Today, when we look at the two institutions, we see that there are already fundamental differences between religious marriage and civil marriage. Associate Justice U. I want to remind the House that in May of the now Leader of the Opposition, then the member for Calgary, voted with the Reform Party against the most basic and fundamental protection of human rights of gays and lesbians in Canada and voted against the inclusion of gays and lesbians in human rights legislation.
Same sex marriage supreme court arguments audio in Chatham-Kent move forward as we seek to create a society in our country that is diverse and in which we recognize that minority rights are as important as majority rights and that they must co-exist side by side if we are to be spared from the tyranny of the majority.
That is the context within which this member is speaking. In short, the charter must serve as a vehicle for challenging established hypotheses, beliefs and attitudes, regardless of how familiar and comforting these may be, in order to ensure that same sex marriage supreme court arguments audio in Chatham-Kent Canadians have equal treatment before the law.
That jurisdiction and those arrangements are not challenged by any substantive body of opinion in the House. My wife, however, is not bad at it. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I would like to speak very strongly against this motion. Glen Gregory, a Madison County resident, said his divorce has been put on hold because the Madison County judge in his case does not want to issue a ruling without the state Supreme Court ruling on it first.
That is a long way from what the justice minister was telling the House in when we addressed this issue and this motion. I refer to the recent John Robin Sharpe case, which again, in my view, infringed upon Parliament's exclusive right, same sex marriage supreme court arguments audio in Chatham-Kent to the right to give felons a vote in Canada.
Why would they ever tolerate those who, through their religious institutions, believe otherwise? First, as I said at the beginning, the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others was found to be discriminatory by all three courts I mentioned earlier.
I do not hesitate to say so because it is not my theory.
In a country or society with a charter or charters, such as the Quebec charter of rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the elected representatives must take great pains to carefully weigh what the courts say in their interpretation of the documents our societies are founded on.
In some more conservative ridings they were elected on it, and absolutely nothing has changed. I would like to come back to civil unions for a few moments if I may. It seems to me that the leader of the Canadian Alliance should be clear about one thing. It does not put forward the assertion that there is another way to proceed, that we could create a registered domestic partnership, a civil union that takes it out of the realm of religion solely and gives Canadians an option.