US Citizen Married in Canada? You may only THINK you're married...

[suebee]

CBC article on same topic.

[foxyshaman]

Originally Posted by suebee

CBC article on same topic.

I would be interested to know which government office was asked to do the opinion in the first place. I shall dig further. After having worked within the gov't for a long time, I do know it will take more than one opinion to change anything.

Thanks for posting the article Suebee. I would be interested in seeing the original applications filed before the courts which sparked this debate.

[SoulShineFemme]

Mmm Hmm.. I'm watching this thread from here on out. My ex and I were so excited to marry in Canada (both of us from the United States).... Thinking that in the U.S. it would eventually stand... Fast forward 6 years and we can't undo it because neither of us lives there (yet). It's absolutely ridiculous. Inequality at its best. We had absolutely NO CLUE that we would have this much trouble down the road. It makes absolutely no sense, so here we wait. In limbo....

[Soon]

Ottawa moves to defuse same-sex controversy

The Harper government has moved to defuse a growing controversy over same-sex marriage with a promise to make legal changes to ensure that non-residents married in Canada can obtain divorces.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said that the same-sex marriage that ignited the controversy cannot legally be dissolved, but his department will search for a solution.

“I will be looking at options to clarify the law so that marriages performed in Canada can be undone in Canada,” Mr. Nicholson said.

The move came after The Globe and Mail revealed that the Justice Department had taken a legal position that same-sex marriages involving non-residents are invalid – and cannot be dissolved – unless they are recognized as legitimate in the couple’s home country. That quickly sparked confusion at home and abroad from activists and couples who married in Canada.

Political opponents and gay activists feared the move signalled a reopening of the issue that would potentially cast the legality of same-sex marriage in doubt. However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted Thursday afternoon that he would not do so.

“We're not going to reopen that particular issue,” Mr. Harper told reporters at a shipbuilding event in North Vancouver on Thursday afternoon, declining to elaborate beyond mentioning the release of Mr. Nicholson's statement.

“This is a complicated case and the Minister of Justice, I think, has put out a statement clarifying the government's position on that.”

While Mr. Nicholson’s announcement alleviated some concerns, it left one central question unanswered: Does the government consider marriages involving same-sex non-residents to be legal, or not?

A lawyer for the lesbian partners in the Toronto case, Martha McCarthy, praised the government for attempting to rectify the problem, but she said it must go further.

“They should make a public statement in which they clarify that these Canadian marriages are still valid and legal,” Ms. McCarthy said.

The federal position in her case is based on two central propositions. First, couples who came to Canada to be married must live in the country for at least a year before they can obtain a divorce. Second, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada only if they are also legal in the couple’s home country of state.

Legal experts and politicians are seriously at odds over how residency requirements ought to apply to foreigners who were not warned that they might be unable to divorce.

Gay activists warned Thursday that their formidable lobby will mobilize to fight any attempt by the Harper government to push back hard-won rights.

“Have thousands of same-sex couples been misled by Canadian officials for nearly eight years?” said Helen Kennedy, executive director of the gay rights group, Egale Canada.

It also emerged that the Toronto case was the second time in the past year that Justice Department lawyers have intervened to raise obstacles in a same-sex divorce case.

Several months ago, it launched a legal intervention in the case of a Canadian man, Wayne Hincks, and his partner, who had obtained the status of a civil partnership in Britain.

The Crown contended that a civil partnership obtained in Britain is not equal to marriage under Canada’s Divorce Act – notwithstanding the fact that Britain considers a civil partnership tantamount to marriage.

Mr. Hincks said in an interview that the federal intervention has doubled his legal costs and added to the emotional trauma of his divorce. “I have been left to fight a very expensive battle that mostly has been to defend my position against an intervention by the Attorney-General of Canada,” he said.

Mr. Harper appeared caught off-guard earlier Thursday, when a press conference he had scheduled in Halifax was hijacked by questions about the same-sex controversy.

A government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Prime Minister’s Office cannot always effectively control how departments proceed on files. “There are many times where Department of Justice lawyers ... don’t do anything like what the government wants them to do,” the source said.

Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, insisted that the Conservatives consider the issue of gay marriage closed. “There’s been absolutely no discussion within our party about this at all,” he said.

However, skepticism about the government’s motives continued to run rampant.

Former prime minister Paul Martin, who brought in the law allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, said the government’s position in the Toronto divorce case is “absolutely ridiculous.”

“We validated those marriages and you cannot retroactively invalidate marriages that you validated,” Mr. Martin said in an interview.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson warned that human rights begin to erode when policy shifts take place in backrooms and obscure courtrooms rather than in highly visible legislation.

“The current position of the Justice Department is embarrassing, it's flat-out wrong and needs to change,” Mr. Robertson said.

Former Toronto mayor David Miller said any move that called into question same-sex marriage legalities would embarrass Canada in front of the world by upsetting the lives of couples who flocked to the city for marriages they had been denied in their home countries.

“I was so proud to be the mayor of a city that had the first same-sex marriages. It made a strong statement that everybody is welcome in our country,” Mr. Miller said.

Same-sex marriage was effectively legalized by the courts in 2004. A year later, the Liberal government of Mr. Martin passed a bill enshrining it in law.

More than 5,000 of the approximately 15,000 same-sex marriages that have taken place since then involved couples from the United States or other countries.

The couple in the Toronto divorce case – one of whom lives in Florida and the other in Britain – were wed in Toronto in 2005.

[Curley]

http://www.news1130.com/news/nationa...e-sex-marriage

[betenoire]

LGBT Legal Groups: Canadian Marriages of Same-Sex Couples Are Not in Jeopardy

(San Francisco, CA, January 12, 2012)—The following is a joint statement from Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Freedom to Marry:

We write to respond to a news report from Canada that a lawyer in the current government has taken a position in a trial-level divorce proceeding that a same-sex couple’s marriage is not valid because the members of the couple were not Canada residents at the time that they married, and the law of their home jurisdiction did not permit them to marry at the time.

No one’s marriage has been invalidated or is likely to be invalidated. The position taken by one government lawyer in a divorce is not itself precedential. No court has accepted this view and there is no reason to believe that either Canada’s courts or its Parliament would agree with this position, which no one has asserted before during the eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

Canada permits non-residents to marry and thousands of non-resident same-sex couples have married there since Canada first began recognizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in 2003. Indeed, Canada’s Parliament codified the equal right to marry for same-sex couples in 2005.

The message for same-sex couples married in Canada remains the same as it is for same-sex couples validly married here in the United States: take every precaution you can to protect your relationship with legal documents such as powers of attorney and adoptions, as you may travel to jurisdictions that don’t respect your legal relationship. There is no reason to suggest that Canadian marriages of same-sex couples are in jeopardy, or to advocate that people try to marry again elsewhere, as that could cause these couples unnecessary complications, anxiety, and expense.

[betenoire]

Oh, and frankly I am really pissed at Dan Savage for adding to the (most likely unnecessary) upset with his "The Canadian Government Dissolved My Marriage!" tirade.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Ottawa moves to defuse same-sex controversy

The Harper government has moved to defuse a growing controversy over same-sex marriage with a promise to make legal changes to ensure that non-residents married in Canada can obtain divorces.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said that the same-sex marriage that ignited the controversy cannot legally be dissolved, but his department will search for a solution.

“I will be looking at options to clarify the law so that marriages performed in Canada can be undone in Canada,” Mr. Nicholson said.

The move came after The Globe and Mail revealed that the Justice Department had taken a legal position that same-sex marriages involving non-residents are invalid – and cannot be dissolved – unless they are recognized as legitimate in the couple’s home country. That quickly sparked confusion at home and abroad from activists and couples who married in Canada.

Political opponents and gay activists feared the move signalled a reopening of the issue that would potentially cast the legality of same-sex marriage in doubt. However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted Thursday afternoon that he would not do so.

“We're not going to reopen that particular issue,” Mr. Harper told reporters at a shipbuilding event in North Vancouver on Thursday afternoon, declining to elaborate beyond mentioning the release of Mr. Nicholson's statement.

“This is a complicated case and the Minister of Justice, I think, has put out a statement clarifying the government's position on that.”

While Mr. Nicholson’s announcement alleviated some concerns, it left one central question unanswered: Does the government consider marriages involving same-sex non-residents to be legal, or not?

A lawyer for the lesbian partners in the Toronto case, Martha McCarthy, praised the government for attempting to rectify the problem, but she said it must go further.

“They should make a public statement in which they clarify that these Canadian marriages are still valid and legal,” Ms. McCarthy said.

The federal position in her case is based on two central propositions. First, couples who came to Canada to be married must live in the country for at least a year before they can obtain a divorce. Second, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada only if they are also legal in the couple’s home country of state.

Legal experts and politicians are seriously at odds over how residency requirements ought to apply to foreigners who were not warned that they might be unable to divorce.

Gay activists warned Thursday that their formidable lobby will mobilize to fight any attempt by the Harper government to push back hard-won rights.

“Have thousands of same-sex couples been misled by Canadian officials for nearly eight years?” said Helen Kennedy, executive director of the gay rights group, Egale Canada.

It also emerged that the Toronto case was the second time in the past year that Justice Department lawyers have intervened to raise obstacles in a same-sex divorce case.

Several months ago, it launched a legal intervention in the case of a Canadian man, Wayne Hincks, and his partner, who had obtained the status of a civil partnership in Britain.

The Crown contended that a civil partnership obtained in Britain is not equal to marriage under Canada’s Divorce Act – notwithstanding the fact that Britain considers a civil partnership tantamount to marriage.

Mr. Hincks said in an interview that the federal intervention has doubled his legal costs and added to the emotional trauma of his divorce. “I have been left to fight a very expensive battle that mostly has been to defend my position against an intervention by the Attorney-General of Canada,” he said.

Mr. Harper appeared caught off-guard earlier Thursday, when a press conference he had scheduled in Halifax was hijacked by questions about the same-sex controversy.

A government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Prime Minister’s Office cannot always effectively control how departments proceed on files. “There are many times where Department of Justice lawyers ... don’t do anything like what the government wants them to do,” the source said.

Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, insisted that the Conservatives consider the issue of gay marriage closed. “There’s been absolutely no discussion within our party about this at all,” he said.

However, skepticism about the government’s motives continued to run rampant.

Former prime minister Paul Martin, who brought in the law allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, said the government’s position in the Toronto divorce case is “absolutely ridiculous.”

“We validated those marriages and you cannot retroactively invalidate marriages that you validated,” Mr. Martin said in an interview.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson warned that human rights begin to erode when policy shifts take place in backrooms and obscure courtrooms rather than in highly visible legislation.

“The current position of the Justice Department is embarrassing, it's flat-out wrong and needs to change,” Mr. Robertson said.

Former Toronto mayor David Miller said any move that called into question same-sex marriage legalities would embarrass Canada in front of the world by upsetting the lives of couples who flocked to the city for marriages they had been denied in their home countries.

“I was so proud to be the mayor of a city that had the first same-sex marriages. It made a strong statement that everybody is welcome in our country,” Mr. Miller said.

Same-sex marriage was effectively legalized by the courts in 2004. A year later, the Liberal government of Mr. Martin passed a bill enshrining it in law.

More than 5,000 of the approximately 15,000 same-sex marriages that have taken place since then involved couples from the United States or other countries.

The couple in the Toronto divorce case – one of whom lives in Florida and the other in Britain – were wed in Toronto in 2005.

I'm wondering if some folks missed the above post. And here's another article.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by suebee

I'm wondering if some folks missed the above post. And here's another article.

I'm sorry. I don't understand. I would like to respond but I'm not sure to what and I don't want to misconstrue what you are saying and write a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with your point. Toward that end I am asking for a little clarification as to what gives you the impression that some people missed the post you mentioned. I got the impression that the conversation had moved on to now what are people's options under the current law to get a divorce when both parties live outside of Canada. But perhaps I missed something.

[ONLY]

Originally Posted by suebee

I'm wondering if some folks missed the above post. And here's another article.

I read the article and here is the part I am addressing "Canada's justice minister says all same-sex marriages performed in Canada are legally recognized and the government is working to ensure foreign couples married here can divorce if they chose to." and if this means what I think it means then we are on the right track (as far as SS and I are concerned, for our situation)
Thanks suebee for the article

[SoulShineFemme]

Originally Posted by suebee

I'm wondering if some folks missed the above post. And here's another article.

Thanks for posting the second article as well, Suebee. It gives me some hope.

[Truly Scrumptious]

The federal government introduced a bill Friday that declares same-sex marriages "valid for the purposes of Canadian law" and lays out rules for same-sex divorce for non-residents.

The measures are aimed at closing a legal loophole that could have undermined thousands of gay marriages around the world.

The bill, called an act to amend the Civil Marriage Act, says it establishes a "new divorce process that allows a Canadian court to grant a divorce to non-resident spouses who reside in a state where a divorce cannot be granted to them because that state does not recognize the validity of their marriage."

The amendments would allow a court in the province where the marriage was performed to grant a divorce if there has been a breakdown of the marriage as "established by the spouses having lived separate and apart" for at least one year before a divorce is requested.

A similar one-year separation period exists for residents of Canada to be eligible for a divorce.

The divorce for non-residents would only be granted if neither spouse lives in Canada at the time the divorce is requested, by one or both individuals.

They also have to have lived in a state where a divorce cannot be granted because the marriage is not recognized as valid for at least one year, the amendments state.

The bill introduced Friday makes no proposed amendments to the Divorce Act, and the measures only apply to non-residents.

The new rules, if the bill is passed, would not address issues such as child or spousal support. Any arrangements for property, custody and access to children or support will be determined in the jurisdiction where the couple lives, the Justice Department said in a news release.

Canada's marriage laws do not have a residency requirement. But federal divorce laws do, and that means same-sex couples who travel to Canada to marry because the jurisdiction in which they live does not marry gays or lesbians run the risk of not having the legal means to divorce if the relationship sours.

The proposed changes have been prompted by a divorce case in Ontario involving a same-sex couple. The unidentified lesbian couple married in Canada in 2005 but split up in 2009. The partners are living in Florida and the United Kingdom. Both women want a divorce, but cannot get one where they now live because the state of Florida does not recognize their marriage, and though the U.K. grants civil partnerships to same-sex couples, it does not recognize the Canadian marriage.

Legal documents filed by the federal government in the case had argued that even though the couple married in Canada, the two couldn't be considered legally married because it wasn't recognized in their U.S. and United Kingdom homes.

Gay rights activists and opposition politicians accused the Tories of trying to rewrite the rules on same-sex marriage to suit their own agenda.

But the government says its opinion is that the marriages were valid and it doesn't want to reopen the debate on the definition of marriage.

"Recently it came to light that there was an anomaly in our civil marriage laws," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in a statement after the bill was introduced in the House of Commons. "We are fixing the anomaly in the law."

The lawyer in the case that brought the issue to light, Martha McCarthy, told CBC's Power & Politics on Friday, "We are grateful the bill addresses the validity of the marriages of non-residents and allows them to divorce. But the government set a fire and is now trying to get credit for putting it out."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-loophole.html