• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

The decision of the government of Ontario to acknowledge two marriages that took place in Toronto on January 14, 2001, retroactively made Canada the primary country on the planet to have a authorities-legitimized similar-sex marriage (the Netherlands and Belgium, which legalized same-sex marriage earlier than Canada, had their first in April 2001 and June 2003, respectively). On January 14, 2001, Reverend Brent Hawkes compelled the problem by performing two similar-sex marriages, taking advantage of the fact that Ontario law authorizes him to perform marriages without a previous license, by way of the issuance of banns of marriage. Instead, it dominated that the 2001 marriages had been authorized and similar-intercourse marriage was accessible all through Ontario instantly. In a few of these circumstances, some marriages had been in reality authorized at an earlier date (for example, an Ontario ruling held that marriages performed in January 2001 were authorized when performed), but the legality was questioned. Same-intercourse marriage was progressively introduced in several provinces and territories of Canada by courtroom choices beginning in 2003 earlier than being legally acknowledged nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act on July 20, 2005. On June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a decision immediately legalizing similar-sex marriage in Ontario, thereby changing into the primary province the place it was authorized.

The Civil Marriage Act was launched by Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal minority government to the House of Commons of Canada on February 1, 2005, as Bill C-38. Following the Supreme Court's resolution, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler launched Bill C-38 on February 1, 2005, to legalize marriage between persons of the same intercourse across Canada. A draft of what would turn out to be Bill C-38 was launched on July 17, 2003, by Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. On June 17, 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that the government would current a bill to grant identical-intercourse couples equal rights to marry. In 2002 and 2003, selections in the superior trial courts of Ontario and Quebec, Halpern v Canada (AG) and Hendricks and Leboeuf v. Quebec, held that the restriction of marriage to reverse-intercourse couples was discriminatory and contrary to the equality clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, whereas the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled oppositely.

However, on June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dominated on an appeal within the Halpern case. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, and by the Senate on July 19, 2005, it obtained royal assent the next day. Until July 20, 2005, the federal government had not yet handed a legislation redefining marriage to conform to current court choices. Following the 2006 election, which was gained by a Conservative minority government beneath Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the House of Commons defeated a motion to reopen the matter by a vote of 175 to 123 on December 7, 2006, effectively reaffirming the laws. On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the marriage of similar-intercourse couples is constitutional, that the federal government has the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's safety of freedom of religion grants religious establishments the fitting to refuse to carry out marriage ceremonies for similar-intercourse couples. According to the Constitution of Canada, the definition of marriage is the exclusive accountability of the federal authorities; this interpretation was upheld by a December 9, 2004, opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada (Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage).

This development could have been reversed only via Parliament passing a new regulation that explicitly restricted marriage to reverse-sex couples however the protection of equality rights afforded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or by amending the Canadian Constitution by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as being between a man and a lady", as was recommended by a number of conservative religious groups and politicians. Many commentators opined that a province possible could not use the notwithstanding clause to avoid recognizing identical-intercourse marriage because the federal authorities had jurisdiction over marriage. Premier Ralph Klein threatened to invoke the however clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to keep away from having to adjust to the ruling. Before introducing it to Parliament, the Cabinet submitted the invoice as a reference to the Supreme Court (Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage), asking the courtroom to rule on whether or not limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if same-black tranny sex civil unions had been an appropriate various. 8 December 2018 (App store and antitrust law) The Supreme Court will determine whether or not Apple's censorship energy, imposed by limiting customers of iThings to apps in Apple's retailer, violates US antitrust regulation.