Home Resources Discussion Board Comments Board

Resources

Discussion Board

Comments Board

The Comments Board displays a cross-section of the various insights that Canadians have shared with the Law Commission during the consultation period, from June to the end of January 2001. These samples of views are posted here with the permission of their authors.

• Recognising & Supporting Diverse Relationships
• Defining or Describing Close Personal Adult Relationships
• Support for Individuals in Dependent / Interdependent Relationships
• Marriage
• Registered Domestic Partnerships

On Recognising & Supporting Diverse Relationships

Despite the open title, most of the material focuses on COUPLES. Once again, my partners and I have been ignored. Why do you have such a hard time understanding the concept that more than two people can be in a loving, caring relationship? [...] I will start by describing the relationship that I have been in for a little more than a year. The best words to describe it (in short form) would be a Lesbian, Transsexual, Polyamorous relationship between three people. [...] We all live in the same house, sleep in the same bed and are presently supported only by my salary. [...] Because of the nature of my relationship, neither one of my spouses is covered by my (Federal Government) dental, health or benefit plans. They only allow one spouse, so I would have to choose one over the other. As for Income Taxes, I must admit I haven't even bothered looking at it. I know that same sex partners are supposed to report that on their taxes, but what happens when there are 3 partners? [...] There needs to be "something more" than the existing mess of legislation surrounding marriage and common law spouses. It must be something that encompasses both, and more. It must be open enough to include all those who choose to be in "close personal relationships" - whatever their form.

Lynn
Ottawa, Ontario

[A]lthough I do recognize that there may be a variety of close personal relationships between adults where certain rights and responsibilities under the law might pertain, I do not think that the recognition of same-sex conjugal relationships should simply be folded into such considerations. That is, same-sex conjugal relationships merit legal consideration in and of themselves. Although it might be the path of least resistance to put all manner of dependence relationships under the same heading, it does seem to me that historically conjugal relationships have been treated differently and demand different sorts of recognition. Marriage relationships between heterosexual couples today are only partly about dependence. As relationships between equals they are also about mutual support and societal recognition. Equality for lesbian and gay couples means that they are societally and legally recognized as couples not just as one of variety of sorts of close adult personal relationships.

Pamela Dickey Young
Kingston, Ontario

Legislation should be promoting long-term, committed, relationships. I see this as something new, and not currently a focus in legislation. The current emphasis seems to be on "cohabitation" instead of successful long-term unity. By passing legislation that benefits and supports "non-committed" relationships, i.e. common-law spouses, it creates an environment where long-term commitment is suddenly unnecessary. Because of the nature of today's law, Canadians that are living together are basically on par with married Canadians. This definitely encourages cohabitation. However, by providing all the benefits of a long-term committed relationship without the necessity of the commitment (i.e. marriage), people are being held to a much lower standard (socially and by government). Eventually, it degrades the meaning of commitment and the value of a "close, committed, adult relationship". […]Programmes currently for Marriage and Common-Law should not be expanded further. In fact, the common-law benefits should be removed.

Thomas
Burlington, Ontario

I am a gay man living in B.C. and have been in a monogamous relationship with my partner for the past 7 years.[…] This year in B.C. we are obliged to submit a joint federal/provincial tax return, which will cost us more money than if we filed separately. B.C. recognizes same-sex cohabitation as marriage in every way except recognizing the union in a legal ceremony. How can there be two standards? If we must pay the taxes associated with marriage why are we not allowed to enjoy all of the benefits associated with marriage? […] If the family unit is under attack, why not support those of us who wish to live together as a family unit? Penalizing with taxes and not rewarding with recognition only creates mounting frustration and injustice.

Bryan
Vancouver, B.C.

As I reflect on this discussion paper, it seems to me that the cardinal values underpinning the analysis are individual freedom of choice, and equality. These would not be the cardinal values chosen by faith communities, members of whom were involved in framing the principles of the Canadian Constitution. I believe that their cardinal values would be honouring God, and living with integrity and compassion with others, not individual freedoms and rights. Apart from the brief reference to the "religious" definition of marriage as distinct from civil marriage, there is little serious acknowledgement in the discussion paper of the moral dimension of framing policy to govern close adult relationships, and the resulting impact on the quality of life of our nation. Our decisions and choices have a moral dimension, and they have consequences, which we ignore to our detriment. Marriage (both civil and religious) as it is currently defined involves explicit expectations of faithfulness, integrity, perseverance, and mutual caring and support between a man and a woman. While these qualities are not exclusive to marriage, the rate of failure for non-marriage relationships is much higher. Commitment to a moral standard matters a great deal. It seems to me that if we degrade moral standards and character in one sphere (by making common-law or same-sex relationships "equivalent" to marriage), we shouldn't be surprised to see these qualities degraded in other spheres of Canadian society. We all depend on a reserve of good character in politicians, teachers, civic leaders, lawyers, business people, bankers, neighbours, doctors, etc. Such qualities as reaching for an ideal, keeping one's word, persevering, putting the needs of others ahead of one's own, resisting temptations, and protecting the weaker members of the community - all of these impulses spring from moral, unselfish character. Protecting the uniqueness of marriage is one aspect of upholding the virtue of good character, and this principle should be an explicit objective of this and other government policies.

Janet Bracken
Citizen Impact
London, Ontario

As an expert witness who has testified in favour of recognizing same-sex spousal relationships in many cases, I have come to think that it's short-sighted to simply equalize spousal relationships. In the short run this is necessary, but in the long term, I agree with the Law Commission's discussion paper that we need to re-think the whole rationale for recognizing relationships. As it stands, spousal relationships have become more emotional and sexual than economic, over the course of the 20th century. And so the old practice of favouring spousal relationships, for instance through granting widow's benefits, has lost much of its basis. I think that in the long run the state ought to recognize everyone's needs without making automatic distinctions between citizens who are in spousal relationships and those who are not. Whether someone is in a monogamous and/or live-in relationship with a partner should not affect access to health benefits, pensions, and tax benefits. People who are single or have non-monogamous relationships should not be treated as second-class citizens.

Mariana Valverde
Toronto, Ontario

Marriage is between one man and one woman; any other marital relationship is invalid. A close personal relationship is something completely different than a marriage relationship and when you couch it in terms like your discussion paper it gives the impression that it is the same thing. Your discussion paper is a dishonest attempt to blur the differences between marriage and any alternative lifestyle. Any attempt to cast marriage as just another "close personal relationship" among many other "close personal relationships" will continue to lower the value of marriage in Canadian society. Who decides what is an appropriate close personal relationship that should receive the protection of the state? Why not allow bestiality or why limit it to adults? What limits this legal protection to today's idea of any two consenting adults? This revisionist way of looking at the laws of Canada opens a Pandora's box that I fear no one will be able to close other than a "strong man", i.e. a dictatorship.

Dave
Truro, Nova Scotia

Ever since the beginning of man, the natural family unit has been the foundation of our civilization. Strong families equate to a strong nation. Laws have been formulated for centuries based on this premise, designed to protect and to support the basic natural family unit, and the offspring from such unions. Now, a few liberally minded so called "legal scholars" are purporting to unravel all of this, and set us back thousands of years, to an "animal like" state, where we would be governed not by moral codes or by what is proper and right, but rather by whatever we "feel like" in terms of recognizing, and giving legal protection to, relationships. Societal breakdown would not be far behind if this type of legal thinking were to be accepted by our legislators. […] You should be instead looking for ways that the laws regarding marriage and family can be changed to show a greater commitment from government to promote and encourage the stability of the natural family - the institution upon which our very society has been built.

Richard A. Low
Law Offices of Richard A. Low,
Lethbridge, Alberta

If the government institutes a system of registered domestic partnerships, … there would be a registration system for verification, an element of reliability in tracking the dissolution of such relationships, there could be independent verification simply through the act of registration, and it could become part of a recognisable registration system that made sense internationally. In other words, in statutes, treat these new close adult personal relationships as marriages.

Sharon Kuropatwa
Family Violence Prevention Program,
Manitoba Department of Housing and Family Services

We read with great interest your literature on close personal relationships between adults, and fully endorse more equitable legal and economic rights to adults who reside together outside common-law, marital, or dependent relationships.

We are thirty-six-year-old twin sisters who have never been married or had children, and who live together. … Our lives are inextricably linked: aside from being related and having known each other all of our lives, we have co-habitated continuously for the last seventeen years (since leaving our parental home), rely on each other for emotional support, and are entirely dependent on each other financially - we co-own all of our possessions and share all of our living expenses. A more stable relationship cannot be found. Yet, because we are sisters, rather than husband and wife, and because we are not a couple in a presumably sexual relationship, we are denied tax benefits, "family" health coverage, and a multitude of other advantages constructed upon sexist and heterosexist ideas about what constitutes meaningful relationships.

We find this situation incredibly frustrating. It seems to us that we are being penalized for not marrying or living with men - or even with women - in a presumably sexual relationship. Should the possibility of sexual relations between two co-habitating adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual, really be the yardstick by which the government, the law, and the corporation measure a citizen's entitlement to social and economic rights? This notion is completely absurd, and yet our entire social structure is premised upon it.

Names withheld,
Ontario

On Defining or Describing Close Personal Adult Relationships

There is still a strong emphasis on the couple paradigm, and much of the debate surrounds how one defines a "couple" (same sex, common-law, etc). Little recognition is given to adults who create relationships that go outside the couple, involving three or more. Sometimes these relationships are conjugal, while others are not. I personally know of a single parent living with a couple, with the three adults sharing the responsibility for their four children. While this arrangement will probably always be relatively rare, there is currently no way existing to get a third adult person recognised in any kind of kinship union. There is also a strong emphasis on sexual relations. Current legal definitions assume that if there is no sex, then the relationship is not important, and again, there is no mechanism in law to have a non-conjugal relationship recognised.

There is definitely a need to have some kind of mechanism whereby domestic partnerships can be registered. These domestic partnerships should also not be limited to two adults. The legal concepts defining these relationships should be functionally based, since circumstances will be different in each case.

Kristina Makkay
Ottawa, Ontario

I work for [a company that prepares individuals' income tax returns] and would LOVE to see conjugality dethroned as the criteria of coupledom. It's incredibly embarrassing for me to ask clients if their relationship is a conjugal one, and I'm sure it's not pleasant for them either. And of course, one has no way to establish whether or not they are telling the truth. [...] The issue of time periods in establishing relationships also needs to be considered carefully. One couple may be shocked to discover that just because they've lived with someone for a year, this person is entitled to half their belongings. But for a same-sex couple who can't get married, a year may seem like a long time to have to wait to establish their relationship legally, especially when opposite-sex couples can do so much more quickly.

SarahRose Werner
Saint John, New Brunswick

The underlying assumption here is that governments support, promote and encourage healthy close adult personal relationships. This is in recognition of the fact that governments at times enter into the realm of the personal to fulfil more politically erstwhile goals, like a healthy and connected adult population. To that end, the criteria used to identify the beneficiaries of close adult personal relationships other than the traditional concepts of marriage and spouse should fall along a continuum of qualities and characteristics of any kind of healthy, connected relationship. This would foremostly involve self-declaration. To curb abuses, however, there would have to be descriptive criteria as well, such as duration and nature of the relationship.

Sharon Kuropatwa
Family Violence Prevention Program,
Manitoba Department of Housing and Family Services

Much of the commentary I've seen so far ... seems stuck trying to force a wide and divergent range of relationships into traditional definitions of "spouse," "marriage" and "family" -- a move that not only threatens traditionalists but can limit the scope of more progressive thought. One of the points I want to address is that the very words we choose -- and what they have "normally" meant to people -- can set a constricting frame on the discussion. ... Maybe the state shouldn't be trying to redefine these terms but to give up defining them at all, instead finding new ways to name legally recognized relationships. Rather than trying to make "marriage" (or even "marriage-like") encompass a greater range of relationships, set broad legal terms for relationships that can encompass "marriage" -- and much beyond, including non-cohabitational connections, non-conjugal ones, and maybe even those involving more than two persons (a point touched on by the BC Law Institute). "Marriage" would not be threatened: those who want to define it in moral or religious terms for themselves would still be free do so; their choice would become one of various relationship choices recognized in law, respected, supported (and, as necessary, regulated) by the state to enhance human justice and protect the vulnerable. I would much rather see gay people pondering such options (for themselves and others) than pounding on the door of a crumbling institution, demanding admission in the name of "equality."

Rick Bébout
Toronto, Ontario

On Support for Individuals in Dependent / Interdependent Relationships

[I am interested in commenting on the exclusion of "divorced spouses" from their ex-partners' health plan coverage.] My personal interest in the matter, perhaps, illustrates the need for change. It lies in the welfare of my ex-wife who survived serious health problems ... during the course of our 20-year marriage, and, as a consequence, did not have her own employment and became very dependent upon the health care benefits associated with my employment in the federal public service. Her health history also means that she cannot now secure private health insurance. While I hope to marry again, I feel it is only right that I have the option ... of assigning the benefits available to a spouse or partner to [my] divorced spouse (in precedence over a new partner or spouse) as can be done with death benefits, pension benefits [etc.]. As my ex-wife is responsible for the care of my daughter (who incidentally will continue to be able to access my health care benefits without qualification), her access to health care benefits will very directly affect my daughter's physical and financial well-being as well.

Name withheld
Ontario

In May of 1999 my elderly mother was operated on for a bowel obstruction. During surgery it was discovered that she had an unusual form of cancer. The doctor anticipated that she would not survive very long. Because I was a palliative care nurse I offered to look after my mother in her home. The way it appeared at the time she was not expected to live more than a month or two at the most. I took time off from a contract job I had in Edmonton in order to look after her. The unexpected happened. Mother, who was 91 at the time recovered, gained her health back and today, as she approaches her 93rd birthday is coping pretty well. [...] I believe, firmly, that her recovery had everything to do with the care she was receiving from me. She is doing fine, however, my life has been shattered. I no longer have a job, I had to give up my residence in Edmonton and my financial situation has become a mess!!!!! [...] I wish the government would look into the service that family members give to their elderly.

Pat
Saskatchewan

Considering the relative economic independence of individuals, relationships, either personal, economic or social, no longer can be viewed to depend on the financial support provided by an intimate partner, irrespective of gender, with whom the support claiming individual has, or has had, a sexual relationship. Therefore, the concept of a dependency on a "spouse" for continuing support is antiquated. Benefits should be granted according to individual need. Presumed dependency, and duty to support, based on a predetermined and specified relationship which is sanctified by law, should not be part of the equation.

Eeva Sodhi
McDonald's Corners, Ontario

The issue is not whether governments should provide other relationships with the choice of selecting the "status" of marriage for the purpose of a shopping list of benefits, but whether governments should continue to penalize married couples in tax law and in the numerous benefit programmes preferentially directed to broken, non-married families, when stable, respected marriages produce so many benefits to society, and non-marriage produces so many social costs.

G. Cheriton
Ottawa, Ontario

The discussion paper talks about recognizing other adult relationships that involve material and emotional interdependence but are not spousal. That's one possibility: but I would favour a different approach, which would be to have the state provide benefits to those who need them directly, rather than by tax or other advantages to individuals who happen to be doing the caring. In other words, the benefits should be attached to the person who needs them. If that person or whoever is authorized to act on their behalf then chooses to pay a relative to stay home and look after them, fine. But in general I think that direct benefits to individuals on the basis of their personal need are more egalitarian and transparent, both within families and in terms of the society as a whole, than tax deductions and the like.

Mariana Valverde
Toronto, Ontario

I often ask myself why the person to whom custody of the children is granted after a divorce, is penalized when he or she forms a new couple. After I began living with a new partner, my family allowance, child tax credits, etc. were cut off, even reclaimed. Even my tax rate changed, although my income remained the same. It is apparently assumed that the new common law partner assumes the responsibility to support of the children born from the previous union. However, I can say that for many of us that is not the case. Simply look at the growing number of children and mothers living in poverty, their numbers increasing year after year, even if many of these women have formed a new couple. Since I receive a food allowance for my children from their biological father, I do not believe that my new partner should automatically assume the costs relating to the children from my previous common law union. Now, because my new partner's income is far greater than mine, my children are deprived from any additional benefits the government grants to people making the same salary as I do.

My third child was born from the union between my new common law partner and I. He assumes his obligations and responsibilities concerning this new child.

Suggestion: Why shouldn't the government, through its family-related policies, take only and separately into account the salary of the person legally responsible for the children born from a previous relationship? The government could consider the case of children born from the new couple differently, while taking into account the salary of both parents of this other child.

My two children born from my first relationship are penalized, because only my salary and the food allowance I receive for them are used to cover their needs, while my third child benefits from the salaries of both parents.

Blended families are becoming more common nowadays, and I believe that family and social programs and policies no longer apply to this reality. They are outdated. Children are the ones who suffer from this situation.

Lyne Gauthier
Québec

I think that one thing we should argue for is a tax system that all along recognizes the value of the unpaid labour of that spouse who was in the home, by letting the spousal deduction be equal to a full personal deduction, by allowing her to contribute to her own RRSP and pension, by removing the tax inequity between single and dual-earner couples and allowing income -splitting. In that way if the relationship ended, the spouse would not be so desperate, poor or bitter. She would have had status and money all along.

Beverley Smith,
Calgary, Alberta

Few people realize how much our [gay people's] "victory" in M. vs H. [a spousal support case] was based on arguments implicitly accepting the "privatization" of social support once seen as a public trust. Only the dissenting justice saw fit to note "the general rule that the law imposes no obligation of support as between persons" -- and that to do so it must have reasons more compelling than, as often cited by others, "reducing the burden on the public purse."

Much of family law has been an effort to deal with the consequences of dependence -- not inevitable (as in disease or disability) but socially and economically constructed as "normal" -- for some even desirable -- imbalances of power. We're moving past that. Recognizing and providing for real dependence is vital; fostering further dependence is not. It is in the wider social interest (if not always the State's) to foster independence.

Rick Bébout
Toronto, Ontario

On Marriage

[A]lthough there will undoubtedly be opposition from certain religious groups to the notion of extending the definition of marriage to same-sex couples, I think that religious groups cannot have a decisive voice in this matter. There will also be religious groups (for example, the United Church of Canada) who will support such a move. Which religious voice takes precedence in the eyes of the law and why? Surely vocal opposition by one or a group of churches is not sufficient to outweigh what we already know by polls, that the majority of Canadians think gay men and lesbians should have the right to marry. My own view, as a scholar of religion and as a member of the clergy of the United Church of Canada, is that religious views ought not be determinative here.

Although churches blessed marriages before the 16th century, it was not until the 16th century that churches actually became agents of marriage on behalf of the state. Marriage was a civil function long before it was a religious function. It is only because Canada is a relatively young country that we cannot imagine the separation of marriage from the role of churches (later extended to other religious institutions). In many European countries this separation is well established (France, for example).

If Canada truly is a country that supports religious diversity, this means not only a diversity of well established religious traditions, but also a diversity that allows people to be of no religious tradition and does not (overtly or covertly) enforce any specific religious values. Taking religious objections to same-sex marriage as definitive would be in my view covertly to enforce and enshrine specific religious points of view.

Already in Canada the state allows civil marriages for those whom some churches will not marry (divorced Roman Catholics, for instance). So there is precedent for civil marriage extending beyond the realm of what religious institutions will sanction. This should be extended to allow marriage for same-sex couples.

Pamela Dickey Young
Kingston, Ontario

[C]lergy of religious groups that once were dominant in Canada have for decades been expressing the thought that it is about time that we ceased to act as agents of the province in the solemnizing of marriages. Let people do whatever provincial law requires, and then come to the church for a blessing, if they so desire. By the principle of diversity, religious groups can decide for themselves how to respond to such requests.

My point is that Canadian law and practice has so strayed from fundamental definitions of marriage, not only in Christian, but in most religious traditions, that the very concept has little meaning in a legal context. Perhaps it is time for Canadian (federal and provincial) law to stop talking about "marriage" and start talking about "voluntary cohabitation". Legal practice, and pensions, employment benefits, etc. could be extended to those who enter into a voluntary contract to cohabit. […] In the end close bonding is in the realm of spirit and emotion and will never be completely defined by civil or criminal law. The best the law can do is recognise and register voluntary contracts, which is all that a "legal marriage" ever was.

Without prejudice to the goodness and value of other kinds of cohabitation relationships, I, like many of my fellow Christian clergy, will not support a definition of marriage other than the divinely sanctioned sexual partnership of one man and one woman intended to last for life. Contemporary concepts of diversity, non-discrimination and individual rights probably mean that our principles will be applied less and less to Canadian law. Other relationships may be within the will of God, and worthy of the protection of law. The principle of voluntary consent, always spelled out in Christian wedding ceremonies, can be applied to other "family like" units in full harmony with the principles of contemporary Canadian society. The unity and coherence of Canadian society requires that there be a framework for governing the diversity of "adult relationships".

Rev. David M. Bowring
Anglican Pastor and Priest
Toronto, Ontario

In order for various forms of supportive relationships to receive government recognition, benefits and status, it is not necessary to demolish the unique position of marriage in our society. New policy can be designed to develop a 'win/win' situation for all relationships. Surprisingly, this option was not mentioned in the Discussion Paper "Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Relationships Between Adults". […] The state has never been neutral regarding conjugal relationships because of the unique and beneficial nature of traditional marriage. Evidence of this unique character has been demonstrated in taxpayer-funded surveys and statistical studies. This research should not be ignored in developing social and economic policy. […] These studies demonstrate that legal marriage is the safest, most secure and healthiest place for women and children. […] The Discussion Paper suggests that the religious component of marriage is no longer appropriate for Canadians. This attitude fails to recognize Canada's multicultural character. All the world's major religions recognize stable marriage between a man and a woman as the foundational unit of society. This is a basic tenet of the major religious communities, which make up the multicultural heritage of Canada. Canadians are be better served by social policy characterized by harmony between government and long standing Canadian institutions, including major religions. […] We welcome greater generosity in terms of benefits and tax breaks for supportive relationships without deconstructing foundational units such as family and marriage.

REAL Women of Canada
National Office
Ottawa, Ontario

As a gay man who has enviously watched close friends form committed relationships with one another and, thanks to their being heterosexual, eventually marry their partners, I cannot stay silent on this issue: I decry the profound injustice of a legal system that refuses to recognize equally strong, committed, productive and loving gay marriages. […] To the claim that marriage is a sacred religious rite and that recognizing gay or lesbian couples is travesty of a millennia-old tradition, I ask my fellow Canadians to remember that, less than a decade ago, Afrikaners quite righteously practised apartheid and gave it a religious face; that, less than a century ago, Canadian women were not even considered persons and couldn't vote, and change never came about through the Church; that, throughout the entire history of colonialism, and under the banner of "faith", Native peoples were destroyed, crushed, or coerced into abandoning their own religions and languages. We should be careful when we say something is "sacred", or "good", or "right", and ask ourselves who truly benefits from a given custom, who suffers from it, and why we hang onto it. It is not a crime, indeed it is a privilege we have in a democracy like Canada -- and it should be a personal duty -- to question our motives, and to step out of our shoes and into someone else's occasionally, it's called empathy and it's the reason my heterosexual friends and I get along so well.

Would that all Canadians could see beyond the rhetoric of church and state and listen to their own hearts. I'll bet all of you know at least one gay person, or have one amongst your circle of close friends and family. Ask them how they feel about marriage. Like you, not all of them will want to get married, but like you, they do want the power to make that choice.

Norman Liu
Toronto, Ontario

I am a woman of 59 and my husband is 75. We do not live together. We live approximately 100 km from each other. At our ages we do not want to go through the stress and expense of a divorce. I received a notice from Revenue Canada that I was not eligible for the GST rebate, which I already knew, because of my salary. What upset me is the reason why I was not eligible and neither was my husband. The reason stated when I called, was that we were married, therefore the combined salary and pension did not permit us to collect the GST rebate. I proceeded to explain that we do not live together, as a matter of fact, we do not even live in the same city. I was told to get a divorce -- that would solve the problem. This I do not understand at all. Why is the law forcing people of a certain age to get a legal separation or divorce? What other benefits will be taken away such as old age pension because of the situation that we live in. No wonder the courts have a backlog of cases. When it is evident that the two persons do not live together and not even in the same city, why are they penalized for not getting a divorce? I really feel that the law governing this matter should be revisited and amended.

Name withheld,
Ontario

It may be too burdensome at this point to consider replacing the entire notion of marriage. It would necessitate a considerable paradigm shift for most people. Introducing a regime of registered relationships will be difficult enough in a society so tied to the established notions of marriage, family and spouse. It would also be quite a challenge to harmonize this change with international law, and accepted standards around the world. And finally, it is worth noting that some adults seek a traditional civil or religious kind of marriage and, as such, those distinctions need to be maintained.

Sharon Kuropatwa
Family Violence Prevention Program,
Manitoba Department of Housing and Family Services

I am a Mother of a Gay son. … I recognize his right to a close relationship with a man, and that relationship should be recognized in the right to be bound by marriage, if a couple so chooses. I choose to marry a man, why should it be so different for my son to choose to marry a man?

There is good reason, in law for persons to be protected by marriage, whether they be man and wife, or girl and girl or man and man. I don't judge right from wrong when it comes to human relationships. So long as we treat one another with respect, and that we respect the rights of all Canadians to live a satisfying life, without harming other persons.

Penny Leclair
Ottawa, Ontario

Registered Domestic Partnerships

Government and Religion should not mix. In my mind, marriage is very much a Religious institution. A civil alternative must be available for those in relationships that are not sanctioned by the church (i.e., same sex, polyamourous). [...] We need something more that encompases marriage, common law relationships and all the other relationships that exist. Registered Partnerships for anyone involved in whatever form of Close Personal Relationship would be a good option ? if it is set up properly.

Lynn
Ottawa, Ontario

[T]here are many people who are physically or economically vulnerable because of the domestic choices they have made. Registered domestic partnerships would honour these choices and encourage supportive close personal relationships. [...] Registered Domestic Partnerships should exist alongside marriage because:

This system of registration should be open to anyone.

Grace Miedema
Ingersoll, Ontario

The concept of marriage carries religious and tradition based connotations with which many same-sex and opposite-sex couples are uncomfortable. Creating another legal process by which couples could officially register and declare their commitment to each other would offer people an alternative. Care must be taken, however, to insure that such a legal process does not become a means by which to deny same-sex couples the right to marry if they so choose. Nor should it become a means by which to relegate same-sex unions to an inferior position than the unions of opposite sex people.

A group of women involved with the Port Coquitlam Area Women's Centre
Port Coquitlam, British Columbia

I ask Parliament to follow the route of registering domestic partnerships to replace the legal concept of marriage. These registered domestic partnerships must be available to all adults in self-identified close personal relationships. The definition of these relationships must be inclusive and must reflect the diverse relationships identified in the discussion paper. I also support the employment of a fact-based criterion on which to register these relationships. Parliament needs to understand the truth: that present statutes are limiting, non-inclusive and do not reflect the relationships present in today's society. Citizens want recognition, rights, benefits and all of the obligations afforded to those who are presently privileged with the union of marriage.

Ian
Thunder Bay, Ontario

Parliament has enacted an omnibus bill including same sex partners on an equal footing with opposite sex common law partners in Federal statutes. Several provincial legislatures (no, not Alberta) have passed similar legislation. If same sex couples have the same rights and obligations under the law, I am asked, why do they insist on being allowed to marry. My answer, in brief, is that common law couples are not treated the same as married couples under the law. […] It has been suggested that a system of Partnership Registry would solve some of these problems. Under such a system a couple who either chooses not to marry or is not allowed to marry can register their relationship and in this way become eligible for some rights and bear some responsibilities of coupledom. Such systems have been implemented in different European jurisdictions. For the most part these systems do not create rights and obligations identical to marriage, but rather, create a lesser set of consequences. "Marriage-lite," if you will. Even if a Registry System were to create a set of rights and obligations identical to those consequent upon marriage, there remains the problem of the destructive and harmful message that such a parallel system would convey. By way of illustration, let's say that we have two identical drinking fountains at City Hall. One fountain is to be used only by whites and the other only by non-whites. With two fountains every thirsty person can drink; they can drink the same amount; they all drink the same thing. What's the problem? The question here in my view is not, "Are the fountains the same?" The real question society must ask is, "Why do we need two fountains?" It seems to me that creating "separate but equal" institutions for committed partnerships are indistinguishable from the fountain example. The same messages of "otherness" and inferiority are conveyed and the same type of discriminatory attitudes are condoned and perpetuated. We are denying the dignity, the worth, the personhood of the stigmatized.

Julie C. Lloyd
Edmonton, Alberta