Same Sex Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage in Canada

Brooke Welsh
0829252
POLS*1400: Issues in Canadian Politics
Professor Mohan
Friday November 15th, 2013

Until fairly recently, same-sex marriage laws prohibited homosexual couple’s from married, resulting in difficult times for many couples until the early 2000’s when Bill C-38 passed, enabling same-sex couples the right to marry. Suzanne Lenon wrote a journal article relating the same-sex marriage era to that of the civil-rights movement, outlining the implied white racial normativity present in today’s society. Lenon argues that same-sex marriage is not just a politics of sexuality, but a politics of race (Lenon, 2011; p. 351). Another article written by Nancy Nicol and Miriam Smith contain interviews with same-sex couples, lawyers and political activists. These interviews indicate ways in which the laws have changed with the efforts of those who stood for what they believed in. It outlines the rise to same-sex marriage legality and the challenges lesbians and gay men faced up until 2005 when it became legalized across Canada. Marvin Overby, Christopher Raymond, and Zeynep Taydas together wrote an article focused primarily, using the case of same-sex marriage, on how constituency characteristics affect the voting behaviour of MPs (Overby et al., 2011; p. 465). Though all of the articles share the common theme of same-sex marriage, the first article titled: “Why is our love an issue?” written by Suzanne Lenon is the most fascinating as it outlines that ‘whiteness’ is the unspoken desire of all, and that same-sex marriage can be taken further as it is also a politics of race; it forces us to see the same-sex marriage ordeal in a new light. As noted previously, the article “Why is our love an issue?” (Lenon, 2011) highlights the idea that same sex-marriage is not only a politics based on sexuality, but also that pertaining to race (Lenon, 2011; p. 351). Same-sex couples wanted to be seen as equal and ordinary, and not have the rights for same-sex marriage be seen as a “special privilege” (Lenon, 2011; p. 355). The article begins by sharing a time not long before same-sex marriage became legalized in Canada; which was in 2005. On Valentine’s Day in 2004, Lesbians and gay men skated along the Rideau Canal of Ottawa together as same-sex couples. The message that “true love does not discriminate” (Lenon, 2011; p. 351) was sent by organizers towards politicians. With the use of secondary data - similar to the data used in the other two articles - Lenon researched affidavits created by 18 same-sex couples in 2000-2001 in Canada. In them, Lenon found common issues of privacy of identity, private intimacy, and private property relations. Lenon also outlines the universal idea of the ‘ordinary Canadian’. One couple mentioned in their affidavit that “being denied a marriage licence suggests that Mike and I do not love each other, and that our hopes, our dreams, our life together do not exist” (Lenon, 2011; p. 354); which inflicts on the privacy of their personal identities. Lenon went on to relate same-sex marriage to that of race - which is what makes this article stand out from the opposing two - in the following quotation:
I am not arguing that same-sex marriage is the sole purview of white lesbian and gay couples – it is not; rather as a relation of power that interlocks with class and heterosexual norms, whiteness/white respectability is central to the making of contemporary lesbian/gay subjectivity by facilitating a move out of perceived degeneracy. (357)

Another couple shared an analogy pertaining to this idea in their affidavit by writing “any separate legal regime for gays and lesbians would leave us with second class status; like putting us at the back of the bus”; while a similar analogy in a different affidavit; “The whole ‘separate but equal’ thing is eerily familiar to the segregation of races that occurred in the Southern States and we’d just end up chanting ‘integration not segregation’ until the law viewed equal as equal” (Lenon, 2011; p. 360). Similarly to the other two journal articles, Lenon concludes by summarizing the struggles same-sex couples faced when trying to reach their goal. The second journal article was titled: “Legal Struggles and Political Resistance: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the USA” written by Nancy Nicol and Miriam Smith; and the main focus was directed on the legal struggles within Canada. This article dealt with the issue by taking secondary data, similar data used in the other two articles. Nicol and Smith interviewed same-sex couples, lawyers, and political activists, to illustrate how their claims and actions created legal equality for those who struggled for same-sex marriage, (Nicol and Smith, 2008; p. 667). Similar to the first article, Nicol and Smith mention how lesbians and gays pushed for freedom from discrimination and exclusion, and argued for legal recognition of same-sex relationships. A quote about how law is viewed stood out and is as follows:
Law is understood as extending into the life of the everyday through its impact on ‘consciousness’ and the effect of law must be measured not simply in the content of official law but also in the ways in which social actors think, act and live with law beyond the official arena of legal engagement. (669)

This statement stands out as it gives us the idea that because same-sex marriage was illegal, it made people view same-sex couples as wrong. In the methodological note (670) Nicol and Smith indicate that their intentions were to create a historical account through the use of interviews conducted in the same-sex marriage legalization era. A law professor, a Reverend, and a lawyer representing the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (MCCT), together came up with the idea of performing same-sex marriages using ancient practices of the church to create an alternative form of legality for same sex marriage through the use of banns (notices read aloud on three consecutive Sunday’s in a church, announcing the intentions to marry and allowing opportunity for objection) (Nicol and Smith, 2008; p. 679). In January of 2001,the MCCT married two couples through the use of these banns and had 80 international news media present. Unfortunately, the government refused to register the marriages; however this case was “the key step in the evolution of the Canadian litigation on same sex marriage” (Nicol and Smith, 2008; p. 683). The MCCT used a lawsuit and had suits from other plaintiffs in Ontario to appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada changed the definition of marriage and legalized it in June of 2005. The final article, Free Votes, MPs, And Constituents: The Case Of Same-Sex Marriage In Canada written by Marvin Overby, Christopher Raymond, and Zeynep Tayda, is fairly inconsistent with the others as its primary focus is on the motivation and reasoning behind the way MP’s vote, by using the example of the same-sex marriage debate. The previous two articles focused mainly on the same-sex marriage movement alone. However, similarly to the article by Nicol and Smith, Overby, Raymond, and Taydas use secondary data as evidence for this article; for example when stating that Bill C-38 (Civil Marriage Act) was passed by a 158-133 vote via free voting, (Overby et al., 2011; p. 465). Free voting has allowed MP’s to base their decision on their own beliefs and enables them to step away from their partisan unity to the party they represent. This article, however, argues that even though members are allowed to vote based on their personal beliefs, they are still likely to feel vulnerable to their constituents’ pressures and vote a certain way based one that. Premier [at the time] Bob Rae introduced Bill 167 (Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act) in 1994, which held a free vote in the Ontario Legislative Assembly, but was defeated 68-59 (Overby et al., 2011; p. 466). Similar to the second article, “Legal Struggles and Political Resistance”, Overby, Raymond, and Taydas include that in 2004 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the authority to redefine the term of marriage (466). Later, in 2006, new Prime Minister Paul Martin attempted to introduce the status of same-sex marriage throughout Canada. It was risky because he only had a minority government; meaning failure to pass the Bill would have been followed by loss of confidence in his government. Conservative leader Stephen Harper then held a free vote where he tried to “restore the traditional definition of marriage” (Overby et al., 2011; p. 467); he failed in a 175-123 vote and he respected the Parliament’s decision. It was concluded that with the example of Bill C-38, most MP’s voted with their consciences and constituencies, and not necessarily in partisan to their party. Overby, Raymond, and Taydas concluded that, “If our results prove generalizable… [current and future results] will strongly suggest that we reappraise our understanding of how morality issues are treated in contemporary parliamentary systems” (475). All three articles shared the common theme of same-sex marriage, although their main focuses were different. The first article related the same-sex marriage movement to that of the civil rights movement whereas the second article focused on the struggles same-sex couples had during this movement. The final article contrasted the most by using morality issues of passing Bill C-38 to conclude how constituencies and personal beliefs influence MP’s voting behaviour. The argument of the first article seemed to be most compelling as it gave us a different perspective of the struggles same-sex couples faced in their rise to the legality of same-sex marriage; one wouldn’t expect to relate the struggles of lesbians and gay men to those who endured struggles during the Civil Rights Movement. The final article was interesting in the sense that Members of Parliament were more likely to vote in favour of their constituents even if it meant that it inflicted on the views of the party in which they belonged. The first two articles noted have given new perspectives and emphasized the severity of the real life struggles same-sex couples suffered. They felt as if they were being discriminated, when all they wanted was to be treated as ‘ordinary’ (Lenon, 2011; p. 355). This topic directly relates to the course as it discusses policies and acts that have been passed, as well as the same-sex marriage issue itself. This course outlines the differences between common law and marriage, church and state rights, federal and provincial legislations, banns, and more that have been discussed in the previous articles. The issue of same-sex marriage is an interesting one, and same-sex couples fought long and hard for equal rights. Their hard work paid off, along with the help of others, and Bill C-38 passed in June of 2005 and the definition of marriage was changed.

Bibliography

Nicol, N., and M. Smith. "Legal Struggles And Political Resistance: Same-Sex Marriage In Canada And The USA."Sexualities 11.6 (2008): 667-687. Print.
Overby, L. Marvin, Christopher Raymond, and Zeynep Taydas. "Free Votes, MPs, And Constituents: The Case Of Same-Sex Marriage In Canada." American Review of Canadian Studies 41.4 (2011): 465-478. Print.
Lenon, Suzanne. “‘Why is our love an issue?’: same-sex marriage and the racial politics of the ordinary.” Social Identities 17.3 (2011): 351-372. Print.

Abstracts
1. This article analyzes the implicit white racial normativity underpinning the socio-legal struggle for same-sex marriage in Canada. I argue that discursive representations of ‘ordinary lives’ require alignment with terms of neoliberal citizenship – the privacy of property and intimacy – that hold whiteness as the unspoken yet aspirational ideal. As a contestation of heteronormative citizenship, same-sex marriage is not simply a politics of sexuality but also a politics of race.
2. This article explores the nature of legal struggles surrounding same-sex marriage in the USA and Canada, focusing specifically on the ways in which the cultural power of law is used to frame claims of injustice and to develop strategies of political resistance. Drawing on theoretical perspectives from the literatures on ‘law and social movements’ and ‘legal consciousness’, the article compares the claims-making discourse and strategies of same-sex couples seeking access to legal civil marriage in the USA and Canada. Based in part on interviews with same-sex couples, lawyers and political activists, the article demonstrates the ways in which the claims of law have been used to frame political strategies in places where same-sex marriage is ‘illegal’, the ways in which claims of legal equality are enacted, produced and explained by same-sex couples, and the ways in which equality discourse is deployed as a strategic political resource in the struggle over same-sex marriage.
3. In the summer of 2005, with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act, Canada became the third country to extend full rights to same-sex marriages. This article explores passage of the CMA, focusing on parliamentary voting behaviour on the free vote used in the House of Commons. Using multivariate empirical analysis we find unusually strong evidence of constituency characteristics influencing the voting behaviour of MPs, a rare outcome given the existing scholarly literature on free votes. In a concluding section, we discuss what these findings imply about the increasingly important debate in Canada about parliamentary accountability.

Bibliography: Nicol, N., and M. Smith. "Legal Struggles And Political Resistance: Same-Sex Marriage In Canada And The USA."Sexualities 11.6 (2008): 667-687. Print. Overby, L. Marvin, Christopher Raymond, and Zeynep Taydas. "Free Votes, MPs, And Constituents: The Case Of Same-Sex Marriage In Canada." American Review of Canadian Studies 41.4 (2011): 465-478. Print. Lenon, Suzanne. “‘Why is our love an issue?’: same-sex marriage and the racial politics of the ordinary.” Social Identities 17.3 (2011): 351-372. Print. Abstracts 1. This article analyzes the implicit white racial normativity underpinning the socio-legal struggle for same-sex marriage in Canada. I argue that discursive representations of ‘ordinary lives’ require alignment with terms of neoliberal citizenship – the privacy of property and intimacy – that hold whiteness as the unspoken yet aspirational ideal. As a contestation of heteronormative citizenship, same-sex marriage is not simply a politics of sexuality but also a politics of race. 2. This article explores the nature of legal struggles surrounding same-sex marriage in the USA and Canada, focusing specifically on the ways in which the cultural power of law is used to frame claims of injustice and to develop strategies of political resistance. Drawing on theoretical perspectives from the literatures on ‘law and social movements’ and ‘legal consciousness’, the article compares the claims-making discourse and strategies of same-sex couples seeking access to legal civil marriage in the USA and Canada. Based in part on interviews with same-sex couples, lawyers and political activists, the article demonstrates the ways in which the claims of law have been used to frame political strategies in places where same-sex marriage is ‘illegal’, the ways in which claims of legal equality are enacted, produced and explained by same-sex couples, and the ways in which equality discourse is deployed as a strategic political resource in the struggle over same-sex marriage. 3. In the summer of 2005, with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act, Canada became the third country to extend full rights to same-sex marriages. This article explores passage of the CMA, focusing on parliamentary voting behaviour on the free vote used in the House of Commons. Using multivariate empirical analysis we find unusually strong evidence of constituency characteristics influencing the voting behaviour of MPs, a rare outcome given the existing scholarly literature on free votes. In a concluding section, we discuss what these findings imply about the increasingly important debate in Canada about parliamentary accountability.