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

[suebee]

Now let's not get too excited about this yet. This is a conservative government. They can't really open up the debate on marriage equality again since it was a decision that went all the way to the Supreme Court that forced all the provinces to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marriage. This is just a back-handed tactic to appease the right-wingers. It will never stand up in court when it's challenged. If there is no residency requirement to get married then they cannot refuse a marriage license. If they refuse the license they are contravening the decision made by the Supreme Court some ten years ago. If they allow the marriage, they cannot refuse the divorce saying that the marriage didn't exist. This is right-wing politics Canadian-style. This decision will. not. stand.

Sue 's marriage is LEGAL!

[foxyshaman]

Originally Posted by suebee

Now let's not get too excited about this yet. This is a conservative government. They can't really open up the debate on marriage equality again since it was a decision that went all the way to the Supreme Court that forced all the provinces to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marriage. This is just a back-handed tactic to appease the right-wingers. It will never stand up in court when it's challenged. If there is no residency requirement to get married then they cannot refuse a marriage license. If they refuse the license they are contravening the decision made by the Supreme Court some ten years ago. If they allow the marriage, they cannot refuse the divorce saying that the marriage didn't exist. This is right-wing politics Canadian-style. This decision will. not. stand.

Sue 's marriage is LEGAL!

Agree with you Suebee. One lawyer's opinion does not change the Supreme Courts ruling.

Our premier at the time was hell bent on not allowing gay marriage. But this is also the premier who got drunk around christmas time, went to a homeless shelter, threw around money and told "those lazy assholes to get a job". Oh the "good ol' boy" days.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by foxyshaman

Agree with you Suebee. One lawyer's opinion does not change the Supreme Courts ruling.

Our premier at the time was hell bent on not allowing gay marriage. But this is also the premier who got drunk around christmas time, went to a homeless shelter, threw around money and told "those lazy assholes to get a job". Oh the "good ol' boy" days.

Oh yeah. I remember him. His worst vitriol was usually reserved for the "bums from the Maritimes". Uh - that would be ME! lol

Harper has to show his colours now and again - even if he knows that, in the end, nothing will come of it. I wonder how much of our tax dollars are going towards this frivolity?

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by foxyshaman

Agree with you Suebee. One lawyer's opinion does not change the Supreme Courts ruling.

Our premier at the time was hell bent on not allowing gay marriage. But this is also the premier who got drunk around christmas time, went to a homeless shelter, threw around money and told "those lazy assholes to get a job". Oh the "good ol' boy" days.

Although it's "only one lawyer" from the Department of Justice according to the articles, I really don't doubt that all the other conservative "good ol' boys" (including Nicholson himself, despite what he might say to the press) weren't in the dark about this and that they supported this "lone layer" testing the waters. A random Department of Justice lawyer isn't going to make such a huge proclamation that would affect thousands of marriages on Canadian soil without getting some kind of "ok" from a head honcho. Like others have said, Harper and co. show their true faces from time to time and anyone with a brain can see through it, but in front of the press they're snakes in the grass. Unlike the American breed of far right evangelist fundies who rave their bigotry from the rooftops, our breed are much more subtle, which is what allowed these previous Canadian Alliance bros to get into power in the first place.

So yeah, Supreme Court will likely reject it, I agree, but they still like to test the boundaries as far as how much they can even temporarily hinder same-sex marriage rights without outright waging war on it as they did before same-sex marriage laws were passed. It's the same as the whole Planned Parenthood fiasco. Harper kept his "PR face on" while Brad Trost and co. ranted and raved about how funding to International Planned Parenthood had already been cut. The application for funding was sitting on Oda's desk for over a year with no response, and they only got their funding after a stink was made about it. Same thing here. If nobody notices they'll passively allow certain rights to fall by the wayside, but as long as people notice they'll claim it was a "mistake" or a "lone" perpetrator and wait for another day to do the same until people believe "they would never do such a thing." But let's not kid ourselves. Shit like this will continue to happen. And as for the Supreme Court. The Harper government's two new appointments so far were right-leaning as expected, and he's got the opportunity to continue to stack the Supreme Court with at least two more appointments by the next federal election. So while it doesn't seem likely now, I sometimes do wonder about the changing face of the Supreme Court under his government.

*waits to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist*

But as for this particular fight. Yeah, I agree. This will die in Supreme Court.

[foxyshaman]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Although it's "only one lawyer" from the Department of Justice according to the articles, I really don't doubt that all the other conservative "good ol' boys" (including Nicholson himself, despite what he might say to the press) weren't in the dark about this and that they supported this "lone layer" testing the waters. A random Department of Justice lawyer isn't going to make such a huge proclamation that would affect thousands of marriages on Canadian soil without getting some kind of "ok" from a head honcho. Like others have said, Harper and co. show their true faces from time to time and anyone with a brain can see through it, but in front of the press they're snakes in the grass. Unlike the American breed of far right evangelist fundies who rave their bigotry from the rooftops, our breed are much more subtle, which is what allowed these previous Canadian Alliance bros to get into power in the first place.

So yeah, Supreme Court will likely reject it, I agree, but they still like to test the boundaries as far as how much they can even temporarily hinder same-sex marriage rights without outright waging war on it as they did before same-sex marriage laws were passed. It's the same as the whole Planned Parenthood fiasco. Harper kept his "PR face on" while Brad Trost and co. ranted and raved about how funding to International Planned Parenthood had already been cut. The application for funding was sitting on Oda's desk for over a year with no response, and they only got their funding after a stink was made about it. Same thing here. If nobody notices they'll passively allow certain rights to fall by the wayside, but as long as people notice they'll claim it was a "mistake" or a "lone" perpetrator and wait for another day to do the same until people believe "they would never do such a thing." But let's not kid ourselves. Shit like this will continue to happen. And as for the Supreme Court. The Harper government's two new appointments so far were right-leaning as expected, and he's got the opportunity to continue to stack the Supreme Court with at least two more appointments by the next federal election. So while it doesn't seem likely now, I sometimes do wonder about the changing face of the Supreme Court under his government.

*waits to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist*

But as for this particular fight. Yeah, I agree. This will die in Supreme Court.

Conspiracy accusations aside

It has been my experience that small departments within the Department of Justice, do, all the time, opinions that are no "ok"ed by the Big Boys. I am not saying that Nicholson and others were in the LIGHT; however, it would appear as though a lawyer was assigned the task of preparing a briefing note and opinion based on a question, posed by another lawyer within the Department. A divorce case, as has been described here, is a test case. And a very good one.

While I am sorry SoulShineFemme that you, and others, are caught in limbo, this appears to be a very intrinsic question to be answered. Can someone be legally divorced in a country that does not recognize them as married. It appears that perhaps the rulings made by the Supreme Court were short sighted, or perhaps overly optimistic, in not considering that question. The Supreme Court ruled on the 'rights' of same sex couples to be married. They were not asked to consider, or rule, on whether a divorce would be obtainable within a less open minded jurisdiction - residency requirements aside.

I cannot comment specifically on the laws regarding residency requirements for divorce. I do have compassion for individuals seeking divorce and having to incur, on top of those expenses, further costs to legally prove they are married, therefore eligible for divorce.

I attended many of the hearings where I live regarding this issue, and was surprised, and humbled, by the number of people who came out to support same sex marriages. Despite being the Red Neck Capital of Canada, well except maybe Regina, but I am not throwing stones . I am confident that the Harper gov't, despite its valium like qualities, has no intention of back tracking on this issue. This is an important issue to be resolved. I am interested to see what policy has to be put into place to ensure divorces for those couples who are not residents.

[ONLY]

Originally Posted by foxyshaman

Conspiracy accusations aside

It has been my experience that small departments within the Department of Justice, do, all the time, opinions that are no "ok"ed by the Big Boys. I am not saying that Nicholson and others were in the LIGHT; however, it would appear as though a lawyer was assigned the task of preparing a briefing note and opinion based on a question, posed by another lawyer within the Department. A divorce case, as has been described here, is a test case. And a very good one.

While I am sorry SoulShineFemme that you, and others, are caught in limbo, this appears to be a very intrinsic question to be answered. Can someone be legally divorced in a country that does not recognize them as married. It appears that perhaps the rulings made by the Supreme Court were short sighted, or perhaps overly optimistic, in not considering that question. The Supreme Court ruled on the 'rights' of same sex couples to be married. They were not asked to consider, or rule, on whether a divorce would be obtainable within a less open minded jurisdiction - residency requirements aside.

I cannot comment specifically on the laws regarding residency requirements for divorce. I do have compassion for individuals seeking divorce and having to incur, on top of those expenses, further costs to legally prove they are married, therefore eligible for divorce.

I attended many of the hearings where I live regarding this issue, and was surprised, and humbled, by the number of people who came out to support same sex marriages. Despite being the Red Neck Capital of Canada, well except maybe Regina, but I am not throwing stones . I am confident that the Harper gov't, despite its valium like qualities, has no intention of back tracking on this issue. This is an important issue to be resolved. I am interested to see what policy has to be put into place to ensure divorces for those couples who are not residents.

I put in red in your post what I am addressing.
I am also very interesting in knowing more about a policy to ensure divorces for couples who are not residents. As you have read in SS (SoulShineFemme) post this affects her and also myself. As I do live in Canada, we are hoping at one point that maybe she can stay for a year and then hope she can divorce, and eventually live here. If anyone knows anything to help us out, please let me know (PM me, if you like). Thank you.

[Truly Scrumptious]

Originally Posted by ONLY

I put in red in your post what I am addressing.
I am also very interesting in knowing more about a policy to ensure divorces for couples who are not residents. As you have read in SS (SoulShineFemme) post this affects her and also myself. As I do live in Canada, we are hoping at one point that maybe she can stay for a year and then hope she can divorce, and eventually live here. If anyone knows anything to help us out, please let me know (PM me, if you like). Thank you.

Under current law, I think the only options are:

SSF could apply for immigration under the “skilled worker” class, or maybe she could even apply to study here (assuming she would like to go to school) and then once she is in Canada, she can file for divorce (keep in mind that the skilled worker class is the most difficult class of immigration and takes the longest)

or

SSF could come and live with you in Canada for a year and then file for divorce. To do that she would have to leave after 6 months and return so that she could get another 6 month stamp
on her passport . . . then she could file for divorce. She wouldn’t be able to work or be eligible for Medicare during this time. After her divorce, you could apply to sponsor her for immigration under the family class. (You would not be able to sponsor her while she is married to someone else.)

[Corkey]

We don't live in Canada, close but not in it, and it isn't legal in this state. This sucks and is making me ballistic.