side in provinces that have failed to enact RDP legislation. Similarly, provincial laws should provide for recognition ofRDP's made in other jurisdictions or under federal law.The constitutional complexity of enacting RDP legislation may be an argument in favour of not pursing this alternative at all,and simply expecting the federal government to allow same sex partners to marry.Responding to M. v H.The lobbying from some gay and lesbian advocates has prompted of some law reform commissions(18) and politicians tobegin to explore the near marriage Registered Domestic Partnership concept. The May 1999 Supreme Court decision in Mv. H may also increase pressure to act, though federal and provincial governments are responding more narrowly to theimmediate issue presented by that decision. Governments are responding by extending the statutory "ascription" definition toplace same sex partners in the same position as unmarried heterosexual partners.(19) Governments, such as that in Ontario, are responding begrudgingly to the Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that they areonly acting because they have been forced to do so by the Court. Rather than changing the definition of "spouse," Ontariolegislation adds the new concept of the "same sex partner," with all the rights and obligations of the unmarried heterosexualcohabitant, provided that there has been a period of shared residence, usually three years. There is a clear effort bypoliticians to preserve the traditional definition of "spouse" for heterosexual "conjugal" relationships (married or unmarried).Ontario Premier Harris disparagingly commented on same sex partners: "It is not my definition of the family."(20) Although the rights (and obligations) for same sex couples that are imposed by "ascription" as a result of M v. H. and othercourt decisions are significant, there remain some very important differences between ascription and full legal recognition.There is an obvious and profound p...
