prairiechickin Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 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. Seems like a reasonable compromise. Quote
waldo Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 ... people "shopping" for the best state other than the symbolic effect, I wonder what U.S. gay couples realized by seeking out Canada to get married... while immediately returning to and living in the U.S. where the marriage wasn't recognized? I also wonder what alternative 'gains/benefits', if any, Canada provided other than what might have been available in any one of the 6(?) U.S. States that currently recognize same-sex marriage... unless, perhaps, these U.S. States actually impose a residency requirement before granting a marriage license to gay couples - don't know??? Quote
Wilber 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. Our marriage and divorce laws apply to everyone, gay or straight. We don't need to get any more "tolerant:" than that, unless you mean changing our laws to give privileges to non residents that Canadians can't enjoy. I don't expect you to change your laws to accommodate whatever I might want to do on a visit to your country. 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. If their marriage isn't recognized where they live, they are hardly left hanging. Canadian law only applies in Canada. 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. What do you mean "we"? Look to your own laws. We wouldn't have this issue if other countries, including yours showed the same kind of tolerance. If Canada is remiss in anything it is not making these people aware of the possible consequences of their actions before we allowed them to be married here.l 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 Our marriage and divorce laws apply to everyone, gay or straight. We don't need to get any more "tolerant:" than that, unless you mean changing our laws to give privileges to non residents that Canadians can't enjoy. What I mean is giving foreign gay couples who are married in Canada the right to be divorced in Canada under the same residency requirements. I think I've made that clear. No other couple in Canada or the U.S. is required to move for a year in order to obtain a divorce, so I don't see it as a "privilege," rather as giving gay couples the same level of access to divorce as other couples. As I've pointed out, Canada speaks of its tradition of tolerance, and by allowing gays from other nations to marry in Canada without a residency requirement but not allowing them to divorce without living in Canada for a year, I see gays as being discriminated against because they have to move for a year in order to be able to obtain a divorce. That's a hardship that no one else seeking a divorce is subjected to. And what if Canada chooses not to allow them 12 months residency? What if they can't get a green card? What if they can't get a job? What if they can't get a job to replace the one they gave up to move to Canada for a year in order to obtain a divorce? No one else getting a divorce has to face these serious issues. So again, it's not "privilege," it's the same accessibility to divorce as other couples. I said, and I repeat, allowing gay couples to get married in Canada '"in the tradition of Canada's tolerance' and then leaving them hanging when they want a divorce is hardly a humanitarian act. Quite the opposite, actually. I don't expect you to change your laws to accommodate whatever I might want to do on a visit to your country. And I'm not speaking of changing your laws to accommodate whatever anyone might want, am I? If their marriage isn't recognized where they live, they are hardly left hanging. Canadian law only applies in Canada. They are left hanging because they can't get a divorce in either the U.S. or Canada - unless one of them resides in Canada for a year. What do you mean "we"? Look to your own laws. We wouldn't have this issue if other countries, including yours showed the same kind of tolerance. I mean "we" as in the U.S. You asked me a question about how I feel about our laws - and I answered it. Hence the "we." I answered as to how I would feel if it were my country. But fyi, you wouldn't have this issue if you didn't "tolerantly" allow gays from other countries - with no residency requirement - to get married in Canada. I repeat. I don't see the "tolerance" of allowing the marriage without any requirements - then denying the divorce without requirements - as an example of "tolerance." The 'good deed' is wiped out by 'leaving them hanging' if they want to dissolve the marriage. If Canada is remiss in anything it is not making these people aware of the possible consequences of their actions before we allowed them to be married here.l I disagree. I think there should be laws that apply to foreigners that give them the same access to divorce as it does to marriage in Canada. I would feel the same way about my own country. Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 What I mean is giving foreign gay couples who are married in Canada the right to be divorced in Canada under the same residency requirements. I think I've made that clear. No other couple in Canada or the U.S. is required to move for a year in order to obtain a divorce, so I don't see it as a "privilege," rather as giving gay couples the same level of access to divorce as other couples. As I've pointed out, Canada speaks of its tradition of tolerance, and by allowing gays from other nations to marry in Canada without a residency requirement but not allowing them to divorce without living in Canada for a year, I see gays as being discriminated against because they have to move for a year in order to be able to obtain a divorce. That's a hardship that no one else seeking a divorce is subjected to. And what if Canada chooses not to allow them 12 months residency? What if they can't get a green card? What if they can't get a job? What if they can't get a job to replace the one they gave up to move to Canada for a year in order to obtain a divorce? No one else getting a divorce has to face these serious issues. So again, it's not "privilege," it's the same accessibility to divorce as other couples. I said, and I repeat, allowing gay couples to get married in Canada '"in the tradition of Canada's tolerance' and then leaving them hanging when they want a divorce is hardly a humanitarian act. Quite the opposite, actually. And I'm not speaking of changing your laws to accommodate whatever anyone might want, am I? They are left hanging because they can't get a divorce in either the U.S. or Canada - unless one of them resides in Canada for a year. I mean "we" as in the U.S. You asked me a question about how I feel about our laws - and I answered it. Hence the "we." I answered as to how I would feel if it were my country. But fyi, you wouldn't have this issue if you didn't "tolerantly" allow gays from other countries - with no residency requirement - to get married in Canada. I repeat. I don't see the "tolerance" of allowing the marriage without any requirements - then denying the divorce without requirements - as an example of "tolerance." The 'good deed' is wiped out by 'leaving them hanging' if they want to dissolve the marriage. I disagree. I think there should be laws that apply to foreigners that give them the same access to divorce as it does to marriage in Canada. I would feel the same way about my own country. Our law applies to everyone, not just gays. If two straight Americans were to get married in Canada, they would have to pass the same residency test in order to get a divorce in Canada. Being gay in no way restricts a person's ability to immigrate to Canada. The problem would be easily solved if the US would recognize Canadian same sex marriages and allow them to divorce in your country. I will not be preached to by Americans who insist that we change our laws to accomodate your intolerance. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 The problem is not the same for everyone. The problem is with issuing a marriage contract to people who cannot get a divorce where they live because their jurisdiction doesn't recognize their marriage. You say the residency requirement is the same for straight couples and that's true, but it doesn't affect them because they can just get a divorce at home. So your suggestion is that gay marriages need to be recognized where these couples live. Of course that's the ideal situation. That's not the case though and in the meantime there are people we have been paid to marry without telling them that should they divorce they must live in Canada for at least a year. It's an unnecessary requirement that needs to be addressed and in a better fashion than saying "well you were never really married to begin with." Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 The problem is not the same for everyone. The problem is with issuing a marriage contract to people who cannot get a divorce where they live because their jurisdiction doesn't recognize their marriage. You say the residency requirement is the same for straight couples and that's true, but it doesn't affect them because they can just get a divorce at home. So your suggestion is that gay marriages need to be recognized where these couples live. Of course that's the ideal situation. That's not the case though and in the meantime there are people we have been paid to marry without telling them that should they divorce they must live in Canada for at least a year. It's an unnecessary requirement that needs to be addressed and in a better fashion than saying "well you were never really married to begin with." My point is, Canada should not have to change its laws governing its own residents to accomodate the intolerance of other countries towards their own citizens. 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 (edited) Our law applies to everyone, not just gays. If two straight Americans were to get married in Canada, they would have to pass the same residency test in order to get a divorce in Canada. The two straight Americans would be able to get a divorce in the United States. I've pointed that out. I've pointed out that by allowing foreign gays to marry in Canada with no restrictions but not allowing them to divorce without restrictions puts them in a position no other couple finds themselves in - it counteracts Canada's 'tradition of tolerance' in allowing them to marry with no restrictions. Being gay in no way restricts a person's ability to immigrate to Canada. It in no way guarantees them the right to reside in Canada for 12 months either, nor does it guarantee them a green card so they can work and support themselves during that year. Which I've already clearly pointed out. As I said, it puts them in a position of hardship in order to gain what everyone else has access to. The problem would be easily solved if the US would recognize Canadian same sex marriages and allow them to divorce in your country. I will not be preached to by Americans who insist that we change our laws to accomodate your intolerance. Get off your high horse. I'm stating my opinion, not "preaching," and I'm not "insisting" you do anything. Edited January 14, 2012 by American Woman Quote
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) My point is, Canada should not have to change its laws governing its own residents to accomodate the intolerance of other countries towards their own citizens. No, we shouldn't have to, but when we grant marriages that aren't recognized in other places to people, we should be responsible enough not to leave them hanging either. It's only for particular instances. Our laws should be amended to fill the gap, but at the same time we should be encouraging others to recognize these marriages. Edited January 14, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 No, we shouldn't have to, but when we grant marriages that aren't recognized in other places to people, we should be responsible enough not to leave them hanging either. It's only for particular instances. Our laws should be amended to fill the gap, but at the same time we should be encouraging others to recognize these marriages. Maybe the law should be changed but it pisses me off that this country's generosity is now being used against it by people from countries who are too hypocritical to acknowledge their own nations responsibility for this situation and have the effrontery to call us intolerant for extending a right to their citizens that they won't. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Scotty Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Andrew Coyne has, I think, the final word in today's Post, where he points out the ridiculousness of this whole phony controversy, and the incompetent, tabloid journalism and political grandstanding behind it. The “formal validity” of the marriage — that is, whether the vows were exchanged in the appropriate manner— is determined by the laws of the place where the marriage was performed. But the “essential validity” — that is, whether the couple were eligible to get married at all — is determined by the laws of each partner’s “ante-nuptial domicile,” the place they lived before they were married. There’s no actual controversy on this point. It’s supported by reams of precedent. It’s not some invention of this government, or of Canada for that matter, but is part of the fabric of international law. Shoddy Reporting and Cheap Politics Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 The two straight Americans would be able to get a divorce in the United States. I've pointed that out. I've pointed out that by allowing foreign gays to marry in Canada with no restrictions but not allowing them to divorce without restrictions puts them in a position no other couple finds themselves in - it counteracts Canada's 'tradition of tolerance' in allowing them to marry with no restrictions. You put gay US residents in that position, not us. Our laws apply to everyone. 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 You put gay US residents in that position, not us. Our laws apply to everyone. Ah, no. Canada put them in that position by allowing them to be married with no restrictions but not allowing them to be divorced without restriction. I've already explained why your laws place a hardship only on foreign gay couples. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Ah, no. Canada put them in that position by allowing them to be married with no restrictions but not allowing them to be divorced without restriction. I've already explained why your laws place a hardship only on foreign gay couples. Canada and the United States both put them in this situation. They wouldn't need to come here for their divorce if they didn't live a state with archaic laws that discriminate against their marriage. Since they do need to come here and we're more than willing to recognize their love and committment to each other as valid, we're in the wrong for not making it easier for them to get divorced. Nevertheless, I would say that they shouldn't need to come here for a divorce. Hell, they shouldn't have to come here to get married in the first place. The entire problem stems from the backwards laws of their home. Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Ah, no. Canada put them in that position by allowing them to be married with no restrictions but not allowing them to be divorced without restriction. I've already explained why your laws place a hardship only on foreign gay couples. Get it straight, your laws place a hardship on American gay couples, otherwise they wouldn't be coming here. Gay couples have the same restrictions as straight couples. It is your country that discriminates. Edited January 14, 2012 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Get it straight, your laws place a hardship on American gay couples, otherwise they wouldn't be coming here. She's not going to admit it. You might as well just leave it at this. Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 She's not going to admit it. You might as well just leave it at this. I know, I've been this route before. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I believe you're both right to some extent. Mostly, I agree with American Woman, but where she would be complaining about people here not using an asterix to bring up Canada's involvement in things, here she absolutely refuses to do the same for America. Quote
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 They should only hear foreign divorce cases of couples that were married here, but their own state does not recognize that marriage.It sounds like the government is moving in this direction. What I would also like to see the people who reacted with such outrage acknowledge that the residency requirements are reasonable as was the government lawyer's position given the current laws. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Get it straight, your laws place a hardship on American gay couples, otherwise they wouldn't be coming here. Gay couples have the same restrictions as straight couples. It is your country that discriminates. Get it straight. I made my points about Canada, and I stand by it. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 It sounds like the government is moving in this direction. What I would also like to see the people who reacted with such outrage acknowledge that the residency requirements are reasonable as was the government lawyer's position given the current laws. It's the "current laws" that have been at issue. Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 It's the "current laws" that have been at issue. Ya, your current laws, without them, you would know nothing about ours. 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 Ya, your current laws, without them, you would know nothing about ours. Ummmm. Noooooo. It's about your current laws, hence the "foreign gay divorce in Canada" title of this thread. Sorry to disappoint, but I can read - and therefore do know about yours. Quote
Wilber Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Ummmm. Noooooo. It's about your current laws, hence the "foreign gay divorce in Canada" title of this thread. Sorry to disappoint, but I can read - and therefore do know about yours. If your laws hadn't driven your gay citizens into our country to get married and refused to allow them to divorce in their own country, you would know nothing about our divorce 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 If your laws hadn't driven your gay citizens into our country to get married and refused to allow them to divorce in their own country, you would know nothing about our divorce laws. Actually, I would - and I did. Americans aren't all as lacking in knowledgeable as you'd like to think they are. 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.