> > I could be completely wrong. I don't know. I know an awful lot of people, religious or otherwise, are against gay "marriage" because they're against gays, or just think we shouldn't "endorse" that lifestyle. Others are against calling it "marriage" but would be ok with "civil union". But I have this feeling that gay activists aren't going to be happy with the "civil union" compromise, any more than the atheist activists are happy with the "moment of quiet reflection" compromise on the prayer-in-schools debate.
>
> It's possible you're right. But the atheist activist have a constitutional amendment on their side. It will take a really loose reading of the 14th Amendment in order for the Court to ever justify gay marriage on constitutional grounds. It's not impossible, but really unlikely in the near future given the composition of the current Court and the makeup of the government. If Bush follows the lead of the previous few presidents, you can expect him to appoint young justices to the bench, so it's unlikely that we'll see a lot of shakeup there even if there's a major administration change in 2008.
>

Just for comparison (if, in fact, there is any), I thought I'd share how the Supreme Court of Canada came to find protection for gay rights in our Constitution. I realize that the USSC would never do this, because the Canadian Supremes are much more liberal when it comes to this sort of thing.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982. Before that, both levels of government were (more or less) free to pass discriminatory legislation within their legislative powers.

The non-discrimination section of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15(1), reads as follows:

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

This section applies to government action, including Federal and Provincial laws. Based on the words "in particular", the Court long ago concluded that the list was non-exhaustive, and that Charter protection extended to other grounds that are "analogous" to the ones listed.

In Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513, the Supremes found that sexual orientation is an analogous ground. This was their reasoning:

"The distinction in the Act is based on a personal characteristic, namely sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is analogous to the grounds of discrimination enumerated in s. 15(1). The historic disadvantage suffered by homosexual persons has been widely recognized and documented. Sexual orientation is more than simply a "status" that an individual possesses: it is something that is demonstrated in an individual's conduct by the choice of a partner. Just as the Charter protects religious beliefs and religious practice as aspects of religious freedom, so too should it be recognized that sexual orientation encompasses aspects of "status" and "conduct" and that both should receive protection."

In Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493, the Supremes went even farther, in what was considered a pretty activist judgment, and held that Alberta's Individual's Rights Protection Act violated s. 15(1) of the Charter because when they passed it they specifically left out "sexual orientation" as a protected ground of discrimination.

Here's the activist part. The majority of the Court in Vriend ordered that the Alberta law must be read as if it included "sexual orientation" as a protected ground, even though I think the Alberta legislature specifically decided to exclude that ground when they passed the law.

Once again, I realize the US Supremes would never do this. I just wanted to share.

^v^:)^v^
FB