Reply #28: now that's a funny idea worthy of elaboration! [View All]

[iverglas]

Seems to me, since the name "civil unions" draws so much more support, why not push for a federal civil unions bill, get inheritance, taxation and social security survivorship rights and all the state rights attached to marriage, and then go get married in the church of your choice?

And since it's the religious element of the whole thing that gets the right wing all fired up, wouldn't that just rot their socks?

The parties would have got their legal rights *and* their marriage. Ha, eat that.

But I'm still on the side that says it's insufficient -- although that doesn't mean that it's not an acceptable step on the road of progress. Same-sex couples did get civil unions first in Quebec, e.g., before the courts here in Canada started striking down provincial laws under which same-sex marriage was being denied.

Both the Massachusetts court and the Canadian courts that have considered the issue have said the same thing: the issue is human dignity, and the fact that denying equal treatment is a denial of the worth and dignity of the individual. Oh, and the South African constitutional court has said it too:

http://hrw.org/lgbt/pdf/s_africa_sodomy_1998.pdf

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (2) SA 1 CC

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

... It is noteworthy how the Canadian Supreme Court has, in the development of its equality jurisprudence under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter, come to see the central purpose of its equality guarantee as the protection and promotion of human dignity.<50>

42. In the Sodomy case this Court dealt with the seriously negative impact that societal discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation has had, and continues to have, on gays and their same-sex partnerships, concluding that gay men are a permanent minority in society and have suffered in the past from patterns of disadvantage. Although the main focus of that judgment was on the criminalisation of sodomy and on other proscriptions of erotic expression between men, the conclusions regarding the minority status of gays and the patterns of discrimination to which they have been and continue to be subject are also applicable to lesbians. Society at large has, generally, accorded far less respect to lesbians and their intimate relationships with one another than to heterosexuals and their relationships. The sting of past and continuing discrimination against both gays and lesbians is the clear message that it conveys, namely, that they, whether viewed as individuals or in their same-sex relationships, do not have the inherent dignity and are not worthy of the human respect possessed by and accorded to heterosexuals and their relationships. This discrimination occurs at a deeply intimate level of human existence and relationality. It denies to gays and lesbians that which is foundational to our Constitution and the concepts of equality and dignity, which at this point are closely intertwined, namely that all persons have the same inherent worth and dignity as human beings, whatever their other differences may be. The denial of equal dignity and worth all too quickly and insidiously degenerates into a denial of humanity and leads to inhuman treatment by the rest of society in many other ways. This is deeply demeaning and frequently has the cruel effect of undermining the confidence and sense of self-worth and self-respect of lesbians and gays.

43. Similar views, with which I agree, were expressed in Vriend v Alberta, where Cory J expressed himself thus:

“It is easy to say that everyone who is just like ‘us’ is entitled to equality. Everyone finds it more difficult to say that those who are ‘different’ from us in some way should have the same equality rights that we enjoy. Yet so soon as we say any ... group is less deserving and unworthy of equal protection and benefit of the law all minorities and all of ... society are demeaned. It is so deceptively simple and so devastatingly injurious to say that those who are handicapped or of a different race, or religion, or colour or sexual orientation are less worthy.”

_______________

<50> In Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1999) 170 DLR (4th) 1, Iacobucci J, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court stated the following at paras 52-4:

“... (I)n the articulation of the purpose of s. 15(1) ... a focus is quite properly placed upon the goal of assuring human dignity by the remedying of discriminatory treatment.
....
(T)he equality guarantee in s. 15(1) is concerned with the realization of personal autonomy and self-determination. Human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon personal traits or circumstances which do not relate to individual needs, capacities, or merits. It is enhanced by laws which are sensitive to the needs, capacities, and merits of different individuals, taking into account the context underlying their differences.
....
The equality guarantee in s. 15(1) of the Charter must be understood and applied in light of the above understanding of its purpose. The overriding concern with protecting and promoting human dignity in the sense just described infuses all elements of the discrimination analysis.”

(other footnotes omitted)

In other words: separate ain't equal.