Wikipedia

Talk:Same-sex marriage in Canada/Archive 1

< Talk:Same-sex marriage in Canada
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2

Divorce

This page states that the canadian same-sex divorce is the possibly the first in the world. This is not true. There have already been same-sex divorces in the Netherlands and Belgium.

I'm removing the reference to "world's first" until we can proove it either way. Arcuras 13:48, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I imagine with same-sex marriage in the Netherlands and Belgium being long before Canada, they must have had divorce first. We just may not have heard about it. Spinboy 15:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's what I was assuming. If we can find more information about this, starting a Same Sex Divorce page would be the logical thing to do. Arcuras 19:37, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
BBC says it's the first same-sex divorce.[1] CBC suggests that it is "probably" the world's first -- as a solid news organization, CBC probably did some research, turned up no leads, and then hedged with "probably".[2] The Advocate (which probably keeps up on these things) says it's the world's first divorce.[3] It's possible that no one has yet divorced in Belgium or the Netherlands if their laws do not require legal precedent to permit same-sex divorce. Canada needed the precedent, in order to challenge the current definition of divorce. --Westendgirl 07:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yukon Territory

The Yukon Territory is not called "Yukon" in Canada, neither formally nor informally. "The territory of Yukon", which is what was used in this article, sounds particularly strange. I've only ever heard "The Yukon Territory" or "The Yukon". Seeing "The territory of Yukon" in a list looks as strange to me (and I'm sure most Canadians or anyone else who's heard of the place) as "The city of Hague" would. So I'm going to rename this in the article. --db

the official name of the territory in question is "yukon". calling it "the yukon" would be like saying "the california" or "the italy". that being said, it seems to have become stuck to the word "territory" as a result of its larger neighbour, the northwest territories, in which the word "territories" is part of the official name.
m.
The government of Yukon uses both "Yukon" and "the Yukon," mostly "Yukon" as far as I can tell. However, since "the Yukon" is short for "the Yukon Territory" (with "the" not being a part of the proper name, as with The Hague, The Gambia, or The Pas), I would not capitalize it. If "territory" is appended, "the Yukon Territory" is definitely correct (not "the territory of Yukon"). - Montréalais 17:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information about the official name (and its official usage) of the Yukon Territory. I now see that despite common usage, "The" is not part of the name of the territory, at least not as much as it is of "The Hague", etc. The original phrasing, "The territory of Yukon", is very odd and jarring. --db

Nunavut

I don't think it's appropriate to list Nunavut in a parallel fashion with the other provinces and territory in which SSM is performed:

  1. Nunavut does not perform same-sex marriage; to put it in a list with other provinces and territories that do is misleading.
  2. It is not known if the territory's government actually will respect SSM performed in other provinces; all we have is the premier's word on it.
  3. I do not know if any test cases have come up in Nunavut.
  4. I do not know if any test cases have come up in other provinces or in NWT, or what their intentions are towards recognizing outside SSM; i.e. if Nunavut is unique in this regard.

I would prefer to wait on including Nunavut in the list until it actually is performing SSM. - Montréalais 04:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The Premier has spoke as if they will accept it, so I see no reason that it can't be at least mentioned, and as cases come up, the page updates. Right now, the information given from Nunavut's Hansard is that they will accept marriages from other juristictions. Spinboy 04:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Hansard is not law. The Hansard is just a record of what people have said in the legislature. If the Premier said that flying monkeys were attacking, it would be recorded in Hansard.
Until and unless there is a law passed by the legislature or a ruling handed down by a court, it's inappropriate to present recognition of outside same-sex marriage as a fait accompli in Nunavut.
Of course, you are quite right that what the premier said ought to be mentioned. I moved it to a new section on recognition of marriage in other provinces and territories. The initial entry was under the section slugged "Court Rulings," which was certainly inappropriate. - Montréalais 04:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The new section works for me. I certainly can understand that it was in the wrong section. Spinboy 04:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction

"the percentage has risen to slightly over 50%, and two thirds of Canadians now believe that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This includes almost 40% of those who oppose the change in the definition of marriage."

These two numbers don't make sense...either 60% agree and 40% don't, or 66.6% agree and 33.3% don't. You can't have 66.6% agreeing and 40% not agreeing. If anybody has the proper source for this, please change the numbers, and reference it if possible. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 15:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the surface, it does look contradictory, but the wording is what makes it work:
"the percentage has risen to slightly over 50%, and two thirds of Canadians now believe that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This includes almost 40% of those who oppose the change in the definition of marriage."
Two thirds of Canadians want gays/lesbians to have the same rights, and some of those people are part of the 40% of canadians who don't want to change the definition of marriage to "two adults". Arcuras 16:40, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

edits after supreme court ruling

This page mentioned the outcome of the Supreme Court reference in three different places. I've tried to consolidate that, and hope I haven't left any lacunae. -Montréalais 17:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Free Votes

Free votes are not legislatively binding in Canada, and are mostly done for symbolic purposes.

Can somebody give me a reference for this? As far as I am aware, free votes are votes just like any other, the difference being the governmental party whip doesn't enforce the party line on backbenchers. From a constitutional point of view there is no such thing as a free vote or a whip vote, therefore how could a free vote be non-binding? Gabe 06:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a goof on someone's part. The statement is correct if you stick in "motion" instead of "free vote." I've corrected it. -The Tom 18:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Free votes and private members bills are law if the pass both houses of parliament. --Spinboy 01:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Famous Players

I read in the article that the ads from Famous Players were removed? --Spinboy 01:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems they were. [4] --Spinboy 01:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There were not removed; they simply played through their rotation and then ended like any other ad after it has finished its run. They were paid for by Famous Player's Media President Salah Bachir.

Terminology

An anon just made an edit with the summary: Changed the term 'gay marriages' to 'marriages for same sex couples'. I think the term 'gay marriage' or same sex marriage' may imply an instituion that is distinct from marriage, which it is not.

I disagree with the reasoning. English has plenty of conceptual room for attaching specifiers to general terms like "marriage" without suggesting that the general term isn't the same thing anymore. In fact, that's the default in English linguistics. Besides which, same-sex marriage is the accepted, popular term, and it's clear from the coverage of the issue that there's no misunderstanding as to its meaning. Further, the changes make the article read less well, inserting inconsistency and baroque wording. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to change it back (and standardise it on same-sex marriage, as there were numerous references to gay marriage with no rationale for using a different term).  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Separate but equal"

The General Acceptance section uses the term "separate but equal" to describe alternative recognition for same-sex unions. I fear that this is a loaded term due to its association with racial segregation in the US. Is there a more NPOV way to phrase that sentence? Pburka 01:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prince Edward Island

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Like other Canadian governments, the government of PEI cannot just make laws up. What they announced was not that they were legalizing SSM just like that; they announced that they would be beginning the process of updating the province's laws to comply with the federal government's marriage law. Here's a quote:

"We're looking at the possibility of bringing in an omnibus bill that would say something to the effect of wherever the word spouse appears in our legislation, it includes same-sex and heterosexual marriages," she said. (Globe and Mail)

As far as I can determine, same-sex couples are not presently being issued marriage licences in PEI, and won't be until Bill C-38 becomes law. - Montréalais

C-38 became law. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Subjective analysis

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed this section

Generally speaking, support for same-sex marriage varies widely by region, as follows:

  • British Columbia - Slightly supportive, most polls running between 50-60% in favour of SSM.
  • Prairie Provinces - Heavily opposed, most polls showing opposition by about 2-to-1. Most opposed region.
  • Ontario - Fairly opposed, most polls showing opposition by about 3-to-2.
  • Quebec - Heavily in favour, most supportive region. Most polls show about 60-70% support.
  • Atlantic Canada - Nearly evenly split, although some polls have shown a slight opposition.


as it screams of subjective analysis with no supporting references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.101.109 (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Who gave Royal Assent?

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This article says it was "Deputy Governor General" Morris Fish, who was acting on behalf of Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. However, according to all other news articles I've seen, and also the wikipedia entry for the Civil Marriage Act, it was Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin who gave the Queen's consent to the bill on behalf of Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson. [[User::Thirty-seven]]

Hmmm... I can't find Fish on any of the news sites that I checked earlier, so that makes me think that it was a mistake that has now been corrected. Everyone seems to be saying McLachlin now. Ground Zero 13:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just an FYI on why Clarkson was indeed unable to perform the duty herself due to recovery, read the article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050720.wmarry0720/BNStory/National/ .
--Krinberry 21:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • McLachlin is not Deputy Governor-General, she simply acts as GG when the current one is incapable of fufilling certain duties. It's not an official position.
Just a response to McLachlin's status as Deputy Governor-General - I googled it and the title "Deputy Governor-General" appears in Hansard at least twice, and is also used by the CBC. That being said, it's not on the Supreme Court's official biography of McLachlin nor any of it's other pages, so it looks semi-official (perhaps a modern usage?)
Hansard (1994): http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/044_94-03-24/044RA1E.html
Hansard (2001): http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/001_2001-01-29/han001_1100-e.htm
CBC (2002): http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/23/hnatyshyn_moday021223
--RealMontrealer 20:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
It may not be worth posting this far after the inquery, but the Deputy Governor General of Canada is indeed an official position, and is the position into which the Chief Justice of Canada is inducted into the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. While the position is not highly publicised, its duties include performing the responsibilities of the Governor General of Canada when he or she is otherwise unavailable. While it is an official position, the title is not widely used since the Deputy Governor General is always the Chief Justice, and his or her role as Chief Justice is undeniably more prominent and public. FiveParadox 08:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
In actuality, all judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are in fact "deputies" of the Governor General. It is not so much a "position" as it is a role. Under s. 14 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the GG has the authority to appoint a person or persons to exercise any of the their powers on their behalf. All newly appointed SCC judges receive this delegation.PoliSciMaster 07:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The map needs to be updated or removed now that same-sex marriage is legal across Canada. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. It's a map of juridictions where court decisions led to legalization. The imformation it conveys is just as true today as it was six months ago. -The Tom 14:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Then it needs to be reworded to say that, because the way it is worded now, it implies those parts of the country do not perform same-sex marriage. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It says "Provinces and territories with same-sex marriage before its nationwide legalization on 20 July 2005" How does that imply that those parts of the country do not perform SSM? -The Tom 15:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It says that with the caption, if you look at the actual image, it doesn't say that at all. It says, Canadian provinces and territories permitting same-sex marriage. The two contradict each other. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 15:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Spinboy. The map was more interesting before same-sex marriage became federal law. In the current context, the map is a minor piece of trivia. It simply represents jurisdictions in which the law was challenged before the federal law was passed. If those jurisdictions had banned same-sex marriage, it might be more interesting, but they did not. Pburka 02:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The map would be most appropriate in a new section specifically about the state of same-sex marriage in Canada leading up to its legalisation. This article needs quite a bit of reorganising to make it reflect the current state of affairs given that essential change anyway...  — Saxifrage | ☎ 17:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Is rainbow Canada flag better?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On April 11, 2006, NTK replaced the Canadian flag in this template with a rainbow version of the Canadian flag.

Since this is only one of the articles affected, please give your comments at this central location: Template talk:GR-C Wuzzy 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Church and State

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

IANAC, but this confuses me:

In July 2003, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Canada launched an attack against the Chrétien government's plans to change the definition of marriage.

How is it not original research for Wikipedia to call this a "change (of) definition"? Isn't that simply one side's POV? Would anyone object my changing to "launched an attack against what they saw as the Chrétien government's plans" etc.? Cheers, Kasreyn 03:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It did happen like that though. I don't really think it's POV, but if you think it's confusing, then it should be re-worded. Ardenn 03:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. How is it not a change of definition? The legal definition was one thing, then the Supreme Court said the definition violated the Charter, then the government changed the legal definition. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Supreme Court said no such thing. Ardenn 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Legalized?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This doesn't meet my standards of a good article. I didn't get past the fifth word before I had serious doubts about the reliability of the content. If it same sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005 was it illegal prior to that? That's the implication of the fifth word. It's not the implication of the law which extends legal capacity for marriage. According to the nearly as accurate as Nature encyclopedia, "marriage can include legal, social, and religious elements." This law only deals with one of those elements. The marriage article looses credibility in the first sentence too, telling me what marriage often does before it tells me what it is. The second sentence tells me what elements marriage "can" include but it makes no mention of emotional or physical bonds. Xientist 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The implication of saying that same-sex marriage was legalized is that it was "given legal validity or sanction"[5]. As for other elements of marriage, I think it would be redundant to mention that the legalization of marriage by the Civil Marriage Act refers to the legal aspect of the institution.--Trystan 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose to shorten the opinion polls section as follows:

Those who support or oppose the change in the definition of marriage can generally fall into distinct demographic groups. Supporters tend to be younger and live in urban areas. Opponents tend to be older and live in rural areas. The strongest support is concentrated in the largest metropolitan areas, particularly in and around the three largest urban areas of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The strongest opposition is found in the Prairie Provinces, the interior of British Columbia, much of southern Ontario outside the Greater Toronto Area and in southern and western New Brunswick.[citation needed] Polls show that better educated Canadians are more likely to support equal marriage.

  • 1996: an Angus-Reid/Southam News poll showed that 49% of Canadians surveyed favoured same-sex marriage, while 47% were opposed.
  • May 1999: a Globe&Mail/CTV/Angus-Reid poll had public support at 53% for gay marriage, and 44% opposed.
  • 2002: an EKOS Research poll showed that if there was a national referendum on the issue, either side could win: 47% would vote to oppose same-sex marriage, while 45% would vote in favour.
  • September 5, 2003: an NFO CF Group poll indicated that 46% of respondents said they supported same-sex marriage while 46% said they did not.
  • In other 2003 polls, the percentage of support had risen to slightly over 50%, and two thirds of respondents believed that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This includes almost 40% of those who oppose the change in the definition of marriage. The debate in Canada is more about the use of the word marriage than about giving legal recognition to same-sex couples.
  • October 2004: an Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe&Mail poll found 54% of respondents agreed with same-sex marriages, while 43% disagreed.
  • January 2005: an Environics/CBC poll found the same response rates as the Ocoober 2004 Inpsos-Reid poll: 54%-43%.
  • February 2005: a poll by the National Post and COMPAS showed that 68% were in favour of a referendum deciding the issue, and the population was split nearly evenly among (1) allowing the word "marriage" to apply irrespective of gender; (2) allowing full legal rights to same-sex couples but reserving the name "marriage" for heterosexual couples (the "separate but equal" option); and (3) extending no legal status at all to same-sex couples. It concluded that although the public embraced gay rights, 66% opposed same-sex marriage. The poll was discredited by many as the poll purportedly asked respondents how many sexual partners they had, and in the COMPAS report, it stated those in favour of same-sex marriage "had 5 of more sexual partners" and "belonged to the small minority that favour polygamy."
  • June 2005: After Bill C-38 passed the House of Commons, a poll taken by Strategic Counsel for CTV/Globe&Mail asked "Do you think Bill C-38 should stand or be repealed by the next government?" 55% of respondents said "Bill C-38 should stand" while 39% said "Bill C-38 should be repealed." [6][7]
  • November 2005, a poll taken by Environics Research said 66% of Canadians considered the issue of same-sex marriage "settled and it's time to move on." 32% favoured reopening the debate. [8] Another Environics poll taken January 2006 said 66% of Canadians were against bringing the issue of same-sex marriage back to Parliament.[9]
  • December 2005: a Leger Marketing poll conducted for Sun Media asked "In your opinion, should Parliament have a free vote on gay marriage or not?". 55% of respondents supported a free vote. [10]. An issue raised by some in this poll was that the poll did not clarify if another free vote was backed on the issue, or if this is the way the issue should be ultimately settled. Either way, the poll concludes nearly 50% of NDP respondents and more than 60% of Bloc Quebecois respondents, agreed parliament should have a free vote on gay marriage. The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois were the two parties that had the highest number of MPs who supported the same-sex marriage bill.
  • In a pre-2006 election survey by CBC/Radio-Canada, only 2% of Canadians listed same-sex marriage in response to the question: "Thinking about all the issues in the current federal election, which one is the most important in influencing your vote?".
  • December 2005: a Leger Marketing poll conducted for Sun Media asked "In your opinion, should Parliament have a free vote on gay marriage or not?". 55% of respondents supported a free vote. [11]. An issue raised by some in this poll was that the poll did not clarify if another free vote was backed on the issue, or if this is the way the issue should be ultimately settled. Either way, the poll concludes nearly 50% of NDP respondents and more than 60% of Bloc Quebecois respondents, agreed parliament should have a free vote on gay marriage. The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois were the two parties that had the highest number of MPs who supported the same-sex marriage bill.
  • June 2006: a poll conducted only within the provice of Ontario found that of 1,000 respondents, 60% supported same-sex marriage, while 40% opposed the law. The poll showed that 21% of Ontario respondents say that a free vote on the definition of marriage should be a top (10%) or major (11%) priority for the federal government.


Polls on referendum

There has been some debate over the need for a national referendum on the issue, although all party leaders have previously rejected this idea. However, in 2005, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin threatended Conservative leader Stephen Harper, to go to the polls over same-sex marriage and the Charter of Rights. A poll commissioned by Ipsos-Reid in January 2005, showed the Liberals would win if the public were forced to vote on the issue. Firstly, 71% felt an election call over same-sex marriage "is unjustifiable." If forced, however, the Liberals would garner 41% of the decided vote, the Conservatives 29%, the NDP 13%, 36% for the Bloc Quebecois (in Quebec), and 4% for the Green Party.

Comments? Ground Zero | t 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Including education level poll

I agree with narrowing it down a bit, or making a separate article for gay marriage polls in Canada. Regarding the education level poll, the inference seems to be that lesser educated people's opinions should count less in a democracy. Perhaps Wikipedia should include any type of poll that the poll companies produce without evaluating them. Is that being neutral, or does that just outsource Wikipedia's evaluation of neutral to the polling companies? Deet 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Double Negative?!?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[Quote] "... while others including Chuck Strahl and Bill Casey are now undecided, instead of directly opposed. ..."

It is not clear from the text if Chuck and Bill were previously opposed to same-sex marriage or opposed to reopening debate on this subject. As is, this is ambiguous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.201.37 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We have a table giving the number of SSMs in each province and territory, but they are not categorized. Is there data available on how many are M-M and how many F-F? I'm just curious, but it would be appropriate to add it to the article if there is. 207.176.159.90 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to merge. nat.utoronto 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Propose that Civil Marriage Act - a start or b-class article - be merged into this article as a sub-section. Same-sex marriage in Canada is GA class and covers much of the same ground. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure it makes sense. One is obviously a (large, but still far from the majority) subset of the other. Perhaps some editing could be done to separate them better, with a "Background" section in Civil Marriage Act referring to SSM in Canada as the main article, and a section in the latter referring to the former as the main article. But equating the two doesn't seem quite right. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Act, while symbolically important, legalised SSM in a handful of straggling provinces and territories. What about Halpern v. Canada and Catholic Civil Rights League v. Leboeuf? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose These are related but separate subjects; the Act deserves its own separate article in order not to bog down the SSM article with too much detail on the Act's history and wording, etc. Keep them separate as they are.Textorus (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. C-38 is a part of Same-sex marriage in Canada but is a big enough topic for an article of its own. It would be unwieldy to merge here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose C-38 is only a part of the picture of legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada. It's already mentioned, but we can't bog the article with details of it and therefore making the article too large.Pieuvre (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per DoubleBlue. GreenJoe 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

  In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. I am specifically going over all of the "Culture and society" articles. Unfortunately, as of June 27, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria. The article was passed as a GA back in 2006, and since then, the criteria have changed significantly. The article currently lacks inline citations for several statistics and statements that should have them. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great. The following are several issues that should be addressed before renominating the article at WP:GAN:

Needs inline citations

  • A large number of statements within the article need inline citations, and this is the main reason I am failing the article. Make sure that all quotes, statistics, and questionable statements are properly cited with an inline citation. Use citations from books, the internet, journals, newspapers, etc. Below are examples of statements that need inline citations within the article:
  1. "Alberta Premier Ralph Klein proposed putting the question to the public at large via a national referendum, but this was rejected by all four party leaders."
  2. "The court also ruled that two couples who had previously had a wedding ceremony in the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto using an ancient common-law procedure called the reading of the banns would be considered legally married."
  3. "On August 16, 2004, federal justice minister Irwin Cotler indicated that federal government would no longer resist court cases to implement same-sex marriage in the provinces or territories."
  4. "On June 8, 1999, a resolution was introduced in the House of Commons to re-affirm the definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.""
  5. "Controversially, over 30 members of the House did not attend the vote, the majority of whom were Liberals who had voted against legalizing same-sex marriage in 1999."
  6. "One cabinet minister stated he just wanted the issue "to go away", while others including Chuck Strahl and Bill Casey were undecided, instead of directly opposed."
  7. "Indeed, federal lawyers had ceased to contest such cases and only the Alberta provincial government remained officially opposed, threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which many law experts argued would not have actually worked."
  8. "...by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", as was recommended by several conservative groups and politicians."
  9. "The July ruling stated that "any further delay... will result in an unequal application of the law between Ontario and British Columbia.""
  10. "A few hours after the announcement, Antony Porcino and Tom Graff became the first two men to be legally wed in British Columbia."
  11. "However, one must be an Ontario resident for a year in order to divorce."
  12. "The Progressive Conservative premier of New Brunswick, Bernard Lord, had previously said that his government would not recognize same-sex marriage until required to do so by the courts or by Parliament."
  13. "...with members asked to vote for or against the 1999 definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.""
  14. "The reference as originally posed by Prime Minister Chrétien asked three questions:" and "Prime Minister Paul Martin later added a fourth in January 2004:"
  15. "The addition of a fourth question considerably delayed the opening of the court reference until well after the June 2004 general election, raising accusations of stalling."
  16. "The Conservative Party was almost unanimously against the bill; the New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois was almost unanimously in favour of it."
  17. "Many political observers saw the Klein statement as mere political posturing."
  18. "Complicating matters, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper indicated that he would be willing to re-examine the legislation, if the Conservative Party achieved a majority in a general election."
  19. "Saskatchewan terminated the employment of one civic official who declined to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies on religious grounds."
  20. "Harper had campaigned on the promise of holding a free vote on a motion regarding restoring the traditional definition of marriage"
  21. "They are similar to common-law marriage, but provide fewer benefits than regular marriage and are available to any adults who are in a "relation of interdependence.""
  22. All of the statistics information in the "Opinion polls, pre-enactment" and "Opinion polls, post-enactment" sections needs to be sourced. Additionally, it would be beneficial to source the lists in "Groups for and against" in case a vandal attempts to add one or two that doesn't agree/oppose.
  23. "This is significant because Catholicism has a larger number of adherents in Canada than any other religion or denomination, with 43% of the population identifying themselves as Catholic."

Other issues

  1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. For an article of this length, it should be three or four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
  2. Throughout the article there are multiple external links placed in the article. I'd recommend converting these to inline citations using the citation templates located at WP:CITET. This isn't required for GA, but they should at least be placed in <ref></ref> tags. The external links not used as sources should be placed in the "External links" section.
  3. "Passage of the Civil Marriage Act made same-sex marriage legal in the provinces of Alberta and Prince Edward Island and the territories of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories effective July 20, 2005." Single sentence shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on the information present or incorporate the statement into another paragraph. Fix the other occurrences within the article. In context, I don't think this sentence was really alone; it related to the list above it. In any event, I incorporated those provinces and territories into the list. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. "Rather than reproducing the Charter equality arguments used by the other courts, the Court issued an innovative ruling: since the provincial courts of appeal had ruled that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional (a position strengthened by the Attorney General's refusal to appeal those rulings), it was unconstitutional across Canada, and to continue to restrict marriages in Yukon to opposite-sex couples would result in an unacceptable state of a provision's being in force in one jurisdiction and not another." Consider splitting this sentence into two, it can be difficult to read.
  5. "Discussion in Parliament, 1999–September 2003" Do you know what month this started in 1999? This would make the heading a bit more accurate.
  6. "This would probably have been useless as well, for the courts would likely rule that the Alberta government was acting ultra vires, or beyond its jurisdiction." This sentence needs to be reworded as it is bordering on original research. If, however, it is from a quote, place it in quotation marks and add a source.
  7. "From June 2003 (date of the first legal same-sex marriages in Ontario) to October 2006, there were 12,438 same-sex marriages contracted in Canada." If possible, see if this figure can be updated.
  8. The "Military" section either needs to be expanded on or incorporated into another section.
  9. If you look at the references section, there are a few broken citations that are missing some characters. For the current sources it would be beneficial to add and update access dates to the online sources so readers can see the last time the source was viewed.Finished checking links through "Martin's machinations move marriage Supreme Court Reference to Oct. 2004" (currently #28/55) -Rrius (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. If possible see if any more books on the topic can be added to the "Bibliography" section.
  11. Once the above issues are met, I'd recommend having the article reviewed by the League of Copyeditors before renominating to give a fresh pair of eyes to the article.

For these reasons, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good Article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with this editor's delisting of this article without notice. Doing so left editors at this page without the opportunity to fix the page before its delisting, as is standard procedure per GAR. I have noted my objection at the project page
That said, the citation problems are real. I have gathered cites for the first six of those listed. I have also added a link or two for things not listed. I have also put a lot of inline links into <ref> tags. In the process, I have eliminated several dead links. When the text supported by the link was not too important, I deleted that too.
I am not convinced that we need as extensive a section on polling as exists now or that we need the lists of supporters and opponents. I am not going to lift a finger to help with those sections. -Rrius (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits you have made so far, Rrius. I tend to agree that the polling and supporters/opponents sections should be drastically trimmed rather than fully sourced.
I also agree that it is a very unhelpful practice to delist the article without notice when such relatively easy fixes can be made to bring it in line, thus requiring a full renomination process. As Rrius has demonstrated, a day or two's notice could have saved this article's editors a lot of trouble. Once this is done, I think the delisting should be submitted for reassessment, rather than starting a completely new nomination.--Trystan (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that there is progress in continuing to improve the article. I delisted the article before placing it on hold because I believed that it was not near GA status in quality for the number of fixes required. If there are generally only a few requested citation needed among other issues, I am more than happy to place the article on hold. However, after reviewing the article, I did not believe that the amount of changes would have been completed in time, and some of the "citation needed" tags have on the article since February 2007. As mentioned above, this article was passed in 2006 and the criteria have changed. The article was undoubtedly expanded, with information lacking sources. My intentions are for this article to meet the GA criteria, and if the delist appears detrimental, I apologize. As there is progress being made, if the above issues are addressed, I'll be more than happy to re-review the article and you can bypass going through the month wait at GAN. If desired, I can also create a full list of the issues that should be addressed with the article. If you have any further questions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll answer any questions you may have. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Anything you could do would be appreciated. I think part of the reason there has been no action for a while is that events in other places have attracted the attention of editors who would naturally edit here. Also, I think this article is a victim of editors like me who are often gun-shy about removing unsourced copy. -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I've done that myself many times. I'll go over the article again later tonight or tomorrow and give a full comprehensive review of the article on what needs to be fixed, and if they are all addressed, I'll revert the delisting. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I just added more statements that need inline citations along with a few other issues. If you have any questions over the issues I raised, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly contradicts LGBT rights in Canada#Same-sex marriage

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Talk:LGBT rights in Canada#Possibly contradicts Same-sex marriage in Canada#Same-sex marriage by province. something lame from CBW 08:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On this date some of the External Links have gone bad. G. Robert Shiplett 22:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

please feel free to remove anything that is useless.Moxy (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Marriage vote today

The same-sex marriage bill is expected to come to a vote today. I would just like to remind everyone that once the bill is passed, we should mention that of course, but it still has to pass through the Senate and receive royal assent before it becomes law. These are pretty much formalities, of course, but we should not be saying it's law before it is. - Montréalais 28 June 2005 11:16 (UTC)

It could still be rejected by the Senate, or the Governor General of Canada could use royal prerogative and refuse to sign the bill. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 28 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)
Theoretically yes, but both are highly unlikely. The Senate almost never rejects legislations and no Governor General has witheld Royal Assent since Confederation in 1867! If the Rt. Hon Ms Clarkson even tried that Martin would have the Queen dismiss her in a matter of hours. (Alphaboi867 1 July 2005 04:38 (UTC))
As a historical and cultural event, the passing of the bill in the House is significant. As a legal event, however, which is what is being discussed, it is merely one step in the process. Until the bill receives Royal Assent, Canada is not yet among the countries that have legalised same-sex marriage.  — Saxifrage | ☎ July 4, 2005 03:00 (UTC)
The motion passed with a vote 158-133 in favour of Bill C-38. Same-sex marriage is now (pending senatorial approval and Royal Assent, which are all but assured) legal in all of Canada. Someone is going to have to edit the article. I would do it, were it not for the fact that I'm very happy about this and it would end up completely non-NPOV by the end of it. 24.138.23.149 29 June 2005 01:34 (UTC)
Yeah it would be a stormy day in Hell before the Liberal stuffed senate, and the Liberal appointed Governor General rejected it. Besides by tradition they dont -Meanie-

It seems to me that this page should be reserved for discussion on the edits made to the article on same-sex marriage in Canada...your statement is biased, wholly subjective, and does not add or benefit this discussion.


Foreign persons marrying in Canada?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How do we want to handle today's events of the government saying anyone married from a country where it isn't recognized is invalid? Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of supporters and demographics

Those that support and oppose the change in the definition of marriage form into distinct groups. Supporters tend to be younger, female, live in urban areas and are better educated. Opponents tend to be older, male, live in rural areas and in the Prairie Provinces.
This breakdown has significant political implications. Like western European countries, Canada does not produce enough people to maintain its population. It has a total fertility rate of only 1.64 live births per women (2000 est). So Canada depends upon immigration to maintain and increase its population. Immigrants almost always settle in a large urban area. Toronto alone receives about half the immigrants to Canada. Population growth occurs mainly in urban areas while the rural areas tend to have a static or falling population.
Thus the future belongs to those who support the change – the young and urban dwellers. A political party interested in its own future would adopt policies favoured by this group. It is not surprising the Liberal party should support the change. Many Canadians believe that the only principle and policy of the Liberals is to remain in power.

I think the reasoning here my be faulty. I'd guess in fact that immigrants are the group in society to be least likely to support gay marriage, since it has very little support outside Canada and a few other Western countries. In fact this is one of the primary reasons AFAIK behind immigrant backlashes in much of Europe.

However so long as Canada maintains a first-past-the-post electoral system immigrants will probably only serve to boost the strength of the native Canadian urban majority. Still we need to be clear about this -- stewacide

I think that section can be removed from the article. It's only observation/speculation, not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, IMHO. -- Kimiko 00:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of the paragraphs quoted here, the first merely summarizes the summary results. It should stay, although it may need some more cautious resolution. The last paragraph is a little more dubious, and especially the last sentence has only the barest nod to NPOV. The second paragraph also makes the incorrect inferences discussed above. (The conclusion may be correct; the inferences are not). I vote for removing the second two paragraphs. Andrew 03:45, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) (yes, I'm too cautious to go hacking on such a contentious article without some discussion first).

Spinoff provincial details

A suggestion: spinoff the provincial details into articles for each province. I've put placeholder links in the SSM box for the three provinces, just as a jumping-off point. Radagast 16:33, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Same-sex marriage in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Same-sex marriage in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Same-sex marriage in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada/Archive_1&oldid=1068657220"