Slog Comments
Canada: Terry Is My Husband Again... Or Will Be Soon
2
Dan, out of curiosity, are you guys going to marry in one of the states here where it's legal? Or do those already recognize internally the legalities of the Canadian marriage?
I honestly have no idea how the reciprocal nature of the laws work.
I honestly have no idea how the reciprocal nature of the laws work.
4
Really, Dan. Why leave your marital status in the hands of a foreign government? You and your spouse should plan a cross country wedding trip, and get married in every state that is enlightened enough to recognize that government has no place in marriage, gay straight or otherwise.
5
@4: Why stop there? Why not do a sit-in in every single state that doesn't allow same-sex marriage as well?
Savage: "We request a marriage license."
Civil Clerk: "Sorry, you two can't get one."
Savage: "Okay. Well we're not leaving until we get one."
Though that would require a lot of money and free time, too.
Savage: "We request a marriage license."
Civil Clerk: "Sorry, you two can't get one."
Savage: "Okay. Well we're not leaving until we get one."
Though that would require a lot of money and free time, too.
6
Isn't it that you're married but can't get divorced? It's like some sort of Mormon Sharia Compact Marriage.
7
Dan, you really should concentrate your efforts on your own country and state but, for what it's worth, here's the response from the Canadian government
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/…
You know...I'm a married gay man but when we travel we know that our Canadian marriage is worthless in states and countries that do not recognize it. We enter the United States as two single men but re-enter Canada as a couple. It is what it is. You should not be expecting a foreign government to defend what your own country won't
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/…
You know...I'm a married gay man but when we travel we know that our Canadian marriage is worthless in states and countries that do not recognize it. We enter the United States as two single men but re-enter Canada as a couple. It is what it is. You should not be expecting a foreign government to defend what your own country won't
8
Even after the Canadian government clarifies that any marriages performed in Canada that aren't recognized in the couple's home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada -- same-sex couples married in Canada will still not be able to DIVORCE unless they meet the Canadian 1-year residency requirement, or their home jurisdiction will grant them a divorce.
10
@2, Every state that allows same sex marriage also recognizes same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions that allow it. Also, several states that do not actually allow same sex marriages to be performed there will still recognize same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions where it is legal: New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maryland.
California is a gray area. They will recognize same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, and allow those who married in other jurisdictions to retain all the rights and protections of marriage in California, but they legally can't actually be called marriages in California.
California is a gray area. They will recognize same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, and allow those who married in other jurisdictions to retain all the rights and protections of marriage in California, but they legally can't actually be called marriages in California.
12
@8: they're going to fix the divorce problem as well.
"All same sex marriages performed in Canada are legal and the law will be changed to ensure that divorce is readily available to non-residents who were married in the country, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…
"All same sex marriages performed in Canada are legal and the law will be changed to ensure that divorce is readily available to non-residents who were married in the country, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…
13
It sounds like they're going to pass the law for the sake of clarity (and to allow divorce for non-residents) but the government is not claiming that your marriage is currently invalid. According to the Globe & Mail:
The situation has been “completely unfair to those affected.” Mr. Nicholson said. “I want to make it clear that in our government's view, these marriages are valid.”
14
This is so messed up. Dan, I'm sorry that someone has their head so far up their rectum....I just want to pound my head into my keyboard so hard right now.
15
While I am all for gay marriage (and divorce) as a Canadian I can understand the federal government's residency requirements for divorce. The reason the law is in place is to disallow "divorce shopping" in that people (straight rich people) will go fro jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for a judge or system that is more favorable than another. So, for instance, Mr. Big is work $10M dollars and wants a divorce from Mrs. Big. Instead of filing for divorce where they live (lets use California as an example where a a marriage without a prenup will cost you 50% of your assets) he would instruct his lawyers to file in a jurisdiction with much more lax laws around child support, alimony etc.
My recommendation to Mr Savage is to apply to be a Canadian resident and move the short distance to Vancouver wait a year an file for divorce. I would love to have him as a resident up here in the cold north!
My recommendation to Mr Savage is to apply to be a Canadian resident and move the short distance to Vancouver wait a year an file for divorce. I would love to have him as a resident up here in the cold north!
17
Try one of these articles, they make it much clearer.
Your marriage was never made invalid, it was just a possible interpretation of the law.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/kevin-kind…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…
Your marriage was never made invalid, it was just a possible interpretation of the law.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/kevin-kind…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…
18
Oh this is now getting funny. First the press stirs the pot on whether gay marriages are valid and the next thing you know Dan and Terry want a divorce. Must be a slow news week.
19
I'm glad the Canadian wedding my husband and I had in 2008 is still valid in Canada, and I look forward to the day that it is recognized by my home state and the federal government. In the meantime, I become eliglible for retirement in two years, and my husband and I are planning to move to a marriage equality state--or perhaps a marriage equality country. Canada may see us again, and for a much longer time.
20
This all seems a bit overblown. Marriage in Canada is under provincial jurisdiction. A government lawyer filing a motion in an Ontario court does not make national policy, nor does it even make Ontario provincial law. The only way Dan's marriage could be made null would be a Supreme Court of Canada decision to that effect and that would be unlikely since a decision like that would almost certainly run against the Charter of Rights.
21
I still think it's almost as bad to be whipsawed around like this -- yes you are, no you aren't, well, yes, you will be in just a sec after we do this one thing -- than it is to just get a flat "no".
Harper is a twatwaffle of the highest order.
Harper is a twatwaffle of the highest order.
22
Could all the Harper haters give him some props for doing the right thing? Y'all piled on pretty hysterically, assuming with no evidence that he wanted to abolish same-sex marriage, even when he declared it was a settled issue that would not be reopened. Plus, he is fixing the gap in the law that was causing all this nonsense in the first place. Harper may be a tool in so many ways but in this situation he wasn't.
23
Hey, is this just a ploy to get more wedding presents? Do you and Terry need a new toaster? (I would think you have enough, given all the conversions you've effected.)
24
Seriously, Dan, I expect better of you and your readers. Everyone on the left, myself included, likes to point out how the conservatives will muddle facts to spread hatred. Take a good hard look at yourselves, people.
For 150 years, my country has had laws on divorce and residency that have made sense from the perspective of public international law. Now, because people are complaining, we are willing to make compromises so that everyone is happy. Why? Because we have that much respect for people like Dan and Terry who chose to get married in OUR COUNTRY. You are married in Canada, Dan, and if you live here for a year, you'll get all the weird property bonuses that go along with that, but that doesn't mean a bubble of Canadian law follows you into the states.
Most importantly, Harper literally has nothing to do with this. This is an ongoing court case, working off statutes in place for a century. No reversal of anything, and all marriages straight and gay are held to the same rules.
So congratulations, guys. You (Dan included) reacted exactly like Fox and friends would have. Instead of thinking up ways to insult my country's democratically elected prime minister, who in this case has done nothing wrong, maybe you should check the facts.
For 150 years, my country has had laws on divorce and residency that have made sense from the perspective of public international law. Now, because people are complaining, we are willing to make compromises so that everyone is happy. Why? Because we have that much respect for people like Dan and Terry who chose to get married in OUR COUNTRY. You are married in Canada, Dan, and if you live here for a year, you'll get all the weird property bonuses that go along with that, but that doesn't mean a bubble of Canadian law follows you into the states.
Most importantly, Harper literally has nothing to do with this. This is an ongoing court case, working off statutes in place for a century. No reversal of anything, and all marriages straight and gay are held to the same rules.
So congratulations, guys. You (Dan included) reacted exactly like Fox and friends would have. Instead of thinking up ways to insult my country's democratically elected prime minister, who in this case has done nothing wrong, maybe you should check the facts.
25
I'm glad the law will be updated to fix the problems but how will we address the issues that come out of it?
What about forum shopping that will come out of it - particularly in cases of child custody, child support and spousal support, both of which fall under the Divorce Act. The homophobe jurisdictions will convey an advantage on the biological parent. The law in Canada will treat the non-biological parent more favourably. Maybe the homophobe jurisdictions will not order child or spousal support and a Canadian one will? What is the proper law to apply to a particular couple?
And if the couple is living in a jurisdiction that does not accept that their Canadian marriage is legally valid, how is this couple living in the homophobe jurisdiction going to enforce that Canadian Court Order on child custody or support if someone doesn't want to comply?
How can we impose a Canadian Court order on parties, neither of whom reside here?
What about forum shopping that will come out of it - particularly in cases of child custody, child support and spousal support, both of which fall under the Divorce Act. The homophobe jurisdictions will convey an advantage on the biological parent. The law in Canada will treat the non-biological parent more favourably. Maybe the homophobe jurisdictions will not order child or spousal support and a Canadian one will? What is the proper law to apply to a particular couple?
And if the couple is living in a jurisdiction that does not accept that their Canadian marriage is legally valid, how is this couple living in the homophobe jurisdiction going to enforce that Canadian Court Order on child custody or support if someone doesn't want to comply?
How can we impose a Canadian Court order on parties, neither of whom reside here?
26
@24 I think it is entirely appropriate to roundly condemn the choice of the government to argue in court that these 5000 marriages should be considered void. It is important of course to note that this was almost certainly a low-level decision, but there is also a lot to criticize in the PM and Justice Minister's initial responses - I can't imagine them being so dismissive for any other group of people whose marriages are called into question.
They absolutely get credit for ultimately coming to the right decision - to drop the argument and instead propose legislation that would assure the validity of these marriages. But if the public response to the initial story and their initial reactions had been entirely apathetic, they would have been much less motivated to do come to the right course of action.
They absolutely get credit for ultimately coming to the right decision - to drop the argument and instead propose legislation that would assure the validity of these marriages. But if the public response to the initial story and their initial reactions had been entirely apathetic, they would have been much less motivated to do come to the right course of action.
27
Dan is legally married. He can have as many ceremonies in front of a minister (or whoever he chooses) as he wants, but he can't go to New York, get a marriage license and get married because he's ALREADY MARRIED. If he doesn't want to leave his marital status in the hands of a foreign government (and no, it doesn't work that way anyway), he'd have to get a divorce in order to get married again.
Comments (28) RSS