Same-sex marriage in Albion

Same-sex marriage in Albion was introduced progressively at the provincial level before becoming de facto legal nationwide on July 23, 2004.

Albion was the third country in the world, following the Netherlands and Belgium, to fully legalize same-sex marriage. As of the passage of the 2006 Marriage Act, same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as any other married couple. Subsequent efforts to reopen the topic have been unsuccessful, and polls have shown a consistent public support for same-sex marriage throughout Albion.

Background
The move towards marriage equality in Albion traces back to 1998, when the Supreme Court of Albion ruled in Switzer v. Reese - a dispute between a lesbian couple in a common-law relationship - that the definition of a common-law spouse as then ensconced in the Fraser Family Law Act inappropriately excluded same-sex couples. The court ruled that the restriction unlawfully violated Article 1 of the Alban Charter of Rights and Freedoms, representing an unreasonable limitation that could not be justified for the functioning of a free and democratic society. The ruling extended same-sex couples many of the same benefits extended to married couples. However, it stopped short of extending the ruling to the right to marry.

The issue of marriage emerged in early 2000, when a minister in the province of Vancouver challenged the court ruling by conducting several same-sex marriages, taking advantage of provincial legislation allowing marriages to be performed without a license through issuing the banns of marriage. Lawsuits quickly commenced as registrars refused to accept the legality of the marriages.

Fraser and Columbia decisions
Same-sex marriage became law first in Fraser following a lawsuit and a series of appeals in the case of Matsunaga v. Albion. The case, stemming from a marriage between John Matsunaga and Edward Peers, was one of several to emerge from weddings conducted in Victoria under the "banns of marriage" law.

In mid-2001, the Superior Court of Fraser ruled that marriage rights must be extended to same-sex couples, allowing a period of six months for the Legislative Assembly of Fraser to amend the law to account for the ruling. The decision was appealed by the government of Prime Minister Eugene Woloshyn. However, the Fraser Court of Appeal's ultimate ruling, in May of 2002, found that the exclusion of same-sex couples clearly violated the Charter. The Court allowed for no suspension of the remedy, immediately legalizing same-sex marriage in the province of Fraser. The decision applied province-wide.

A similar ruling was issued a month later by the Columbia Court of Appeal in another case drawn from a Victoria-conducted wedding. The court ruling effectively legalized same-sex marriage in Albion's largest province, with the court citing the importance of "an equal application of the law between Columbia and Fraser."

Vancouver legislation
In July 2002, the province of Vancouver became the first province to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process. The province's Green and Progressive-dominated legislature quickly passed the Equal Marriage Act, revising the province's definition of marriage to account for same-sex couples. The legislation legalized same-sex marriages in that province as of August 1, but provided a conscience exemption for religious personages and First Nations whose ethical beliefs would be violated by being forced to conduct a same-sex ceremony.

Subsequent decisions
In February 2003, the Superior Court of Kootenay declared the then-current definition of marriage unconstitutional in a suit brought by two couples from Kiottowa who had requested marriage licenses. The Liberal-led provincial government appealed the decision, but the appeal was struck down by the Kootenay Court of Appeals, citing the Fraser and Columbia decisions as a precedent. The decision immediately legalized same-sex marriage in Kootenay.

In May 2003, the Superior Court of Muskegon ruled the current definition of marriage unconstitutional in a suit brought by a same-sex couple from [[Churchill]. The provincial government declined to appeal.

In August 2003, the Superior Court of Calapuya issued a similar ruling striking down the heterosexual-centric definition of marriage. Despite close debate in the provincial legislature, the province ultimately decided not to appeal the ruling.

Federal case
The various court rulings were opposed to various degrees by Woloshyn's Liberal Party government. Woloshyn, a conservative from Athabasca, appealed the initial rulings in Fraser and Columbia, to no avail. As more court rulings came down on the issue, the government came under pressure from the Liberals' social conservative base to make a move. While polls showed a general support for the rulings, the voters most key to the Liberals' support largely opposed same-sex marriage, mainly on religious grounds, a position consistent with Woloshyn's own views.

Marriage equality had been debated in the House of Commons as far back as 1998, when a |Labour backbencher had proposed a private member's bill to legally recognize same-sex marriage. The bill did not progress pass first reading, and despite being reintroduced during Woloshyn's government, it remained mired in committees and unlikely to progress.

With provinces continuing to rule in favour of marriage equality, Woloshyn's government moved in April 2003 to pass a motion affirming the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, "to the exclusion of all others." The motion - the Statement on the Definition of Marriage - passed on a near-party-line vote, with the opposition Progressives and the third-place Labour Party opposing the motion and the Liberals and the small Reform Party supporting it. The issue mobilized social conservatives in the subsequent 2003 election enough to boost Woloshyn to a second mandate, securing a minority despite discontent over the more pressing issues of austerity budgets and health care wait times.

However, in the wake of the Statement, the ruling was challenged by lesbian couple Dana Milross and Leigh Czarnecki, a Kiottowa couple who had married that March. Milross v. Albion was quickly decided on by the Superior Court of Kootenay and eventually made it to the Supreme Court of Albion despite government appeals, the most rapidly-advancing of four distinct lawsuits against the Statement.

On July 23, 2004, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Milross: The Statement violated the equal rights protections in the Charter and could not be justified under Article 1. The Court allowed for no remedy period, thus immediately striking down the Statement and all other restrictions. The Milross ruling immediately legalized same-sex marriage in all areas of Albion.

Notwithstanding debate
The government voiced strong disapproval of the ruling, with Woloshyn justice minister Verne Townes crediting the decision to "activist judges legislating their niche view of morality."

While the decision was met with general approval by the public, social conservatives pressed Woloshyn to take some action against the ruling. As Parliament went into their summer break, Woloshyn remained silent on the issue personally, leaving his response to conservative foot soldiers in the media and in Cabinet. Privately, the Prime Minister was engaged in discussions with the Liberals' coalition partner, Reform leader Michael Sobko, who demanded action against the Milross ruling.

As Parliament resumed session in the autumn of 2004, media reports emerged to the effect that Woloshyn was considering employing the notwithstanding clause to overrule the courts. The clause, contained under Article XIII of the Charter, allows Parliament to force a law into effect "notwithstanding" the Charter's rights and privileges for a four-year period, with the possibility of renewal. By far the most controversial element of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause had never been used.

Woloshyn hedged on the use of the notwithstanding clause, but voiced disapproval of the Milross ruling and claimed ambiguously that "There are options we can look at" and "Albans expect us to protect the moral fiber of the country." His apparent inability to take a firm position angered both sides of the debate, with pro-same sex marriage talking heads ripping the Prime Minister as pandering to homophobes and anti-same sex marriage pundits slamming him for his perceived unwillingness to take a strong stance against marriage equality. At issue, however, was a quiet divide within Woloshyn's caucus: A small group of members from suburban ridings in the western provinces were discreetly urging Woloshyn to accept the Milross ruling, while his mostly eastern and prairie-oriented backbenchers and key members of Cabinet were urging him to use the notwithstanding clause. Increasingly, the media and the opposition came to refer to the clause as "the nuclear option."

The issue continued to percolate through the autumn and into the Christmas season, with Progressive leader Garrett Long declaring that if Woloshyn did override Milross, a Progressive government, if elected, would immediately roll back any use of the notwithstanding clause. Eventually, however, Woloshyn announced a decision ahead of the Christmas holidays: He would not overrule the court. Citing the "enormous gravity" of the notwithstanding clause, he cited a reluctance to be "the first leader of this country to press the nuclear button."

The decision led to deep friction between Woloshyn and Sobko, who threatened to join the Opposition in a vote of confidence. While Reform ultimately voted for the 2005 budget, relations between the Liberals and the Reform Party would degenerate throughout 2005, leading to a lost confidence vote and a Progressive win in the ensuing election.