TYLER m@ca.on.grey_county.artemesia.flesherton.the_flesherton_advance 2007-07-25 published
MULLIN /
MILLER -- Forthcoming Marriage
Alex and Valerie
MULLIN of Westerville, Ohio wish to announce
the forthcoming marriage of Meghan Marilyn
MULLIN to Ian Jason
MILLER, son of James and Cheryl
MILLER of Waterloo, Ontario.
Meghan is a granddaughter of Reg and June
TYLER,
Ravenna and
Elmer and late Marilyn
MULLIN,
Feversham.
The bride-to-be graduated from the University of Waterloo's Faculty
of Environmental Studies in June. Her fiancé graduated from the
University of Waterloo's Faculty of Engineering in 2004, He is
a civil engineer for Read Jones Christoffersen in Toronto.
The wedding will take place July 28th at the home of Brian and
Gwen MULLIN.
Page 3
T... Names TY... Names Welcome Home
TYLER m@ca.on.york_county.toronto.toronto_star 2003-06-11 published
Gay couple married after ruling
Couple celebrates end of 20-year fight
Judges rewrite definition of marriage
Tracey TYLER and Tracy
HUFFMAN
Staff
Reporters
Two gay men said "I do" yesterday, after Ontario's highest court
said "they can."
Crown
Attorney
Michael
LESHNER and his long-time partner Michael
STARK were married by Mr. Justice John
HAMILTON in a hastily
arranged ceremony in the jury waiting room of a Toronto courthouse,
as a crowd that included everyone from judges to janitors looked
on.
Just hours before, the Ontario Court of Appeal rewrote the definition
of marriage to include same-sex couples, saying denying gays
and lesbians the ability to marry offends their dignity, discriminates
on the basis of sexual orientation and violates their equality
rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A unanimous three-judge panel, made up of Chief Justice Roy
McMURTRY
and justices James
MacPHERSON and Eileen
GILLESE, then took the
issue further than any other court in the world.
Gay and lesbian marriage became legal in Ontario, effective immediately.
"Michael LESHNER, will you please repeat after me," said
HAMILTON,
as he began the short, civil ceremony. "I do solemnly declare
that I do not know of any lawful impediment why I may not be
joined in matrimony to Michael Clifford
STARK."
Both men repeated the declaration before pledging their vows.
"I Michael, take you Michael, to be my lawful wedded spouse,"
said LESHNER. "To have and to hold, from this day forward, whatever
circumstances or experiences life may hold for us."
HAMILTON, an Ontario Superior Court judge, asked both men to
place rings on each other's fingers, then made it official.
"By the power vested in me by the Marriage Act, I pronounce you
Michael, and you Michael -- affectionately known as 'the Michaels'
-- to be lawfully wedded spouses."
"You are now married," said
HAMILTON, who later said it was "an
honour" to perform the ceremony.
LESHNER, 55, and
STARK, 45, kissed and popped champagne.
Speaking to reporters,
LESHNER said he regards the court's judgment
as, "Day One for millions of gays and lesbians around the world"
and the culmination of a personal 20-year battle to end "legally
sanctioned homophobia."
"I wanted to put a stake through that sucker," he said.
His 90-year-old mother, Ethel, who beamed and sang in her wheelchair,
drew her satisfaction on a smaller scale.
"I feel wonderful, if he does. And I'm sure he does -- take a
look at his face," she said.
"I can't 'rah, rah, rah.' I'm not the type of person to do that,"
she said. "I'm just happy my son is happy -- I know he's getting
a nice guy."
While LESHNER and
STARK are believed to be the first gay couple
to wed after same-sex marriage became legal yesterday, they may
not be the first gay Ontario couple to be legally married. That
distinction appears to fall to two same-sex couples who were
married in a double ceremony at Toronto's Metropolitan Community
Church in January, 2001.
The appeal court ordered the province to register marriage certificates
issued to those couples, Kevin
BOURASSA and Joe
VARNELL and Elaine
and Anne VAUTOUR.
The judges also ordered the clerk of the City
of Toronto to issue marriage licences to
LESHNER and
STARK and
six other couples whose licence applications were held in abeyance
pending a ruling by the courts. The province and the city told
the judges during a hearing in April that they would abide by
whatever the appeal court decided.
Less clear is where the federal government stands.
Justice
Minister
Martin
CAUCHON told reporters yesterday he believes
Members of Parliament should have a say in the debate about same-sex
marriage, but the government also sees where courts across the country
are heading on the issue.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal and a Quebec Superior Court
judge have also ruled the common law definition of marriage violates
the Charter's equality provisions, but didn't go as far as Ontario
in immediately extending marriage to same-sex couples, preferring
instead to give Parliament until July, 2004 to change the law.
The Ontario Court of Appeal said there's no need to wait: Changing
the definition of marriage, effective immediately, won't create
any public harm.
Federal justice department spokesperson Dorette
POLLARD said
the government has until September 9 to decide whether to seek
leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the meantime, the government does not have the option of seeking
a court injunction to stop same-sex marriages from taking place,
she said.
If a further appeal to the Supreme Court is in the cards, it
could return to the Court of Appeal to ask for a stay of yesterday's
ruling, effectively putting it in suspension,
POLLARD said.
She was unable to say how that would affect same-sex marriages
that have already taken place.
Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, had no difficulty expressing
an opinion on yesterday's decision.
By reformulating the definition of marriage, the appeal court
ignored "centuries of precedent" and rendered "ordinary Canadians'
views irrelevant," said Derek
ROGUSKY, a vice-president of Focus
on the Family, whose interests were represented by The Association
for Marriage and the Family in Ontario, an intervenor in the
case.
In its decision yesterday, written not by one judge in particular
but collectively as "the court," the appeal panel changed the
definition of marriage from being "the voluntary union for life
of one man and one woman," to "the voluntary union for life of
two persons to the exclusion of all others."
A person's sense of dignity and self worth can only be enhanced
by the recognition that society gives to marriage and denying
people in same-sex relationships access to that most basic of
institutions violates their dignity, the court said.
"The ability to marry, and to thereby participate in this fundamental
societal institution, is something that most Canadians take for
granted. Same-sex couples do not; they are denied access to this
institution simply on the basis of their sexual orientation."
Preventing same-sex couples from marrying perpetuates the view
that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships
and not worthy of the same respect and recognition as heterosexual
couples, the court added.
It was ruling on an appeal from an Ontario Divisional Court decision
last year. The Divisional Court said the common law definition
of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union was unconstitutional,
but decided 2-1 to leave it up to Parliament to rewrite the law
by July, 2004.
The dissenting judge in that case, Mr. Justice Harry
LAFORME,
who would have changed the definition immediately, attended yesterday's
ceremony.
In its 60-page decision yesterday, the judges systematically
disposed of Ottawa's arguments for preserving marriage as a heterosexual
domain, saying they were filled with irrelevancies, stereotypes
and "circular reasoning."
The government argued that marriage has always been understood
as a special kind of monogamous institution that brings the sexes
together for the purposes of procreating, raising children and
companionship.
That isn't something that lawmakers dreamed up; it predates the
law, the government said.
Who invented the concept of marriage doesn't matter, the court
said; What does is how gays and lesbians fare under a legal regime
that excludes them from the institution.
The government was avoiding the main issue by arguing that marriage
"just is" heterosexual and benefits society as a whole, the court
said.
"The couples are not seeking to abolish the institution of marriage,"
wrote the judges. "They are seeking access to it."
With files from Mary
GORDON
T... Names TY... Names Welcome Home
TYLER - All Categories in OGSPI
TYMINSKI m@ca.on.york_county.toronto.toronto_star 2003-11-29 published
TYMINSKI,
Bill and Sophie - Happy 50th Wedding Anniversary November
28, 1953 from your children Bill, Bob, Michael and Carole (Rick
Timmy) and Grandchildren Ashley, Danielle and Eric
T... Names TY... Names Welcome Home
TYMINSKI - All Categories in OGSPI