Ontario Courts Gay Marriage; Ottawa Declines Appeal

Thanks to an Ontario Court of
Appeal decision, Canada has
become the latest nation to
affirm equal marriage rights for gays
and lesbians, and the Canadian gov-
ernment has decided not to appeal
that decision and similar decisions by
courts in British Columbia and
Quebec. It will instead introduce leg-
islation recognizing same-sex mar
riages. ‘

The Ontario court unani-
mously set aside Canada’s federal
heterosexual-only definition of mar-
riage and ordered the Toronto city
clerk to immediately issue marriage
licenses to the sevengay couples who
had applied for them. The three-judge
panel. including Chief Justice Roy
McMurtry and justices James
MacPherson and Eileen Gillese, said
that denying gays and lesbians the
ability to marry offends their dignity,
discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation and violates their equality
rights under the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.

The court ordered the legal
definition of marriage to be changed
to “the voluntary union for life of
two persons to the exclusion of all
others" and ruled that any delay in
implementation would be a denial of
constitutional rights.

- “The ability to marry. and
to thereby participate in this funda-
mental societal institution, is some-
thing that most Canadians take for
granted. Same-sex couples do not;
they are denied access to this institu-
tion simply on the basis of their sexu-
al orientation.” according to the
Court of Appeal.

“Preventing same-sex’cou-
ples from marrying perpetuates the
view that they are not capable of

forming loving and lasting relation-
ships and not worthy of the same
respect and recognition as heterosex-
ual couples,” the court added.
According to a report on Star.com,
“The judges systematically disposed
of Ottawa’s arguments for preserving
marriage as a heterosexual domain,
saying they were filled with irrele-
vancies, stereotypes and ‘circular rea-
soning.’”

Friday’s court challenge
was initially brought by seven
Toronto couples who had been I
refused marriage licenses. The two
couples — Anne and Elaine Vautour
and Kevin Bourassa and Joe Vamell
— who had sued the government of
Ontario for not accepting their church
marriages as legally valid, joined the
legal challenge.

The Vatours and Bourassa
and Vamell wed during ajoint serv-
ice at Metropolitan Community
Church of Toronto in January 2001.
They had used an old Canadian law
of reading banns — formally asking
the congregation for three consecu-
tive Sundays if anyone objected to
the couple’s marriage — in order to
get city-issued marriage licenses. But
when the ofiiciant, the Rev. Dr. Brent
Hawkes, tried to register the unions
with the province, the minister of
consumer affairs refused.

The Ontario Court of
Appeal recognized the marriages and
ordered that certificates of registra-
tion be issued to the two couples. In
addition, Michael Leshner, a Crown
Attorney, and his partner Michael
Stark, who were plaintiffs in the suit,
obtained immediatelicenses and
were married by a judge. ‘The two
men, who had been together for 20
years, managed to shop for rings

before the ceremony, according to
several reports. There was so much
excitement in the air that their minia-
ture schnauzer threw up in the jewel-
ry store.

Leshner, 55, and Stark, 45,
were married in a jury room accom-
panied by about 50 friends, family
and well-wishers, including
Leshner’s 90-year-old mother Ethel.
The two men, it was reported, did not
wait for the justice to invite them to
kiss after pronouncing them “lawful-
ly wedded spouses.”

The pressure on the federal
government to legalize gay marriage
is building with the Ontario Court of
Appeal ruling and previous rulings in
Quebec and British Columbia in
favor of same sex marriage. It is
unique, however, in that the court
explicitly required that its ruling be
implemented immediately. Other rul-
ings have stayed their effect for more
than a year until the federal govern-

ment can study the issue and enact

new laws. _

The Justice ‘Committee of
the Canadian House of Commons
narrowly voted 9-8, with a tie-break-
ing vote by the committee chairman.

_ in favor of supporting the ruling,

passing a resolution (offered by
openly gay member Svend Robinson)
urging the government not .to appeal.
The committee is nearing completion
of a broader report on the social
impact of gay marriage to Prime
Minister Jean Chretien.

The federal government
which in this case lost its appeal of a
lower-court ruling, had 30 days from
June 10 to “seek leave” to appeal to
the Canadian Supreme Court. The
government decided’) as we went to
press not to appeal.

Because Ontario’s marriage regula-
tions contain no residency require-
ments (although obtaining a divorce
decree requires a one-year residency),
American same- and discordant-sex
couples may cross the border to be
married. The cost of a license is
about $100 U.S. “How convenient,”
commented one Vermont lesbian at
the Pride Fest in Burlington. “We can
go see Niagara Falls, cross the bor- ‘
der, get married, and be right there
for our honeymoon!”

In a press release, MCC’s
founder Rev. Troy Perry announced
his intention to fly with his partner
Phillip De Blieck to Canada, “in the
near future to be legally married
under Canadian law — then we will
return to the United States to carry on
the fight forjustice and equality in
the US.” The marriage ceremony
will be performed by Rev. Dr. Brent
Hawkes at a date to be announced
later.

In ajoint advisory state-
ment offered by GLAD, Lambda
Legal, the National Center for
Lesbian Rights, the ACLU Lesbian &
Gay Rights Project, and Freedom to
Marry, American gays and lesbians
were cautioned to think through their
decision before rushing across the
border to marry.

“American couples who go
to Canada to marry should realize
that the decision is notjust a political
gesture, but rather is about taking on
all the responsibilities, legal obliga-
tions, joys, and wonder of being mar-
ried,” read the press release. “When
couples who marry in Canada come
home — although they might face

uncertainties and discrimination —

they will be as married as any people
on the planet. That means, for exam-

ple, the couples will identify as mar-
ried on applications/forms for jobs,

apartments, credit, mortgages, insur-
ance, medical treatment, and taxes.”

It is unclear as yet whether
the U.S. “Defense of Marriage Act”
(DOMA) will apply to same-sex mar-
riages perfomred in another country,
or even whether the law is legal
under the U. S. Constitution.

“Some but not all business-
es, states, and others will refuse to
honor these lawful marriages, along
with the federal government,"
according to the advisory statement.
“And couples with a member in the
military, or on public assistance, or in
the U.S. on a visa will face particular
complexities.

“For those who contem-
plate litigation as a response to dis-
crimination against their marriage, it
is critical to remember that any legal
case has profound implications
beyond the individuals involved.) 
Couples should absolutely not race
across the borderjust to set up law-
suits; the wrong cases could set us
back for years.

“Again, this is a civil rights
struggle, and we must bring all of our
resources to each part of the struggle:
telling stories, politically organizing,
engaging non-gay allies, working in
legislatures, and very selectively liti-
gating. Together we can win marriage
equality here in the United States.”
Meanwhile newspapers across
Ontario from Kingston to Sault St.
Marie are running articles with varia-
tions on a single headline: First Gay
Marriage License Issued. V

Compiled from news reports and
pl ess releases. ‘

Policies

Middlebury College Adds Trans to

The Middlebury College Board of
Trustees last month voted to add pro-
tection against discrimination for its
transgender employees and students. The
change in policies, effective as of July I, was
announced in a June 3 memo sent to all fac-
ulty and staff of Middlebury College by
Secretary ofthe College Eric L. Davis. _

The college’s non-discrimination .
statement now reads:

“Middlebury College complies with
applicable provisions of state and federal law
which prohibit discrimination in employ-
ment, or in admission or access to its educa-

- tional or extracurricular programs, activities,

or facilities, on the basis of race, color, eth-
nicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression,
age, marital status, place of birth, service in
the armed forces of the United States, or
against qualified individuals with disabilities
on the basis ‘of disability.”

The other change made to the poli-
cy was replacing the phrase “Vietnam veter-
an status” with “service in the armed forces
of the United States.”

The initiator of the policy change
was Professor Kevin Moss, who teaches

’ Russian, chairs his department and is the

self-identified “ranking fag” member of Gay
and Lesbian Employees At Middlebury
(GLEAM). I-Ie forwarded a proposal on the
wording to the Faculty Council and to the
student group, Middlebury Open Queer
Alliance (MOQA), who took it to the Student
Government Association (SGA). “The
Council passed it in early April, without
much comment,” he wrote in an email in
response to questions.

Student Government President
Ginny Hunt presented the proposal to the
SGA. “I was present at the meeting April
13,” Moss wrote, “and there were a few
questions, but it passed unanimously. The
students actually pointed out that we also
neededto change the harassment policy to
include ‘gender orientation and expression’ -
as well.” ,

Moss’s inclusive language was first
passed as a resolution by the Faculty Council
(of which body he is an elected member) and
then was passed unanimously by the faculty
as a whole. According to a statement from
the Secretary of the College, reporting on the
Board of Trustees’ action, “The changes in
the non-discrimination statement were
approved without objection.  [T]he full

I board accepted the proposal unanimously.”

Asked whether there had been any
history of bias incidents or harassment of
transgender faculty / staff or students at
Middlebury, Moss responded, “We have at
least one trans person who works part time
for the college, and I don’t know ifthere
have been any incidents of discrimination.”

Rather than a response to specific
incidents, Moss indicated that his motivation,
“aside from the fact that it’s the right thing to
do, has been to counter Middlebury’s (unfor-
tunately justified) reputation as a fairly con-
servative place. We were one of the last elite
liberal arts colleges to add sexual orientation
to our non-discrimination clause. In that
case, there was an attempt in 1986 which
failed to win the vote of the trustees; I rein-
troduced it in 1990 and it passed.”

Moss also wrote, “I’m hoping to get
at least some mileage out of this new change,
since we are in fact the first of the colleges
we usually compare ourselves to that has
adopted such language. And we’re a year or
so ahead of [the State of] Vermont, which
could send a potential message that we really
mean it.”

According to Moss’s resolution
message to the faculty, “‘ gender identity and
expression’ is not protected in non-discrimi-

nation laws in the state of Vermont, though it
is included in the hate crimes law ( I999).
The states of Minnesota and Rhode Island
protect gender identity, as do a number of
municipaljurisdictions. Some 10 colleges
and universities include ‘gender identity and
expression’ in their non-discrimination state-
ments as do about l5 Fortune 500 compa-
nies.”

The. colleges Moss cited include
Rutgers (NJ), Brown (RI), DePauw (IN), and
Lehigh (PA). Among the 70 companies he
said prohibit discrimination against transgen-
der people, Moss listed Aetna, American
Airlines, Apple Computers, Bank One,
Eastman Kodak, IBM, Intel, J. P. Morgan,
NCR, Nike, Verizon Wireless, Walgreens, .
and Xerox.

About 2200 students matriculate at
Middlebury College during an academic
year, with about 1000 staff and faculty mem-
bers, according to Phil Benoit, director of
public affairs for Middlebury College. There
are 28 trustees, including those identified as
“charter,” “term,” and “alumni,” of whom
two live in Vermont. V