Difference between revisions of "Same Sex Relationships and Issues Affecting Transgender and Transsexual People"

==Same sex relationships==

She is entirely correct. As far as the provincial statutes of British Columbia are concerned, and indeed the vast majority of federal statutes as well, there is equality. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia was among the first of Canada's appellate courts to acknowledge that restricting the right to marry to straight couples alone was an egregious breach of the equality rights of gays and lesbians. BC's ''[http://canlii.ca/t/84g5 Adoption Act]'' is one of the few in Canada that permit adoption by same sex couples.  

It's not just Canadian couples who can marry. Anyone from anywhere can get married in Canada, as long as they meet the Canadian criteria for a valid marriage. However, while a Canadian marriage is certainly legal in Canada, it may not be recognized as a valid marriage at home. If a couple's home country does not recognize same sex marriages as valid marriages, the Canadian marriage is unlikely to be valid in that country.

Whether the battle over a child is between two same gender parents, two parents of opposite genders, or more than two parents or guardians in a single family, the single concern that parents must keep in mind is the same. Arrangements respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements, or contact with a child, must only be made considering the best interests of the child. That's the court's only concern when making orders dealing with children. The courts have also been crystal clear that the sexual orientation of the child's parents is only one of many factors to be considered, and is often a non-issue. This is what a few judges have had to say:

<blockquote>The biological mother of a child and the mother's lesbian partner made competing applications for custody and child support. The two women had a three year unmarried relationship. Both women acted as parents to the child, and following separation, the partner exercised liberal access to the child. Eventually, by agreement, the child went to live mostly with the partner. The court found the child to have benefited from the care of both women, and ordered joint custody with the primary residence of the child to be with the biological mother of the child. Notably, very little access was given to the biological father in light of a history of disinterest in the child. No weight was given to the mother's sexual orientation.</blockquote>

<blockquote>The father argued that it was in the children's best interests to reside with him as the mother's new same sex relationship was deviant. </blockquote>

<blockquote<blockquote>"Intimacy, companionship, societal recognition, economic benefits and the blending of two families, to name a few, are other reasons that couples choose to marry. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry perpetuates the view that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships, and that same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition of opposite-sex relationships." </blockquote></blockquote>

The only one of these exceptions that has any special relevance to same sex couples is the last: where another person is also under an obligation to support the child. Assuming there is another parent in the picture apart from the other party to the relationship, that other parent will also be obliged to contribute to the support of the child. In ''Murphy v. Laurence and Rogers'', the biological mother of a child was entitled to receive child support from both her former lesbian partner and the child's father.