eyeball Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 Why should we change our laws just to accomodate people who have no interest in this country other than to use it for their own purposes. Because doing the right thing for all human beings serves our purpose. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
dre Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 Why should we change our laws just to accomodate people who have no interest in this country other than to use it for their own purposes. We should change laws that make no sense, and create logical absurdities. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wilber Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 We should change laws that make no sense, and create logical absurdities. I don't know whether this law is absurd or not but they sure as hell aren't absurd just because they don't accomodate people who have never been residents, don't live here now and have no interest in this country other than what they can take away from it? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
The_Squid Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 I don't know whether this law is absurd or not but they sure as hell aren't absurd just because they don't accomodate people who have never been residents, don't live here now and have no interest in this country other than what they can take away from it? And the fact that Canada issued them a legal marriage certificat only to annull their legal marriage is rather absurd, don't you think? Especially given that Canada advertised that gays should come and get married here! http://www.canada.com/travel/Feds+touted+wedding+tourism+2006/5992118/story.html A glossy pitch from the Canadian Tourism Commission for Americans to get hitched north of the border appeared at that time in New York-based Passport, the most widely read gay travel magazine in the United States. Quote
Wilber Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 And the fact that Canada issued them a legal marriage certificat only to annull their legal marriage is rather absurd, don't you think? Especially given that Canada advertised that gays should come and get married here! http://www.canada.com/travel/Feds+touted+wedding+tourism+2006/5992118/story.html . I think there are two separate issues here. The assertion that same sex marriages occurring in Canada are not valid in Canada because they aren't recognized in some other country is absurd. The residency requirement is different. We have residency requirements for a lot of things. They apply to everyone and should not be treated as a gay, straight issue. People coming here just to get married should be made aware of our law before they take that step. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Moonlight Graham Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 I'm not really surprised the Harper gov supports married gays getting divorced. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
dre Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) And the fact that Canada issued them a legal marriage certificat only to annull their legal marriage is rather absurd, don't you think? Especially given that Canada advertised that gays should come and get married here! http://www.canada.com/travel/Feds+touted+wedding+tourism+2006/5992118/story.html . And thats smart. Trying to get marriage tourists to come here makes good sense. People getting married here probably spend a fair bit of money into the economy. Edited January 13, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) The couple doesn't get to pick their jurisdiction when they get to court. wtf are you talking about?WTF are you talking about? A straight couple who got married in Canada would be required to get a divorce in the country where they reside. This couple is demanding to be exempted from these rules. The fact that they cannot get a divorce in their home juristiction is irrelevant from the perspective of Canadian law. The attempt to argue that they were not married was likely an attempt by the government lawyer to help the couple resolve the legal limbo they were stuck in. Of course, such an interpretation is lost on self absorbed types who love any excuse to jump on a victim bandwagon. It will be interesting to see what the eventual law looks like once bureacrats inform the politicians that there are very good reasons for the residency requirement and it cannot be simply gotten rid of. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) The assertion that same sex marriages occurring in Canada are not valid in Canada because they aren't recognized in some other country is absurd.The couple was stuck. Residency is required and they can't divorce in their home juristiction because their home juristiction does not recognize the marriage. One way to resolve this legal limbo is to argue that their marriage was not valid in the first place so they do not need a divorce. IOW - the government lawyer was doing the couple a favour by giving them a legal exit from their marriage. Generating faux outrage over a perfectly reasonable law is not something government lawyers should be doing. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 We have residency requirements for a lot of things. They apply to everyone and should not be treated as a gay, straight issue. People coming here just to get married should be made aware of our law before they take that step. Makes no sense that there is a residency requirement for divorce when there is none for marriage. Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 The couple was stuck. Residency is required and they can't divorce in their home juristiction because their home juristiction does not recognize the marriage. One way to resolve this legal limbo is to argue that their marriage was not valid in the first place so they do not need a divorce. IOW - the government lawyer was doing the couple a favour by giving them a legal exit from their marriage. Generating faux outrage over a perfectly reasonable law is not something government lawyers should be doing. I don't see it as faux outrage. It may be convenient in this particular case but it sets a dangerous precident. Either a same sex marriage in Canada is legal or it is not. You can't make it up as you go along. How another country might see it has no relevence in Canadian law. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Makes no sense that there is a residency requirement for divorce when there is none for marriage. Maybe not but it applies to everyone, not just gays. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I don't see it as faux outrage. It may be convenient in this particular case but it sets a dangerous precident. Either a same sex marriage in Canada is legal or it is not. You can't make it up as you go along. How another country might see it has no relevence in Canadian law. Ottawa will change law so same-sex marriages are valid "We will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren't recognized in the couple's home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada," Nicholson said Friday during a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto. Still won't help couples seeking divorce who aren't residents, though. Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Either a same sex marriage in Canada is legal or it is not. You can't make it up as you go along.Divorce is not simply a cermony. It is a termination of a legal relationship that requires the division of assets, co-parenting arrangements and spousal support. The choice of juristiction will likely give one spouse an advantage over the other. If a couple divorces in Canada their worldwide assets are considered. That is why residency is used to decide the venue (and applicable laws) for a divorce. IOW - it is a gross oversimplification to claim 'if marriage is legal divorce must be legal'. Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Still won't help couples seeking divorce who aren't residents, though.Which is sensible. Residency requirements exist for a reason. This couple seems to think that they want the divorce in Canada but there are likely just as many other divorcing gay couples where one spouse would prefer the marriage be declared invalid because it would relieve them of any spousal support obligations. Why should that spouse be forced to comply with Canadian law if they reside elsewhere? Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Which is sensible. Residency requirements exist for a reason. Why should there be more of a reason to require residency for divorce than for marriage? Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Why should there be more of a reason to require residency for divorce than for marriage?See my posts above. It all comes down to money. Marriage does not have the same issues because the partners are co-operating at the time. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 See my posts above. It all comes down to money. Marriage does not have the same issues because the partners are co-operating at the time. I read your post, but I don't see what difference it makes if one is a resident or not. If the couple chooses to get married there, then they should be able to choose to get divorced there - agreeing to abide by the rules of divorce of the jurisdiction. ....there are likely just as many other divorcing gay couples where one spouse would prefer the marriage be declared invalid because it would relieve them of any spousal support obligations. Why should that spouse be forced to comply with Canadian law if they reside elsewhere? The residency requirement requires that only one fulfill the requirement, so the other non-residing spouse could still be "forced" to comply. Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) If the couple chooses to get married there, then they should be able to choose to get divorced there - agreeing to abide by the rules of divorce of the jurisdiction.I am sure many couples that choose to get married in Mexico or some other foreign juristiction would be shocked to be told they have to go through the a foreign justice system to get a divorce. It is a completely unworkable system. The only reasonable option is to make it a choice but if you make it a choice then what is done when the spouses disagree?As a I said there are likely many gay people in a marriage that would prefer to have their marriage declared non-existent if that gets them out of spousal support obligations. The residency requirement requires that only one fulfill the requirement, so the other non-residing spouse could still be "forced" to comply.A married couple resident in two jurisdictions? A highly unlikely scenario but the same issue exists. What to do when the spouses disagree? Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I am sure many couples that choose to get married in Mexico or some other foreign juristiction would be shocked to be told they have to go through the a foreign justice system to get a divorce. Most couples getting married in Mexico or some other foreign jurisdiction have their marriages recognized in their own countries - and therefore are able to obtain a divorce in their own countries. It is a completely unworkable system. The only reasonable option is to make it a choice but if you make it a choice then what is done when the spouses disagree? Spouses often disagree in divorce, even if they reside in the jurisdiction. But again, since the residency requirement only requires that one live in the jurisdiction, how does that help solve the scenario you are discribing? As a I said there are likely many gay people in a marriage that would prefer to have their marriage declared non-existent if that gets them out of spousal support obligations. I'm not getting how that applies here. A married couple resident in two jurisdictions? A highly unlikely scenario. Yet Canadian law requires that only one reside in the jurisdiction, so if one wants to seek a divorce there, the residency requirement would be filled. In other words, the other would still be "forced" to comply. As for the couple in question, one lives in Clearwater, Fla., the other in London, England. But seems to me if they get married in the jurisdiction, that should allow them to get divorced in the jurisdiction. Canada's "tolerance" in allowing gays to get married there even if they don't reside there ultimately offers them no real compassion if they are then unable to get divorced without moving to Canada. And if they were denied residency? They are stuck for life if they cannot get a divorce in their own countries. Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Most couples getting married in Mexico or some other foreign jurisdiction have their marriages recognized in their own countries - and therefore are able to obtain a divorce in their own countries.That is why this legal limbo exists. But even then there is a legal path: declare the marriage invalid if they reside in a jurisdiction that does not recognize it. It is not ideal but it is not Canada's problem.Spouses often disagree in divorce, even if they reside in the jurisdiction. But again, since the residency requirement only requires that one live in the jurisdiction, how does that help solve the scenario you are describing?Because there is no choice: the law of the place where you reside. If the place where you reside does not recognize the marriage then the 'law' says there are no obligations outside of specific written or verbal contracts.In other words, the other would still be "forced" to comply.You are assuming this. Can you provide case law examples that show what happens when jurisdiction is disputed? I would guess the case law is messy and contradictory.But seems to me if they get married in the jurisdiction, that should allow them to get divorced in the jurisdiction.Choice is a problem when there is a dispute. What happens when there are two separate and contradictory court rulings? I would say the only law that applies is the law where they reside. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I read your post, but I don't see what difference it makes if one is a resident or not. If the couple chooses to get married there, then they should be able to choose to get divorced there - agreeing to abide by the rules of divorce of the jurisdiction. It would be presumptuous and delusional to think that Canada would have jurisdiction over property or custody settlements regarding non citizens who have never resided in this country and who live in a country that doesn't recognize their marriage in the first place, regardless of what the parties agreed to. They wanted to get married and Canada accommodated them. They wanted nothing else from this country, are not residents, have never lived or paid taxes here. We owe them nothing, certainly not changing our laws to accommodate them once more after which they will leave and never be seen again unless they want something else from us that they can't get where they chose to live. If we chose to change our laws, it should be for the needs of Canadians or those who would be Canadians. Don't you feel the same about your laws? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 It would be presumptuous and delusional to think that Canada would have jurisdiction over property or custody settlements regarding non citizens who have never resided in this country and who live in a country that doesn't recognize their marriage in the first place, regardless of what the parties agreed to. So why isn't is presumptuous to allow them to marry in Canada? - Canada claims that it's because of it's "tolerance," which is all very well and nice, until the couple wants to get divorced. If Canada is going to go off on a limb and allow them to get married in Canada, why not allow them to get divorced in Canada without requiring that one of them becomes a resident? They weren't required to be a resident to get married. They wanted to get married and Canada accommodated them. So why not accommodate them and give them a divorce? Seems to me that would be/should be part the "tolerance" towards gays that Canada is promoting. They wanted nothing else from this country, are not residents, have never lived or paid taxes here. We owe them nothing, certainly not changing our laws to accommodate them once more after which they will leave and never be seen again unless they want something else from us that they can't get where they chose to live. If that's the outlook, don't allow them to get married, either. As I pointed out, what if residency is denied? What if it's impossible? It's asking a lot to uproot oneself for at least a year just to be granted a divorce. Canada knowingly allows gays to get married in Canada. In the name of tolerance. Then leaves them hanging if they want out of the marriage. That doesn't come across as very tolerant to me. Canada changed its laws to allow gay marriage in the name of tolerance and can change its laws to grant them divorce in the name of tolerance; that Canada's "tolerance" only leaves them hanging more or less cancels out the tolerance of letting them get married there. If we chose to change our laws, it should be for the needs of Canadians or those who would be Canadians. Don't you feel the same about your laws? I think if we change a law on one end, we should also change it on the other. The tolerance only to get married, while leaving the married couple hanging when they want a divorce, is hardly the humanitarian gesture that it's being made out to be. Quote
prairiechickin Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 So why isn't is presumptuous to allow them to marry in Canada? - Canada claims that it's because of it's "tolerance," which is all very well and nice, until the couple wants to get divorced. If Canada is going to go off on a limb and allow them to get married in Canada, why not allow them to get divorced in Canada without requiring that one of them becomes a resident? They weren't required to be a resident to get married. I think if we change a law on one end, we should also change it on the other. The tolerance only to get married, while leaving the married couple hanging when they want a divorce, is hardly the humanitarian gesture that it's being made out to be. I agree completely, you've nicely summed up the entire argument here. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) It would be presumptuous and delusional to think that Canada would have jurisdiction over property or custody settlements regarding non citizens who have never resided in this country and who live in a country that doesn't recognize their marriage in the first place, regardless of what the parties agreed to. They wanted to get married and Canada accommodated them. They wanted nothing else from this country, are not residents, have never lived or paid taxes here. We owe them nothing, certainly not changing our laws to accommodate them once more after which they will leave and never be seen again unless they want something else from us that they can't get where they chose to live. If we chose to change our laws, it should be for the needs of Canadians or those who would be Canadians. Don't you feel the same about your laws? I see your point and it's an interesting way of looking at this issue. Your post actually puts the lawyer's comments into context for me. He just made a poor choice of words. What he must have meant was that there is no need for the couple to get divorced because their state didn't recognize their marriage anyway. My criticism, however, is that we legally married them. They believed they were married with all the benefits and responsibilities of that contract. It's only fair that they should have some sort of legal recourse for the dissolution of that contract and the division of assets and liabilities. Since their state doesn't recognize their marriage and ours was the one that granted it, it is only right that our courts handle the divorce. We shouldn't tell them to go away and pretend like their marriage never happened. If we are to do this, and we should, the new legal amendments can get around people "shopping" for the best state to get a divorce by doing two things. They should only hear foreign divorce cases of couples that were married here, but their own state does not recognize that marriage. Moreover, the costs of that litigation should be incurred entirely by the parties involved, unless they live in Canada for at least 1 year. Edited January 14, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.