"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation," then Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau said in 1967, defending his bill before the House of Commons to decriminalize private homosexual acts.
That's the famous line but what's often forgotten is what Trudeau said immediately afterwards - "when it become public, that's a different matter."
If Trudeau were alive today, even he would likely be stunned by how quickly homosexuality has gained public acceptance as well. He could not have imagined a day when gay couples could take the ultimate public act and get married.
In 2005, less than five years after Trudeau died, Canada became the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, passing Bill C-38 in Parliament by a vote of 158 to 133.
The law was passed in recognition of several provincial court rulings, including one from B.C., declaring the ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights, followed by a 2004 Supreme Court of Canada judgment that the federal government's proposed same-sex marriage legislation was constitutional.
It was a Prince George couple, Theresa Healy and Wendy Young, that helped lead the charge for legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. They were one of eight same-sex couples that petitioned the courts for the right to marry and their efforts led the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2003 to find that Canada's matrimonial laws were discriminatory.
Young and Healy obtained their marriage license in B.C. on the first day they were legally allowed to in B.C., one of nine same-sex couples in the province who did so that summer day 10 years ago.
Since then, what was once a radical political act has become a normal social practice.
But that's not the case in the United States.
For the past two days, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against California's ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defence of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Under U.S. federal law, only heterosexual couples are recognized for various tax and spousal benefits. The court is expected to make a ruling in June.
While commentators have been saying the court needs to recognize the growing social acceptance, even in the U.S., of same-sex couples, the nine judges will assess the legal merits of the case, breaking it down to its significant but more boring details of federal versus states rights and the application of federal benefits and tax law.
Looking north, our American cousins would see 10 years of legalized same-sex marriage in Canada and notice that absolutely nothing has happened in the last decade to defile the moral fabric of society. Despite the worries of both big-c Conservatives and small-c social conservatives, it's obvious that the sanctity of marriage is no less significant today in Canada, even though same-sex couples can do it, too.
Social and religious conservatives are right about the importance of marriage, by the way.
The union between two adults is the cornerstone on which families are built and families - in whatever shape they come in - are the building blocks of successful communities. But limiting marriage to heterosexual relationships actually devalues marriage as an institution. Same-sex couples have the potential to be just as great (or just as terrible) as straight couples at building strong families.
It's time Americans came to the realization what makes marriage so special is the love of two adults for one another and the prospect of building a life together. Including same-sex couples in such a joyful and socially significant bond makes our communities stronger, not weaker.
