommended that drafting a bill to address same-sex marriages was the sole duty of the federal parliament. In June 2005, the Civil Marriage Act passed with majority votes making Canada the third country globally to legalize same-sex marriages (Bowal & Campbell, 2007).
Can the change in law be attributed to moral panic about the activity?
The change in law may be attributed to a moral allegiance to the virtues of harmonious diversity that prevail in Canada. The tendency emanates from the historical endeavor to consolidate the British and French solitudes from which the country grew out of. The country also takes special cognizance of its indigenous people and the many immigrants that come from different parts of the globe. In this regard, the country is bound to uphold tolerance to diversity in all aspects of Canadian life (Bibby, 2004).
Canada has a moral commitment to encourage social policies that contribute to co-existence of its diversity. This commitment is verbalized through its long-standing commitment to uphold peace, order and good government which emphasizes leading a unified whole. Canadians’ moral commitment to the virtues of harmonious diversity is very pervasive. It is evident in the extent to which religious groups despite being quite vociferous in their opposition to same-sex marriage were compelled to embrace appreciation for diversity, and virtues such as forbearance (Bibby, 2004).
Was the change due to political motivations?
The decriminalization of same-sex marriage in Canada was politically influenced. Paul Martin took over power from Chretien in 2004 and facilitated growth in momentum for Bill C-38 that led to the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act. The Prime Minister Martin asked the Supreme Court to review the Constitutionality of the Bill and whether the legislature had the exclusive authority over its legislation. After receiving affirmative answers, Parliament started debating the Bill and its approval led to a change in definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex marriages (Haskell, 2011).
The process took advantage of the Canadian highly centralized federal policy capacity to legislate on the issued in a highly federalized country. The federal government has significant jurisdiction on marriage affairs although marriage is largely a provincial matter due to its civil status. Contrary to other political systems, Canada lacks the institutional levers or avenues to oppose same-sex marriage. The political system in Canada offered limited entry points for same-sex opponents particularly the conservative Christians. Countries such as the US have the separation of powers, the impact of federalism and access points which provide gay opponents avenues to oppose homosexual rights (Smith, 2005). However, Canada’s political system is in such a way that conservatives votes were controlled by the government side and the Liberals. This way, the Federal conservatives were left with no other means such as a referendum to stop the same-sex marriage from going through. If such a measure were available in Canada, conservatives in Alberta would have used it to defeat and criminalize same-sex marriages. The fact that provinces lack jurisdiction over marriage also hindered provincial legislatures from overriding the same-sex rights provisions despite the Canadian constitution having an override clause (Hogg, 2004).
The Political system in Canada also influenced the change because as the provincial governments and lower courts started recognizing same-sex marriages and placed pressure on the Federal government to act. Canada has a strong equality language based on the Charter that lower courts used to challenge the government. The lower court rulings thus offered significant leverage in influencing public opinion. The political parties in Canada are well consolidated and are not vulnerable to fragmentation. In this regard, Canadian voters were uninterested in the same-sex debate. Historically, it is also challenging to use morality views about same-sex marriage to create a politically polarized environment (Smith, 2005). The masses thus allowed the Federal government to proceed with its quest to legalize same-sex marriages without inflicting divisive wedges on the public which was also largely indifferent on the issue.
Did news media coverage of the activity play a role?
The period before the change in law Canadian press sparked a national and international discussion about values of social liberalism in Canada. The discussion elicited varying reactions with some indicating that same-sex marriage insinuated a fracture in the Canadian society based on its core values. Media platforms reported that some Christian leaders indicated that the impending legalization was unacceptable because marriage was there before the establishment of the country and it amounted to an assault on common sense and values of the society. Others viewed the phenomenon as a confirmation of the Canadians’ respect for equality and diversity (Bannerman, 2011).
Newspapers covered the issue of same-sex marriages in relation to Canadian values that peaked in December 2003 and June 2004. In 2003, the coverage coincided with the international coverage that resulted from the Ontario court of appeal decision on sam...