https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_P/Natural_Law&feed=atom&action=historyCourse:Law3020/2014WT1/Group P/Natural Law - Revision history2024-03-29T05:34:23ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.35.8https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_P/Natural_Law&diff=3168&oldid=prevMelnykk13 at 02:27, 25 March 20142014-03-25T02:27:51Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:27, 25 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[[File:Benozzo Gozzoli 004a.jpg|thumbnail|right|Thomas Aquinas]]</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''Natural Law'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''Natural Law'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''''Eagan v Canada'' [1995] 2 SCR 513'''<br/></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''''Eagan v Canada'' [1995] 2 SCR 513'''<br/></div></td></tr>
</table>Melnykk13https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_P/Natural_Law&diff=3167&oldid=prevMelnykk13 at 02:23, 25 March 20142014-03-25T02:23:53Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:23, 25 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''Natural Law'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''Natural Law'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''''Eagan v Canada'' [1995] 2 SCR 513'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''''Eagan v Canada'' [1995] 2 SCR 513'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In the case of Egan v Canada, we are presented with a case in which a partner in a same sex couple has been denied access to spousal allowance. The reason for denial is that the definition of spouse in Section 3 of the Old Age Security Act was interpreted to pertain only to “traditional” married couples. The counsel for Egan submitted that the impugned provision violated Section 15 of the Charter. The majority did not find that there was a violation of s.15 because the purpose of the Act itself was “support and protection of legal marriage” (''Egan v Canada'', LaForest J., page 515).</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In the case of Egan v Canada, we are presented with a case in which a partner in a same sex couple has been denied access to spousal allowance. The reason for denial is that the definition of spouse in Section 3 of the Old Age Security Act was interpreted to pertain only to “traditional” married couples. The counsel for Egan submitted that the impugned provision violated Section 15 of the Charter. The majority did not find that there was a violation of s.15 because the purpose of the Act itself was “support and protection of legal marriage” (''Egan v Canada'', LaForest J., page 515).</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law Theory'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law Theory'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In the eyes of a natural law theorist, it is necessary that human law maintains consistency with the natural law. Human law must run parallel to the moral aims of the natural law. The concept of homogeneity and the “common good” was strongly embedded in the philosophy of Aquinas. This common good and the way we, as humans, act and reason based on what God has bestowed upon us. This “leading” by God sets out the law through reasoned steps and demonstrate how to achieve the objective of the laws – the common good.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In the eyes of a natural law theorist, it is necessary that human law maintains consistency with the natural law. Human law must run parallel to the moral aims of the natural law. The concept of homogeneity and the “common good” was strongly embedded in the philosophy of Aquinas. This common good and the way we, as humans, act and reason based on what God has bestowed upon us. This “leading” by God sets out the law through reasoned steps and demonstrate how to achieve the objective of the laws – the common good.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In the case of Egan, the majority seemed to hold this sentiment of moral parallel in its ruling. As the objective of the legislation was to support the legal tradition of marriage, that being of a heterosexual relationship, it would seem logical to a natural theorist that the courts would find that recognizing same-sex spouses would divert from the shared path with natural law. In 1995, the gay rights movement was gaining momentum but the movement was not fully recognized. To put the timing into some context, the reference Same Sex marriage was 10 years after this case. While the dissent presented a strong case in support of changing the definition, it was not enough to change course. </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In the case of Egan, the majority seemed to hold this sentiment of moral parallel in its ruling. As the objective of the legislation was to support the legal tradition of marriage, that being of a heterosexual relationship, it would seem logical to a natural theorist that the courts would find that recognizing same-sex spouses would divert from the shared path with natural law. In 1995, the gay rights movement was gaining momentum but the movement was not fully recognized. To put the timing into some context, the reference Same Sex marriage was 10 years after this case. While the dissent presented a strong case in support of changing the definition, it was not enough to change course. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''The Four Elements of a Valid Law'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''The Four Elements of a Valid Law'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''1. Must be directed to the Common Good'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''1. Must be directed to the Common Good'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This element is at greatest conflict for the case at hand. The Natural Law theorist would agree with the majority and Parliament that the law serves the Common Good in that the objective is protection the sanctity of the heterosexual marriage. Parliament would even further argue that it merely made a distinction between a married couple and single people cohabiting. Furthermore, it would actually serve Egan and his partner better if they were recognized as two single men as they would be placed individually in lower tax brackets.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This element is at greatest conflict for the case at hand. The Natural Law theorist would agree with the majority and Parliament that the law serves the Common Good in that the objective is protection the sanctity of the heterosexual marriage. Parliament would even further argue that it merely made a distinction between a married couple and single people cohabiting. Furthermore, it would actually serve Egan and his partner better if they were recognized as two single men as they would be placed individually in lower tax brackets.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The Natural theorists would note that finding in favour of Egan would have disrupted the Common Good as that served a more individualistic end rather than the good of the community. This is a very controversial aspect in the theory, particularly in application to Egan. Arguably, it would better serve the Common Good to uphold the values of the Charter than to serve a right-wing Christian ideology. What must be remembered is that this case was decided in 1995 and there has been great change in the political landscape on the topic. If same-sex relationships were not viewed equally, then the Natural Law theorist would find that upholding this order would maintain stability for the Common Good.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The Natural theorists would note that finding in favour of Egan would have disrupted the Common Good as that served a more individualistic end rather than the good of the community. This is a very controversial aspect in the theory, particularly in application to Egan. Arguably, it would better serve the Common Good to uphold the values of the Charter than to serve a right-wing Christian ideology. What must be remembered is that this case was decided in 1995 and there has been great change in the political landscape on the topic. If same-sex relationships were not viewed equally, then the Natural Law theorist would find that upholding this order would maintain stability for the Common Good.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''2. Must follow practical reason'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''2. Must follow practical reason'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The reasoning behind the ruling was to protect the sanctity of marriage and those accessing the system of benefits. If there were to be a liberal interpretation that could allow for any person in any type of relationship to be acknowledged as a spouse, the objective would not be reached. Parliament grounded its argument in ‘natural law’, and based much of its argument around the concept of the biological nature of the heterosexual marriage. The court acknowledged that while gay couples have a sexual aspect to their relationship, they do not procreate, which means they do not qualify for the social engineering that Parliament was trying to encourage.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The reasoning behind the ruling was to protect the sanctity of marriage and those accessing the system of benefits. If there were to be a liberal interpretation that could allow for any person in any type of relationship to be acknowledged as a spouse, the objective would not be reached. Parliament grounded its argument in ‘natural law’, and based much of its argument around the concept of the biological nature of the heterosexual marriage. The court acknowledged that while gay couples have a sexual aspect to their relationship, they do not procreate, which means they do not qualify for the social engineering that Parliament was trying to encourage.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Opponents to this approach would note that Parliament chose to extend the protections/benefits of marriage to common law couples, therefore they could have chosen to extend to same sex couples. However, under Natural Law, it is not the place for the courts to alter the legislation. Aquinas greatly favoured legislation over judge made law and this reasoning was echoed by LaForest at page 517, “In these circumstances, the Court will be more reluctant to second-guess the choice which Parliament has made. There is also proportionality between the effects of the legislation on the protected right and the legislative objective. The proper balance was struck by Parliament in providing financial assistance to those who were shown to be in the greatest need of assistance.” </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Opponents to this approach would note that Parliament chose to extend the protections/benefits of marriage to common law couples, therefore they could have chosen to extend to same sex couples. However, under Natural Law, it is not the place for the courts to alter the legislation. Aquinas greatly favoured legislation over judge made law and this reasoning was echoed by LaForest at page 517, “In these circumstances, the Court will be more reluctant to second-guess the choice which Parliament has made. There is also proportionality between the effects of the legislation on the protected right and the legislative objective. The proper balance was struck by Parliament in providing financial assistance to those who were shown to be in the greatest need of assistance.” </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''3. Must be made by a valid lawmaker.'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''3. Must be made by a valid lawmaker.'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The law was created by Parliament and fulfills the requirement of the Natural Law theorist.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The law was created by Parliament and fulfills the requirement of the Natural Law theorist.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''4. Must be Promulgated'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''4. Must be Promulgated'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The Act came into force in 1985, ten years prior to the case.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The Act came into force in 1985, ten years prior to the case.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Ultimately, Aquinas would have supported the majority in Egan for upholding the moral law of the time and maintaining the parallel of human law and moral law.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Ultimately, Aquinas would have supported the majority in Egan for upholding the moral law of the time and maintaining the parallel of human law and moral law.</div></td></tr>
</table>Melnykk13https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_P/Natural_Law&diff=3166&oldid=prevMelnykk13 at 02:22, 25 March 20142014-03-25T02:22:40Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:22, 25 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Eagan v Canada [1995] 2 SCR 513</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Natural Law'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Challenging the definition of ‘spouse’ in s. 2 because the gay couple couldn’t obtain the spousal support from his husband</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Eagan v Canada</ins>'' <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[1995] 2 SCR 513</ins>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Thomas Aquinas and </del>Natural Law <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Theory</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">case </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Egan v Canada, we are presented with a case </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">which </ins>a <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">partner in </ins>a <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">same sex </ins>couple <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">has been denied access to spousal allowance</ins>. The <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">reason for denial </ins>is <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">that </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">definition of spouse in Section 3 </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Old Age Security Act was interpreted </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">pertain only </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">“traditional” married </ins>couples<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. The counsel </ins>for <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Egan submitted </ins>that the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">impugned provision violated Section 15 </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Charter. The majority did not find </ins>that <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">there was </ins>a violation of s.15 <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">because the purpose of the Act itself was “support and protection of legal marriage” (''Egan v Canada'', LaForest J.</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">page 515)</ins>.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* The objective of the legislation was to support the legal tradition of marriage - which is usually to say marriage between a man and a woman.</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Likely if this case were appealed again today, it would be ruled the other way</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* </del>'''<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">BUT</del>''' <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">in </del>'<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">95 the gay rights movement was happening, but not super recognised, the reference re Same Sex marriage was 10 years after this, and the dissent in this was very strong, but it failed</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law Theorists Would…</del>''' </div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Agree with </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">ruling in Eagan</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* The definition </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">‘spouse’ was repealed </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">2000, so it was too late to help them</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Natural law was used to justify keeping the definition of ‘spouse’ as it was</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">:* What was the common good then is not the common good now</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">:* Parliament really made </del>a <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">distinction between </del>a <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">married </del>couple <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and single people cohabiting</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">:* As two single people, they would be placed individually in lower tax brackets, so the government actually argued that they would benefit more as two single people than if they were classified as married</del>.</div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* </del>The <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">objective of the law </del>is <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to uphold </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">‘sanctity </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">marriage’</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Parliament chose to extend </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">protections/benefits of marriage </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">common law couples, therefore they could have chosen </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">extend to same sex </del>couples</div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">:* Parliament grounded its argument in ‘natural law’, and based much of its argument around the idea that while gay couples have a sexual aspect to their relationship, they do not procreate, which means they do not qualify </del>for <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the social engineering </del>that <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Parliament is trying to encourage</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Family units, increases in population, natural state of being at </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">base </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">argument</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Dissent focuses on </del>that <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">denying a change in the definition of ‘spouse’ is </del>a violation of s. 15, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">but state that it is saved under s</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">1 because it is ‘for the greater good’</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">There are 4 reqs for </del>a <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">valid </del>law <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">under legal naturalism</del>, the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">only one under question </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">this judgement was #1</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">was it for </del>the common good<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">?</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law Theory'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* Sopinka quoted </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Majority: argued that </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">job </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">courts </del>was to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">mediate between all groups and their interests</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">without </del>being the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">protagonist </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">any one group</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In the eyes of </ins>a <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">natural </ins>law <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">theorist</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">it is necessary that human law maintains consistency with the natural law. Human law must run parallel to the moral aims of the natural law. The concept of homogeneity and </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">“common good” was strongly embedded </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the philosophy of Aquinas. This common good and the way we, as humans</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">act and reason based on what God has bestowed upon us. This “leading” by God sets out the law through reasoned steps and demonstrate how to achieve the objective of the laws – </ins>the common good<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">:* </del>This is <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">an indicator of </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">shift </del>in the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">concept </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">common good today</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">because today </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">courts position themselves </del>as a <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">sort </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">barrier between minority rights </del>and <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">majority choices</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">:* </del>The courts <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">were also unwilling </del>to second-guess Parliament, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">but in </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">presently</del>, the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">courts overturn Parliament all </del>the time.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In the case of Egan, the majority seemed to hold this sentiment of moral parallel </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">its ruling. As </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">objective </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">legislation </ins>was to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">support the legal tradition of marriage</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">that </ins>being <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">of a heterosexual relationship, it would seem logical to a natural theorist that the courts would find that recognizing same-sex spouses would divert from the shared path with natural law. In 1995, the gay rights movement was gaining momentum but </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">movement was not fully recognized. To put the timing into some context, the reference Same Sex marriage was 10 years after this case. While the dissent presented a strong case in support of changing the definition, it was not enough to change course. </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''The Four Elements </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">a Valid Law'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''1. Must be directed to the Common Good'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">element </ins>is <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">at greatest conflict for the case at hand. The Natural Law theorist would agree with the majority and Parliament that the law serves </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Common Good </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">that </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">objective is protection the sanctity </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">heterosexual marriage. Parliament would even further argue that it merely made a distinction between a married couple and single people cohabiting. Furthermore</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">it would actually serve Egan and his partner better if they were recognized as two single men as they would be placed individually in lower tax brackets.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The Natural theorists would note that finding in favour of Egan would have disrupted </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Common Good </ins>as <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">that served </ins>a <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">more individualistic end rather than the good </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the community. This is a very controversial aspect in the theory, particularly in application to Egan. Arguably, it would better serve the Common Good to uphold the values of the Charter than to serve a right-wing Christian ideology. What must be remembered is that this case was decided in 1995 </ins>and <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">there has been great change in the political landscape on the topic. If same-sex relationships were not viewed equally, then the Natural Law theorist would find that upholding this order would maintain stability for the Common Good.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''2. Must follow practical reason'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">reasoning behind the ruling was to protect the sanctity of marriage and those accessing the system of benefits. If there were to be a liberal interpretation that could allow for any person in any type of relationship to be acknowledged as a spouse, the objective would not be reached. Parliament grounded its argument in ‘natural law’, and based much of its argument around the concept of the biological nature of the heterosexual marriage. The court acknowledged that while gay couples have a sexual aspect to their relationship, they do not procreate, which means they do not qualify for the social engineering that Parliament was trying to encourage.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Opponents to this approach would note that Parliament chose to extend the protections/benefits of marriage to common law couples, therefore they could have chosen to extend to same sex couples. However, under Natural Law, it is not the place for the </ins>courts <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to alter the legislation. Aquinas greatly favoured legislation over judge made law and this reasoning was echoed by LaForest at page 517, “In these circumstances, the Court will be more reluctant </ins>to second-guess <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the choice which Parliament has made. There is also proportionality between the effects of the legislation on the protected right and the legislative objective. The proper balance was struck by Parliament in providing financial assistance to those who were shown to be in the greatest need of assistance.” </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''3. Must be made by a valid lawmaker.'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The law was created by </ins>Parliament <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and fulfills the requirement of the Natural Law theorist.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''4. Must be Promulgated'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The Act came into force in 1985</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">ten years prior to </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">case.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Ultimately</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Aquinas would have supported the majority in Egan for upholding </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">moral law of </ins>the time <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and maintaining the parallel of human law and moral law</ins>.</div></td></tr>
</table>Melnykk13https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_P/Natural_Law&diff=1129&oldid=prevMelnykk13: Created page with "Eagan v Canada [1995] 2 SCR 513 * Challenging the definition of ‘spouse’ in s. 2 because the gay couple couldn’t obtain the spousal support from his husband Thomas Aquin..."2014-02-07T19:07:23Z<p>Created page with "Eagan v Canada [1995] 2 SCR 513 * Challenging the definition of ‘spouse’ in s. 2 because the gay couple couldn’t obtain the spousal support from his husband Thomas Aquin..."</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>Eagan v Canada [1995] 2 SCR 513<br />
* Challenging the definition of ‘spouse’ in s. 2 because the gay couple couldn’t obtain the spousal support from his husband<br />
Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law Theory<br />
* The objective of the legislation was to support the legal tradition of marriage - which is usually to say marriage between a man and a woman.<br />
* Likely if this case were appealed again today, it would be ruled the other way<br />
* '''BUT''' in '95 the gay rights movement was happening, but not super recognised, the reference re Same Sex marriage was 10 years after this, and the dissent in this was very strong, but it failed<br />
'''Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law Theorists Would…''' <br />
* Agree with the ruling in Eagan<br />
* The definition of ‘spouse’ was repealed in 2000, so it was too late to help them<br />
* Natural law was used to justify keeping the definition of ‘spouse’ as it was<br />
:* What was the common good then is not the common good now<br />
:* Parliament really made a distinction between a married couple and single people cohabiting<br />
:* As two single people, they would be placed individually in lower tax brackets, so the government actually argued that they would benefit more as two single people than if they were classified as married.<br />
* The objective of the law is to uphold the ‘sanctity of marriage’<br />
* Parliament chose to extend the protections/benefits of marriage to common law couples, therefore they could have chosen to extend to same sex couples<br />
:* Parliament grounded its argument in ‘natural law’, and based much of its argument around the idea that while gay couples have a sexual aspect to their relationship, they do not procreate, which means they do not qualify for the social engineering that Parliament is trying to encourage<br />
* Family units, increases in population, natural state of being at the base of the argument<br />
* Dissent focuses on that denying a change in the definition of ‘spouse’ is a violation of s. 15, but state that it is saved under s. 1 because it is ‘for the greater good’<br />
<br />
There are 4 reqs for a valid law under legal naturalism, the only one under question in this judgement was #1, was it for the common good?<br />
* Sopinka quoted in Majority: argued that the job of the courts was to mediate between all groups and their interests, without being the protagonist of any one group<br />
:* This is an indicator of the shift in the concept of the common good today, because today the courts position themselves as a sort of barrier between minority rights and majority choices<br />
:* The courts were also unwilling to second-guess Parliament, but in the presently, the courts overturn Parliament all the time.</div>Melnykk13