Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Spruce Grove.
First, she seems to be glossing over the decisions handed down by the various appeal courts that ruled on this issue, focussing only on Supreme Court decisions, or rather the reference to the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that decisions having the force of law have been made by the Quebec, Ontario and B.C. appeal courts, among others.
To be very clear, I will read an excerpt from the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, in the language in which it was originally written:
--it is our view that the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships is violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. Accordingly, we conclude that the common-law definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” violates s. 15(1) of the Charter.
The court decision goes on to state that this violation of section 15 is unjustifiable under section 1 of the Constitution.
My first question is the following. What of the law in those provinces where the courts have already ruled very clearly, absolutely unequivocally, that the so-called traditional definition of marriage is contrary to charter equality rights?
Second, reference is commonly made to the so-called traditional definition of marriage. Obviously, marriage has evolved. Once again, the hon. member seems to be glossing over that. Marriage has evolved especially during the 20th century: we have gone from a time when, in many jurisdictions, upon marrying, women lost their status as adult persons and fell under the responsibility of the man they married to a time when women have become fully equal partners with men. So, within the institution of marriage, women have gone from second fiddle to equal partner.
In the light of this, how can the hon. member say that the institution of marriage has not evolved and could not evolve in a direction that would allow it to include same sex partners?