Pierre Elliott Trudeau said it best in his critique of the Criminal Code of Canada, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” Yet, even though Trudeau’s statement holds perfect validity, the state seems to be in a perpetual position of embodying a peeping Tom; not quite able to resist the temptation of dragging ‘the bedroom’ into the public spotlight. Yet, all that seemed to change in 2004 when a landmark case was brought to the Canadian Supreme Courts, petitioning for the rights of same-sex couples to legally marry. The verdict was yes; same-sex couples did have the right to marry. Subsequently, under five months later, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, the three largest provinces in Canada making up 78% of the population, exercised that right to the fullest degree. Following Canada’s groundbreaking decision, several states in the U.S.A pursuing its neighbor to the north’s decision. Sadly, even though tremendous strides have been made, Canada and the rest of the world still have a long way to go in terms of fully amending their constitutions to proclaim marriage as an act between two individuals (gender not specific). It is through various cases that advocate same-sex marriage, that one can see where political rights take a backseat to morality, especially in the United States of America.

Although people believe the same-sex marriage debate is a recent one, cases have been around as early as the early 1980’s (Eskridge 120). In a more infamous case that took place in the state of Hawaii in 1991, same-sex couples appealed the state of Florida after their marriage licenses had been denied. The couples claimed that the state had “violated their rights under the Hawaii state constitution” (Lahey and Alderson 50). The case (which is referred to as the Baehr case) was regarded as feeble, asserting it had little to no legal merit, adding in how homosexuals had no “legally recognized constitutional right to marry” (Lahey and Alderson 50). Just when things were beginning to turn from bad to worse, Judge Kevin Chang issued a statement in favor of same-sex marriage, claiming if the state could not provide ample reason as to why same-sex marriage was unrecognizable, to deny the rights of marriage would be unconstitutional (Lahey and Alderson 51). The state of Hawaii retorted with the ever-famous reason that children raised in same-sex families would be maladaptive and the “development of children” would be impaired (Lahey and Alderson 51). Justice prevailed when Judge Chang found the state of Hawaii’s reasons unfounded, especially when the state’s prime witnesses all sided with the same-sex couples, claiming homosexual parents do not impair a child’s development in the slightest (Lahey and Alderson 51). After three years of litigation and debates, Judge Chang ruled that same-sex parents were just as capable as heterosexual couples in their ability to raise children; that “children of gay and lesbian parents and same-sex couples develop in a normal fashion” (Lahey and Alderson 52). The state of Hawaii did not take this dismissal sitting down. The state of Hawaii filed and appeal to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, still in search of “legislative and constitutional strategies to block same-sex marriage from ever coming into effect in Hawaii” (Lahey and Alderson 53). The state got their wish in 1995, when it filed an amendment to the constitution under the newly formed Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law that defined marriage as strictly heterosexual (Lahey and Alderson 53). On December 9, 1999,when the Baehr case was re-evaluated, all possibilities for same-sex union in Hawaii were completely irradiated under the new amendment (Lahey and Alderson 53). The Hawaiian Supreme Court decided that the new amendment took precedent over the constitutional right to privacy, due process and sex equality; the exact right the homosexual couples built their case upon (Lahey and Alderson 53). Soon after, in 2000, thirty-five other states took up similar legislation to prevent same-sex marriage from coming to fruition in the United States.

In his book, The Case for Same-sex Marriage, William Eskridge outlines the legally binding protection same-sex couples have under the American and Canadian Constitution. Eskridge goes on to say how state policies, “pick and chose the citizens granted the fundamental right to marry” (Eskridge 123). In using the Baehr case, Eskridge systematically denounces the state’s reasoning as to why the couples could not be wed (Eskridge 123). Due to the fact the Supreme Courts refused to accept the state of Hawaii’s main argument (that children are endanger of turning out maladaptive), the new main point of the Baehr case became the ‘slippery slope’ argument (Eskridge 143). This states that if same-sex marriages are to be allowed, then there is also a case for polygamous, incestuous and bestial marriages (Eskridge 144). Although this would seem to be ridiculous and extreme, the courts ruled in favour of this notion of a ‘slippery slope’ and same-sex marriages were banned in Hawaii (Eskridge 144-145). Yet, the remainder of the state of Hawaii’s points as to why same-sex marriage should not be allowed were heavily based only on morality and what is morally just (Eskridge 130). Businesses claimed same-sex marriages would dramatically cut down on the amount of travel and tourists Hawaii received each year, seeing as how the American people did not want to be in a place where homosexuals were ‘running around free’ (Eskridge 138). As well, religious groups, some of the most powerful institutions in the United States, were adamant that same-sex marriage never happens, claiming it was a direct violation of the bible (Leviticus) (Wardle et al 79). One would never really associate the church with politics, yet once one takes a look back in history; it becomes apparent just how much sway religion has always had in the eyes of the government (Wardle et al 80). Considering the United States is the size it is, with the amount of people it contains, religion is a major influence and is a very prominent part of people’s everyday life (Wardle et al 80). Sadly, adding to the United States’ abundant secularism, is the fact that most of America is inhabited by, Americans (Wardle et al). There is not much of an ethnic diversity in the United States, which makes it more difficult for a cultural change to occur (Wardle et al). Furthermore, as recent presidential elections have proved, the United States is much more in favour of a Republican or Conservative system of government, which does not allow for much change to occur (Dufour, class). Seeing as how Republicans try to uphold tradition and the notion of a ‘proper American family’, allowing same-sex couples to marry, directly violates said image (Dufour, class).

Fortunately, as of 2000, Canada had placed itself in the spotlight of the same-sex marriage debate. Within a year of British Columbia announcing it would allow gays and lesbians to marry, the Yukon, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador declared same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional and opened their churches to the gay community (Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples 2005). The fact that in 1977, Quebec added discrimination against ‘sexual orientation’ to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms just is a testament to how open-minded and advanced, humanitarian wise, Canada is (Leahy and Alderson 140). As for support, Canada seems to have an abundant amount of political leaders who are in favour of the unions (Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples 2005). Libby Davies, a member of the NDP, informed Parliament that same-sex marriage is a, “matter of rights, dignity, liberty and choice” (Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples 2005). She then said, "People are worried about losing their sense of tradition. Rather than MPs fuelling and exploiting that fear, we have a responsibility to tell Canadians that this is not about fear. It is not about something ending. It is about something beginning" (Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples 2005). Moreover, in more recent news, Canadian Prime Minster Paul Martin openly defended same-sex marriage in parliament, proudly announcing, "The issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away" (Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples 2005). Yet, as the saying goes, not all that glitters is gold. Although the Canadian government has been incredibly receptive to the idea of homosexuals marrying, much like the United States, some major religious organizations have been against the unions (Lahey and Alderson 139). As well, MP Pat O’Brien has gone on record as saying same-sex marriages are, “morally offensive, an oxymoron, and a threat to the Canadian family” (Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples 2005). Though, what differentiates Canada from the U.S has mainly to do with the amount of power said organizations possess (Lahey and Alderson 139). Canada possess only a 10th the population of the United States and there is much less of a cultural ‘melting-pot’ (Dufour, class). Being as diverse as Canada is allows for the population to have a clearer understand of what it is like to be the minority in a larger sphere (Dufour, class). Moreover, unlike the United States, a Democratic or Liberal government has been in power in Canada for more than ten years. Liberals, who by their very name, support change and seek out ways to try and eliminate and form of discrimination and inequality (Dufour, class). Owing to the support of the open-minded government and the support of the diverse array of people, it is no wonder why Canada is a forerunner in the same-sex marriage debate, as well as what is most likely going to turn into the first country in the world to support the unions.

Seeing how the recent ‘legalization bandwagon’ seems to be well underway, who knows exactly what the future of same-sex marriage will be. Canada is well over 80% completed in its legalization of same-sex marriage and various states in the United States and countries in Europe have followed. Like Trudeau said, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” and as recent polls for the support of same-sex marriage show, the state is indeed slowly, yet surely, keeping itself far away from the bedroom as possible. Long time supports are stronger than ever, united by the overwhelming backing the government and fellow citizens are presenting, and soon hope that one-day, this will be nothing more than a distant memory for the history books.


Works Cited

Dufour, Maurice, class notes.

Eskridge, William. The Case For Same-Sex Marriage. The Free Press: New York, New York, 1996.

Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples. February 22, 2005. ONLINE AVAILABLE: . February 22, 2005.

Lahey, Kathleen and Kevin Alderson. Same-Sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political. Insomniac Press: Toronto, Canada, 2004.

Wardle, Lynn, Mark Strasser, William Duncan, and David Coolidge. Marriage and Same- Sex Unions. Praeger: Westport, Connecticut, 2003.

[ main page ] . [ guestbook ] . [e-mail ]