Foreign Gay Divorce in Canada

[Wilber]

Actually, I would - and I did.

Americans aren't all as lacking in knowledgeable as you'd like to think they are.

Hard to believe but I'll bite, what would make you have any reason to know about the residency requirements of Canadian divorce law?

[waldo]

What the anti-Harper yahoos forget...

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.

anti-Harper yahoos? Really? I note you chiming in now numerous times on both concurrently running threads that speak to gay marriage/divorce in Canada... for the "anti-Harper yahoos" you call out, care to reconcile your latest statements in these newest threads, with your earlier posts that have you highlighting, 'being gay as a behavioural disorder' and 'accommodating gay abnormalities'? As you see it, are these two threads simply representative of Harper Conservatives, 'working to accommodate the abnormality and manage a behavioural disorder within Canadian law'?

Why is psychopathy any different than any other 'behavoir disorder' like addiction or fetal alcohol syndrome or being gay?

Why don't you provide an explanation for why psychopathy is any different than the above? All of them are a result of brain abnormalities that have genetic and environmental factors.

Gays are the only ones in my list of 'abnormals' which do no harm to others.

IOW - you have not answered my question: how do you distinguish between 'abnormalities (that cause harm to others) which we must accommodate' and 'abnormalities (that cause harm to others) which we must work to eradicate'?

[TimG]

with your earlier posts that have you highlighting, 'being gay as a behavioural disorder' and 'accommodating gay abnormalities'? As you see it

As usual, you show you are nothing but a tourist that has no comprehension of the arguments presented.

It is scientific fact that psychopathy and homosexuality are biological abnormalities caused by some unknown combination of genetic and environmental factors. I made the comparison to illustrate the ridiculous hypocrisy of the lefty types calling for state sanctioned discrimination against a group of people with "abnormalities". My position in that thread was there should not be discrimination based on the diagnosis of abnormalities whether those abnormalities are homosexuality, psychopathy or whatever. Discrimination to protect the public can only be based an actual history of criminal acts.

Edited January 15, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Yeah because psychopathy is just like homosexuality... and you criticize waldo for poor comprehension.

[TimG]

Yeah because psychopathy is just like homosexuality... and you criticize waldo for poor comprehension.

A cow and cat are the same if you are talking about the characteristics of mammals. If you cannot understand the point of my comparision then you are as bad as waldo.

[jbg]

The wonder of unintended consequences! Or, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”.

The issue is not gay marriage. It is gay divorce and specifically, the divorce of two foreign gays who married in Canada. Martha McCarthy, a lawyer in Toronto, is acting on behalf of two foreign women in their divorce case. There's a problem however. Neither woman is resident in Canada and Canada's (federal) divorce law requires that at least one of the spouses reside in a province for at least 12 months.

***************

This is a legal mess. And sadly, the issue has all the makings of becoming AGMT (another gay marriage thread).

My view, as a lawyer, is that it is perfectly reasonable for any Court to restrict access to those controversies that concern that Court's jurisdiction.

[YEGmann]

Get it straight. I made my points about Canada, and I stand by it.

Your only point here is bashing Canada regadless any real facts.

When people try to explain you simple and logical Canadian laws, you do not listen, you are going on insisting on some products of your imagination.

Can you take your time and at least read something about this completely artificial issue? There was plenty of good detailed analyses of the situation. There is no any problem here except some people (this couple) want to be better (more rightful) than other.

Can you realize that Canada does not have separate homo- and heterosexual marriage laws? It's the same one law equally applied to anybody. Similarly, there is one divorce law equally applied to anybody. And (this is in my understanding) both laws even do not distinguish between Canadians and non-Canadians. What is your problem?

[dre]

Your only point here is bashing Canada regadless any real facts.

When people try to explain you simple and logical Canadian laws, you do not listen, you are going on insisting on some products of your imagination.

Can you take your time and at least read something about this completely artificial issue? There was plenty of good detailed analyses of the situation. There is no any problem here except some people (this couple) want to be better (more rightful) than other.

Can you realize that Canada does not have separate homo- and heterosexual marriage laws? It's the same one law equally applied to anybody. Similarly, there is one divorce law equally applied to anybody. And (this is in my understanding) both laws even do not distinguish between Canadians and non-Canadians. What is your problem?

Shes got a really wierd complex about Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

Your only point here is bashing Canada regadless any real facts.

My point here is to state my opinion. Try to recognize the fact that my having an opinion, thinking Canada should handle this differently, is NOT "bashing Canada." You think anyone who thinks Canada could do things differently about anything at all is "bashing?"

When people try to explain you simple and logical Canadian laws, you do not listen, you are going on insisting on some products of your imagination.

I understand the Canadian laws. Quite clearly I am stating that I think there is a contradiction in the laws that leaves foreign gay couples who want a divorce in limbo; I've clearly stated that foreign gay couples, because Canada has no residency requirement for marriage but does for divorce, face a hardship when they seek a divorce. I've clearly said that Canada's laws affect them differently than other couples.

Can you take your time and at least read something about this completely artificial issue?

If you've read my responses, clearly I've read about this very real issue.

There was plenty of good detailed analyses of the situation. There is no any problem here except some people (this couple) want to be better (more rightful) than other.

What this couple wants is access to a divorce without having to relocate for a year - if they are even granted residency for a year and/or a green card. They don't want to be "better" or "more rightful." They would just like the same ease of access to a divorce as any other couple that was married in Canada.

Can you realize that Canada does not have separate homo- and heterosexual marriage laws?

Again. If you have read my responses, it should be crystal clear to you that I realize Canada does not have separate homo- and heterosexual marriage laws - but Canada says it allows gays - who are not allowed to be be married in their own countries - the right to be married in Canada, in Canada's 'tradition of tolerance.' I'm saying if that's the stance Canada takes, there should be laws that allow foreign gay couples the ability to have access to a divorce without hardship.

It's the same one law equally applied to anybody.

Again. I understand that. But it affects foreign gay couples differently. If laws affect one group of people differently, if they create a hardship for one group, I'm saying the laws in effect don't treat everyone the same.

Similarly, there is one divorce law equally applied to anybody. And (this is in my understanding) both laws even do not distinguish between Canadians and non-Canadians. What is your problem?

I cannot state my "problem" any more clearly than I already have - and have now repeated for you. If you still have to ask that question, there's nothing more I can say to help you understand my point of view.

But look at this, will you - your government evidently thinks my viewpoint is a valid one.

Conservatives suggest divorce law could be revised to help same-sex couples

The federal Conservative government suggested Thursday it will revisit the federal divorce law to see how to more easily dissolve the same-sex marriages of couples who married here but cannot get a divorce abroad.

The article says exactly what I have been saying:

And for obvious practical reasons, many couples can’t quit their jobs and move to Canada for 12 months to get a divorce where the union was granted.

“The simple answer is a little amendment that says if we married you, and you are unable to be divorced in your home jurisdiction, then we will exempt you from the residency requirement for a divorce.”

[Guest Peeves]

My point here is to state my opinion. Try to recognize the fact that my having an opinion, thinking Canada should handle this differently, is NOT "bashing Canada." You think anyone who thinks Canada could do things differently about anything at all is "bashing?"

I understand the Canadian laws. Quite clearly I am stating that I think there is a contradiction in the laws that leaves foreign gay couples who want a divorce in limbo; I've clearly stated that foreign gay couples, because Canada has no residency requirement for marriage but does for divorce, face a hardship when they seek a divorce. I've clearly said that Canada's laws affect them differently than other couples.

If you've read my responses, clearly I've read about this very real issue.

What this couple wants is access to a divorce without having to relocate for a year - if they are even granted residency for a year and/or a green card. They don't want to be "better" or "more rightful." They would just like the same ease of access to a divorce as any other couple that was married in Canada.

Again. If you have read my responses, it should be crystal clear to you that I realize Canada does not have separate homo- and heterosexual marriage laws - but Canada says it allows gays - who are not allowed to be be married in their own countries - the right to be married in Canada, in Canada's 'tradition of tolerance.' I'm saying if that's the stance Canada takes, there should be laws that allow foreign gay couples the ability to have access to a divorce without hardship.

Again. I understand that. But it affects foreign gay couples differently. If laws affect one group of people differently, if they create a hardship for one group, I'm saying the laws in effect don't treat everyone the same.

I cannot state my "problem" any more clearly than I already have - and have now repeated for you. If you still have to ask that question, there's nothing more I can say to help you understand my point of view.

But look at this, will you - your government evidently thinks my viewpoint is a valid one.

Conservatives suggest divorce law could be revised to help same-sex couples

The federal Conservative government suggested Thursday it will revisit the federal divorce law to see how to more easily dissolve the same-sex marriages of couples who married here but cannot get a divorce abroad.

The article says exactly what I have been saying:

And for obvious practical reasons, many couples can’t quit their jobs and move to Canada for 12 months to get a divorce where the union was granted.

“

The simple answer is a little amendment that says if we married you, and you are unable to be divorced in your home jurisdiction, then we will exempt you from the residency requirement for a divorce.

”

Good solution perhaps with a caveat stating that non Canadians or those with non residency will bear all costs.

[Guest American Woman]

Good solution perhaps with a caveat stating that non Canadians or those with non residency will bear all costs.

I agree; and I'm assuming they bear the costs for the wedding.

[jbg]

Good solution perhaps with a caveat stating that non Canadians or those with non residency will bear all costs.

Also why should a Court with no connection to the litigants hear any matter?

[Guest American Woman]

Also why should a Court with no connection to the litigants hear any matter?

For the reasons already stated.

[Guest Peeves]

Also why should a Court with no connection to the litigants hear any matter?

Doesn't a connection follow.

Isn't it to be reasonably deemed or 'understood' that (its) court acting on the result or consequence of a law that caused or contributed to the litigants situation then be expected to also accept any deliberation to be within (its) court's purview?

[jbg]

For the reasons already stated.

Doesn't a connection follow.

Isn't it to be reasonably deemed or 'understood' that (its) court acting on the result or consequence of a law that caused or contributed to the litigants situation then be expected to also accept any deliberation to be within (its) court's purview?

I think I'm not making myself understood.

If a couple marries, say in Montana, the wedding would be recognized anywhere. The couple could stop at a city clerk's office on the highway, get a license upon proof of identity and marry. Even if they live in New York City the clerk will conduct the wedding.

Fast forward 10 years. Life happens and they divorce, still living in New York City. Say they have never gone back to Montana.

A Judge in Montana would not exercise jurisdiction since the marriage was not based in Montana and neither of the spouses resides there. It's the same story with a "gay divorce" or any other divorce in most Canadian provinces.

[prairiechickin]

I think your ignoring the special circumstances involved in gay mariage. I don't know why this topic has dragged on this long, it seems pretty simple to me. I think AW is absolutely right that allowing gay people to access quicky marriages in Canada is all fine and good, but imposing residenciy hardships to get a divorce is mean-spirited. If a divorce is unavailable where they live, they should be able to come back here for one in no more time than it took to get married. They pay any additional costs of the process since they don't pay taxes here, end of story.

[jbg]

I think your ignoring the special circumstances involved in gay mariage. I don't know why this topic has dragged on this long, it seems pretty simple to me. I think AW is absolutely right that allowing gay people to access quicky marriages in Canada is all fine and good, but imposing residenciy hardships to get a divorce is mean-spirited. If a divorce is unavailable where they live, they should be able to come back here for one in no more time than it took to get married. They pay any additional costs of the process since they don't pay taxes here, end of story.

I hear you but the legal story isn't an easy one.

A party can "forum shop" so as to seek a divorce where their partner doesn't have the resources to oppose it. This creates some real mischief with property division. The better-heeled spouse can go back to, say, Ontario for the divorce. If the partner lives in, say, Florida, and the partner going back to Ontario has control over the "marital" resources the Florida spouse might get gypped out of his or her share. This would be the case because relief would be granted on default.

[Wilber]

I understand the Canadian laws. Quite clearly I am stating that I think there is a contradiction in the laws that leaves foreign gay couples who want a divorce in limbo; I've clearly stated that foreign gay couples, because Canada has no residency requirement for marriage but does for divorce, face a hardship when they seek a divorce. I've clearly said that Canada's laws affect them differently than other couples.

What this couple wants is access to a divorce without having to relocate for a year - if they are even granted residency for a year and/or a green card. They don't want to be "better" or "more rightful." They would just like the same ease of access to a divorce as any other couple that was married in Canada.

Again. If you have read my responses, it should be crystal clear to you that I realize Canada does not have separate homo- and heterosexual marriage laws - but Canada says it allows gays - who are not allowed to be be married in their own countries - the right to be married in Canada, in Canada's 'tradition of tolerance.' I'm saying if that's the stance Canada takes, there should be laws that allow foreign gay couples the ability to have access to a divorce without hardship.

There is no contradiction in Canada, all marriages are treated the same way. The contradiction is in places like the US where they are not. It is places like the US that picks and choses which legal Canadian marriages it will recognize, there is no such contradiction regarding which legal US marriages Canada will recognize.

I can see why this is a gay straight issue for an American because in the US it is a gay straight issue. While there are certainly differences of opinion in Canada, our laws have moved past that and regardless of their feelings, I believe a majority of Canadians consider the issue dealt with and it is time to move on.

I am no lawyer and am fortunate not to have been touched by divorce in my life but one reason for the residency requirement is obvious. It allows real Canadian residents who have been married elsewhere to obtain a divorce in Canada while preventing Canada from becoming a divorce destination for anyone who has difficulty getting a divorce in their own country.

Perhaps an amendment could be made to our law exempting uncontested divorces of marriages performed in Canada from the residency requirement, on the clear understanding that it is only made necessary by the intolerance of other countries toward their own citizens and not because Canada has done something wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

A party can "forum shop" so as to seek a divorce where their partner doesn't have the resources to oppose it. This creates some real mischief with property division. The better-heeled spouse can go back to, say, Ontario for the divorce. If the partner lives in, say, Florida, and the partner going back to Ontario has control over the "marital" resources the Florida spouse might get gypped out of his or her share. This would be the case because relief would be granted on default.

As I've pointed out, that could happen anyway. The requirement as it stands is that only that one spouse live there for a year. But going back to where they got married doesn't involve "forum shopping." If they got married in Ontario, which they've obviously both agreed to, then Ontario is where they get divorced. If one can't get divorced where they reside, what other alternative is there? As I pointed out, one spouse living there for a year isn't going to change the scenario that you presented.

Edited January 15, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

There is no contradiction in Canada, all marriages are treated the same way.

I've addressed that so many times I've lost count. One. more. time. The contradiction is in that the laws as they stand don't affect everyone the same way. When laws create a hardship for one group of people, they need to be looked at. Your government agrees.

[prairiechickin]

I hear you but the legal story isn't an easy one.

A party can "forum shop" so as to seek a divorce where their partner doesn't have the resources to oppose it. This creates some real mischief with property division. The better-heeled spouse can go back to, say, Ontario for the divorce. If the partner lives in, say, Florida, and the partner going back to Ontario has control over the "marital" resources the Florida spouse might get gypped out of his or her share. This would be the case because relief would be granted on default.

I see your point. A simple solution would be that the couple would have to have an agreement signed by both parties as to the division of assets and respective rights to any children before they come back to Canada for their quicky divorce. No agreement, no divorce. Then they could fight it out where they live and not tie up Canadian courts with all the squabbling.

[jbg]

I see your point. A simple solution would be that the couple would have to have an agreement signed by both parties as to the division of assets and respective rights to any children before they come back to Canada for their quicky divorce. No agreement, no divorce. Then they could fight it out where they live and not tie up Canadian courts with all the squabbling.

Probably a good idea.

Again as a practicing lawyer I see these problems all the time, though I don't do divorce work.

[Wilber]

I've addressed that so many times I've lost count. One. more. time. The contradiction is in that the laws as they stand don't affect everyone the same way. When laws create a hardship for one group of people, they need to be looked at. Your government agrees.

And I will continue to point out that the only reason they don't affect everyone the same way is because of the intolerance of countries like yours, not Canada.

I'm not saying they don't need to be looked at, just that they don't discriminate between gay and straight marriage. You maintain they should because of the actions of countries like yours. Perhaps we will be forced to discriminate in spite of ourselves.

[Scotty]

I understand the Canadian laws. Quite clearly I am stating that I think there is a contradiction in the laws that leaves foreign gay couples who want a divorce in limbo; I've clearly stated that foreign gay couples, because Canada has no residency requirement for marriage but does for divorce, face a hardship when they seek a divorce. I've clearly said that Canada's laws affect them differently than other couples.

Ironically, I saw a story on this on CNN this morning. Except it wasn't about Canada. It was about Washington DC. It seems you can get married if you're gay in Washington DC. You can't get divorced, though, because - wait for it ---- they have residency requirements for divorce! Same goes for a number of US states.

[Guest American Woman]

Probably a good idea.

Again as a practicing lawyer I see these problems all the time, though I don't do divorce work.

Once again, jbg - the laws as they stand now would be more likely to create the scenario you have described. The laws as they stand now require that only one partner be a resident. If the law is changed so that they can get divorced where they got married, that eliminates the ability to "forum shop."