Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Approaches, Similar Outcomes: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and South Africa

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions

  • 1443 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter analyses the path followed within the Canadian and South African case-law to recognize same-sex marriage on an equal footing with heterosexual couples. It highlights the similarity of their points of arrival as well as the differences between the Canadian and the South African approaches. Within the Canadian legal system, Courts decisions played a leading role in legitimating same-sex family from a social point of view, granting them legal significance and recognizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages. On the contrary, the case-law of the South African Constitutional Court was facilitated by a legal formant which was very favourable to legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ex multis, see Grant (1996), p. 568, Robinson and Swanepoel (2004), pp. 2–8.

  2. 2.

    As Nelson Mandela, the first President of the post Apartheid South Africa, said during his Inaugural Speech (Pretoria, 5/10/94): “We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity - a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world” (www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Inaugural_Speech_17984.html).

  3. 3.

    See De Vos (2007), pp. 435–443.

  4. 4.

    North v. Matheson (1975) W.W.D. 55, 52 D.L.R. 280.

  5. 5.

    See Casswell (2001), p. 222.

  6. 6.

    This approach has many consequences: see Bailey (2003–2004), pp. 1030–1032.

  7. 7.

    Judge Penzance wrote: “Marriage has been well said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil – to be an Institution. It creates mutual rights and obligations, as all contracts do, but beyond that it confers a status. The position or status of “husband” and “wife” is a recognised one throughout Christendom … What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in Christendom? Its incidents vary in different countries, but what are its essential elements and invariable features? If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must needs (however varied in different countries in its minor incidents) have some pervading identity and universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others” ([L.R.] 1 P. and D. 133).

  8. 8.

    Sec. 15, first clause, of the Charter sets out: “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”.

  9. 9.

    “The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law. Unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s.15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect” (Ontario Divisional Court, Layland v. Ontario, para. 14–104 DLR (4th) 214).

  10. 10.

    See Manderson and Yachnin (2003–2004), pp. 484–485.

  11. 11.

    See MacDougall (2000–2001), p. 252.

  12. 12.

    See Lahey (2001), pp. 243–247.

  13. 13.

    For a broad analysis on case-law, see Chaplick (1997).

  14. 14.

    Rusk (1993–1994), pp. 174–203, who explores the discriminations faced by same-sex couples claiming spousal rights at the beginning of 1990s.

  15. 15.

    Miron v. Trudel (1995) 2 S.C.R. 418.

  16. 16.

    Knodel v. British Columbia (1991) W.W.R. 728.

  17. 17.

    Leshner v. Ontario (1992) 16 C.H.R.R. 184. Its consequences are analysed by Berg and Nunnelley (2002), pp. 218–221.

  18. 18.

    (1995) 2 S.C.R. 513.

  19. 19.

    See Radbord (2003), pp. 20–22.

  20. 20.

    “The possibility of increase demands on public founds is not an issue”.

  21. 21.

    For a broad analysis about adoption law of the nine Canadian Provinces regarding same-sex couples, see Dort (2010).

  22. 22.

    (1995) 31 C.R.R. (2D) 151. See also Fraess v. Alberta, 2005 A.B..Q.B. 889.

  23. 23.

    Dort (2010), p. 297.

  24. 24.

    16 C.H.R.R. D-226.

  25. 25.

    94 D.L.R. (4th) 1.

  26. 26.

    Egan v. Canada, see note 18.

  27. 27.

    (1998) 1 S.C.R. 493.

  28. 28.

    “Sexual orientation is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within the ambit of s[ect]. Fifteen protection as being analogous to the enumerated grounds”. Egan, see note 18, at 514.

  29. 29.

    See, for example, Schnurr (1996–1997), pp. 34–38.

  30. 30.

    See Kuffner (2000), p. 262.

  31. 31.

    Among Canadian LGBT associations, EAGLE played the most active and significant role.

  32. 32.

    2001 BCSC 1365 (CanLII).

  33. 33.

    Loosemore (2002), p. 53.

  34. 34.

    225 DLR (4th) 529.

  35. 35.

    Van Kralingen (2004), pp. 159–160.

  36. 36.

    See Davies (2008), p. 123.

  37. 37.

    Davies, see note 36, p. 112.

  38. 38.

    “If the Halpern and Rogers application for a marriage licence said Colin Rogers instead of Colleen Rogers, Hedy Halpern would today be legally married. … The State therefore denies Hedy Halpern the mate of her choice. In doing so, the law draws a distinction between the applicant and others, based on the personal characteristics of sex and sexual orientation”.

  39. 39.

    “Similarly being restricted from affirming relationships and domestic life in the public sphere through the virtually universal currency of marriage constitutes a curb on public recognition as a valid actor in civil society”.

  40. 40.

    Van Kralingen (2004), pp. 153–156.

  41. 41.

    See Casswell (2004), pp. 710–716.

  42. 42.

    Barbeau v. British Columbia, 2003 BCCA 251 (CanLII).

  43. 43.

    See Romano (2003), pp. 6–10.

  44. 44.

    See: Hendricks and Leboeuf v. Quebec, 2002 CanLII 23808 (QC CS)—Quebec; Dunbar and Edge v. Yukon and Canada, 2004 YKSC 54—Yukon; Vogel v. Canada (2004) M.J. No. 418 (QL)—Manitoba; Boutilier v. Canada and Nova Scotia; (2004) N.S.J. No. 357 (QL)—Nova Scotia.

  45. 45.

    Murphy (2005), p. 25.

  46. 46.

    See MacDougall (2006), pp. 360–363.

  47. 47.

    Sec. 8.2, Const. 1993.

  48. 48.

    See sec. 9.3, Const. 1996: “The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth”.

  49. 49.

    See Lind (2001), p. 285.

  50. 50.

    See sec. 36.1, Const. 1996.

  51. 51.

    Wolhuter (1997), p. 395.

  52. 52.

    See Williams (2004), pp. 47–51.

  53. 53.

    Langemaat v. Minister of Safety and Security and Others (1998) 4 B.C.L.R. 444.

  54. 54.

    Langemat, see supra note 53.

  55. 55.

    Dupper and Garbers (1999), pp. 766–769.

  56. 56.

    On the case-law about discrimination in the employment benefits, see Wood-Bodley (2008), pp. 484–488.

  57. 57.

    Satchwell v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Another, 2002 (9) BCLR 986 (CC).

  58. 58.

    Du Toit and Another v Minister of Welfare and Population Development and Others (Lesbian and Gay Equality Project as amicus curiae), 2002 (10) B.C.L.R. 1006 (CC).

  59. 59.

    Himonga (2004), p. 731.

  60. 60.

    2006 (13) BCLR 355 (CC).

  61. 61.

    See Marriage Act, Sec. 30.

  62. 62.

    Barnard (2007), p. 510.

  63. 63.

    See Romeo and Winkler (2010), pp. 391–392.

  64. 64.

    De vos and Barnard (2007), pp. 802–806.

  65. 65.

    Fourie, see note 29, at 153.

  66. 66.

    De Vos and Barnard, see note 64, pp. 806–807.

  67. 67.

    See the Civil Union Act 2006.

  68. 68.

    On this issue, see MacDougall et al. (2012), p. 148, and Bonthuys (2008), pp. 477–482.

  69. 69.

    See Montalti (2008), pp. 73–77.

References

  • Bailey M (2003–2004) Same-sex relationship across borders. McGill Law J 49:1005–1033

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard J (2007) Totalitarianism, (same-sex) marriage and democratic politics in post-apartheid South Africa. S Afr J Hum Rights 23:500–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg BE, Nunnelley S (2002) Working out there: same-sex employment benefits in Ontario. Can Labour Employ Law J 9:213–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonthuys E (2008) Irrational accommodation: conscience, religion and same-sex marriages in South Africa. S Afr Law J 125:473–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Casswell DG (2001) Any two persons in Canada’s Lotusland, British Columbia. In: Andenas MT, Wintemute R (eds) Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, A study of national, European and international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, pp 215–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Casswell DG (2004) Same-sex marriage: equality for lesbian and gay people. Advocate (Vancouver) 62:709–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplick ND (1997) An update on employment benefits for same-sex spouses. Can Labour Employ Law J 5:321–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies C (2008) Canadian same-sex marriage litigation: individual rights, community strategy. Univ Tor Fac Law Rev 66:101–134

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vos P (2007) The ‘Inevitability’ of same-sex marriage in South Africa’s post-apartheid state. S Afr J Hum Rights 23:432–465

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vos P, Barnard J (2007) Same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in South Africa: critical reflections on an ongoing saga. S Afr Law J 124:795–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Dort M (2010) Unheard voices: adoption narratives of same-sex male couples. Can J Fam Law 26:289–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupper O, Garbers C (1999) The provision of benefits to and discrimination against same-sex couples. Ind Law J Juta 20:772–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant B (1996) Homosexual marriage and the constitution. S Afr J Hum Rights 12:568–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Himonga C (2004) Same-sex unions and guardianship of children. S Afr Law J 121:730–735

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kralingen A (2004) The dialogic saga of same-sex marriage: EAGLE, Halpern, and the relationship between suspended declarations and productive political discourse about rights. Univ Tor Fac Law Rev 62:149–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuffner KL (2000) Common law and same-sex relationships under the matrimonial property act. Sask Law Rev 63:237–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahey KA (2001) Becoming “Persons” in Canadian law: genuine equality or “Separate But Equal?”. In: Andenas MT, Wintemute R (eds) Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, A study of national, European and international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, pp 237–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind C (2001) Politics, partnership rights and the constitution in South Africa (and the problem of sexual identity). In: Andenas MT, Wintemute R (eds) Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, A study of national, European and international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, pp 279–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Loosemore S (2002) EAGLE v. Canada: the case for same-sex marriage. Univ Tor Fac Law Rev 60:43–63

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall B (2000–2001) The celebration of same-sex marriage. Ottawa Law Rev 32:235–267

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall B (2006) Refusing to officiate at same-sex civil marriage. Sask Law Rev 69:351–373

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDugall B, Bonthuys E, McK Norrie K, van den Brink M (2012) Conscientious objection to creating same-sex unions: an international analysis. Can J Hum Rights 1:127–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Manderson D, Yachnin P (2003–2004) Love on trial: nature, law, and same-sex marriage in the court of Shakespeare. McGill Law J 49:475–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Montalti M (2008) La separazione dei poteri e il riconoscimento del matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso. In: Billotta F (ed) Le unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso. Profili di diritto civile, comunitario e comparato. Mimesis, Milano, pp 69–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy R (2005) Same-sex marriage and the same old constitution. Const Forum 14(3):21–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbord JL (2003) A wedding story. Windsor Rev Leg Soc Issues 15:15–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JA, Swanepoel J (2004) Same-sex marriage in South Africa: the road ahead. Potchefstroom Electron Law J 7:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano M (2003) “Do You Take This Man to Be Your Lawfully Wedded Husband?” – a case of form following substance. Windsor Rev Leg Soc Issues 15:3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Romeo G, Winkler MM (2010) «Yet footnotes matter»: osservazioni a margine di una tradizione. In: Bin R, Brunelli G, Guazzarotti A, Pugiotto A, Veronesi P (eds) La “società naturale” e i suoi “nemici”. Sul paradigma eterosessuale del matrimonio. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 389–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusk P (1993–1994) Same-sex spousal benefits and the evolving conception of family. Univ Tor Fac Law Rev 52:170–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnurr BA (1996–1997) Claims by common law spouses and same-sex partners against estates. Estates, Trusts Pensions J 16:22–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams K (2004) ‘I Do’ or ‘We Won’t’: legalising same-sex marriage in South Africa. S Afr J Hum Rights 20:32–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolhuter L (1997) Equality and the concept of difference: same-sex marriage in the light of the final constitution. S Afr Law J 114:389–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood-Bodley M (2008) Same-sex couples discrimination in employment benefits: where to now? S Afr Law J 125:483–488

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

    Edmondo Mostacci

Authors
  1. Edmondo Mostacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edmondo Mostacci .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Luiss University, Rome, Italy

    Daniele Gallo

  2. University Institute SSML Carlo Bo, Rome, Italy

    Luca Paladini

  3. Political and International Sciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

    Pietro Pustorino

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mostacci, E. (2014). Different Approaches, Similar Outcomes: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and South Africa. In: Gallo, D., Paladini, L., Pustorino, P. (eds) Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35434-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation