Comments

102
I hate my government. Harper is our version of Bush... a mini Bush if you will. This man and his bag of dicks he calls his majority have no respect for human rights. Chin up, Savage... this BS now will only lead to long term resolution. It's my hope that the next generation will be able to look back and scratch their heads at how screwed up all this is.
103
"The truth of it is, Canada is not entitled to meddle in the very real consequences of asset division related to divorce if the parties involved don't have those assets within our borders"

What did they do UP UNTIL THIS TIME?
104
@93
Are we supposed to become the new Nevada, offering divorces to everyone in the world who cannot obtain them at home? For that is the argument being made. Two people with no connection to Canada are seeking to use Canadian courts to make up for the deficiencies of their own law.

Is it a human right to cross a border and avail yourself of the laws of another jurisdiction in place of your own? If you want the benefit of Canadian law, move here. If you want Canadian law to apply where you live, then you're going to have to take that matter up with your legislature, not our courts.

105
@ 18, this is, I think, the most valid argument. Canada has been advertising itself as a haven for same sex marriage, and inviting good people like Dan and Terry up to enjoy our marriage equality.

I would call this massive fraud and misrepresentation, and the couple have every right to feel lied to. We simply shouldn't marry people who don't live in the country, and thus benefit from something we don't intend to honor or deal with later.

106
Regardless, I believe the issue here is less the existing divorce policy in place than the legal opinion that the parties were never married to begin with.
107
What did we do up until this time? We required that people petitioning for divorce in Canada actually reside here--that's what we did.
108
I may not have the whole legal environment of this particular case understood, but I do understand that the federal lawyer was an idiot for saying anything even remotely related to Canadian marriage law. This is about Canadian divorce law which is (unfortunately) a completely different beast. Marriage is managed by the Canadian provinces, Divorce is managed by the Federal Government.

The couple trying to divorce are claiming discrimination by the Canadian system, but the fault lies in the fact that getting legally married in Canada requires no residency, while the Divorce Act requires a year of residency in Canada to proceed. The couple in question do not want to or cannot do this, and to them, I say, "tough sh*t, I'm afraid".

These laws were in place when they utilized Canadian marriage law here so they should respect Canadian divorce laws as well. Doesn't seem so confusing to me. They won't be able to divorce from their Canadian wedding IN CANADA until they fulfill the residency requirement. It doesn't matter what the jurisdictions they live in recognize for same-sex partnerships; if they don't recognize Canadian same-sex marriages, they certainly aren't going to recognize Canadian divorce law. This couple are trying to find a loophole in Canadian law so that they can divorce without fulfilling the legal requirements. I don't understand how this discriminates them.....

As for that lawyer saying that if a jurisdiction doesn't recognize Canadian same-sex marriage it shouldn't be recognized in Canada, well that's just stupid. I don't understand how that stance has anything to do with the problem at hand.

Dan, I get from this that if you and Terry married in Canada but at some point wanted to get divorced, and Washington State has laws that recognize Canadian same-sex marriage but don't have the legalities in place to handle same-sex divorce, then your only option would be to try and get divorced in Canada, which requires a one-year residency. This only makes sense because Canada has no jurisdiction in any other country or state regarding property and custody therefore the individuals seeking divorce would effectively need to have their assets, property and custody issues settled or at least finalized prior to seeking a divorce in Canada; theoretically that could be completed within the one-year residency requirement.

I dunno, I hope I'm getting at least some of this right. As for this being a conservative plot, I just say simmer down. So far, this firestorm has started over the submissions of some junior-level federal lawyer.
109
I wrote this in your comments a few days ago: I am a Canadian. It's getting ugly up here. Help!
110
So sorry, Dan. A lot of Canadians are fools and scumbags. Where I live more than 50 per cent voted for these fuckos. Canadians aren't the good guys we're made out to be.
111
@104: Canada has offered "marriages" willingly to many and has nullified them. Divorce isn't the main disgust that people are having over this decision.

The language "the couple have been told they cannot divorce because they were never really married – a Department of Justice lawyer says their marriage is not legal in Canada since they could not have lawfully wed in Florida or England, where the two partners reside."

has nothing to do with your argument.
112
The main problem seems to me that neither of you meet the current definition of a Canadian Citizen, not having resided in Canada for 3 years or being born there.

To have standing, you'd have to meet that requirement.

Trust me, some of the gay Canadian soldiers I trained in the Army who got married are bound to sue, because they are owed benefits from the Feds.

Oh, and everyone always knew Harper was an ass.
113
I may not have the whole legal environment of this particular case understood, but I do understand that the federal lawyer was an idiot for saying anything even remotely related to Canadian marriage law. This is about Canadian divorce law which is (unfortunately) a completely different beast. Marriage is managed by the Canadian provinces, Divorce is managed by the Federal Government.

The couple trying to divorce are claiming discrimination by the Canadian system, but the fault lies in the fact that getting legally married in Canada requires no residency, while the Divorce Act requires a year of residency in Canada to proceed. The couple in question do not want to or cannot do this, and to them, I say, "tough sh*t, I'm afraid".

These laws were in place when they utilized Canadian marriage law here so they should respect Canadian divorce laws as well. Doesn't seem so confusing to me. They won't be able to divorce from their Canadian wedding IN CANADA until they fulfill the residency requirement. It doesn't matter what the jurisdictions they live in recognize for same-sex partnerships; if they don't recognize Canadian same-sex marriages, they certainly aren't going to recognize Canadian divorce law. This couple are trying to find a loophole in Canadian law so that they can divorce without fulfilling the legal requirements. I don't understand how this discriminates them.....

As for that lawyer saying that if a jurisdiction doesn't recognize Canadian same-sex marriage it shouldn't be recognized in Canada, well that's just stupid. I don't understand how that stance has anything to do with the problem at hand.

Dan, I get from this that if you and Terry married in Canada but at some point wanted to get divorced, and Washington State has laws that recognize Canadian same-sex marriage but don't have the legalities in place to handle same-sex divorce, then your only option would be to try and get divorced in Canada, which requires a one-year residency. This only makes sense because Canada has no jurisdiction in any other country or state regarding property and custody therefore the individuals seeking divorce would effectively need to have their assets, property and custody issues settled or at least finalized prior to seeking a divorce in Canada; theoretically that could be completed within the one-year residency requirement.

I dunno, I hope I'm getting at least some of this right. As for this being a conservative plot, I just say simmer down. So far, this firestorm has started over the submissions of some junior-level federal lawyer.
114
I'd just point out that this isn't really a gay issue per se, it has just come out as one (uh, pun intended, yeah). It's an issue caused by foreign marriage being transferable, but divorce law being local. This is why you can get married in Mexico and have it recognized at home, but you don't go to Mexico for the divorce. Mexico has no authority to impose the legal terms of the divorce.

Likewise, Canada can't divorce foreigners who don't live there. No country can.

Is this couple looking for division of property? That's local law to where they reside. Since their local law doesn't recognize their marriage, they can go to local court to divide up property following local property laws.

Canada can't grant them a legal divorce for this reason. If all they are looking for is some nominal declaration that Canada doesn't recognize they are married anymore, they have it now. Unfortunately, it comes off as a kick in the teeth by saying Canada never "really" recognized it anyway.

Frankly, what does it mean to say that a foreign country recognizes your marriage when the one you reside in doesn't? It has no bearing on anything functional. It only has meaning if you actually move to that country, in which case they CAN recognize it legally and can legally divorce you as long as you live there.

I don't see this has anything to do with politics, other than the obvious PR problems. It will exist in any country at any time with any government where foreigners can marry even when their home country doesn't recognize it.
115
I'd like to point out that this isn't really a gay issue per se, it has just come out as one (uh, pun intended, yeah). It's an issue caused by foreign marriage being transferable, but divorce law being local. This is why you can get married in Mexico and have it recognized at home, but you don't go to Mexico for the divorce. Mexico has no authority to impose the legal terms of the divorce.

Likewise, Canada can't divorce foreigners who don't live there. No country can.

Is this couple looking for division of property? That's local law to where they reside. Since their local law doesn't recognize their marriage, they can go to local court to divide up property following local property laws.

Canada can't grant them a legal divorce for this reason. If all they are looking for is some nominal declaration that Canada doesn't recognize they are married anymore, they have it now. Unfortunately, it comes off as a kick in the teeth by saying Canada never "really" recognized it anyway.

Frankly, what does it mean to say that a foreign country recognizes your marriage when the one you reside in doesn't? It has no bearing on anything functional. It only has meaning if you actually move to that country, in which case they CAN recognize it legally and can legally divorce you as long as you live there.

I don't see this has anything to do with politics, other than the obvious PR problems. It will exist in any country at any time with any government where foreigners can marry even when their home country doesn't recognize it.
116
uh can we please come up with an offensive santorum like name for harper? Perhaps someone vomits during anal sex or something along those lines?
117
It has everything to do with the argument. The issue at hand is, does the Ontario court have jurisdiction under the Divorce Act in order to grant the relief that the petitioners are seeking.

Canadian law--as it currently stands, requires two things for a marriage to be valid: the form of marriage must have complied with the lex loci celebrationis (a certificate of marriage is presumptive proof of that reuqirement) and both of the parties must have had the capacity to marry under their respective lex domicilii at the time the marriage was celebrated.

This has been the state of the law in Canada for centuries. It is the state of the law in every jurisdiction in the United States, subject to the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Constitution. It is the state of the law is almost every jurisdiction on earth.

Same sex couples are free to come here and go through a form of marriage--but they should not deceive themselves that an Ontario marriage certificate will be worth the paper it is printed on if one of them doesn't live in Ontario.

There is certainly a valid argument that these people have fallen into a lacuna that we should properly fill. But that is not a legal argument--it is a political argument, and it is a matter to be resolved by Parliament.
118
@114: "Is this couple looking for division of property? That's local law to where they reside"

Then why is the Justice Department involved? This is what does not make sense.
119
Actually, rubbercanuck, you're incorrect.

Marriage and Divorce is a federal jurisdiction under section 91. Provincial jurisdiction extends only to the solemnization of marriage.

So Parliament gets to determine who is entitled to be married, and the provincial legislatures get to determine how they get married.
120
As a Canadian who lived under the bush Regime for eight years, I am not surprised by anything that harper does. He may not have started this directly, but my guess is that it is a way for him to test the waters. By giving harper a mandate, Canadians have empowered every little racist, homophobe and "I'm in love with the way it was 40 years ago" Neanderthals ( I apologize to the Neanderthals) They now believe that their time has come. I'm sorry that my fellow county couldn't see the harm that bush did to this country and decide to not go down the same path, but looks like they needed firsthand proof. In my mind, harper is much more dangerous than bush as harper actually believes the bullshit he is pushing.
121
@114: "I don't see this has anything to do with politics"

The recent implication that

"Second, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada only if they are also legal in the home country or state of the couple."

122
uh, can we start a santorum like campaign for harper? perhaps someone who vomits during anal sex?
123
Did any of you people not read the article?

I mean really. LET ME POST IT AGAIN.

“In this case, neither party had the legal capacity to marry a person of the same sex under the laws of their respective domiciles – Florida and the United Kingdom,” Mr. Gaudet stated. “As a result, their marriage is not legally valid under Canadian law.”
124
@118 "Then why is the Justice Department involved? This is what does not make sense."

Because the couple do not meet the residency requirement of the Divorce Act. Therefore they are seeking extraordinary relief and will need to compel the Central Registry of Divorce Actions to register the divorce. This is a federal government Registry, and they are represented by the Attorney General (Dept. of Justice).
125
Good points, everyone. I'm in agreement with what visigrunt said in 117. That's the point I was trying to make.
126
I'm confident this will be fixed and although I'm definitely not a supporter of the Harper government, I suspect they were taken by surprise.

However, if I adjust my tinfoil hat just right I can't help but detect an odd analogy with the Harper approach to abortion policy. For many years Canada has been the only country in the world without any laws respecting abortion. More than two decades ago our old abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court and after repeated, unsuccessful attempts to introduce a new one (at a heavy cost to various political careers) the politicians just gave up and deferred to public opinion (which is that abortion is a medical, not a legal, issue). Recognizing the certain political suicide in reopening the abortion debate domestically, Harper pledged never to go there. But his two-faced government quietly eliminated all funds within foreign aid projects that might have been used to promote or provide abortions in recipient countries. The hypocrisy of denying the same rights to foreigners that they wouldn't dare deny to Canadian citizens is completely consistent with this story.
127
@124/125: You're utterly oblivious.
128
@100, but as far as I can see he does have a point.

The problem is not whether or not Human Rights trump international law, or treaties between countries, in some ideal of justice. The problem is that the business of law (including international law) works as it works. And it wasn't invented or made to work like that just to oppress gay couples who just want to get married.

You want to change the system? M'kay, let's go about doing that. But complaining that people, especially civil servants, follow the system as it is instead of... of what? Civil disobedience? This complaint I find utterly unfair.

A legal argument is a legal argument is a legal argument. It depends on the system of laws currently in existence, not on whether or not I or you think that said laws (and the resulting argument) are intrinsically just, or moral, or ethic. We can very well dislike the system while acknowledging that the legal argument is indeed based on honest interpretatoins. The moral attitude then is to oppose the system and try to change, not complain about the honesty of the interpreation.
129
Visigrunt puts it best in 117.

What sits wrong for me is that beyond the spoiled equality of my Canadian borders, people like Dan lose a right that should be theirs without question. I wish my country could provide him with the rights he's fighting so hard for, but in the end it is up to the U.S to accept marriage equality.

The Harper government is responsible for plenty of stupid decisions, but in this particular instance, it isn't.
130
@129: "beyond the spoiled equality of my Canadian borders"

The representative stated that it does not exist within your Canadian borders, these marriages are invalid. Not invalid *for those purposes*. He stated that they were invalid. As in not valid for any purpose. As in nullified.

Why do people go so far to "respect" unjust laws, but give conservatives free reign to redefine reality (and language) as they see fit?

It's mind-boggling.
131
Dan, I am just so, so sorry. This is unbelievably heartbreaking. And inhuman. And cruel. Best of luck to you and your husband (fuck them!), let's keep fighting the good fight.
132
re Residency requirements:
Ontario does not have a residency requirement for getting married. Ontario marriage license application (PDF) here: http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/f…
The residency requirements of Ontario's Marriage Act apply only to who performs the marriage : http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statute…
Canada does have residency requirement for divorce, Divorce Act: "3. (1) A court in a province has jurisdiction to hear and determine a divorce proceeding if either spouse has been ordinarily resident in the province for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding."
133
Fuck Stephen Harper.
This was never an issues before, why is it one now?

134
Hey Dan, now that we're both single again, will you marry me?
135
However this shakes out, my sincerest condolences to Mr Savage and to everyone else (potentially?) affected.
136
@116, since Dan just gave us the definition of "rick" I say we use it! To "harper" is to french kiss someone who has just ricked santorum off your inner thighs.

how's that?
137
This is not a hill Harper will want to die on. Expect the whole thing to fizzle out soon.
138
“We have no intention of further re-opening or opening this issue,” Stephen Harper told reporters

Just you watch. What this will turn out to mean is that they've opened it up as much as they want to for now -- that this position will stand and will be the argument they will make. But they won't go "further", at least for now.

The "rogue lawyer" argument is silly. Federal cases have review by supervisors and, in some cases, all the way to the Attorney General.
139
Visigrunt, you're confusing three things:
1. The issue of whether their marriage is valid in and of itself, in the jurisdiction in which it was celebrated. It is. Kindly refer to my (too-long) post @28: the lawyer's position regarding marriage validity is not only wrong, it is against Canadian Supreme Court caselaw and against the federal and provincial legislation which arose from that. It's a social conservative trial balloon to find a way to not enforce the law while saying you're respecting and enforcing the law. (Apparently somebody at Justice has been watching how the Roberts Court handles precedent, and getting ideas.)
2. The issue of whether or not their marriage can be accepted in their American state, outside the Canadian jurisdiction in which it was celebrated. The answer to that is no, given the bigoted laws in question. (There was a time before Loving v. Virginia, too. Wrong laws go on until killed.) That seems to go against the usual recognition of states for each other's marital laws, but that's a failing of the Canadian system, not the American one.
3. The issue of whether or not they can be divorced in Canada. They can't, or at least not until one of them is resident in Canada for at least one year before commencing the petition.
Thus endeth the lesson.
140
Correction for @139: a failing of the American system, not the Canadian one.
141
Sorry, seeker6079, but as far as validity in se is concerned, that's not the state of Canadian law.

The lex loci celebrationis only governs formal validity. A marriage certificate only proves that the two people when through a proper form of marriage and had it registered.

Essential validity of marriage has always been a matter of federal Common Law, and neither the courts nor Parliament have ever disturbed the Common Law that essential validity is a matter governed by the lex domiciliis of the parties. Parliament can and should close this gap, to be sure--but we should not pretend that the gap does not exist.
142
@139: <3

It's like they're going out of their way to appear dense and myopic. Well, on top of this "one must respect unjust laws and lawmakers because without laws..." cowardice.
143
@141: If Canada chooses not to recognize valid gay marriage for all non-residents whenever it feels appropriate, this is something that should be publicized.

Don't be such a colossal asshole as to minimize this uncovered information whether it is "obvious" or "fully legal" or not.
144
According to an article on Box Turtle Bulletin, Dan's marriage (and mine!) stand for now, because despite the lawyer's statement, the courts have not ruled on the matter and are unlikely to rule against equality. Here's the link: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01…

145
@144: Then the lawyer should be taken to task for making extralegal statements (hah!)
146
How can you make a legal argument and then turn a blind eye to matters that are not, "fully legal?"

I have never suggested that the law is fair, proper or not amenable to improvement. What I have said, is that the Attorney General has presented what I believe to be a correct summary of the state of the law in Canada, at the present time.

No court has yet had the opportunity to rule on whether the Common Law complies with the Charter--that will be a huge question mark to be resolved. Parliament may yet take the matter out of the courts' hands by conferring jurisdiction to dissolve marriages performed in Canada notwithstanding their essential validity.

But until either of these things happen, let's not demonize the government for speaking truth. Let's demonize the governments that have failed to do as Canada has done by establishing the rights of same sex couples to marry; and let's hold the government to account for closing the gap in the law that has become appearent.
147
An update from lgbt legal groups: perhaps their comments will clear up some of the obvious misinterpretations and misunderstandings that have been put forth in this comment section:

http://nclrights.wordpress.com/2012/01/1…

In other words, US couples married in Canada are, in all probability, still married in Canada, whatever this lawyer was saying. Their marriages are meaningless in US states that do not have marriage equality and in the eyes of the US government, but they always were. Residency requirements for divorce are residency requirements; they just must be clear to those who are doing the marrying and to couples who are getting married, or divorced as the case may be.
148
Visagrunt @141 is correct regarding essential validity:
"For a marriage to be valid in law, the parties to the marriage must have capacity to marry according to the law of the domicile at the date of the marriage (essential validity) and they must comply with the solemnization requirements of the place where the marriage ceremony occurs (formal validity)."
Upadyhaha v. Sehgal (2000) 11 R.F.L. (5th) 210 (Ont.SCJ), para.26.

This anonymous fed lawyer might actually be right, much to my horror.
149
@146: The last paragraph is more fair, but I have a hard time reconciling that with "I am equally a fan of the Rule of Law." in that there should never be any obligation to respect an unjust law, even at the same time that one must work through the system that exists. If you want people to change the system that exists, I understand that. An unjust system, a system that does not respect human rights and civil rights is not a system that can be expected to have respect returned to it.

It should not be respected because it IS, it should be respected because of what (and who) it represents. To me, to give it more respect than it deserves is reminiscent of the very worst forms of American Exceptionalism.
150
treefort 1 wrote:
Aw, Dan. I'm so sorry. That's completely crappy. Jeez, why is Canada trying to emulate our Republican rubbish when they've been such a beacon of hope to the North.

The answer to this question is that the left in Canada is divided between two parties -- and that situation has handed a majority of seats in the federal Parliament to a fundamentalist-influenced right-wing party that enjoys the support of less than 40 per cent of voters.
151
@144 which is good news, yes. But I find the intercomplexity of the laws a headache, such as WA have that DP hinging on an extra-national law... Now the fun commences. Does WA's DP law include same sex couples? Does formalizing a WA DP instance when already married in Canada have other consequences?

This is why I stopped at the paralegal level when I dabbled for a while in law o.O
152
@Dan, I'm active in Canadian politics, and a man with two moms, and I can tell you that it is going to get much worse in Canada. In fact, this is just one shot in a volley that has been eroding the progressive social values of Canada since the Harper Conservatives took power in 2005.

Last week they also announced a massive defunding of the public health care system, and are currently reversing our soft laws on marijuana, imposing a system of mandatory minimum sentences.

In the realm of gay issues, the Harper government removed mention of marriage equity and acceptance of homosexuality from the guide for new immigrants. When increasing the age of consent (to 16, as I recall), the Conservatives added a special, higher age of consent for anal sex -at least two years more, though I cannot recall the exact change. A few months ago they also blocked a law that would recognize hate crimes against transgendered Canadians. The Canadian constitution would ensure that it will become the case, so the government voting down the law was purely a show of their agenda (and a waste of public money, as now this will have to go to the supreme court to be challenged and ultimately accepted).

Oy. My Moms are in Ontario right now and the Member of Parliament in their area doesn't believe in climate change, is a bigot on many levels, and wins elections with more then 50% of the vote when four people are in the race. Watch out for Canada, and Dan, if you can, think about getting a Santorum'ing of Stephen Harper. You would have a lot of support in this.
153
Remember that Rule of Law also includes the structures that exist for reviewing, extinguishing and amending law. Rule of Law means that the Government doesn't get to make s**t up in front of the Courts. Above all, Rule of Law includes section 15 and section 7 of the Charter.

The Attorney General has put this matter front and centre before the Courts because Parliament has not spoken. That is the responsible course for Government to take. I truly sympathize with those whose rights have been suddenly called into question. But I would rather that people in Dan's position know where they stand, than labour under a misapprehension.
154
WAIT!!! Its still before the courts - a dept of justice * lawyer* is arguing the legitimacy of same sex marriages where the parties come from countries where they can't be legally married. I agree thats a crazy argument because our divorce laws require residency, but the government has not nullified the marriages. I'd like to know where this federal employee got the okay to use this as his argument in court, but it is not the same thing as nullifying the marriages! The charter issue is that residency is required for a divorce, I assume this idiot lawyer thought nullifying the marriage would be a simple way of dealing with the issue, which is that they can't get a divorce in their home countries (US and England) and they can't get a divorce here in Canada without living here for a year. IT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED ON YET!
155
@153: Right, and this is a much less provocative approach. People need to know the specifics of the situation before them before they can respond appropriately.

I can't imagine "Rule of Law" carries *that* different connotations in the US than Canada and elsewhere, whenever it's wielded here, it's used bludgeoningly to quiet opposition (and even to discourage legal avenues of recourse), to justify unjust acts of all levels of government, and to morally justify horrible action because it was once or is now codified. I understand what your saying, but I can't see or hear it without the literal meaning being entwined with the people who most abuse it.
156
Hi Dan, I think there is a slight over reaction on your part. Canada is not nullifying same sex marriages. What it's saying is that unless you are a Canadian resident, you cannot get divorced in Canada. The problem here is that, in the case of the two women who want to get divorced, they live in places where their same sex marriages are not recognized. Getting mad at the Harper government is kind of useless, because they weren't even the ones who made the law (I know, I hate the Harper government, and its easy to point a finger at them, but same sex marriage and all the laws that encompass them were brought in by the previous Liberal government in Canada) Really, what this all is, is a bureaucratic oversight that some lawyer saw. Do you think some old white straight guy who runs the country would have even THOUGHT about same-sex divorce? If same-sex marriage was such an outlandish idea to these ultra conservative morons, how is this any surprise? But what I find insulting, is the fact that you are shitting on my country, because we allowed you to get married and then because your marriage won't be recognized in your home country you have to blame us. Why is that? If Canada was such a good place to get married, Dan, why didn't you stay up here? We very much like your column, and you get all sorts of fringe benefits of being a Canadian citizen. Free health care, you can get divorced if you wanna, Tim Hortons coffee, maple syrup the whole shebang. We also treat same sex couples a lot nicer up here.

I think this outrage is all a matter of wanting your cake and eating it too. You and many other same sex couples rushed up on an impulse to get married in advance of your own nation/state/whatever legalized it without realizing the repercussions such an action may cause down the road. I can understand that a marriage is supposed to be the happiest of occasions, so nobody is really thinking about divorce, but come on, did you never hear the one about always reading the fine print?
157
Ok jesus, what *you're* saying :/
158
I'm embarrassed to be Canadian today. My apologies to Dan, Terry, their son, and all of the families who have been hurt by this ridiculous clusterfuck. I promise to fight against this.
159
Visit Massachusetts if you have any qualms. I'll personally perform your re-marriage.

We had a similar stupid law, passed in 1913 to prevent out-of-state interracial couples from quicky marriages here, to return to their home states with the license. We dumped that law so folk from anywhere can wed here.

I've done four marriages, with my fifth and the second same-sex one, pending this year. The last couple was from France, who said it was a lot easier marry in MA and return married than wade through the French system.

I'll make it legal for sure.
160
Hi Dan et al,

So, by now you should know that this whole story was bullshit. Canada has same-sex marriages and upholds same.

The situ was all about enforcing private international law--under a divorce law that was set under precedent--ready for it?!!---around STRAIGHT foreigners coming to Canada and then wanting to get their divorce here, without residing here, prior to divorce. This has a lot to do with costs of dissolution in my country (and who pays for that foreign divorce?) and nothing to do with human rights.

BTW, here's a little ditty from the CDN Tourism Board (a federal governemnt agancy) on http://mediacentre.canada.travel/content…

Another thing: I find it ironic that you call my PM a "motherfucker" without bothering to check out veracity of this report. And I certainly can't ignore the fact that you don't have the legal right to marriage in your own state of Washington--then, gpo on to freak that a Canadian law will render your "we'll call it a "partnership'" law as it stands, impotent?.

Here's a fact: the PM Harper is no dummy. He has never made a statement (unlike some of your Repub. beauties) against SSM. Yes, like the Liberal and NDP parties here, he may have a few MP's who don't like change. But he is himself is pretty progressive (initiated a huge homeless housing program this past year, that no other CDN political party commited to). And of course, I must, tiresomely, point out there are many poli operatives in his party who are gay---and married. He is also not about to go against the wishes of the majority of Canadians, who support gay marriage.

Usually, I find I agree with 90% of what you write about, Dan. Just a little disappointed that your distaste and simple world view about anyone/anything called conservative (YOUR brand of conservativism, perhaps--not ours) colours everything you write about the vcurrent CDN government.

You've listened, without question to political operatives with an agenda, who use your own fear of US-style conservatism (and I feel sorry for Abe Lincoln and Bill Buckley, turning in their graves over the current state of that party) and to a dumbass, barely researched media story about a matter that in no way could have passed a constitional sniff test.

Still, those here in Canada who want to insist that they alone own "the golden key" and have still not suffieciently recovered from their own corrupt practices (go look up 'Adscam, Liberal Party of Canada, and Prime Minister Chretien) will continue to pretend that Harper a) wants to change laws around human rights or b) can change laws, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (he can't) and are being purely political. In other words---happy to deal in half truths. Or no truth at all.

By the way, my American friends, the definition of a Canadian: fiscally conservative, socially "progressive'. Isn't it time we all stopped demonizing someone because of a label and consider that they "get' the Constitution and human rights?

And next time, you might want to check out all the facts, before you go bonkers. It just makes you look silly and no better than the people you regularily acuse of knee-jerk reactions.

.

161
WAIT!!! Its still before the courts - a dept of justice * lawyer* is arguing the legitimacy of same sex marriages where the parties come from countries where they can't be legally married. I agree thats a crazy argument because our divorce laws require residency, but the government has not nullified the marriages. There's nothing wrong with a law requiring residency for the province to pay for the divorce (and taxpayers do foot part of the bill - and you can't get a divorce without having gone to family court regarding parenting plans wrt children who are part of the union)

I'd like to know where this federal employee got the okay to use this as his argument in court, but it is not the same thing as nullifying the marriages! Either this lawyer is now without a job for being an idiot, or because someone higher up is using him as a scapegoat. I would like to know that, but your marriage is sound.
162
Visit Massachusetts if you have any qualms about your marriage papers. I'll personally re-marry you two.

We had a similar stupid law passed in 1913 to keep the peace with racist states by prohibiting quicky marriages of out-of-state interracial couples. It was the same inanity — they'd surely return to their home with the paper and cause trouble. That law went away not long after Goodrich legalized same-sex marriages.

Under another MA law, I've solemnized four marriages as just a private citizen. One was same-sex, with a pending other one due this year. The last couple was French and straight. Her parents told me it was far easier to marry in MA and return with the document than wade through French bureaucracy.

An amusing angle is that requests to do these marriages go through the governor's office. The gov. who OK'ed my first gay marriage was Mitt Romney.
163
@mudmama,

Exactly. But I am expecting that what we will see is that this is a case where legal semantics (are they considered 'married' in their own domecile?) clashes with PROCESS (who's paying for this divorce?).

Worthwhile to note that Federal Minister has stated that they will find a way to close that loophole.
164
@160: "So, by now you should know that this whole story was bullshit."

Instead of just calling it bullshit, can you reply to some of the comments who believe that it *is* something that can/will be pursued further based on existing law?

"By the way, my American friends, the definition of a Canadian: fiscally conservative, socially "progressive'. Isn't it time we all stopped demonizing someone because of a label and consider that they "get' the Constitution and human rights?"

How smug (and irrelevant.)
165
treefort 1 wrote:
Aw, Dan. I'm so sorry. That's completely crappy. Jeez, why is Canada trying to emulate our Republican rubbish when they've been such a beacon of hope to the North.

Here's why: The left is split between two competing parties -- a situation that allows the fundamentalist-influenced Conservative Party to win a majority of seats in the federal Parliament with only 40 % of the votes cast.
166
So if your marriage is annulled, do you get the cost of your wedding, honeymoon, and wedding anniversaries reimbursed?
167
I think you may have mis-read Mr. Harper's comments. I believe he was stating that the government was not going to re-open the issue, though this particular attorney may have thought that he had a clever argument and a personal agenda.

Lots of lawyers argue lots of positions every day, and many of them, in the end, have no legal consequence, because the judge doesn't buy it, or it flies in the face of precedent law. Just because the lawyer in question worksfor the government doesn't make it an official government position.

See also:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ca_20120…
168
Everybody calm down and be rational for a moment.

I think you may have mis-read Mr. Harper's comments. I believe he was stating that the government was not going to re-open the issue, though this particular attorney may have thought that he had a clever argument and a personal agenda.

Lots of lawyers argue lots of positions every day, and many of them, in the end, have no legal consequence, because the judge doesn't buy it, or it flies in the face of precedent law. Just because the lawyer in question worksfor the government doesn't make it an official government position.

Lambda Legal agrees. See also:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ca_20120…
169
My husband Rodolfo and I married in Toronto on April 17, 2004. His parents attended along with other family members and friends. My son attended along with friends. I first learned of this early this morning in an email that my son sent me from Nova Scotia where he now lives. To say today has been roller coaster is an understatement. The latest statement from the U.S. organizations is reassuring.

I am sick and tired of being treated as a third class citizen. Today just serves as an example about how vulnerable we are. It is time for us to let those in power that we have had enough. the hate spewing forth from the Republican candidates for President is unacceptable. They should be accosted at upcoming debates by the LGBT community as well as our supporters. The conventions will be heavily patrolled by the police making the Occupy police actions looking like day camp.

I told my son this morning that I wish I could just live my life with my husband, go to work, come home and read, watch TV and relax. I want to focus my concern on my son, our daughter-in-law and our wonderful grandson. I want to focus my activism on what is good for the country and our planet.

I am tired of fighting for rights that all Americans should have. My son told me that I have fought hard for twenty years and it is time to let others carry the torch, that I had done far beyond my share. I told him that it doesn't work like that. I reminded him that I know people who have fought the good fight for 50+ years. I cannot sit back and watch. Today seemed to work out okay, at least I think it has. But it served a vital lesson. It shows just how fragile the rights we have won are and how easily the can be taken away. We must all remain vigilant and we cannot assume anything.

John R. Selig
John Selig Outspoken Podcast
(www.johnseligoutspoken.com - Podcast Blog)
www.johnselig.com (Personal Website)
170
@Rick Rutledge,

Thanks for a rationale post. Too many conspiracy theorists (yes, undead ayn rand, talkin' to YOU!).

I can understand the alarm over the initial report from Canadian media. Incomplete and, er..wrong.

But now realize, with disappointment, that Dan is happy with the misinformation. What a drag---thought he would be straight-up on his mistakes. #nosantaclauseither.
171
@153 "Responsible" does not in any way describe the Government's course of action here. I agree with your analysis that private international common law principles are problematic when applied to Canadian same-sex marriages where one or both parties wasn't resident in Canada prior to the marriage. (That will almost certainly include the marriages of some same-sex couples resident in Canada after the marriage.)

Upon a government lawyer figuring that out, they would have several courses of action available. They could conclude that such an inequity would of course be prevented by the application of the Charter, and therefore not bring the argument forward in court. They could prepare draft legislation to provide clarity that the marriages are indeed valid. They could even conclude that the marriages are invalid, and try and break the news in a controlled manner that attempts to convey some minimal level of respect for the parties involved.

But it takes a bloody cold, heartless bastard to simply assert the invalidity of 5000 marriages in court without any conception of the ramifications or regard for those affected. Both political astuteness and human decency would have ruled out the path that the government chose.
172
Harper didn't have my vote before, but this just adds fuel to the fire for me. I might actually get off my lazy ass and help campaign against him next time...except now we have to wait another 4 or 5 years.
I hope this gets cleared up in a reasonable manner, and quickly!
173
@undeadaynrand. See @Rick Rutledge legal post for answer, #168.

Not smug or irrelevent. Americans are global leaders in painting, amrketing and advertising negative narratives about "others", whether from left or right. This might be why your economy remains shite and you still have issues over universal health care.

Sadly, some of my Canadian compatriats are starting to learn these loathsome tactics.
174
@Ionian

"But it takes a bloody cold, heartless bastard to simply assert the invalidity of 5000 marriages in court without any conception of the ramifications or regard for those affected. Both political astuteness and human decency would have ruled out the path that the government chose."

Yes, true. From the Attorney General's Ministry---where they are supposed to be independent of the PMO (Prime Minister's Office). Legal not supposed to report to political.

My feeling: someone was thinkinking like a lawyer. Not a canny politician.
175
@173: "Not smug or irrelevent. Americans are global leaders in painting, amrketing and advertising negative narratives about "others", whether from left or right. This might be why your economy remains shite and you still have issues over universal health care."

Your claims that the Left has any place in American politics is a sure sign that you have no clue what you're talking about with regards to the United States. Stop telling *us* what we believe, thanks.
176
From LAMDALEGAL (today)...

(San Francisco, CA, January 12, 2012)—The following is a joint statement from Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Freedom to Marry:

We write to respond to a news report from Canada that a lawyer in the current government has taken a position in a trial-level divorce proceeding that a same-sex couple’s marriage is not valid because the members of the couple were not Canada residents at the time that they married, and the law of their home jurisdiction did not permit them to marry at the time.

No one’s marriage has been invalidated or is likely to be invalidated. The position taken by one government lawyer in a divorce is not itself precedential. No court has accepted this view and there is no reason to believe that either Canada’s courts or its Parliament would agree with this position, which no one has asserted before during the eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

Canada permits non-residents to marry and thousands of non-resident same-sex couples have married there since Canada first began recognizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in 2003. Indeed, Canada’s Parliament codified the equal right to marry for same-sex couples in 2005.

The message for same-sex couples married in Canada remains the same as it is for same-sex couples validly married here in the United States: take every precaution you can to protect your relationship with legal documents such as powers of attorney and adoptions, as you may travel to jurisdictions that don't respect your legal relationship. There is no reason to suggest that Canadian marriages of same-sex couples are in jeopardy, or to advocate that people try to marry again elsewhere, as that could cause these couples unnecessary complications, anxiety, and expense.
177
On behalf of Canada, I am sorry (not that I voted for those bastards).

Harper's style could be described as federalist bully. He claims to be against "big government" but panders to the social conservative vote by using federal jurisdiction to pick on relatively defenseless minority groups.

I can't wait until we get rid of him.
178
Dan, I'm so sorry. Please, please know that the majority of Canadians are sane, reasonable people who are so totally ashamed right now of this douchebag government.

It's so stupid- there was a bit of a debate going on a decade ago when they decided to legalize same-sex marriage up here, but what I like about Canadians was that the ones who didn't support it seemed to just accept it and be (the magic word) tolerant of it even if they didn't personally agree with it. Whatever, let's just move on and deal with other stuff kind of thing.

And then I read this. This stupid thing that our stupid government said that is so unbelievably frustrating and makes me ashamed of my country. I promise to be loud to other Canadians about this to try to repair our image.

For a kick-ass Canadian federal politician, go here: http://www.oliviachow.ca/
179
@daydreambeliever and Sea otter.

You make me ashamed to be Canadian because of your own simplistic (and of course, wholly political) misrepresentation of what has happened.

if you don't believe me, go to your computer in about 20 minutes.

Lookup news station CKNW.com, who have just done an interview with a gay lawyer from Toronto.

Click on "Audio Vault". Arrange today's date and go to time. Show as 5pm (PST).
Click on "Start". New screen will open with audio.
Drag audio tab to 40:00 minute mark 9past the hour0. It is a 10 minute interview.

Well, that won't convince the "haters" or political frat boyz. But reasonable people can judge for themselves.
180
@undead ayn rand,

Oh, yes, left doesn't exist in America. Just because you think Obabm has failed---I don't think he has. Nor do I think he is "right wing'. He is just in the pragmatic middle, which far lefties just hate. Hope he is re-elected, especially in light of the scaries running for the other party.

Really, what makes far left that differnet from far right, my friend. They both beleivve they have *perfect* answers! Or, perhaps only you do.

I'll stop telling you that you are wrong on this, when you recognize and admit that you don't know much about Canada, or the diversity we have within political parties.I would say that your last statement is typical of your arrogance--as well asyour ignorance.

181
Seconding CDN Chick. This was a tempest in a teacup. I'm sure a lot of people will be embarrassed by their overreactions in coming days.
182
My suggestion is that every person who's marriage would be voided by this action file a class action lawsuit against Canada for a full refunding of all wedding expenses.
183
My suggestion is that every person who's marriage would be voided by this action file a class action lawsuit against Canada for a full refunding of all wedding expenses. Canada made a lot of money off of gay weddings. Hit them where it hurts. Take that money back.
184
uh-oh!

BREAKING NEWS:

January 12, 2012 7pm PST: Lawyer for US lesbian couple, happy that Minister will close loophole, notes "a lot of OVERBLOWN stuff" saying "someone wrote an article about "how his husband has been turned into boyfriend".

Gosh, whoever could she be referencing? ;-)
185
I'm with you, Danny boy. I'm so embarrasse­d and ashamed by this troglodyti­c government­, I can't begin to tell you. Maybe it's time to come up with a neologism (heavy on the last syllable) that describes our stinky PM. Hmmmm....w­hat does it mean to "Harper"?
186
Nobody seems to be getting the point here and I am ashamed that too many Canadians posting here are ignorant of how Canada is governed.

Canada is available as a destination marriage venue. But it has been Canadian legal practice for well over 150 years that a destination marriage will be governed by the Family Law of the jurisdiction in which the couple resides. In other words Dan, Canadian Family Law has no force in Washington State. If you and your husband wish to dissolve your Domestic Partnership, it must be done in accordance with the Family Law of Washington State, not the Family Law of Canada. For instance, Washington Law would take precedence over Canadian law in Washington State when it comes to division of property and child custody. Now you can get a divorce in Canada if you follow the residency regulations that apply to both straight and gay couples. Don't expect Canada to become the Reno for divorcing gay couples. It isn't going to happen.
187
Dan, I can't tell you how profoundly sad and demoralizing it's been, as a Canadian, watching the Harper government slowly dismantle the country I love over the six years it's currently been in power. Now that they have won a majority government — albeit with only 39% of the country's votes, due to our first-past-the-post, multi-party system — we're stuck with them until at least 2015.

Harper is fanatically obsessed with controlling his party's message and his own image. He's extremely vindictive, bent not only on beating his opponents at the polls, but on destroying them. He made it his mission to destroy the Liberal Party, and he pretty much has, by an endless campaign of muck-raking and between election attack ads.

I've voted. I've spoken out. I've done everything in my limited power as an average Canadian citizen to try to make my voice heard through typical means. And now I'm going to put on my wordsmithing hat and try to throw a petty little wrench into Harper's perfectly-controlled image because I honestly feel it's the last strategy I've got left to push back against his nonsense.

harper
(n.)
A bowel movement that delays or interrupts sexual intercourse.

Hope that's sufficiently stinky for you, PetertheChanter. :)
188
Today there was some news about same sex marriages in Canada being reversed.

Much of the reporting of this issue has been salacious and false. Let me clear the air:

No ruling has been made on this matter, and we don't expect a ruling from an

Ontario court for another month (if they don't defer to feds).

The PMO has made no statement on this issue, except to state that they will make one.

The Justice Minister has commented that they will be looking to revise the divorce act.

The application made to an Ontario court was for a non-resident couple who are seeking a divorce (they were married here). Canadian law mandates that no divorce can be granted to a couple in Canada unless they have been resident here for at least one year.

In responding to the application which was made, a crown attorney has made three arguments: a) no divorce can be granted because the couple has not been resident for the requisite amount of time; OR (b) the couple has no standing to challenge the constitutional validity of that requirement because they are not canadian; OR (c) no divorce can be sought because the marriage wasn't legal in the first place.

These are alternative legal arguments and simply represent the view of this crown attorney who is simply trying to do his job - Canadian law does not permit this couple to be divorced. It is difficult to reject the first two arguments as they are rooted in law. The third alternative is likely a mistake.

There has been no reversal in policy in this country, and a crown attorney's statements, last time i checked, do not make law.

There is every expectation within the legal community that the divorce act will be amended to do away with the residency requirement in limited circumstances (such as these). I would further expect the PMO to make their position well known in very short order.
189
@29 once a Canadian, always a Canadian. Sue the feds.
190
Sorry to hear this. I want to reproduce your statement on my blog. Let me know if that is not cool with you. http://bit.ly/TheTwainshallMeet.

I've been cursing at that foolish Wizard of Odd Neo-con myself for years now. Good luck
191
I can't imagine where this Government gets its nerve! You at least have a voice. I can imagine that there are lots of similar stories out there. People who's stories go untold.

I've been trying to warn this Country about Stephen Harper for 4 solid years now! I am hoping that it will be OK to use this story (your story) in a blog of my own. It is called The Twain Shall Meet. It can be found at http//bit.ly/TheTwainShallMeet.

I am guessing that both you and your husband are now wide awake!

Help Canada ~ Wake the Others!
192
As much as I think Mr. Harper is a wonderful prime minister for making our country an economic hotspot, and for not listening to his religious base and re-opening the same-sex marriage debate for a possible repeal; this has really turned into a clusterfuck of an embarrassment for the Harper Government who has been trying so hard to focus on economic issues and not the social issues -like same-sex marriage- that the previous Martin government passed. He has to know that at this point, there has to be a giant majority of Canadians who now support same-sex marriage, even the religious canadians, and that by re-opening it, he runs the risk of loosing the majority he spent over half a decade trying to achieve.
193
As much as I think Mr. Harper is a wonderful prime minister for making our country an economic hotspot, and for not listening to his religious base and re-opening the same-sex marriage debate for a possible repeal; this has really turned into a clusterfuck of an embarrassment for the Harper Government who has been trying so hard to focus on economic issues and not the social issues -like same-sex marriage- that the previous Martin government passed. He has to know that at this point, there has to be a giant majority of Canadians who now support same-sex marriage, even the religious canadians, so re-opening this issue will run the risk of loosing the majority he has been working his ass off for over half a decade.
194
Dan -

I have never been so disappointed in you as I now am. I always thought so highly of you because you were one of few media personalities that took the time to research topics and present facts to your audience.

Here's something for you to think about. I, as a Candian citizen *CANNOT* get divorced in Canada because I have been a non-resident for 15 years.

So it's not just gay folks who have potential problems. Us white, non-residental girls (and boys) would be treated the same way.
195
We Canadians have to bear the responsibility of the shabby state of our Democracy :(

We have done so with this websiite.
Sorry, World. We fucked up.
www.sorryworld.ca

Ps. May I suggest a Santorumlike name for Harper? Like, Harpering is putting a wind instrument up your butt and farting, causing the instrument to play?
196
We Canadians have to bear the responsibility of the shabby state of our Democracy :(

We have done so with this websiite.
Sorry, World. We fucked up.
www.sorryworld.ca

Ps. May I suggest a Santorumlike name for Harper? Like, Harpering is putting a wind instrument up your butt and farting, causing the instrument to play?
197
I am an American who married a Canadian and moved to Vancouver. A couple of years later we got divorced. It was no problem since I had the year residency and still live here. However, how are non-residents supposed to live here to meet the one year requirement? Its not like moving from California to New York, or Ohio to Florida. You have to go through an immigration process. The quickest way is to get married to a Canadian. But then you're a bigamist! The "skilled worker" program takes many years. This has been known as a major problem since same-sex marriage started. But no one bothered to think about it til now.
198
Here is the article from CKNW that CDC Chick above mentioned:

Lawyer says fix is on the way
199
CDN chick, that is -- sorry!
200
Dan, and everyone... there is a lot of question about whether the govt had a direct role in this, and what it really means. Read this article by a Halifax lawyer and queer activist who puts it in legal perspective: https://www.facebook.com/notes/kevin-kin…
201
Dan, and everyone... there is a lot of question about whether the govt had a direct role in this, and what it really means. Read this article by a Halifax lawyer and queer activist who puts it in legal perspective: https://www.facebook.com/notes/kevin-kin…

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.