Foreign Gay Divorce in Canada

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Then I think the same thing should apply to state, in this case district, laws - but the federal government can't resolve that. It's a stickier issue than in Canada where the federal law is uniform. But the same principles apply - I think one should be able to go back to the state they were married in and be allowed to be granted a divorce in spite of residency if they cannot get divorced in the state in which they currently reside.

[Scotty]

Then I think the same thing should apply to state, in this case district, laws - but the federal government can't resolve that. It's a stickier issue than in Canada where the federal law is uniform. But the same principles apply - I think one should be able to go back to the state they were married in and be allowed to be granted a divorce in spite of residency if they cannot get divorced in the state in which they currently reside.

States create laws for the benefit of their own residents, not foreigners. This is particularly so given that foreigners living in a state which does not recognize the validity of their marriage have no actual need of a divorce. They want an emotional parting, which is, to an extent, understandable, but it's not exactly a great human tragedy if they simply have to go their own ways without one.

[jbg]

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.

So basically the same story as Canada?

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."

Not really since the couple may well have been united at the time of the wedding and separated by the time they seek a divorce. Also what about that "roadside marriage" scenario I mentioned?

And by the way AW this has nothing to do with my beliefs on gay marriage. It has to do with some situations where my clients have been sued in positively weird venues and I had to use a technical wrinkle in the bankruptcy laws to straighten out the situation. And by the way that involves filing for bankruptcy, not something most litigants do lightly.

[jbg]

States create laws for the benefit of their own residents, not foreigners. This is particularly so given that foreigners living in a state which does not recognize the validity of their marriage have no actual need of a divorce. They want an emotional parting, which is, to an extent, understandable, but it's not exactly a great human tragedy if they simply have to go their own ways without one.

One crucial problem though. The ability to remarry, either with a different or same sex partner.

[Tilter]

People still get married?----------------- Strange.

[cybercoma]

the Florida spouse might get gypped out of his or her share.

I find this phrase as offensive as someone saying the spouse might get "Jewed" out of his or her share. Please try not to use it.

[cybercoma]

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.

The law doesn't create a hardship for one group of people. What creates the hardship is that the archaic and discriminatory laws in the United States doesn't allow them to divorce there. You're asking that our courts pick up the tab for your country's shortcomings. It's the United States that should be working on changing its laws to be more accommodating, although I agree that we should be making exceptions until that time.

[Guest American Woman]

The law doesn't create a hardship for one group of people. What creates the hardship is that the archaic and discriminatory laws in the United States doesn't allow them to divorce there. You're asking that our courts pick up the tab for your country's shortcomings. It's the United States that should be working on changing its laws to be more accommodating, although I agree that we should be making exceptions until that time.

If our country doesn't marry them - and your country does - it's YOUR country that needs to allow them the ability to divorce without hardship also.

Edited January 15, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I find this phrase as offensive as someone saying the spouse might get "Jewed" out of his or her share. Please try not to use it.

According to the Cambridge dictionary, "gyp" means "to cheat someone." Nothing offensive about that, eh?

[cybercoma]

That still doesn't change the fact that it is your country creating the hardship by not recognizing their marriages. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to prohibit two consenting adults from being in a married relationship with one another. If the laws in the United States weren't so discriminatory, they wouldn't need to come here to get married nor would they need to come here to get divorced either. I agree that we should be hearing their divorces in the meantime, but the problem is ultimately with the laws in the United States and the UK.

Edited January 15, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

That still doesn't change the fact that it is your country creating the hardship by not recognizing their marriages.

They don't recognize them - because they aren't legal here.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to prohibit two consenting adults from being in a married relationship with one another. If the laws in the United States weren't so discriminatory, they wouldn't need to come here to get married nor would they need to come here to get divorced either. I agree that we should be hearing their divorces in the meantime, but the problem is ultimately with the laws in the United States and the UK.

No. As long as Canada grants them marriages and then makes divorce a hardship - the problem of not having access to a divorce without hardship lies with CANADA'S laws.

Edited January 15, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

They don't recognize them - because they aren't legal here.

I guess you didn't look up tautology the last time I mentioned it. Perhaps you will this time.

No. As long as Canada grants them marriages and then makes divorce a hardship - the problem of not having access to a divorce without hardship lies with CANADA'S laws.

We issue divorces all the time without any problems. We allow gay marriages. There is no problem with our laws. What we don't allow, nor does the majority of states in your country, is for people from foreign countries to use our courts at their whim. I shouldn't have to tell you why this is problematic. Nevertheless, I already said that these divorce cases in very specific circumstances should be heard before our courts. Again, ultimately the problem is that your country's laws are ridiculous and indefensible. The goal should be to have these marriages recognized and the laws changed there, so people don't have to go to a foreign country to seek a divorce. If the laws were changed in the US, there would be absolutely no need for our laws to be amended. The problem, therefore, lies with your country's laws.

[waldo]

They don't recognize them - because they aren't legal here.

No. As long as Canada grants them marriages and then makes divorce a hardship - the problem of not having access to a divorce without hardship lies with CANADA'S laws.

aren't gay/lesbian marriages legal/recognized in 6(?) U.S. States? Didn't someone just a few posts back highlight that 'many' of these recognizing U.S. States also impose residency requirements on gay/lesbian couples seeking to divorce? If so, is this a U.S. based hardship imposition... one you're apparently willing to ignore... purposely, or not?

[Guest American Woman]

We issue divorces all the time without any problems. We allow gay marriages. There is no problem with our laws.....

I'm going to go hit my head against the wall now. It'll be a lot less painful than repeating myself yet again.

So yeah. No problem on your end. Canada is perfect. How could I have ever thought otherwise??

x infinity

[cybercoma]

I'm going to go hit my head against the wall now. It'll be a lot less painful than repeating myself yet again.

So yeah. No problem on your end. Canada is perfect. How could I have ever thought otherwise??

x infinity

Funny how I agree with you that Canada should be hearing these divorces, but since I also think the laws in the US are ridiculous and need to change, you throw on your condescending prick hat.

[TimG]

No. As long as Canada grants them marriages and then makes divorce a hardship - the problem of not having access to a divorce without hardship lies with CANADA'S laws.

Nonsense. The government lawyer in this case indicated that there is a no hardship option: declare that the marriage never existed in the first place if the resident jurisdiction does not recognize it. Marriage over. Problem solved.

The trouble is these people did not want that simple solution - they wanted the symbolism of a formal divorce at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. If there is a problem it is with the gays that are expecting Canada to change its laws to suit their personal personal desire for "closure" or whatever.

Edited January 15, 2012 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 15 January 2012 - 11:55 AM, said: 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."

Not really since the couple may well have been united at the time of the wedding and separated by the time they seek a divorce. Also what about that "roadside marriage" scenario I mentioned?

What about it? At any rate, I would hope the couple was united at the time of the wedding and I'm assuming they were separated by the time they would seek a divorce, so I don't know what you're getting at here. As I said, since current Canadian law requires that only one partner reside in Canada for a year, that one partner could "forum shop" before moving there and create the same scenario you presented. If they have to seek a divorce in the same province they were married, that eliminates that possibility.

And by the way AW this has nothing to do with my beliefs on gay marriage. It has to do with some situations where my clients have been sued in positively weird venues and I had to use a technical wrinkle in the bankruptcy laws to straighten out the situation. And by the way that involves filing for bankruptcy, not something most litigants do lightly.

I didn't think it did have anything to do with your beliefs on gay marriage.

But again. They shouldn't be able to get sued for divorce in "positively weird venues." I once again stress that the divorce should be granted in the province they were married in. Again. No "shopping around" allowed. Simple. Upfront. Both chose to get married in, say, Ontario, so that's where they should be able to seek a divorce - without the residency hardship. At their expense, of course.

At any rate, as I said previously, it appears as if the Canadian government shares my views, so perhaps the laws will change.

Edited January 15, 2012 by American Woman

[waldo]

At any rate, as I said previously, it appears as if the Canadian government shares my views, so perhaps the laws will change.

notwithstanding the actual 'shyte storm' timing that pushed/prodded the government to react, early posts within this thread highlighted the now relatively dated possible/probable government change intent... but that certainly didn't stop you from presuming to flaunt "your" after the fact view. Did it?

why I do believe you slid right over my earlier post...

aren't gay/lesbian marriages legal/recognized in 6(?) U.S. States? Didn't someone just a few posts back highlight that 'many' of these recognizing U.S. States also impose residency requirements on gay/lesbian couples seeking to divorce? If so, is this a U.S. based hardship imposition... one you're apparently willing to ignore... purposely, or not?

[cybercoma]

Nonsense. The government lawyer in this case indicated that there is a no hardship option: declare that the marriage never existed in the first place if the resident jurisdiction does not recognize it. Marriage over. Problem solved.

Problem solved? Hell, why don't we just do that for all divorces. It would save a lot of time and money.

The problem's not solved. Assets and liabilities need to be divided. If they can't agree on how this should occur, then there needs to be arbitration.

[TimG]

The problem's not solved. Assets and liabilities need to be divided. If they can't agree on how this should occur, then there needs to be arbitration.

This particular couple obviously agree enough to fight the system. Given that context, they could pay for their own arbitrator. If they wanted they could even agree to use Canadian law as the basis for the division. There is no reason for the state to get involved other than the symbolism offered.

Keep in mind that even if the Canadian law changes only couples that choose to apply for a divorce here will be granted one. If there is a dispute over assets the patner that has the advantage if the marriage is declared non-existent will refuse to go to Canada for a divorce. It is not clear what the government plans to do in such cases but I suspect it will do nothing because it can't do anything.

Edited January 15, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

One crucial problem though. The ability to remarry, either with a different or same sex partner.

Only in Canada if the other country doesn't recognize their Canadian marriage.

[jbg]

According to the Cambridge dictionary, "gyp" means "to cheat someone." Nothing offensive about that, eh?

Maybe in the Canadian language it's an offensive word. I wouldn't know. I don't speak Canadian, just English.

[jbg]

We issue divorces all the time without any problems. We allow gay marriages. There is no problem with our laws. What we don't allow, nor does the majority of states in your country, is for people from foreign countries to use our courts at their whim. I shouldn't have to tell you why this is problematic.

I explained it before, to both sides of the political spectrum and to equally deaf ears. Abuse in choice of forum is a real problem in the legal field here in the U.S. and not just in divorce.

[Wilber]

Problem solved? Hell, why don't we just do that for all divorces. It would save a lot of time and money.

The problem's not solved. Assets and liabilities need to be divided. If they can't agree on how this should occur, then there needs to be arbitration.

Not our problem. The couple are not Canadian citizens, don't live in or have assets in Canada and the state they do reside in doesn't recognize their marriage. Any ruling on assets by a Canadian court would not be recognized in their home country. If it were, that would be an admission that they had been legally married.

[cybercoma]

According to the Cambridge dictionary, "gyp" means "to cheat someone." Nothing offensive about that, eh?

I understand the definition, thanks. Now go take the time to look up the etymology of the word and I respectfully ask that it not be used. It is offensive.