What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in Christendom?...If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must needs have some pervading identity and universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. The Court rejected this definition by applying the living tree doctrine used in the famous Persons case, analogizing the exclusion of women from the common law definition of "persons" to that of same-sex couples. The interveners had argued that the meaning of marriage is fixed into convention beyond the reach of the constitution as its old meaning is in practice for thousands of years across the entire globe. Moreover, they argued that the living tree doctrine is constrained within the "natural limits" of interpretation and cannot be stretched to anything the court would like it to be. The Court rejected these claims, stating that they were not trying to find the definition of marriage, but were only examining whether a proposed meaning was within the definition. The meaning of marriage is not fixed to what it meant in 1867, but rather it must evolve with Canadian society which currently represents a plurality of groups. However, the Court made sure to say that the legislation was only concerning "civil marriage as a legal institution" and has no effect on religious marriage. Section 2 of the Act was considered to be ultra vires to Parliament, as its pith and substance related to who may (or must) perform marriages and falls within the subject matter allocated to the provinces under s. 92(12). On considering the second question, the Court not only affirmed the validity of the legislation, they added that its purpose "flows from" the Charter. They further found that equality right of religious groups and opposite-sex couples are not undermined by the legislation, on the basis that the expansion of the Charter enriches society, and equality cannot be supported by denial of others from a benefit. When conflicts between rights arise, the Court said, it must be resolved by internal balancing of those rights, not denial of rights. On the third question, the Court found that the religious freedom guarantee will protect those who disagree with performing same-sex marriages and even protect those who disagree with renting religious spaces for the