1) The impacted same sex couples paid real money to have have to their marriages supposedly officially sanctioned by Federal government. By denying the validity of these marriages, the government is essentially saying that it perpetrated a fraud against these people.
2) 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 not the only foreign couples getting married in Canada.
3) The government position is that because "marriages" conflicted with the domicile laws in the country of residence these marriages never happened. As such, the decision could also impact other groups. For example, any inter racial couples from States with Anti-miscegenation laws, who married in Canada, were never, in fact, ever married under Canadian law. Remember the Anti-miscegenation laws in some US states existed up until 1967. South Africa's law existed until 1985.
4) The "legal option" is manifestly unconstitutional. SSM is legal in Canada and their is no residential requirement. There is not a hope in hell that the courts are going to let domicile comity trump equality under the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
And what about couples such as mine, in which as US citizens we married in BC when we lived there for a time? At the time we wed, same sex marriage was not legal in our state of residence in the US.
However, we have now moved back to the US and marriage IS now legal in the state of our residence - note, not our county but our state . . . this is the US.
Of course, legally we cannot be "remarried" here, as state officials informed us, because we are already married (to each other), and they do recognize the Canadian marriage.
Now while I feel rather assured we are indeed married, and that all . . . from relatives to government officials . . . . would honor and recognize that marriage, consider the following for a moment.
By handling this in such sloppy fashion, thereby raising a spectre of doubt on the validity of marriages to foreign citizens - there now exists grounds for a relative (I pray we have none so spiteful) to challenge the validity of our original marriage license in order to make claim to our joint estate should something happen to one of us.
Legal clarity is important. I do hope that Canada's government fulfills its intention to resolve the uncertainty resulting from their recent actions, whether intentional or accidental.
The headline next week will read "Conservatives fix flawed Liberal same-sex marriage bill".
(but it was worth it just to see Bob Rae turn purple again...;)
Nice try.
first anon;
The sloppiness occured when the previous gov't did not bother to consider divorce rights for same sex couple's when they legalized SSM.
You do have to take some responsibility for your actions.It was unwise to move to a juristdiction that does not recognize your marriage.
You don't have to like the advice but I believe some American lawyers have been warning about this precise issue for some time.
All fixed, didnt even take 24 hours. Now, anyone see where my lighter is..I'm supposed to light my hair on fire next week and scream "the conservatives want to end all abortions". If you guys dont get tired of yelling at Canadians to be afraid, trust me, Canadians are getting tired of being yelled at to be afraid.
Conservatives are fixing the flawed liberal ssm bill.
Kool Aid Drinkers
The Conservatives are still pretending that the “Legal option” put forth by the justice was a valid and that the fault all lies with the Liberals. Indeed, they are going so far as to suggest that it is only because of them that these marriages are valid today. This is chutzpah and gigantic scale.
The legal option was
1) unconstitutional on its face
2) Means that the government was guilty of fraud
3) That Canada does not recognize marriages of interracial couples that violated any Anti-miscegenation laws in their country of residence.
4) Did not recognize marriages that took place here and that other jurisdictions recognized.
5) Pretended that this law of domicile is hard and fast rule even though they are fully aware that plenty of jurisdictions that do not recognize legally wed same sex couples as anything more than room mates.
To whoever wrote the following, I'd kindly ask you to consider and explain how any of this is "my fault"?
_______________________
first anon;
The sloppiness occured when the previous gov't did not bother to consider divorce rights for same sex couple's when they legalized SSM.
You do have to take some responsibility for your actions.It was unwise to move to a juristdiction that does not recognize your marriage.
You don't have to like the advice but I believe some American lawyers have been warning about this precise issue for some time.
_______________________
We didn't "move to a jurisdiction that doesn't recognize my marriage" as you so blithely state, like we forgot to ask for lemon with our iced teas at dinner.
At the time we moved to Canada, we were leaving a US jurisdiction that didn't allow same-sex marriage. We moved to a country - your country - that does allow same-sex marriage to citizens AND non-citizens. So while living in Canada we were married. We were grateful - and remain grateful - for that fact.
We now live in a jurisdiction in the US that in fact DOES recognizes that Canadian marriage license (as I stated). In fact that was one of the major criteria for our move, thank you very much. So I guess by your measure we did everything right, huh?
Oh, wait . . . not so fast. Apparently the Canadian government - THE CURRENT Canadian government - has recently brought into question the legality of my marriage by introducing the idea in a legal brief that perhaps there might be some grounds under which my marriage license from Canada might not be legal. Their change of heart is hardly "my fault."
We were married legally. We were told by the government of Canada that we were married legally. I have a license issued in BC that says I'm legally married.
I now live in a US jurisdiction that recognizes that marriage. In fact, they put so much trust in the validity of the marriage license issued in BC that they won't issue another marriage license because it would be regarded as a duplicate marriage.
If you're married now, why don't you try to go get another marriage license? It's not allowed . . . even to the same two people.
The ONLY reason for any concern on our part is because the CURRENT Canadian government decided to dangle the idea that perhaps there was a gray area within their marriage laws, after all. We would much rather they had simply and firmly reiterated that the marriage licenses they have been issuing for years are without question legal. It would certainly save us - and couples like us - a lot of heartburn.
I am pleased they are saying they intend to fix the issue they created, because until they decided to make it an issue I never had any reason to doubt their legal word which stated that my partner and I obtained a legal marriage while we lived in Canada.
So how dare you wag your finger over the matter, as if its somehow our fault.
Frankly it's hard for me to imagine what satisfaction a person could derive from making such a callous - not to mention incorrect - statement.
Post a Comment