Should same sex marriages be legal?
Same-sex marriages have been very controversial since becoming an issue in Canada regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Several people state that same-sex marriages should be legal, while others disagree, saying it should not be permitted. There have been many debates and inquiries about this issue for several years; the MP’s and Parliament will finally settle the problem within the next year or so. Many are in favour of legalizing same-sex marriages in all of Canada due to the violations and infringes upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Problems revolving around same-sex marriages have upset many religious groups. These groups believe that same-sex marriages should not be performed in a church – or at all. Although churches and other places of worship do not approve of same-sex marriages, legalizing same-sex marriages does not breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same-sex marriages should be legalized everywhere in Canada because individuals should be able to express themselves freely without having to feel discriminated against, as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Denying the fundamental liberties and other rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unconstitutional and contravenes what the Charter is expected to maintain. The fundamental rights are what the Charter is based on – the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication (Section 2b) will be infringed if same-sex marriages are disallowed. Addressing the issue of the fundamental freedoms on same-sex marriages, Prime Minister Paul Martin quoted:
The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right…If we do no step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it.
Canada is governed based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certain parties of the government believe that the government can not and should not pick and choose whose rights they will defend and whose right...
... middle of paper ...
...of another, their right has also been infringed. Then again, religious morals are not valued as they ought to be in society as a whole, its customs, and its laws will change forever from this issue. Change is needed for Canada to adapt to the evolving world, adjusting to changes is beneficial. Legalizing same-sex marriages will lead Canada to being a stronger and a more liberated country.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sullivan, Andrew. Same-sex marriage, pro and con. A Reader. New York: Vintage
Books, 2004
Catholic Group says Cardinal Wrong to say Charter of Rights shouldn’t apply to Gays and Lesbians [Online] Available: http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=142 (19 Jan. 2005)
Civil Marriage Act [Online] Available: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2005/doc_31376.html (1 Feb. 2005)
Gay Marriages Timeline [Online] Available: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/110262810228_a8037308/?hub... GLBT and the equal marriage movement [Online] Available: http://www.psac.com/elections/ask_same_sex_marriage-e.htm Same-sex Marriages [Online] Available: http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-
editorial.asp?key=1415&editorPrimeKeyword=samesexmarriages...
The Canadian government only protects 18 out of 30 rights in the Universal Declaration and other important rights are ignored. For example, in article 26 of the Universal Declaration, it states that everyone has the right to education. This law is not included in the Charter but I think it is very im...
The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review. He feared a conservative judiciary might hinder enlightened policies and sought authority beyond the ambit of an entrenched rights protection act. At the other end of the political spectrum opposition was in the form of an allegiance to parliamentary supremacy as expressed most notably by Sterling Lyon, the conservative premier of Manitoba. Imbedding section 33, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding Clause, into the constitutional document alleviated these concerns to a degree that permitted their compliance. It is well established that the impetus for the Notwithstanding Clause was of a political nature. To insert this so inspired clause into an intended sanctuary from capricious legislative acts appears tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop. Conceivably the same legislative majority that would create the laws abridging rights could exem...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented 1982 has been essential in providing justice for all Canadian citizens. Countless amounts of cases have been decided to create the Charter that is well known in today’s society. Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui were accused of first degree murder and according to the law, the trial was supposed to be tried by a judge and jury. The accused demanded a trial by judge alone because they believed that they were entitled to such a right. The R. v. Turpin case was a significant case that was tough to decide upon because there were many violations of different statutes such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your individual rights? . To exactly know how effectively it protects your rights you can look at situations where it has protected and has not protected the rights of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedom protects legal rights of Canadian whether they are a teenager or an adult, protects equality rights of Canadian and provides government services to all Canadians no matter what, ensures all laws are passed according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provides equality rights and fundamental freedoms to Canadians for practicing their religion and other rights without interference.
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
The Canadian constitution is bereft of democratic legitimacy; an alluring term for political democratic deficit. Over the past years, the unsuccessful attempts to reform its laws have made passing new bills and regulations almost an unreachable goal for every newly elected prime minister. This inflexibility in adapting new laws made the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution known only by few reforms. The lack of democratic accountability in the Canadian parliamentary democracy is demonstrated not only in its electoral system, but also in its national parliament and at the federal level of its politics. Many reforms must be addressed in order to make the Canadian democracy healthier.
Canada is known for their diversity and multiculturalism where they ensure that all citizens are able to keep their identities and take pride in their ancestral roots regardless of where they are from and which religion they affiliate with. They encourage racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding . Since multiculturalism is such an important part of the Canadian identity, people cannot be stripped of their rights to freely practice their religion, especially if they claim to value the individual identity. However, even though the above is what Canada strives to stand for, it isn’t achieved in reality. For example, if everyone were free to practice their religion however they wanted to in public, conflict would arise in society since everyone may believe that their religion is superior to others. So in order to ensure there is peace amongst us, the government must regulate how people practice their religion, at least in the public
Canada is a society built on the promise of democracy; democracy being defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” In order to operate at full potential, the people of Canada must voice their opinions and participate fully in the political system. This is why it’s shocking to see that people are becoming less engaged in politics and the voter turnout has steadily been declining over the last 20 years. This lack of participation by Canadians is creating a government that is influenced by fewer people, which is detrimental to the democratic system Canada is built on.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Canada has had a long and storied history especially in the 20th century. A key part of this history is Canada’s road to autonomy. The first step on this road is Canada’s role in fighting and ending World War I. The second step is Canadian involvement in the United Nations’ early days to the mid 1950’s. The last step on the road to autonomy is the Constitution Act, 1982. These three moments in time form the backbone of Canada’s road to autonomy.
Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper Human Rights is the Internment of those of Japanese descent or origin during the Second World War. Also the White Paper that was published by the government continues the theme of Human Rights being violated to the utmost extreme. All these events, as well as many others in history, give foundation to the idea that “Canada as a champion for Human Rights is a myth”.
The Government of Canada passed a law making it illegal to discriminate against an individual's sexual preference. With this in mind, the government would then require all of society, including religious communities, to welcome the marriages, adoptions, and families of homosexuals as though they were in no way different from heterosexual ones. It is amazing that such an authority be involved in legislating the acceptance of the normality of this group of individuals. To conclude that the government is taking a corageous act by legislating this law , it must be shown that homosexuality is something we have to accept in society.
On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Should gay marriages be legal? Clearly we as a nation are undecided on this issue. Thirty-six states have passed legislation banning gay marriages, yet a few states have passed laws that allows homosexual couples the right to participate in civil unions. Several other states are also debating whether or not to allow these couples to marry. Unfortunately, the dispute has left the United States' homosexual community in an awkward position. There are some people who think that gay people have no rights and should never be allowed to marry, and others believe that gay people should enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. I think that the United States should allow same-sex couples to marry just like heterosexual couples.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.