the majority of whom were Liberals who had voted against legalizing same-sex marriage in 1999. In the end, the motion was narrowly rejected by a vote of 137–132. Supreme Court Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage In 2003, the Liberal government referred a draft bill on same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court of Canada, essentially asking it to review the bill's constitutionality before it was introduced. The reference as originally posed by the Chrétien government asked three questions:Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent? If the answer to question 1 is yes, is section 1 of the proposal, which extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent? Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs? The government of Prime Minister Martin later added a fourth question in January 2004: The addition of a fourth question considerably delayed the opening of the court reference until well after the June 2004 general election, raising accusations of stalling. In its hearings that began in October 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada accused the government of using the court for other goals when it declined to appeal rulings that altered the definition of marriage in several provinces; "Justice Ian Binnie said it 'may not fulfill any useful purpose' to examine traditional marriage all over again, 'given the policy decision of the government'". The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government has the authority to amend the definition of marriage but did not rule on whether or not such a change is required by the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court stated that such a ruling is not necessary because the federal government had accepted the rulings of provincial courts to the effect that the change was required. The court also ruled that given the freedom of religion provisions in the Charter, and the wording of provincial human rights codes, it was highly