Tim at Pints of Drivel draws a superb parallel between the same-sex marriage debate and the Persons Case. (In short: back in the 1920s, five Canadian women argued women should be able to become Senators, took their case to Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain, and won. At issue was the question of whether the usage “persons” and not “men” in Section 24 of the Constitution allowed the appointment of women.)
The most telling point is this passage he cites from Lord Sankey’s 1930 decision:
“Customs are apt to develop into traditions which are stronger than law and remain unchallenged long after the reason for them has disappeared. The appeal to history therefore in this particular matter in inconclusive.”
Tim adds, damningly,
Even in 1930 Parliament wasn’t touching controversial questions like whether women were people or not. It’s not the Charter’s fault that politicians don’t want to risk losing their seat.
