All Categories: A B C D E F G H I J K L M Mc N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z Welcome Home
Local Folders.. A B C D E F G H I J K L M Mc N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

"McF" 2000-2009 Marriage


MCFADDEN  MCFALLS  MCFARLAN  MCFARLANE  MCFEE  MCFERSON 

McFADDEN m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2006-05-20 published
McFADDEN, Ruby and Charles - 60th Wedding Anniversary
May 25, 1946-2006 Woodstock, formerly of Wallaceburg
A family gathering will be held in Ancaster followed by a cruise to Bermuda. Love and best wishes from your family.

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

MCFADDEN - All Categories in OGSPI

McFALLS m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2003-07-12 published
McFALLS / OIKAWA
Carole and the late Richard McFALLS of London, Ontario and Mary and Tricky OIKAWA of Picture Butte, Alberta are pleased to announce the forthcoming marriage of thier children Carole Anne and Dean.
The wedding will take place at Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada on August 19, 2003.

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

MCFALLS - All Categories in OGSPI

McFARLAN m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2003-06-14 published
THURSTON / McFARLAN - Golden Anniversary
David Willoughby THURSTON, Staff Sargeant Major Royal Canadian Mounted Police (retired) and Sarah Joyce McFARLAN married June 20, 1953, Reverend Canon R.C. BROWN officiating at St. Paul's Cathedral where Joyce's maternal great grandparents, Sarah and Samuel TAILOR/TAYLOR wed in 1848. A quiet observance is planned.

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

MCFARLAN - All Categories in OGSPI

McFARLANE m@ca.on.york_county.toronto.toronto_star 2003-03-20 published
Carol and Christopher McFARLANE and Barbara and James SUTTON Announce with pleasure the engagement of their children Samantha Anne and Robert Shawn On Thursday, March 13, 2003

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

MCFARLANE - All Categories in OGSPI

McPHEE m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2003-03-29 published
Forthcoming Marriage - VERWEGEN / JEFFERY
We're bubbling with news... Christine VERWEGEN, daughter of Donna & Jeff MacPHEE and the late Hurb VERWEGEN and Mike JEFFERY, son of Carol and Steve JEFFERY, are engaged to be married July 12, 2003.
You mean the world to us.
Love from the Whole Family.

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

McPHEE m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2005-11-12 published
McPHEE, Kaye and Gordon - Happy 60th Wedding Anniversary
November 14, 1945
With much love, Campbell, Chris, Splash and Marco.

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

MCFEE - All Categories in OGSPI

McPHERSON m@ca.on.middlesex_county.london.london_free_press 2006-05-20 published
MILES / MacPHERSON -- Engagement
The parents of Alison MILES and Shane MacPHERSON are thrilled to announce their engagement. A 2007 wedding is planned. We all love you both and wish you all the best. Love The Entire Family

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

McPHERSON m@ca.on.york_county.toronto.globe_and_mail 2003-06-11 published
Gay marriage is legalized
Ontario appeal court rewrites law, says couples must be given licences
Activists are ecstatic, Ottawa faces tight deadline to decide on appeal
KLEIN rejects ruling, says he'll invoke notwithstanding clause in Alberta
By Kirk MAKIN Justice Reporter; With reports from Mark HUME in Kelowna, and Canadian Press Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - Page A1
The exclusion of gays from the institution of marriage is illogical, offensive and unjustifiable, the Ontario Court of Appeal said yesterday in a historic judgment that makes same-sex marriages legal for the first time in Canada.
The ruling took effect immediately in Ontario -- two gay men were married yesterday in a Toronto court -- increasing the pressure on the federal government to consider legislation on same-sex unions or go to the Supreme Court. A decision on the latter option must be made by June 30.
Alberta Premier Ralph KLEIN boosted the stakes further, saying his province is not about to recognize same-sex marriages as legal, and will invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to override any court ruling recognizing a right to such marriages.
"If there is any move to sanctify and legalize same-sex marriages, we will use the notwithstanding clause, period, end of story," Mr. KLEIN said at the Western Premiers Conference in Kelowna, B.C.
The Ontario court methodically dismantled every argument made before it in support of heterosexual-only marriages. It refused even to permit a grace period for Ontario to bring its laws into conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Courts in British Columbia and Quebec have also struck down marriage laws, but gave the governments time to rewrite their legislation.
The Ontario judges said denying same-sex marriage is tantamount to declaring homosexuals a lesser order of being, helping to perpetuate an impression that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming loving relationships.
"A purpose that demeans the dignity of same-sex couples is contrary to the values of a free and democratic society and cannot be pressing and substantial," said Chief Justice Roy McMURTRY, Mr. Justice James MacPHERSON and Madam Justice Eileen GILLESE.
"Same-sex couples are capable of forming long, lasting, loving and intimate relationships. A law that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying does not accord with the needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples."
The judges ordered Toronto's city clerk and the provincial registrar-general to issue and accept marriage licences for two couples married under the Christian tradition of publication of banns in 2001 -- Joe VARNELL and Kevin BOURASSA; and Elaine and Anne VAUTOUR -- making them the first gay marriages in the country.
Henceforth, the court ordered the definition of marriage in Ontario to be "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
The ruling was the culmination of decades of strategic prodding by gay couples, associations and legal activists. All were ecstatic yesterday over the strength of the Ontario ruling.
"This is why people come to Canada," said Michael LESHNER, who married his partner, Michael STARK, within hours of the ruling. "They marvel at our values. We have sent an unmistakable message that love can conquer all."
"It's a momentous day," said Kyle RAE, a gay Toronto city councillor. "It is a great day for equality in Canada."
A lawyer for the couples, Martha McCARTHY, predicted many more marriages in the days ahead, while the federal government ponders a possible appeal. "The more marriages we get, the more inevitable this is," she said in an interview. "The time to be right is ripe, as Martin Luther KING would say."
Courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have now overturned marriage laws. But the rulings in British Columbia and Quebec did not take effect immediately because they allowed governments until mid-2004 to redraft the laws.
A final clash is now possible before a Supreme Court of Canada bench that has steadily established a reputation for defending gay rights. The federal government has only until June 30 to decide whether to appeal the British Columbia ruling. The Liberal government is also expecting a report this week from a parliamentary committee examining same-sex marriage.
Prime Minister Jean CHRÉTIEN said yesterday Justice Minister Martin CAUCHON is looking at the judgment along with the other rulings, and said it is too early to know whether it will be appealed.
Mr. CAUCHON said Ottawa recognizes it must move quickly toward a "national solution" to the same-sex debate.
"We see the direction that the courts are taking now," Mr. CAUCHON said after a cabinet meeting. "I'm asking for a little bit of time to look at the decision and to come back with a statement."
The Ontario Court of Appeal was not in a mood for patience, and it was not willing to run the risk that provincial legislators would devise wording to circumvent their ruling.
"A temporary suspension allows a state of affairs that has been found to violate standards embodied in the Charter to persist for a time despite the violation," the court said.
It also pointed out that were it simply to render the entire law invalid, gay people would be vulnerable to the wrath of heterosexuals who found themselves temporarily denied the benefits of marriage.
The decision rested on the constitutional right to equality and emphasized the "dignity" of individuals.
Launched by eight same-sex couples, the litigation had targeted a common-law definition of marriage as a union between "one man and one woman." The couples won their challenge in Ontario's Divisional Court, but it, too, suspended its ruling for two years.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal specifically rejected arguments that procreation is an integral pillar of marriage.
"Same-sex couples can choose to have children through adoption, surrogacy and donor insemination," the judges reasoned. "Importantly, procreation and child-rearing are not the only purposes of marriage, or the only reason why couples choose to marry. The opposite-sex requirement in marriage is not rationally connected to the encouragement of procreation and child-rearing."
They said government lawyers offered mere speculation instead of proof to show why the exclusion of same-sex marriages was a valid social objective -- and that the definition of marriage was far from a minimal infringement.
What Canadian think about gay issues
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples.
Recent surveys have produced the following results:
Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
Support Oppose
Males (18-34) 61.2% 33.9%
Females (18-34) 69.2% 22.2%
If the Supreme Court of Canada said that the federal government had to give gays and lesbians the right to be married, do you think that the government should or should not use its power to overrule the court's decision?
Should Should not
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal rights for women and ethnic and religious minorities and other groups. In your opinion, should the Charter also guarantee rights for gays and lesbians?
Yes No
Note: Graphic does not include respondents who did not know or who refused to answer.
source: Centre For Research And Information On Canada

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

McPHERSON 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

  M... Names     Mc... Names     McF... Names     Welcome Home

MCFERSON - All Categories in OGSPI