Separate but equal?

>> Quebec’s civil-union proposal doesn’t quell fight for same-sex marriage

by NOEMI LOPINTO

Photo by Jason Felker

If the walls of the Montreal courthouse are a metaphor for walking down the aisle of a church, Michael Hendricks and Rene Leboeuf took another baby step towards the altar last week. The plaintiffs were called back into Superior Court last week to reiterate their challenge to the heterosexual definition of marriage. Judge Louise Lemelin, whose decision was due this month, invited attorneys to debate the merits of “civil union” legislation proposed—but not yet enacted—by the Quebec Minister of Justice, Paul Bégin.

Michael Hendricks testified that civil unions were not what they wanted. “It is still a little special right created for homos,” Hendricks said. “True equality is about choice, and if I’m to have my choice I choose marriage. Marriage is the gold standard for full recognition. Civil unions would only be good from Restigouche to Hull. If I decided I want to retire by the beach, we are no longer protected.”

The couple’s lawyers, Anne-France Goldwater and Marie-Hélène Dubé, submitted a study by the Canada Law Reform Commission recommending that the provinces work towards same-sex marriage for gays and lesbians, a Canadian Human Rights Commission report supporting the recommendation, and a report by the Quebec Bar Association claiming civil union legislation would create constitutional contradictions.

Goldwater called civil unions “a band-aid” and said a free and democratic society had a responsibility to eliminate discrimination. “Individuals move faster than institutions,” said Goldwater. “We can’t eternalize this argument. What’s important is that the most powerful institutions in the country have come out in favour of eliminating discrimination against gays and lesbians, and we should do it with the maximum of our power.”

Goldwater read comments made publicly by Minister Bégin, in which he said the federal government legislation restricting marriage to heterosexuals was discriminatory, and that the province would do its best to rectify the injustice. “The government is on our side,” Goldwater said, and she invited the province’s attorney, Benoît Belleau, to sit next to her.
Federal attorney André L’Esperance was on his feet many times that morning, objecting to the relevancy of the reports, to Hendricks’ testimony and to the reading of Bégin’s public declarations. The atmosphere in the courtroom was deliberately cordial, but there were occasional displays of teeth. Goldwater laughed out loud when Robert Reynolds, the lawyer for the Francophone Alliance of Evangelical Protestants of Quebec and the Catholic League for the Rights of Man, said Minister Bégin “wasn’t an expert” in law.

L’Esperance said Bégin’s public declarations were irrelevant because he wasn’t interpreting the law. “Bégin says, ‘If I could, I would’—this has no value,” Lesperance said. “It’s interesting, but not pertinent. The question is, is it unconstitutional? Does it violate the Charter? Just because Bégin says he would do it doesn’t mean the plaintiffs are right today.”

Belleau, the province’s lawyer, reiterated his argument that the plaintiffs were barking up the wrong tree suing the province for Article 365-2, saying the province’s hands were tied by the federal Bill S-4 and Section 1.1 of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. Judge Lemelin’s decision is expected at the end of May. :