mbarrick: (Default)
[personal profile] mbarrick
So, on the kind of random lark I have a tendency to end up on for no good reason, I found myself wondering what the legal definitions of male and female happened to be under Canadian law. Interestingly I couldn't find any definitions. All I could find was this passage in the Interpretation Act
33.  (1) Words importing female persons include male persons and corporations and words importing male persons include female persons and corporations.
...meaning by law that "male" and "female" are technically interchangeable and effectively meaningless. So, really, even before the Civil Marriage Act was changed from "the lawful union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others" to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" the legal meaning was the same (which, of course, is why it was a no-brainer to "change" it.)

It'd be interesting for someone to push this, for example, by pushing for having the gender on their ID changed without any gender reassignment surgery. Even better, I wonder if it would be possible to have the gender removed off your ID since it is legally irrelevant?

Date: 2009-12-10 01:55 am (UTC)
the_axel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] the_axel
That was my understanding of the logic the Supreme Court used to add LGBTITQ into Article 15 of the Charter and all laws that have changed subsequently.

By making the law gender blind, a lot of things follow.

Date: 2010-02-09 03:45 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
They also include corporations? So you can marry McDonalds?

Date: 2010-02-10 01:04 am (UTC)
the_axel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] the_axel
Canadian law is not as stupid as American. In Canada, corporations are not people (they have many of the same rights & responsibilities but they are a distinct entity).

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    123
45 67 8910
11 121314 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 2324
25262728293031

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page Summary

Page generated Jan. 26th, 2026 05:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios