Abstract:In this article, I argue that the dialogue debate has obscured a much richer story that can be told about Halpern v Canada, same-sex marriage, and the complex relationship between courts and legislatures. The federal government was deeply divided on same-sex marriage. Parliament, the Liberal government, the federal Cabinet, and the liberal caucus were all deeply divided. From the outside, it may have appeared as a 'courts versus government' battle, with the federal government defending the opposite-sex definition of marriage right up until the Ontario Court of Appeal struck it down as unconstitutional in Halpern. But a closer look shows that the federal government's about-face after Halpern had been in the making for years, with supporters trying to use court decisions as well as changing public opinion to wedge open the marriage issue. The same-sex marriage case study can be retold as a story not of dialogue between courts and Parliament but, rather, as a contestation within government. I argue that this story – of conflict and contestation within government and the use of court decisions by proponents of same-sex marriage – can provide a richer account of the evolution of the federal government and the adoption of the Civil Marriage Act.

中文翻译：

---

超越宪章对话的同性婚姻：宪章案例和政府内部的争论

摘要：在本文中，我认为对话辩论掩盖了关于 Halpern v Canada、同性婚姻以及法院与立法机构之间复杂关系的更丰富的故事。联邦政府在同性婚姻问题上存在严重分歧。议会、自由党政府、联邦内阁和自由党党团都存在严重分歧。从外面看，这可能是一场“法院与政府”的斗争，联邦政府一直在捍卫异性婚姻的定义，直到安大略上诉法院在 Halpern 将其视为违宪。但仔细观察就会发现，在 Halpern 酝酿多年之后，联邦政府的转变，支持者试图利用法庭裁决以及改变舆论来解决婚姻问题。同性婚姻案例研究可以重述为一个故事，而不是法院和议会之间的对话，而是政府内部的争论。我认为，这个故事——关于政府内部的冲突和争论以及同性婚姻支持者使用法院判决——可以更丰富地说明联邦政府的演变和《民事婚姻法》的通过。