humanity. If you take that purpose away, we have something else; the institution has changed.’
[105]Counsel for the respondents contended further that the essence of marriage in our law is a combination of factors: the characteristics going together to make up marriage, so he contended, were procreation, the consortium omnis vitae and what counsel for the Attorney General of Canada in the Halpern case in the divisional court called ‘the complementarity of the two human sexes’, ‘our femaleness and our maleness’.
[106]Counsel pointed out further that, with the exception of two states of the United States of America (Massachusetts[1] and Washington[2]), three provinces and a territory in Canada (Ontario,[3] Quebec,[4] British Columbia[5] and the Yukon[6]) and the Netherlands and Belgium, no jurisdiction of which he was aware has extended the definition of marriage to cover same-sex unions, although some countries recognise what may be called a
- ↑ See the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Goodridge and Others v Department of Public Health and Another 440 Mass 309; 798 NE 2nd 941 (2003), in which it was held, by a majority of three judges to two, that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachussetts Constitution. Entry of judgment was stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it might deem appropriate in the light of the Court's opinion.
- ↑ Anderson and Another v King County and Others Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, Memorandum Opinion No 04 – 2 – 4964 4 SEA, 4 August 2004 and Celia Castle et al v State of Washington, Superior Court of Washington, Thurston County, Memorandum Opinion on Constitutionality of RCW 26.02.010 and RCW 26.02.020, 7 September 2004.
- ↑ The Halpern case, supra.
- ↑ Hendricks v Quebec Procureur Général [2002] RJQ 2506 (Superior Court of Quebec).
- ↑ Barbeau v British Columbia (Attorney-General) (2003) 225 DLR (4th) 472 (BCCA).
- ↑ Dunbar & Edge v Yukon (Government of) & Canada (A.G.) 2004 YKSC 54, 14 July 2004.
