This is clearly politically motivated. What if a mixed race couple from a country that doesn't recognize mixed marriages married in Saskatoon or Halifax? Would the government volunteer "hey, your fascist state doesn't recognize your union so, errh, neither do we"? I find this repugnant.
http://bit.ly/y5sSMC
The Harper government has served notice that thousands of same-sex couples who flocked to Canada from abroad since 2004 to get married are not legally wed.
The reversal of federal policy is revealed in a document filed in a Toronto test case launched recently by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce. Wed in Toronto in 2005, 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.
17 comments:
So, is a Liberal now telling us the courts should not decide the issue?
You know damn well the previous Liberal gov't hid behind the courts on all sorts of issues.
To be fair even the lawyer representing the couple (for some reason they are not allowed to be named) blames the provincial gov't of Ontario as well. So unless you are prepared to call the Mcguinty gov't's actions repugnant as well I will accuse you of being politically motivated.
Cherrypicking as usual. Enjoy the wilderness.
Of course he's politically motivated, this is a POLITICAL blog. The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. LMFAO!
Anon 2;
So then you admit the obvious too. Good.
ROFFLMFAO LOL OMG!!
You do not read this blog much do you?
Wow, it's a bit surprising that Anon 1 just admitted that his stupidity is obvious.
You didn't read the rest of the response;Nor,I suspect the article that was linked in the original post.
Perhaps it is because you have the attention span of a chimp. Usally 10 year olds texting use LMFO etc.
No I read it all, and you clearly admitted that your stupidity is obvious. It's there in black and white. It's rare to find a stupid person admit they are stupid. I guess congratulations are in order. lololol
Anon 1, you do realize that the Canadian constitution gives the feds exclusive authority over marriage and divorce in Canada, right? What McGuinty has to do with this is beyond me.
Anon 7.
Those remarks about Ontario come from the lawyer representing the women.(as I clearly stated in my first post); Not from me. You could ask her about that. She has stated that Ontario is ducking the issue.
Doesn't anyone read anymore?
I do have a question for James.
Would a heterosexual couple who married in Canada but neither reside in Canada nor are Canadian citizens be allowed to use the Canadian courts to get a divorce?
It makes sense to me. We should not be the marriage and divorce clearing house for the world. Marriage is nice, easy and cheap. Divorce is nasty, confrontational, and expensive. It's expensive not just for the litigants but also for the state that has to provide courts and judges, support staff and enforcement. It is not up to Canada to pay for this. If a couple wishes to wed here but then live in the place they came from it seems reasonable to let them live under that place's law.
And can a Canadian divorce even be legally enforced in another jurisdiction? Will the division of assets or alimony be enforceable in another country that doesn't recognize the marriage ever existed? It seems to be the definition of moot.
Maybe the answer is to say only Canadians and permanent residents may marry in Canada.
I bet the town of Niagara Falls would love that idea.
Thousands of SSM American couples got married in Canada. At the time many of them got married, the state they resided in did not recognize their marriage, but later did. Is Harper and friends really going to insist that these marriages, and there could be thousands of them, never happened even though they have since been they legally recognized Stateside?
WHO CARES?
GAYS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
WHY IS THIS A STORY?
GO BACK TO BED.
"WHO CARES?
GAYS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
WHY IS THIS A STORY?
GO BACK TO BED."
In addition to everything else, you really are as sharp as rounded river rock.
Let us take it back a generation. By the same line of reasoning, those inter racial couples from States with Anti-miscegenation laws at the time of their marriage are not married either. Remember the Anti-miscegenation laws in some US states existed up until 1967.
So Nicholson says he will try to fix this. Recognizing that marriages made in Canada are recognized in Canada is simple enough, but what can he do about the residency requirement? A residency requirement is necessary to prevent forum shopping in cases that are very nasty. If we allow foreign couples to divorce in Canada will we then recognize divorces from other countries? Can I just land in Saudi Arabia, say I divorce thee 3 times and come home a free man? Not likely!
Read the documents and you'll see this couple has other options to get out of their marriage. What they want is to remake our divorce laws to suit their situation and I do not think that is a good idea. The government of Canada has a responsibility to defend it. One of their arguments was unwise but others in the alternative make sense.
Rat
1) No one is demanding that Canada get rid of its residency requirement. What is at issue is the notion that these marriages are not in fact marriages. Do you really want the government to say that these marriages, and we are not just talking about gay marriages, but potentially some intra racial marriages as well, never happened because some couple is leveling a charter challenge to Canada's residency requirement? They have tried used a nuke kill a fly.
2)The fly will not die. Saying that Canada can shore up its residency requirement by denying that x number of SSM are not in fact marriages is, obviously not going to work. After all, same sex couples from places without SSM are, obviously, not the only ones getting married in Canada.
Koby, go read the source documents. Reading sensational columnists and Bob Rae's drivel doesn't make you an informed commenter.
They are challenging the constitutionality of the residency requirement. That's the core of the case and the only reason the federal government had to respond in an otherwise unremarkable case. The feds give five reasons why their case should not proceed and only one alternative argues the validity of the marriage. One alternative penned by one lawyer.
They don't present "alternatives". The government presented five arguments and one of them is that gay marriages are not legally valid in Canada if they are not legally valid in the couples jurisdiction(s). Yes it is only one of the arguments but the argument is bizarre and has RIGHTFULLY come under attack. Harper should have IMMEDIATELY distanced himself from this position, especially since no Conservative government is going to re-open the issue of gay marriage anyway. Despite what the rednecks of this country might hope, a Conservative government will keep gay marriage and abortion on demand in Canada. There will NEVER be any changes to these areas of the law under a Harper Conservative government.
Post a Comment