A legislative gap

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 1:23 PM - 0 Comments

While blaming the Liberals for whatever might be wrong with the laws concerning same-sex marriage, the Justice Minister assures that everything will be fine.

Speaking at a Toronto luncheon Friday, Mr. Nicholson blamed the Liberal government that preceded his for not filling a “legislative gap” that has left thousands of same-sex couples in an agonizing position of being unable to divorce should they feel a need to. The situation has been “completely unfair to those affected.” Mr. Nicholson said. “I want to make it clear that in our government’s view, these marriages are valid.”

‘The law recognizes same-sex marriage in Canada’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 7:29 PM - 0 Comments

Brian Topp and Paul Dewar respond to today’s news. Emmett Macfarlane considers the case and defers to the Charter.

The Prime Minister was in British Columbia just now for a shipbulding announcement and was asked again about the case.

We’re not going to reopen that particular issue. This is a complicated case and the Minister of Justice, I think, has put out a statement clarifying the government’s position on that.

Mr. Harper was then asked specifically whether the government considered the same-sex marriages of non-citizens to be legal or not.

The law recognizes same-sex marriage in Canada and the government is not going to reopen that issue.

The reporter who asked the second question was heckled when he did so.

Are some marriages more equal than others?

By Emmett Macfarlane - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM - 0 Comments

Today’s news that government lawyers are arguing same-sex marriages performed in Canada are not valid if the couple resides in a jurisdiction that doesn’t recognize them has caused considerable controversy. It’s a case that pits established equality rights against the intricacies of Canadian family law and principles of international comity (i.e. recognizing other countries’ laws).

The legal issues involved are complex. While there is no residency requirement to get married in Canada, there is one for divorce (to get a divorce you must have lived in Canada for a year). For that reason the ability of non-resident, same-sex partners who get married in Canada to later obtain a divorce has been up in the air.

The difference here is that government lawyers do not simply want to deny a divorce because the couple does not meet the residency requirement. Instead, they argued that because Florida and the United Kingdom (the jurisdictions the couple comes from) do not recognize same-sex marriage, their marriage in Canada was never valid in the first place. Continue…

‘Options to clarify the law’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM - 0 Comments

A statement from Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

I want to be very clear that the Government has no intention of reopening the debate on the definition of marriage.

This case today involved the fact that, under current law, some marriages performed in Canada could not be dissolved in Canada.

I will be looking at options to clarify the law so that marriages performed in Canada can be undone in Canada.

Harper denies changing stance on same-sex marriage

By macleans.ca - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 2:53 PM - 0 Comments

Prime Minister Stephen Harper denied Ottawa is reconsidering its position on same-sex marriage, after a government lawyer filed a submission suggesting that same-sex marriages performed in Canada are not valid for non-residents, CBC reports. The submission was filed in a divorce case involving a lesbian couple from Florida and the U.K. While Canadian marriage laws do not require residency, divorce laws do. This inconsistency has particular relevance for same-sex couples, who may not be able to divorce after being married in Canada. Harper said the submission does not represent a re-visiting of the same-sex marriage debate. At a ship-building event in Halifax, the prime minister said, “We have no intention of further reopening or opening this issue,” while noting that he did not know of the details of the particular case in question.

CBC

What is and is not a marriage?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 1:57 PM - 0 Comments

Robert Leckey, president of Egale, points with concern to both this latest court case and the case of a Canadian citizen in Britain.

In both cases, we shouldn’t let the technicalities distract us from matters of principle. A government proud that Canada’s Parliament has granted equal marriage rights to gay men and lesbians would stand behind such marriages, however other countries saw them. And a government supportive of equality would affirm other countries’ efforts to recognize gay relationships.

The CBC has the legal documents. Olivia Chow calls on the Prime Minister to redirect the Justice Department lawyer.

‘Their marriage is not legally valid under Canadian law’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 9:53 AM - 0 Comments

In court, the Harper government is apparently arguing against the legality of some same-sex marriages conducted in this country. Asked about the Globe story detailing this situation, the Prime Minister stuck to his previous public stance.

But speaking in Halifax Thursday, the Prime Minister said the issue was not on the agenda for his majority Conservatives. “We have no intention of further re-opening or opening this issue,” Stephen Harper told reporters when asked about The Globe and Mail’s report…

“In terms of the specifics of the story this morning, I will admit to you that I am not aware of the details,” Mr. Harper said. “This I gather is a case before the courts where Canadian lawyers have taken a particular position based on the law and I will be asking them to provide more details”

Bob Rae is unimpressed.

Proposition Bert and Ernie

By Emma Teitel - Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 8:50 AM - 3 Comments

In 2009, the National Organization for Marriage—America’s foremost opponent of same-sex marriage, civil unions, and gay adoption rights—launched an ad campaign called “Gathering Storm” in an attempt to pass Proposition 8, which would bar the door to legalize same-sex marriage in California. The commercial featured actors of all creeds (because bigotry knows no colour), standing stern against a backdrop of stormy clouds, relaying the following messages: “The winds are strong,” “We—are—afraid,” and “There’s a storm gathering.”

That storm, of course, was gay marriage, and all the evils it would carry with it: (1) the obliteration of the sanctity of marriage, (2) the collapse of the traditional family, and (3) the blatant homosexual indoctrination of “our” children. Statistics have since proven 1 and 2 are non sequiturs (divorce rates are unusually low in states that sanction gay marriage, where, remarkably, traditional God fearing families still abound).  But it’s the latter threat that has anti-marriage folk all hot and bothered these days. Why? Because according to one of NOM’s most recent blog posts, “an online campaign to pressure the producers of Sesame Street into having lovable roommates Bert and Ernie get married is gathering steam.” The big gay Storm, it seems, has gotten steamy—so much so that it threatens to corrupt odd couple Ernie and Bert, all the while predisposing your Sesame Street-watching child to a life of sexual deviance. Continue…

Same-sex marriage legal in New York

By macleans.ca - Monday, June 27, 2011 at 1:08 PM - 0 Comments

On Friday New York became the seventh, and largest state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage. Gay rights groups hope this landmark moment will give way to many others, as advocates in neighbouring states lobby for similar legal reform. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island. The state’s new law will go into effect next month, at which point twice as many Americans will live in gay-marriage friendly jurisdictions. Marriage reform across the country, however, may not come so easy, as 29 states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and 12 have laws against it.

Sydney Morning Herald

Leadership moments in New York

By John Parisella - Monday, June 27, 2011 at 12:59 PM - 0 Comments

Back in September 2010, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg took a position in favour of building a mosque near Ground Zero and, in so doing, joined a highly emotional debate that swept the nation. He didn’t back away when the controversy became a national one, taking a principled stance as mayor of the city that was the subject of an unspeakable terrorist attack. This was a leadership moment.

Since January 2011, New Yorkers statewide have been treated to a similar series of leadership moments by recently elected Governor Andrew Cuomo, particularly with respect to his negotiations with the state’s unionized employees.  Continue…

Is the Pope Catholic?

By Brian Bethune - Monday, April 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM - 36 Comments

Franco Origlia/Getty Images

It wasn’t supposed to be this way, not according to confounded Vatican watchers. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was already 78 years old when he became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. He was widely seen as the arch-conservative doctrinal enforcer, the sharp spear point wielded by his charismatic rock star predecessor—Joshua to Pope John Paul II’s Moses, in the words of one Jewish scholar. The consensus opinion was that Benedict would provide a quiet, business-as-usual continuance of John Paul’s 27-year reign and, given his age, a brief pontificate that would allow the 1.1 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church time to catch its breath and consider its future options.

No one, it seems, asked Benedict what he thought of the caretaker idea.

From inflaming the Islamic world by quoting medieval anti-Muhammad remarks to welcoming disaffected Anglicans into the Roman fold, becoming personally embroiled in the clerical sex-abuse scandal, endorsing the (sometimes) use of condoms, writing a passage in his newest book exonerating Jews from the charge of killing Christ, and a host of less headline-grabbing initiatives (including a casual acceptance of the theory of evolution), Benedict—as he celebrates his 84th birthday and sixth anniversary as Pope (April 16 and 19, respectively)—continues to be far more active, innovative, and outright newsworthy than expected.

Continue…

Saskatchewan gov't tells commissioners they must perform same-sex marriages

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM - 10 Comments

The provincial government in Saskatchewan has decided to not appeal a unanimous court decision obliging the province marriage commissioners to perform same-sex marriages no matter their religious objections. Justice Minister Don Morgan says he’d hoped to find a way to accommodate those who oppose gay marriage after the court ruled they could no longer refuse to marry same-sex couples, but concedes his government has “not found any workable options” that would allow for it. “The Court of Appeal has clearly ruled that civil marriage commissioners must perform ceremonies for couples who meet the legal requirements,” Morgan says. “That includes same-sex couples.”

Saskatoon StarPhoenix

Appeals court ruling temporarily blocks same-sex marriages in California

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 1:21 PM - 0 Comments

An appeals court ruling temporarily blocking same-sex marriages from resuming in California evoked strong responses from opponents and supporters of the state’s controversial 2008 referendum on the issue. On Monday, the appeals court set a fast schedule to hear the merits of the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Oral arguments will now be held the week of December 6, meaning a decision on whether same-sex couples can legally wed likely won’t come until sometime next year. Opponents of Proposition 8 expressed their disappointment at the ruling, but vowed to continue their fight. Opponents could ask the Supreme Court to intervene on the narrow question of whether to allow the stay to be lifted, but both sides of the debate agree the odds of the justices getting involved at this stage are very slim. Advocates for both sides of the issue say they’re prepared to make their arguments in court when the time comes.

CNN

Same-sex marriage in California: the trap closes?

By Colby Cosh - Friday, August 13, 2010 at 4:23 AM - 0 Comments

Don’t look now, but a twist has materialized in the legal epic of same-sex marriage in California. When U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the statute implementing the anti-SSM Proposition 8, even sophisticated observers began imagining the familiar capillary process whereby a quarrel migrates upward through increasingly mighty appellate courts.

But wait! Remember what the style of cause was in this lawsuit? That’s right: Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The plaintiffs were two gays and two lesbians seeking California marriage licenses. The defendants were state officials obeying the dictates of Prop 8, as unwilling legislative automata, from the Governator on down. Those officials have no intention of appealing Walker’s ruling. Indeed, they barely presented a defence of “themselves” in the first place. The advocates of Proposition 8, whose clumsy evidence Judge Walker treated like a speed-bag in his decision, weren’t parties to the suit and didn’t ask to be. They were mere intervenors. So how can they obtain standing to appeal?

This wrinkle didn’t come to the attention of the general-interest press (or to me) until yesterday, when Walker addressed it in his handling of a request for a stay of his decision. The rule is that federal appeal courts, under Article III of the Constitution, can only hear legitimate, non-hypothetical “cases” and “controversies”. This means that intervenors and other observers have to meet a high standard in order to take a decision to U.S. Circuit Court without the aid of one of the original parties—aid that will certainly not be forthcoming in this instance.

Traditionally, in order to gain standing, non-parties have to show that they have suffered a concrete, specific injury as a result of the decision being appealed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in 1997 that “An intervenor cannot step into the shoes of the original party unless the intervenor independently fulfills the requirements of Article III.” In no case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court has this happened.

The strangest quirk of all is this: the issue that will decide the feasibility of an appeal by private citizens advocating Prop 8 seems like the same one that came before Judge Walker in the first place. Namely, does the existence of same-sex marriage cause meaningful harm to anybody? Judge Walker, having found that it does not, is naturally skeptical of the intervenors’ ability to proceed. But what’s going to happen if the 9th Circuit turns those intervenors away? Is it quite fair for the judiciary as a class, having thwarted California’s voters, to say “Judge Walker’s ruling that gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody is impervious to appeal on technical grounds, because gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody”?

Me, I’m no bleeding-heart small-D democrat. But to the opponents of gay marriage, and perhaps even to unpersuaded moderates, this might seem like sharp dealing. It is one thing for the judiciary to block the will of the majority: hey, welcome to the U.S.A., tenderfoot. This, however, is a case where the judiciary may not only end up obstructing the volonté générale, but elbowing it good and hard in the vitals. Somehow, in California, a majority vote against same-sex marriage will have led directly to the near-permanent entrenchment of same-sex marriage.

This sort of counterintuitive outcome could surely lead to a backlash outside California. Who knows?—it might even create the impetus for an anti-SSM affort at constitutional amendment. The Democratic character of the Congress is a poor assurance of safety for the five (shortly to be six) states which have full, legal gay marriage. That institution still has never won a referendum in the U.S.; its win-loss record stands at 0-31. And the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies nationwide constitutional “full faith and credit” to same-sex marriages, was opposed by just 14 Senators and 67 Representatives not so long ago (1996).

Time and history are on the side of gay marriage. (This is especially true if it represents some sort of fatal Spenglerian decadence.) But it is unclear just how much of each will be needed.

An unlikely conspirator in Prop 8's murder

By Colby Cosh - Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 5:21 AM - 0 Comments

Yesterday afternoon a federal court struck down California Proposition 8, the successful ballot initiative that had banned same-sex marriages in the state. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision offers a fascinating overview of the American SSM fight. Subjecting Prop 8 to the strict and searching scrutiny that any overt act of state discrimination invites, Walker found the evidence of social harm resulting from gay marriage to be wretchedly meagre, and the evidence of any additional administrative burden on the state to be worse than nonexistent. (In a display of perversity surely more nauseating to many of us than mere sodomy, debt-addled California has been foregoing revenue from marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples and has been maintaining a distinct bureaucracy for the creation and oversight of “domestic partnerships”—a species invented in order to endow gays and lesbians with all the legal difficulties of civil marriage without entitling them to drink from the dregs of its social dignity.)

Walker, having entertained and weighed the evidence of a rational basis for Proposition 8, could find none—none beyond discrimination against gays and lesbians for its own sake, which he characterizes as a “private moral view” that, in the absence of a legitimate government interest, cannot be an appropriate subject of legislation under the due process and equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. So runs the argument. (I’m not a lawyer, but it feels to me like a rather Canadian, Oakes-y one, structurally.)

How airtight is the ruling? One objection that someone like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would make—for he has made it—is that all laws implement some “moral view”, and could be struck down by a judge the minute some protectable class were found to object to it. Laws against homicide discriminate against murderphiles, and so on. Of course, this isn’t very convincing. Even if you can show that there is such an inherent characteristic as “being a murderphile” and that people in no way choose membership in this class—which, in fact, is an argument you could probably win!—the compelling state interest in preventing murderphiles from murdering is a million times easier to show than anybody’s interest, anybody’s at all, in fretting over the nebulous effects of gay marriage.

This debate is over in Canada, except as a convenient way for kooks to define themselves, because how the heck could you possibly show that absolutely anybody’s life was affected irreversibly for the worse on the exact date of July 20, 2005? I’ve given pro-lifers generous helpings of hassle over the years, but they’ve at least got the “Abortion Stops A Beating Heart” thing to fall back on. If you were picking a similar slogan for the anti-SSM movement, where would you even start? Gay Marriage…Makes A Gorge Rise? Gets A Dander Up? Sticks In A Craw?

The punchline to all this is that Justice Scalia is so forthright, confident, and frankly plain ornery in his views that he inadvertently supplied Judge Walker with a grace note for his magnum opus. Back in 2003, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh pointed out that the then-fresh Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision annulling that state’s sodomy law featured a little sideshow he thought relevant to the future of the gay-marriage struggle.

In today’s Lawrence decision, Justice O’Connor refuses a general right to sexual autonomy, but concludes that banning only homosexual sodomy violates the Equal Protection Clause—there’s just no rational basis for such discrimination besides “a…desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” she says. What about gay marriage, one might ask her? She anticipates this, by suggesting that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a “legitimate state interest.” “Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations—the asserted state interest in this case—other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.”

Justice Scalia derides this—”[Justice O'Connor's reasoning] leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” because “‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples” [emphasis in original]. But wait: Isn’t that the usual argument of those who criticize the heterosexual-only marriage rule?

In his tirade against “a Court…that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda”, Scalia gave the game away. Allergic to O’Connor’s cop-out, he argued that there was no need for hetero-only marriage to stand on any basis but “moral disapproval”—and took the extra step, regarded as dangerous by many in his camp, of denying that it could possibly have any other basis. It was an admission, a rather gay-friendly admission really, that any search for objective harms or administrative excuses with which to bash same-sex marriage would be nonsensical and futile.

And lo and behold, in the year of our Lord 2010, the Volokh prophecy has come to pass; Scalia’s grenade has landed right smack in paragraph 21 of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, 604-05 (2003) (Scalia, J, dissenting): “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

California judge strikes down gay marriage ban

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 6:04 PM - 0 Comments

A federal court judge in California has ruled that Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in the state, is unconstitutional. Two years ago, the law against gay marriage won in a statewide referendum, but Vaughn Walker, a George H.W. Bush appointee, declared that the Proposition 8 “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” and is simply based on the unprovable notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. The ruling, which resulted from a challenge brought by the unlikely team of Ted Olson and David Boies (lawyers who were on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore in 2000), is being appealed to a higher court, and could lead to gay marriage getting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time.

New York

The supposed case against activist judges

By John Geddes - Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 4:34 PM - 72 Comments

When Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, held a news conference on Parliament Hill this morning to raise the alarm about what he apparently views as an arrogantly aggressive Supreme Court of Canada, I paid close attention.

I figured McVety represents social conservative convictions that shouldn’t be underestimated in Ottawa these days, as demonstrated by the Conservative government’s stand against funding abortion with foreign aid dollars.

Speaking on behalf of an alliance of evangelical Christian and family-values groups, he called for Harper to “restore democracy” by filling any vacancies that might open up on the country’s top court with judges who won’t insist on writing their own laws.

Continue…

It’s the last closet on the right

By Nancy Macdonald - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 12:00 PM - 13 Comments

Photograph by Brian Baer/ Zuma/ Keystone Press

For his entire career, California’s Bible belt state Sen. Roy Ashburn was best known for sound bites like this one, dating to 2005. At a rally he organized to drum up support for a ban on same-sex marriage, the powerful Republican from Bakersfield stood beside the founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, Lou Sheldon, proclaiming heterosexual marriage “fundamental to civilization,” as Sheldon made vile claims about the lives of gay men and women—in all, “one of the most disturbing hours of my life,” said one reporter present. Ashburn, said to be “right of Rush Limbaugh,” has opposed every gay rights initiative that’s crossed his Senate desk, including measures aiming at fairness in jobs and housing, and one to protect gay youth.

Fast-forward to March 3 of this year, when a drunk-driving arrest near the Sacramento gay club Faces led him to announce, days later, to Kern County radio listeners: “I am gay.” Even north of the border you could practically hear the collective slap! as Republican hands met foreheads.

The gay Republican outed by scandal is, by now, a familiar event on the American political calendar. As Out magazine describes modern, gay Washington, Democrats live openly on the Hill and in K Street lobbying firms while their Republican counterparts “still cower in the closet until they trip themselves up with off-colour instant messages to teenage pages or conduct unbecoming to a United States senator in an airport bathroom.” Why demonize gay people in the first place? “Beats me,” says Wellesley College political theorist, Laura Grattan. Surely, she adds, there’s self-hatred or overcompensation going on—“they could take a stand against gay rights without being so publicly vitriolic about it.” Whether railing loudly against gay rights is a shield, a political ruse to win votes or an attempt to scare it out of their systems, the result is clear: ritual outings and public embarrassment—though on that score, Ashburn’s glassy-eyed mug shot barely registers.

Continue…

Making their bed

By Ken MacQueen - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 9:00 AM - 45 Comments

Photograph by Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press

The British Columbia government’s decision to test the legality of Canada’s 120-year-old polygamy law led to a shocking revelation for Karen and her two male partners. The 37-year-old Winnipeg-area mother, her husband of 15 years and a second male partner concede their arrangement is unconventional. She calls it a plural union based on equality, not religious ideas of male dominance. What she didn’t realize, until the B.C. court reference drew attention to the issue, was that they’re breaking the law by sharing a home. “This has been a real learning experience,” she says.

Karen, who doesn’t want her surname used in order to protect her children, is part of a constituency of polyamorists, one of many groups seeking standing in the B.C. Supreme Court. The case will determine if the polygamy law—Section 293 of the Criminal Code—is constitutional. It was triggered by the province’s failure to prosecute two polygamous bishops in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful, B.C., but its outcome could affect the rights of thousands.

Some 16 groups have submitted affidavits seeking permission to argue for or against 293 when a trial date is set—proving, if nothing else, that polygamy creates strange bedfellows. Some groups see the polygamy law as the foundation of the traditional family and a defence against the exploitation of girls forced into multiple marriage, as the province alleged happened in Bountiful. Others argue the law is unenforceable, does nothing to help the women of Bountiful, and that it imposes a moral code out of step with Canada’s modern, multicultural society.

Continue…

And now a word from Mark Tewksbury

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 5, 2010 at 8:30 AM - 33 Comments

Since he has become, if indirectly, part of this unfolding discussion, I asked Mark Tewksbury if he might have something to add. Last night, he emailed along the following.

“As proud as I am to be recognized as a gay and lesbian advocate (I believe under the sport section), I am hardly representative of the vast diversity of the LGBT community, or the decades of brave work that has led to the advancement of our human rights.  A reference to a sporting champion who is gay does nothing to honour the enormous work that has been done to make Canada a global leader in the advancement of equality for LGBT people, or the milestones that led us here over the past several decades.

“With dozens of countries in the world still punishing gays and lesbians with life in prison or execution, the fact that Canada recognizes same sex marriages and protects against sexual orientation is a reason why many gays and lesbians would apply for citizenship to this country.  Why would the government withdraw information in the citizenship guide that would directly benefit new Canadians who are gay or lesbian?  For me, it smacks of revisionist history.  The Government of Canada is representative of Canadian people, and the minister in question (or his office) is not acting in accordance. Individuals in power deciding to eliminate a targeted group, whomever that group may be, has dangerous precedence.  Being cut out of the story, literally, reminds me just how easy it is to have advances stripped away.”

'I take full responsibility'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 9:43 PM - 22 Comments

A day after the Jason Kenney’s press secretary said “the minister’s signature isn’t on any decision note or anywhere else,” Mr. Kenney rose during Question Period and said, “I take full responsibility for Discover Canada.”

That was in response to Olivia Chow’s first question. With her follow-up, she suggested “newcomers need to know that gay-bashing is illegal” and that “they need to know that gay marriage is to be celebrated.” Mr. Kenney responded that perhaps he has “a higher estimation than the member does about new Canadians” and that he does not believe “that new Canadians are potential gay-bashers.”

This particular point is perhaps interesting because the new citizenship guide does specifically warn that Canada does not tolerate “spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence.”

The full exchanges between Marlene Jennings and Kenney and Chow and Kenney after the jump. Continue…

'The minister's signature isn't on any decision note or anywhere else'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 7:11 PM - 27 Comments

Jason Kenney denies involvement in removing references to same-sex marriage and gay rights from the citizenship guide.

Canada’s immigration minister is apparently denying any role in the removal of references to gay rights from a citizenship study guide released last fall. Asked Wednesday why he blocked any information about same-sex marriage and charter rights protecting sexual orientation, Jason Kenney said: “I did not do such a thing. No, no, you are wrong.” The minister then disappeared into the Conservative caucus room in the Centre Block of Parliament Hill…

Asked about Kenny’s apparent denial, spokesman Alykhan Velshi said Wednesday that “the minister’s signature isn’t on any decision note or anywhere else” in the released documents, suggesting someone else in the minister’s office made the gay-rights decision on his behalf. Velshi was asked last week to explain Kenney’s decision to remove the gay-rights material. He responded that the guide could not be “encyclopedic” — without any indication the minister might not have been responsible for the removal. On Wednesday, Velshi did not respond to further requests for clarification.

Your existence has been noted in passing

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM - 143 Comments

Canadian Press discovers that Jason Kenney ordered the removal of references to gay rights and same-sex marriage from the new citizenship guide.

When the new guide was released Nov. 12, Mr. Kenney brushed off a reporter’s question about why it lacked any reference to same-sex marriage. ”We can’t mention every legal decision, every policy of the government of Canada,” he said. ”We try to be inclusive and include a summary. I can tell you that if you were to read the old book, you wouldn’t even know that there are gay and lesbian Canadians.” He then noted the caption under Mr. Tewksbury’s photo.

That caption, appearing on page 26 of the guide, reads, “Mark Tewksbury, Olympic gold medallist and prominent activist for gay and lesbian Canadians.”

One great thing about gay marriage: it's simple.

By Colby Cosh - Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 5:12 AM - 19 Comments

From England comes news of a couple who want their romantic and economic partnership recognized under the law, but who just don’t have the “right” sexual orientation for it. Oh, you figure you’ve heard this one before, do you?