There was a time when women were not even legally defined as persons. I do not want to fearmonger because too much of that has already taken place but that is a slippery slope and we cannot get caught up same sex marriage supreme court arguments audio in Chatham-Kent that movement.
Again, on the basis of shared jurisdictions, Parliament must leave marriage up to the churches and create another type of union. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I would like to speak very strongly against this motion.
In the first one, some 80 citizens urge Parliament to protect marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. One does not trump the other. She will not vote for that, nor will any member of this caucus.
In fact, we know that marriage began a long time ago as a major legal and social institution. To allow same-sex partners to marry does not take anything away from anybody. To simply state that, because the words are not in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of RIghts and Freedoms, the Charter could never be interpreted as including them, is to make this into a rigid legal document incapable of adapting to the times, one with a very short life span.
I have been clear in my statements and consistent that I would not support changing the definition of marriage. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and questions from the member for Yukon. We have heard this many times, not same sex marriage supreme court arguments audio in Chatham-Kent from our researchers but also from several constitutional experts who appeared before us.
The Prime Minister did not appeal the Ontario court decision and the justice minister has travelled the country promoting same sex marriage.
We were facing an election campaign where the Liberal Party would have to face its own conservative supporters who would simply not accept this categorization of their views. Ironically, I first turned my mind to the issue of registered domestic partnerships or civil unions in speaking to a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, the member from Edmonton, Ian McClelland.
But we do not have that. How each half of the couple complements the other half will vary from one couple to the next, and this is true same sex marriage supreme court arguments audio in Chatham-Kent both heterosexual and homosexual couples. When we look at the draft bill, we see that we respect the equality rights in giving gays and lesbians access to the institution of civil marriage, but at the same time we have to respect religious beliefs.
We know that when close same sex marriage supreme court arguments audio in Chatham-Kent members marry there is a risk of increasing the potential for certain diseases that are either genetic or that are carried through in terms of chromosome abnormalities. For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
They trust the charter and the rule of law ahead of us in Parliament. In some cases I have heard people say no. Yes, there was a time even in our more recent past when aboriginal people were also denied the vote, when aboriginal people were denied the basic right to hire a lawyer to bring claims to court.