A Saskatchewan judge will rule tomorrow in a case that could see the province become the seventh Canadian jurisdiction to allow same-sex marriages.
Madam Justice Donna Wilson of the Court of Queen's Bench reserved her decision yesterday after hearing from lawyers representing five couples who had been denied marriage licences because they were not of the opposite sex.
Greg Walen, lawyer for one of the couples, had filed a statement of claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the common-law definition of marriage be changed to include the wording "two people to the exclusion of others," rather than "two people of the opposite sex."
Even though the decision was reserved, Mr. Walen said he was thrilled with the court's reaction.
"It appears that we're going to get an order on Friday, hopefully exactly as we had presented to the judge, that in fact same-sex couples will be able to get married Friday afternoon upon getting a marriage licence," he said. "I'm delighted."
His clients, Nicole White and Julie Richards of Saskatoon, were also confident.
"We're very optimistic about a positive outcome to this," Ms. White said. "Very excited to get going on the wedding plans."
Chris Bernier, a lawyer for the federal government, told Judge Wilson the government did not contest the application but didn't consent either.
Justice Minister Frank Quennell had already indicated the Saskatchewan government would not contest the challenge either.
He has said it's up to the federal government to decide who is allowed to marry, since the provinces only provide licences and register marriages.
"Obviously -- it wasn't contested -- they're going to allow this to happen," Ms. Richards said. "We just have to wait another couple of days."
The Supreme Court of Canada heard a reference on the issue from the federal government in a landmark two-day hearing last month. The government had asked the court to rule on a draft version of a same-sex marriage bill. The court is expected to rule some time next year.
A lawyer representing Quebec argued the law would infringe on provincial jurisdiction, but Alberta was the only province to argue against changing the traditional definition of marriage.
Lawyer Robert Leurer argued on behalf of Alberta that the bill would, in effect, change the Constitution and that would require a formal constitutional amendment. He said the word "marriage" in the Constitution must be read in the traditional sense, meaning a union between one man and one woman.
Same-sex marriage has been legalized in every province or territory where the constitutionality of banning it has been challenged in the courts. Gay and lesbian couples may marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Yukon and Nova Scotia.
In Tuesday's U.S. elections, voters in 11 states overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage as they embraced constitutional amendments that deny legal status to homosexual couples looking to tie the knot.
The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon -- the one state where gay-rights activists had hoped to prevail.
None of the 11 states currently allows gay marriage, although officials in Portland, Ore., married more than 2,900 same-sex couples last year before a judge halted the practice.