thismomentinblackhistory: fark you, Canada. Vote that assclown out.

I'm trying. Believe me, I'm trying.

I dunno, "we're not going to help you break the law in your home country just for the hell of it" seems like a fairly reasonable position for a country to take short of whatever it is being serious enough for said country to offer permanent asylum/immigrant status.

Rev.K: Of course Conservative voters told me this wouldn't happen. That Harper would stay true to his word and not re-open gay marriage or abortion debates.

You mean a conservative that says he is for smaller government and then shoves their conservative religious values down everyone's throat? Naawww that never happens.

Rev.K: thismomentinblackhistory: fark you, Canada. Vote that assclown out.

I tried. Oh how I tried.

Harper's a sleazeball and I said from the beginning that the right-wing, redneck asshats out here in Alberta were thrilled to have a western Prime Minister because they'll be able to push their social agenda like never before.

Of course Conservative voters told me this wouldn't happen. That Harper would stay true to his word and not re-open gay marriage or abortion debates.

You know, the same Stephen Harper who chose to prorogue Parliament rather than release a controversial report about Afghan detainees.

Asshat.

This.

Jim_Callahan: I dunno, "we're not going to help you break the law in your home country just for the hell of it" seems like a fairly reasonable position for a country to take short of whatever it is being serious enough for said country to offer permanent asylum/immigrant status.

It's not "breaking the law" it just might not be recognized. Your statement is complete BS.

what_now: I mean, I have a problem with a country that restricts consenting adults from marriage of course, because I'm not a blundering loon, but I don't really have a problem with one country deciding not to get involved with another county's marriage laws.

They aren't other countries don't have to recognize them. There isn't some sort of world marriage police.

Then if your logic is right then any Canadian going to the US marriage also should be dissolved right since they don't recognize it.

This is why Sharia law (or Bet Din or Canon Law). It's portable and the franchise can appear in many countries although getting a good judge is still a crap shoot.

And always get a pre-nup, even if you're marrying Santorum's used hamster.

I always just assumed the point of it was so they could say that they're married, so Canada ought to just say "sure, you can be divorced. Just pay the filing fee, eh". I mean, the ones I know who've done something along these lines (Canada or a purely religious ceremony) aren't trying to actually claim spousal benefits. But this is in Texas, so who knows about less conservative areas.

And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

what_now: You know, I don't totally have a problem with this.

I mean, I have a problem with a country that restricts consenting adults from marriage of course, because I'm not a blundering loon, but I don't really have a problem with one country deciding not to get involved with another county's marriage laws.

There are places where it's legal to sell your 14 year old daughter in "marriage" to a 60 year old man who beats her. I wouldn't want that recognized here.

in this case it's really Canada basing its marriage laws on those of the US and UK. They got legally married in Canadia but now America's Hat won't recognize the marriage because of US and UK law

Representative of the unwashed masses: And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

I know! I just can't believe some people won't take a politician at his word.

Representative of the unwashed masses: And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

I certainly hope you're right, but given this government's miserable record when it comes to transparency, one could be forgiven for not trusting everything that the PM says.

NutznGum: Representative of the unwashed masses: And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

I know! I just can't believe some people won't take a politician at his word.

Oh right, I forgot. SEKRIT AGENDUH. I think it's understandable that in the case of gay marriage that Canadian law would limit it to those people that are Canadian or from countries that allow it. It's not our place to marry people in a fashion that is not legal in their home country. That's what I am getting from this case.

God Is My Co-Pirate: Representative of the unwashed masses: And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

I certainly hope you're right, but given this government's miserable record when it comes to transparency, one could be forgiven for not trusting everything that the PM says.

For the sake of clarity that quote is from a related story this morning. Link (new window)

Representative of the unwashed masses: And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

That's great except that now translates to "I hate the law but know I don't have the support to get it repealed, so instead I'll be happy to allow the tourism industry to capitalize on it for as long as we can and then refuse to address any unforeseen complications".

Representative of the unwashed masses: NutznGum: Representative of the unwashed masses: And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

I know! I just can't believe some people won't take a politician at his word.

Oh right, I forgot. SEKRIT AGENDUH. I think it's understandable that in the case of gay marriage that Canadian law would limit it to those people that are Canadian or from countries that allow it. It's not our place to marry people in a fashion that is not legal in their home country. That's what I am getting from this case.

Then we should quit selling them licenses.

Corvus: Jim_Callahan: I dunno, "we're not going to help you break the law in your home country just for the hell of it" seems like a fairly reasonable position for a country to take short of whatever it is being serious enough for said country to offer permanent asylum/immigrant status.

It's not "breaking the law" it just might not be recognized. Your statement is complete BS.

Depends on the actual home country, I'd imagine. The US is fairly ambivalent on the issue, but I'd imagine if you snuck over form Iran or Saudi Arabia to have a gay marriage the penalty might be a bit harsher than "eh, just ignore it".

grokca: Representative of the unwashed masses: NutznGum: Representative of the unwashed masses: And I quote.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue", Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

How many times does he have to tell you idiots this?

I know! I just can't believe some people won't take a politician at his word.

Oh right, I forgot. SEKRIT AGENDUH. I think it's understandable that in the case of gay marriage that Canadian law would limit it to those people that are Canadian or from countries that allow it. It's not our place to marry people in a fashion that is not legal in their home country. That's what I am getting from this case.

Then we should quit selling them licenses.

Frankly that would be a reasonable solution to the problem at hand then. Then everyone should be happy.

thismomentinblackhistory: fark you, Canada. Vote that assclown out.He hasn't been as bad as expected but yeah, I can't believe that coont got a majority.

Jim_Callahan: Corvus: Jim_Callahan: I dunno, "we're not going to help you break the law in your home country just for the hell of it" seems like a fairly reasonable position for a country to take short of whatever it is being serious enough for said country to offer permanent asylum/immigrant status.

It's not "breaking the law" it just might not be recognized. Your statement is complete BS.

Depends on the actual home country, I'd imagine. The US is fairly ambivalent on the issue, but I'd imagine if you snuck over form Iran or Saudi Arabia to have a gay marriage the penalty might be a bit harsher than "eh, just ignore it".

It's like going to Canada to get a Bigfoot hunting license. You can't get one here and it isn't recognized here but you didn't break the law going to Canada to get licensed in Yeti whacking.

oldfarthenry: The irony of this is that it came about by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce.

I think it's safe to conclude that one nation can't dictate what a civil union constitutes in another country. Do you really want some expat from India claiming a potted plant as his legal wife?

Except in this case, a lawyer for the nation that legally conducted and recognized the marriage is now asserting the marriage is invalid because the partners are legal residents of another country that doesn't recognize the legality of the union, to the surprise of everyone involved. At no point beforehand did anyone - not the courts, not the legislators, not the bureaucrats - indicate that Canada itself would deny the legitimacy in Canada of a legal marriage performed in Canada. This is really almost the opposite of what you're asserting - not only are other countries refusing to recognize the legitimacy of a civil union conducted in Canada, which is their choice, the Canadian government is ex post facto trying to recognize and apply that illegitimacy within its own borders. In other words, the government's lawyer is arguing that foreign law regarding civil unions can invalidate a union performed under Canadian law while the partners are physically in Canada. I'm not sure the Harper government's legal eagles understand what they're potentially unleashing here, on top of the insult to thousands who came here to see their partnership legally recognized even if their home governments still treat them as second-class citizens.

All to try and avoid a potential constitutional issue regarding the divorce side of marriage law.

Oh, if we could only have watched Jack Layton rip into the Harperites in the House about this...

/subby

oldfarthenry: skullkrusher: It's like going to Canada to get a Bigfoot hunting license. You can't get one here and it isn't recognized here but you didn't break the law going to Canada to get licensed in Yeti whacking.

Yes - stop shooting at me because I don't manscape, you bloody tourists!

hehe, I believe that's bear hunting. *wink wink nudge nudge*

/no homo

Lets see what the courts say about this.

I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?

You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies. Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be ... butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be ... butt buddies. You *are* equal. It's just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be... butt buddies. And everyone is happy! Any questions?

mrshowrules: miscreant: Representative of the unwashed masses: Oh right, I forgot. SEKRIT AGENDUH. I think it's understandable that in the case of gay marriage that Canadian law would limit it to those people that are Canadian or from countries that allow it. It's not our place to marry people in a fashion that is not legal in their home country. That's what I am getting from this case.

We allow the marriage, but it has no real authority outside of Canada. And since the couple doesn't reside in Canada, I think it's pretty reasonable to essentially say we can't get involved in the divorce, because legally, whatever we said about splitting property or alimony or anything else, wouldn't mean shiat.

I got married in the US, but when I got divorced I was back in Canada and had been here for over a year. I didn't head back to the US to get a divorce, even though they would have recognized my marriage. They would likely have sent me packing anyway if I'd tried since I was no longer resident there.

If you're going to live somewhere where your marriage is not recognized, then if you get divorced, you're likely going to have to sort stuff out yourself. Hopefully you're the first one to get to the joint bank account.

If want a Canadian divorce, you should have to live in Canada for like a year or something regardless of what sexual permutation your marriage is.

So you can't get a divorce in 4 months if your spouse is beating on you and you just moved to Canada? Wow that would be a tough law.

miscreant: We allow the marriage, but it has no real authority outside of Canada.

Actually, if you read the article, it doesn't have any authority in Canada either. It said they were never legally married - even in the country that issued the license.

So...the laws one country may recognize for both citizens and non-citizens; another may not?

What's so farking hard to believe about that?

In Canada you can be 16 and get your Private Pilot's License. In the United States you must be 17. If you're an American citizen, and get your license in Canada at age 16 and come back to the States; the FAA isn't going to honor your Canadian certificate until you turn 17 and take an equivalency examination/ flight review.

Karac: miscreant: We allow the marriage, but it has no real authority outside of Canada.

Actually, if you read the article, it doesn't have any authority in Canada either. It said they were never legally married - even in the country that issued the license.

which is the weirdness.

I have the solution to this:
1. Go to Niagara Falls or Fort Erie. Bring Passport
2. Cross Bridge
3. Get marriage license in Buffalo or Niagara Falls, NY.
4. Stay in a hotel for one night from $25-100 a night in the off season, depending on what you're looking for in a hotel. (Everything from 5 star to pink heart-shaped jacuzzis)
5. Get married.
6. Cross Bridge again.

PlatinumDragon: oldfarthenry: The irony of this is that it came about by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce.

I think it's safe to conclude that one nation can't dictate what a civil union constitutes in another country. Do you really want some expat from India claiming a potted plant as his legal wife?

Except in this case, a lawyer for the nation that legally conducted and recognized the marriage is now asserting the marriage is invalid because the partners are legal residents of another country that doesn't recognize the legality of the union, to the surprise of everyone involved. At no point beforehand did anyone - not the courts, not the legislators, not the bureaucrats - indicate that Canada itself would deny the legitimacy in Canada of a legal marriage performed in Canada. This is really almost the opposite of what you're asserting - not only are other countries refusing to recognize the legitimacy of a civil union conducted in Canada, which is their choice, the Canadian government is ex post facto trying to recognize and apply that illegitimacy within its own borders. In other words, the government's lawyer is arguing that foreign law regarding civil unions can invalidate a union performed under Canadian law while the partners are physically in Canada. I'm not sure the Harper government's legal eagles understand what they're potentially unleashing here, on top of the insult to thousands who came here to see their partnership legally recognized even if their home governments still treat them as second-class citizens.

All to try and avoid a potential constitutional issue regarding the divorce side of marriage law.

Oh, if we could only have watched Jack Layton rip into the Harperites in the House about this...

/subby

Seriously? you are reading way too much into it. First off the reason Harper hasn't said much is that before he was asked for comment on this story he didn't even know about it. He said he had to get more information before making a more detailed statement. Second, I can't even count the number of times he has said since the free vote a few years ago that he has no intention of opening the debate again. Ultimately as far I can tell they have to clarify who can and can't get married (when looking at other countries laws) when a marriage is performed.

In a response to Ms. McCarthy's court application, federal lawyer Sean Gaudet tied the federal position to two central propositions. First, he said, couples who came to Canada to be married must live in the country for at least a year before they can obtain a divorce. Second, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada only if they are also legal in the home country or state of the couple.

Wouldn't that be the case for any marriage? If you married someone in Columbia (opposite sex) Wouldn't it be just as illegal to marry someone else here in Canada for example?

Seems like legal mumbo jumbo and not a policy shift. There is a big difference.

I don't have a problem with this.

To be clear, I stridently fought for equal marriage laws here in Canada in the 80s, attended the very first gay marriage here in Toronto, and support the struggle for queer folk to gain equal status in the eyes of the law everywhere. However, it isn't the place of Canada to dictate civil law in other sovereign states, and by assuming that our laws should automatically extend to the 42 American states (or elsewhere) that don't offer same sex marriage is overreaching.

However, civil law is a living creature that changes according to precedent, and this fight is just the opening steps in a long legal debate that might result in individual states explicitly accepting out-of-state same sex marriages.

Which is a technical win for the good-gays.

So don't panic. Don't freak out about Harper, or what ever nebulous conservative force trying to keep people down. Let's see how this all plays out first.

LabGrrl: I have the solution to this:
1. Go to Niagara Falls or Fort Erie. Bring Passport
2. Cross Bridge
3. Get marriage license in Buffalo or Niagara Falls, NY.
4. Stay in a hotel for one night from $25-100 a night in the off season, depending on what you're looking for in a hotel. (Everything from 5 star to pink heart-shaped jacuzzis)
5. Get married.
6. Cross Bridge again.

don't think that will work because it is talking about the home state