Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79, was a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage in Canada. The ruling was announced December 2004, following arguments made two months prior. Background Prior to this case the issue regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage had been considered by several of the provinces' appellate courts, all of them holding that it was constitutionally valid. In response to this, the Government of Canada submitted three questions to the Supreme Court regarding the validity of the proposed same-sex marriage legislation (the Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes): 1. Is the proposal for the Act within the authority of Parliament? If not, to what extent? 2. If so, is section 1 of the proposed Act consistent with the Charter? If not, to what extent? 3. Does section 2(a) of the Charter, guaranteeing freedom of religion, protect religious officials who do not believe in same-sex marriage? Later, an additional question was added: 4. Is the opposite-sex requirement established in the common law and Quebec law consistent with the Charter? If not, to what extent? Opinion of the court The court responded to the questions as such: 1. With respect to s. 1: Yes. With respect to s. 2: No. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question. The Court began by considering the argument that the questions are not justiciable (i.e. lacks sufficient legal content, or where the nature of the question or the information provided does not permit the Court to give a complete or accurate answer) based on it being a political question. The Court resolutely dismissed this claim for these political considerations provide the context for, rather than the substance of, the questions before the Court, as in the Quebec Secession Reference. The first question required the court to determine which head of power the law falls under. It was clearly determined that the pith and substance of the law was federal as it concerned marriage which is in the absolute federal jurisdiction under section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court then considered the impact of the common law definition of marriage on the new law. The applicable definition was from Hyde v. Hyde (1866) a polygamy case where Lord Penzance stated: