Thus the court joined Ontario and Quebec in applying a deadline of July 12, 2004 to come up with the right answer: either give us marriage or invoke the notwithstanding clause and in effect, declare that gay coules do not have the full protection of persons under the Charter...

"Given the extensive consultation engaged in by the Commission, of which the federal and provincial governments are aware, it cannot be said that the subject of same-sex marriage has not been well-canvassed and the input of the public invited. Further consultation will not change the fact that there are those in favour of same-sex marriage and those against it. If same-sex marriage is recognized as being a contravention of the equality rights of same-sex couples which cannot be saved under s. 1 of the Charter, the obvious remedy is that chosen by Mr. Justice LaForme in Halpern — the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In my view, this is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships, including the parallel institution of RDP's, falls short of true equality. This Court should not be asked to grant a remedy which makes same-sex couples "almost equal", or to leave it to governments to choose amongst less-than-equal solutions."

B.C. Court of Appeal, May 1, 2003

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eight same-sex couples first went to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in July 2001 seeking their right to marriage. It was the first of three marriage cases to be heard, based on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the others are in Ontario and Quebec).

At first glance, things looked promising. An incumbent Attorney General from the then-ruling New Democratic Party government was supportive of same-sex marriage. But British Columbia has not enjoyed stable government for years, and soon enough, the NDP government fell. It was replaced by a Liberal regime that was hostile to equality rights for gays and lesbians. The new Attorney General of British Columbia jumped to the other side of the case.

Religious groups joined B.C. and Canada in opposing equal marriage, and the couples' lawyers lacked a religious intervener on their side to demonstrate that such opposition wasn't monolithic. But what really sunk the case was a judge (the Honourable Mr. Justice Pitfield) who had a peculiar interpretation of Canada's constitution:

"... if Parliament were to enact legislation saying that “marriage