Canadian Gov’t Dissolves Thousands of Same-Sex Marriages (Including Dan Savage’s)

http://unicornbooty.com/...es-including-dan-savages/

Thousands of LGBT couples across the world awoke this morning to learn that they are no longer married.

A Department of Justice lawyer under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada government has nullified all same-sex marriages performed in Canada in which the couples’ native country does not permit gays and lesbians to marry.

I haven't read the article you posted, but I've read a few others on the topic.

Your analysis is very disengenous. This is not what has happened at all.

A crown attorney has made the argument in the court of law (during a divorce proceeding between a Lesbian couple that married in Canada but live in Florida) that the marriage cannot be dissolved because it it does not exist because the jurisdiction they reside in does not recognize it.

It is a legal argument that has been made in court in a case that is yet to be decided. That is by no means a government decree or announcement of a policy decision. In fact the Canadian government has since come out and announced that they have in fact not changed their position on this issue, and that htey have no intention of repealing the same sex marriage laws.

Nice try though.

http://www.cbc.ca/...er-same-sex-marriage.html

I guess the question is whether or not the government will amend it's divorce laws. The crown still argued that marriage is invalid if the resident country doesn't recognize it:

"in order for a marriage to be legally valid under Canadian law, the parties to the marriage must satisfy both the requirements of the place where the marriage is celebrated... and the requirements of the law of domicile of the couple with regard to their legal capacity to marry one another."

Given that canada is based on common law, if the crown case prevails that will provide guidance for future decisions. I agree that this situation is misrepresented, but it does have potential implications for nullifying marriages if not addressed. But ya, depends on where the case goes.

Yes I agree but that does not mean that marriages have been dissolved as the article and the analysis in the first post suggests.

We need to hear the outcome of the case to determine that, plus the outcome of subsequent appeals which would surely happen should the decision turn out to be adverse.

Oh yeah, totally blown out of proportion. I guess people are just scared that harper really will start rolling back the same sex laws. I guarantee if it was still illegal it wouldn't go an inch in this house of commons.

i am not sure i trust news from a domain called "unicornbooty.com"

Good for Canada and mankind. God created Adam and Eve, not Jack and Steve. I am all for different strokes for different folks but a marriage is between Man and Woman. No other counts in my eyes of Gods eye.

In that case Deerhunter marriage sure be a purely religious institution and come with 0 government recognition or benefits.

For the record, you started by saying you didn't RTFA and then criticized "my analysis"... That isn't my analysis, I just posted the start of the article here in case some people didn't RTFA and could comment. I am not from Canada and I was looking for a response.

Your response is helpful. So thanks for that. My position also happens to be for gov't to GTFO when it comes to defining marriage.

Now that is complete bullfluff. Everyone has a EQUAL right to marriage, I see no problems with it at all myself. (Especially since God is just an imaginary friend that lots of people seem to need for some odd reason)

It's 2012, if you can't trust unicorns, who can you trust!? ;)

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
In Canada all you need to be legally married is a certificate signed/witness provided by your local municipality. In the eyes of the law marriage is a civil contract.

No one in Canada forces any religious institution to perform gay marriage/ceremonies if it contravenes their doctrine. They can even decline to rent their space out for such purposes.

And H4 is right, it's not the Canadian government that has changed the law, it's a legal dispute currently before the courts. Even our media hasn't been clear on that point.
The Prime Minister has come out and said publicly many times (and repeated recently) that he has no interest in re-opening the debate, regardless of where certain elements of his party stands on the issue.

It's really been blown out of proportion imo. The real question is does the validation of the mariage contract have to come from
place of residence vs where you signed the contract. ie. if you get married in Canada but are a resident of another country, the contract isn't validated in Canada but where you came from?
(I am not a lawyer but this is how it was explained to me).

"residence" in Canadian law for this purpose means having lived in a location for the duration of a three months. It has nothing to do with citizenship or any kind of immigration status. (for tax purposes and for other provincial purposes it's different).

lol... +1 for llaar & General Earl. Seriously - 'unicornbooty'???

DH - somehow your view on the matter surprises me not one single whit. :D

According to the G&M (slightly more reliable than 'unicornbooty'), a judge in a lesbian divorce case told the couple that they couldn't divorce because they weren't legally married. NOT because Canada didn't recognize their marriage as legal (they married here in 2005), but because their marriage is not recognized WHERE THEY CURRENTLY RESIDE (in Florida and England).

Stephen Harper was questioned about it, confessed to not knowing the facts of the case and refused comment. But here's the critical point everyone seems to be deliberately ignoring: '...speaking in Halifax Thursday, the Prime Minister said the issue was not on the agenda for his majority Conservatives. “We have no intention of further re-opening or opening this issue,” Stephen Harper told reporters when asked about The Globe and Mail’s report.'

I fail to see how you can read any of those facts and come up with 'Canadian Gov’t Dissolves Thousands of Same-Sex Marriages (Including Dan Savage’s)'. Pfft.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...and-valid/article2301691/


end of debate.

your god is a fluffstick

what about able and eve?
http://www.xkcd.com/1003/
:P

think the only ones who need to respect the marriage, are the people who agreed to do it. and since they tend to not give a dang about commitment, why should the state bother with recording the crap?

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been brought up, but wouldn't this policy of not accepting a marriage if it doesn't meet the requirements of the residents' nations apply to all marriages? Same-sex or not? If a heterosexual couple try to marry in Canada but their resident nations' laws wouldn't have allowed that marriage back home they would also be blocked from getting married right? This doesn't seem to be a same-sex issue. This seems to be a nationality issue. Canada is trying to stop itself from becoming this giver of marriage certificates that won't be valid when the couple returns to their home land. It happens that Canada's marriage laws overlap quite well with that of most other countries in all areas except for same-sex, but their policy isn't "gay couples who marry in Canada but whose native countries disallow gay marriages can't get married" it's "any couple who marry in Canada but who would't meet the requirements for marriage in their resident country, whatever they may be, may not marry in Canada"

Could a Mod tell me just what level of personal attack I could use to respond to this such that I won't have my post deleted or my account banned?

hawkeyee: I believe your response should be directed at Deerhunter (#83) in-game. ;)

trying to evade a ban, eh? that's worth a ban all by itself. :-P just call him a bunch of names and accept the deletion or ban if it happens.

An american friend of mine is in debate with the gov't right now regarding this. He's ex military fresh from Iraq trying to gain citizenship to marry his fiance here in Ottawa.

According to him, since his legal country of 'residence' is the US, he may only "visit" here for 3 months. After that he is an illegal. He must return to the US once every 90 days, and then upon his return to Canada the 90 days starts over. He just has to continuously lie to customs "Nope, just visiting a friend",


As for the "Gov't not changing the law", we should not jump to conclusions. The law does not need to be re-written for precedents to be set. This case could eventually change the law.... Until it does (or doesn't) we can really only speculate.

I wanna marry my goldfish

meh, I've been thrown over for a goldfish :(

NOOOOO! Suni I am so sorry please forgive me!

I was blinded by the gold. Ill tell Goldie its off right away. she wont be happy and I'll have to lock the toilet bowl so no suicide attempts are made but I'm sure she will get past it eventually.

I'm sure you will make the proper amends ;)