Talk:Same-sex marriage in Canada

Those that support and oppose the change in the definition of marriage form into distinct groups. Supporters tend to be younger, female, live in urban areas and are better educated. Opponents tend to be older, male, live in rural areas and in the Prairie Provinces.

This breakdown has significant political implications. Like western European countries, Canada does not produce enough people to maintain its population. It has a total fertility rate of only 1.64 live births per women (2000 est). So Canada depends upon immigration to maintain and increase its population. Immigrants almost always settle in a large urban area. Toronto alone receives about half the immigrants to Canada. Population growth occurs mainly in urban areas while the rural areas tend to have a static or falling population.

Thus the future belongs to those who support the change – the young and urban dwellers. A political party interested in its own future would adopt policies favoured by this group. It is not surprising the Liberal party should support the change. Many Canadians believe that the only principle and policy of the Liberals is to remain in power.

I think the reasoning here my be faulty. I'd guess in fact that immigrants are the group in society to be least likely to support gay marriage, since it has very little support outside Canada and a few other Western countries. In fact this is one of the primary reasons AFAIK behind immigrant backlashes in much of Europe.

However so long as Canada maintains a first-past-the-post electoral system immigrants will probably only serve to boost the strength of the native Canadian urban majority. Still we need to be clear about this -- stewacide

I think that section can be removed from the article. It's only observation/speculation, not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, IMHO. -- Kimiko 00:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of the paragraphs quoted here, the first merely summarizes the summary results. It should stay, although it may need some more cautious resolution. The last paragraph is a little more dubious, and especially the last sentence has only the barest nod to NPOV. The second paragraph also makes the incorrect inferences discussed above. (The conclusion may be correct; the inferences are not). I vote for removing the second two paragraphs. Andrew 03:45, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) (yes, I'm too cautious to go hacking on such a contentious article without some discussion first).

---

A suggestion: spinoff the provincial details into articles for each province. I've put placeholder links in the SSM box for the three provinces, just as a jumping-off point. Radagast 16:33, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 divorce 2 Yukon Territory 3 Nunavut 4 Contradiction 5 edits after supreme court ruling 6 Canada is awesome 7 Free Votes 8 Famous Players 9 Terminology

divorce

This page states that the canadian same-sex divorce is the possibly the first in the world. This is not true. There have already been same-sex divorces in the Netherlands and Belgium.

I'm removing the reference to "world's first" until we can proove it either way. Arcuras 13:48, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I imagine with same-sex marriage in the Netherlands and Belgium being long before Canada, they must have had divorce first. We just may not have heard about it. Spinboy 15:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was assuming. If we can find more information about this, starting a Same Sex Divorce page would be the logical thing to do. Arcuras 19:37, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

BBC says it's the first same-sex divorce.[1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/3660792.stm) CBC suggests that it is "probably" the world's first -- as a solid news organization, CBC probably did some research, turned up no leads, and then hedged with "probably".[2] (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/samesexdivorce.html) The Advocate (which probably keeps up on these things) says it's the world's first divorce.[3] (http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?id=13699&sd=09/15/04) It's possible that no one has yet divorced in Belgium or the Netherlands if their laws do not require legal precedent to permit same-sex divorce. Canada needed the precedent, in order to challenge the current definition of divorce. --Westendgirl 07:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yukon Territory

The Yukon Territory is not called "Yukon" in Canada, neither formally nor informally. "The territory of Yukon", which is what was used in this article, sounds particularly strange. I've only ever heard "The Yukon Territory" or "The Yukon". Seeing "The territory of Yukon" in a list looks as strange to me (and I'm sure most Canadians or anyone else who's heard of the place) as "The city of Hague" would. So I'm going to rename this in the article. --db

the official name of the territory in question is "yukon". calling it "the yukon" would be like saying "the california" or "the italy". that being said, it seems to have become stuck to the word "territory" as a result of its larger neighbour, the northwest territories, in which the word "territories" is part of the official name.

m.

The government of Yukon uses both "Yukon" and "the Yukon," mostly "Yukon" as far as I can tell. However, since "the Yukon" is short for "the Yukon Territory" (with "the" not being a part of the proper name, as with The Hague, The Gambia, or The Pas), I would not capitalize it. If "territory" is appended, "the Yukon Territory" is definitely correct (not "the territory of Yukon"). - Montréalais 17:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information about the official name (and its official usage) of the Yukon Territory. I now see that despite common usage, "The" is not part of the name of the territory, at least not as much as it is of "The Hague", etc. The original phrasing, "The territory of Yukon", is very odd and jarring. --db

---

Nunavut

I don't think it's appropriate to list Nunavut in a parallel fashion with the other provinces and territory in which SSM is performed:

1. Nunavut does not perform same-sex marriage; to put it in a list with other provinces and territories that do is misleading.
2. It is not known if the territory's government actually will respect SSM performed in other provinces; all we have is the premier's word on it.
3. I do not know if any test cases have come up in Nunavut.
4. I do not know if any test cases have come up in other provinces or in NWT, or what their intentions are towards recognizing outside SSM; i.e. if Nunavut is unique in this regard.

I would prefer to wait on including Nunavut in the list until it actually is performing SSM. - Montréalais 04:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The Premier has spoke as if they will accept it, so I see no reason that it can't be at least mentioned, and as cases come up, the page updates. Right now, the information given from Nunavut's Hansard is that they will accept marriages from other juristictions. Spinboy 04:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Hansard is not law. The Hansard is just a record of what people have said in the legislature. If the Premier said that flying monkeys were attacking, it would be recorded in Hansard.

Until and unless there is a law passed by the legislature or a ruling handed down by a court, it's inappropriate to present recognition of outside same-sex marriage as a fait accompli in Nunavut.

Of course, you are quite right that what the premier said ought to be mentioned. I moved it to a new section on recognition of marriage in other provinces and territories. The initial entry was under the section slugged "Court Rulings," which was certainly inappropriate. - Montréalais 04:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The new section works for me. I certainly can understand that it was in the wrong section. Spinboy 04:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction

"the percentage has risen to slightly over 50%, and two thirds of Canadians now believe that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This includes almost 40% of those who oppose the change in the definition of marriage."

These two numbers don't make sense...either 60% agree and 40% don't, or 66.6% agree and 33.3% don't. You can't have 66.6% agreeing and 40% not agreeing. If anybody has the proper source for this, please change the numbers, and reference it if possible. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 15:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the surface, it does look contradictory, but the wording is what makes it work:

"the percentage has risen to slightly over 50%, and two thirds of Canadians now believe that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This includes almost 40% of those who oppose the change in the definition of marriage."

Two thirds of Canadians want gays/lesbians to have the same rights, and some of those people are part of the 40% of canadians who don't want to change the definition of marriage to "two adults". Arcuras 16:40, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

edits after supreme court ruling

This page mentioned the outcome of the Supreme Court reference in three different places. I've tried to consolidate that, and hope I haven't left any lacunae. -Montréalais 17:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Canada is awesome

Canada really is pretty awesome. Superking 19:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Free Votes

Free votes are not legislatively binding in Canada, and are mostly done for symbolic purposes.

Can somebody give me a reference for this? As far as I am aware, free votes are votes just like any other, the difference being the governmental party whip doesn't enforce the party line on backbenchers. From a constitutional point of view there is no such thing as a free vote or a whip vote, therefore how could a free vote be non-binding? Gabe 06:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a goof on someone's part. The statement is correct if you stick in "motion" instead of "free vote." I've corrected it. -The Tom 18:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Free votes and private members bills are law if the pass both houses of parliament. --Spinboy 01:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Famous Players

I read in the article that the ads from Famous Players were removed? --Spinboy 01:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems they were. [4] (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108830692002_6/?hub=Canada) --Spinboy 01:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

An anon just made an edit with the summary: Changed the term 'gay marriages' to 'marriages for same sex couples'. I think the term 'gay marriage' or same sex marriage' may imply an instituion that is distinct from marriage, which it is not.

I disagree with the reasoning. English has plenty of conceptual room for attaching specifiers to general terms like "marriage" without suggesting that the general term isn't the same thing anymore. In fact, that's the default in English linguistics. Besides which, same-sex marriage is the accepted, popular term, and it's clear from the coverage of the issue that there's no misunderstanding as to its meaning. Further, the changes make the article read less well, inserting inconsistency and baroque wording. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to change it back (and standardise it on same-sex marriage, as there were numerous references to gay marriage with no rationale for using a different term).  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)