Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 13, 2012
International / LGBTQITSLFA Canadian Justice Minister: All Same-Sex Marriages "Legal and Valid"
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM
And... scene:
All same sex marriages performed in Canada are legal and the law will be changed to ensure that divorce is readily available to non-residents who were married in the country, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says.... The situation has been “completely unfair to those affected.” Mr. Nicholson said. “I want to make it clear that in our government's view, these marriages are valid.”
The announcement appears to clear up a continuing source of controversy that erupted Thursday when The Globe and Mail reported a divorce case in Toronto where the Justice Department took the position that a same-sex marriage involving non-residents is not legal unless their home country recognizes it as such.
Mr. Nicholson raised the issue immediately after taking the podium at a Canadian Club luncheon. His statement went well beyond an assurance he gave Thursday that the government will consider legislative reform that would enable couples affected to obtain divorces. On Friday, he expressed empathy with those caught up in the confusion and assured them that changes will be made to ensure that both their marriages and divorces are legally valid.
So Terry's my husband again. Good to know. Thanks, Canada!
2
Well, it's a good thing we all went ahead and flipped our shit before we actually figured out whether the problem was real! Otherwise we might not have gotten any shit-flipping at all.
Anyway, that's great news, Dan. Happy for you.
Anyway, that's great news, Dan. Happy for you.
3
I suspect the Prime Minister was motivated by Google Problem Avoidance. Not sure what Dan Savage would call a Harper, but it sure wouldn't be pretty.
5
I think somebody up in Canada was testing the waters, just seeing if he could get away with it. Guess not.
7
The Conservative government obviously can't get away with too much social conservative crap in Canada because most Canadians aren't knuckle-dragging bible trogs. They can and do, however, seem to be working to push their SoCon values on non-Canadians: screwing around with family planning funding in developing countries is one example. It plays well to their bible-thumping supporters, and it's easier to get away with it.
Maybe that's what happened here: they screwed over non-Canadians for political gain and giggles (because they're jerks), but they underestimated the magnitude of the inevitable shitstorm.
Or maybe it was a trial balloon. If so, it's good that it was shot down so thoroughly.
Maybe that's what happened here: they screwed over non-Canadians for political gain and giggles (because they're jerks), but they underestimated the magnitude of the inevitable shitstorm.
Or maybe it was a trial balloon. If so, it's good that it was shot down so thoroughly.
9
@6 as an Albertan I take exception to that. Not all of us conservatives. It should also be noted that Harper is not a born-and-raised-Albertan (as I am), but is originally from Toronto. Just sayin'
10
Canadian here. I agree with SeattleKim. I think they're testing the waters to see what they can get away with. The Harper majority government is a scary thing.
11
I also agree with # 7
And by the way, Dan, I'm glad this settled down sensibly and that you and Terry, and thousands of others, are still married.
And by the way, Dan, I'm glad this settled down sensibly and that you and Terry, and thousands of others, are still married.
12
@9 yes, but you're not PM. About 1/5th of my high school class moved from Trail BC to Alberta - most are in Calgary. Don't think any want to be PM.
13
And I as a Canadian non-resident can also get divorced in my native country! Can't wait to tell my husband!
14
Guys, as much as I hate our conservative government, they had nothing to do with this.
Except, you know, promising to fix it.
Except, you know, promising to fix it.
15
Yeah, I was pretty agog at the news yesterday that those marriages were invalidated, but a closer read seemed to indicate that the position taken in that one case wasn't an official government position.
However, that's not to say that SeattleKim isn't right, & the conservative government is pushing to see what they can get away with. Don't do it, Canada!
However, that's not to say that SeattleKim isn't right, & the conservative government is pushing to see what they can get away with. Don't do it, Canada!
16
"...Canadian Club luncheon..."
Whatever else the Canadian government does wrong, good to know they're still following a tradition neglected here since the days of Ted Kennedy, Tip O'Neill, Bob Packwood and John Tower.
Whatever else the Canadian government does wrong, good to know they're still following a tradition neglected here since the days of Ted Kennedy, Tip O'Neill, Bob Packwood and John Tower.
17
Sometimes I wonder what is taught in journalism school. This was a non-story from the get-go. A Justice Department lawyer filing a third-party amicus curiae brief in a civil divorce proceeding which the judge was in no way obligated to accept. Indeed, given the law and the Canadian Constitution, there is no legal way that he could have accepted it.
18
@17 - I disagree. I think the story was exactly what @5 said - a testing of the waters.
With all the conservatives stomping around America and braying about 'teh gheys', I think this Canadian turkey decided to run this up the flagpole and see who'd salute it. Result: international outrage, followed by furious back-pedaling. I think that's definitely a story.
Congrats on being still hitched, Dan! Y'all should celebrate with a fancy meal or something!!
With all the conservatives stomping around America and braying about 'teh gheys', I think this Canadian turkey decided to run this up the flagpole and see who'd salute it. Result: international outrage, followed by furious back-pedaling. I think that's definitely a story.
Congrats on being still hitched, Dan! Y'all should celebrate with a fancy meal or something!!
19
There is a CBC article on this that is currently the top news item in BC regional news, fwiw.
I think a lot of Canucks got very very upset at this and did something.
I think a lot of Canucks got very very upset at this and did something.
20
I'm not a Harper supporter, but come on! Its irrational to think that our Prime Minister gave a secret order to a divorce lawyer to test out if they could make foriegn gay marriages invalid.
This was a non story from the start.
This was a non story from the start.
22
I too believe that while he may not have set it up, they took advantage of the situation to see what they could get away with. My good country men said "Hell No!!!" But a little reminder, you dance with the devil, you may not get to choose the tune.
23
During the election in Canada, Some conservative candidates were clear that they believed gay marriage would be on the table, prompting Harper to issue multiple denials. I believe we have just seen the first volley in an agenda that was planned all along. what is sad is politicians hiding their political actions behind bureaucrats. The justice Minister's promises ring pretty hollow when it is his underling's actions that created the issue.
24
@20: "Its irrational to think that our Prime Minister gave a secret order to a divorce lawyer to test out if they could make foriegn gay marriages invalid."
It's the sort of thing that our politicians do, I'm sure you can understand that we're sensitized to these possibilities.
It's the sort of thing that our politicians do, I'm sure you can understand that we're sensitized to these possibilities.
25
You never weren't married. The marriages were never annulled. One filing in one court, when the court didn't even make a ruling on that filing, is not the end of all foreign gay marriages. The law has allowed it since 2005.
What @2 said is right.
Incidentally: if you misunderstand at first, it's a human error, understandable if somewhat disappointing. If you do four updates and two further posts, and yet still tell the same "misunderstanding", it's now a lie.
What @2 said is right.
Incidentally: if you misunderstand at first, it's a human error, understandable if somewhat disappointing. If you do four updates and two further posts, and yet still tell the same "misunderstanding", it's now a lie.
26
@14 They do get credit for the fix, which is needed to bring clarity to the law and assurance that these marriages are legally valid.
But they also can be rightly condemned for first arguing in court that those 5000 marriages were void (though that appears to have been a very low-level decision, since neither the Justice Minister nor the PM appeared to have been properly briefed on the issue.) The proper response on recognizing this problem would have been to announce the fix, rather than throwing all of these marriages into a day of doubt.
They can also be fairly criticized (as Dan did excellently yesterday) for a rather cavalier response when this first came up, focusing on "not reopening the issue" without affirming the validity of these messages or saying anything that would have conveyed an ounce of concern for the persons affected.
But they also can be rightly condemned for first arguing in court that those 5000 marriages were void (though that appears to have been a very low-level decision, since neither the Justice Minister nor the PM appeared to have been properly briefed on the issue.) The proper response on recognizing this problem would have been to announce the fix, rather than throwing all of these marriages into a day of doubt.
They can also be fairly criticized (as Dan did excellently yesterday) for a rather cavalier response when this first came up, focusing on "not reopening the issue" without affirming the validity of these messages or saying anything that would have conveyed an ounce of concern for the persons affected.
27
But how is anyone seeing what they could get away with? The law was like that ALL ALONG (put in place by the Liberals, I might add), it was only when this couple wanted to divorce (which under the laws that were already in place, they had no way of doing) that the issue came up. No one was trying to change anything. They'll have to make a change in order to fix it. The marriage in question was purely symbolic to begin with because they don't live in a place that recognizes it.
Read this: http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/kevin-k…
There is no conspiracy.
Read this: http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/kevin-k…
There is no conspiracy.
28
@26 The people who deserve fair criticizing are the media, for completely misreporting the issue.
And you don't understand how our legal system works. The department of justice interprets the law (which was already like this) and puts forth an argument in front of a judge on how federal law should apply in certain situations. The DO NOT set government policy, they just try to make the most correct legal (not political or ethical, legal) arguments. This was never a case of policy, it was a a single argument of how to deal with a loophole in the law. The DOJ didn't have the option of just changing the law in question and then announcing they fixed it. That's not how the system works. Maybe the unhappy couple's lawyer shouldn't have told the media about this and thrown everybody into doubt. But that's not the government's fault.
And you don't understand how our legal system works. The department of justice interprets the law (which was already like this) and puts forth an argument in front of a judge on how federal law should apply in certain situations. The DO NOT set government policy, they just try to make the most correct legal (not political or ethical, legal) arguments. This was never a case of policy, it was a a single argument of how to deal with a loophole in the law. The DOJ didn't have the option of just changing the law in question and then announcing they fixed it. That's not how the system works. Maybe the unhappy couple's lawyer shouldn't have told the media about this and thrown everybody into doubt. But that's not the government's fault.
29
If same-sex marriage becomes legal in Washington, will Dan and Terry get a Canadian divorce and remarry here? (Would there be any civil advantages to that?)
30
@28 Of course the Justice Department develops government policy and drafts legislation. It's one of their primary functions; have a look at their website. And of course they consider the policy implications of what they argue in court. They act as the Government's law firm to represent the Government's interests. They are not at all impartial; you may be confusing them with the independent judiciary.
I would agree that there wasn't a policy consideration undertaken in this case, which was a failure of how it was handled.
What should have happened is the lawyer in question would have recognized the fantastically bad publicity and iniquitous outcome that would result from a strict application of the common law dual domicile rule. The Minister or Deputy Minister (or possibly even the Prime Minister) would have been briefed, and realized that the best way to remedy that would be through legislation clarifying the validity of the marriages.
In the end, all of that did actually happen. It just happened after the issue was unwisely brought to court.
I would agree that there wasn't a policy consideration undertaken in this case, which was a failure of how it was handled.
What should have happened is the lawyer in question would have recognized the fantastically bad publicity and iniquitous outcome that would result from a strict application of the common law dual domicile rule. The Minister or Deputy Minister (or possibly even the Prime Minister) would have been briefed, and realized that the best way to remedy that would be through legislation clarifying the validity of the marriages.
In the end, all of that did actually happen. It just happened after the issue was unwisely brought to court.
31
I'm a Canadian, and I've watched Harper for fifteen years.
1) Harper is a right-wing evangelical Christ-freak fuck-the-poor-the-gay-the-women-the-ethnics-and-the-cripples.
2) Harper cares NOTHING for law, precedent, justice, or simple humanity, much like the US Repubs.
3) Unlike the US Repubs, Harper is an extremely intelligent and devious man who should NEVER be underestimated -- EVER.
4) Harper is a bully and a complete, I mean COMPLETE control freak. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING comes out of the Federal gov't which has not been vetted by the Prime Minister's Office.
5) Harper has done this type of thing before, floated a trial balloon through different venues, often not seemingly connected directly to him, but in fact under his control.
6) Harper has achieved power and has remained in power even though he is disliked and distrusted by the majority of the Canadian electorate because, though he is a radical, he is a cautious, canny, and long-term thinker.
Harper deliberately floated this balloon. If he could have gotten away with it, he would have, ABSOLUTELY. He fucking HATES gays (Christer evangelical, get it?) The fact that he had to retreat precipitously doesn't bother him in the least, first, because he is perfectly willing to wait years to try again, second, because the failure solidifies his support amongst his sexist, racist, religious base -- he gets to say to them, "Look, we tried, but it didn't work. See, you still owe me your votes.", and third, because he has other goals is he is working towards simultaneously.
I repeat, I've watched him for fifteen years, and I knew right away how dangerous he was (and is). He is, unlike so many other right-wing nuts, highly intelligent, a really expert liar, devious, coolly and cannily manipulative, flexible, determined, clear-sighted, and non-distractable from his ultimate goal(s). His only real weaknesses are his egomania, his obvious cruelty, and his (common to the right-wing) propensity to promote and give power to thieves and idiots.
More...
1) Harper is a right-wing evangelical Christ-freak fuck-the-poor-the-gay-the-women-the-ethnics-and-the-cripples.
2) Harper cares NOTHING for law, precedent, justice, or simple humanity, much like the US Repubs.
3) Unlike the US Repubs, Harper is an extremely intelligent and devious man who should NEVER be underestimated -- EVER.
4) Harper is a bully and a complete, I mean COMPLETE control freak. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING comes out of the Federal gov't which has not been vetted by the Prime Minister's Office.
5) Harper has done this type of thing before, floated a trial balloon through different venues, often not seemingly connected directly to him, but in fact under his control.
6) Harper has achieved power and has remained in power even though he is disliked and distrusted by the majority of the Canadian electorate because, though he is a radical, he is a cautious, canny, and long-term thinker.
Harper deliberately floated this balloon. If he could have gotten away with it, he would have, ABSOLUTELY. He fucking HATES gays (Christer evangelical, get it?) The fact that he had to retreat precipitously doesn't bother him in the least, first, because he is perfectly willing to wait years to try again, second, because the failure solidifies his support amongst his sexist, racist, religious base -- he gets to say to them, "Look, we tried, but it didn't work. See, you still owe me your votes.", and third, because he has other goals is he is working towards simultaneously.
I repeat, I've watched him for fifteen years, and I knew right away how dangerous he was (and is). He is, unlike so many other right-wing nuts, highly intelligent, a really expert liar, devious, coolly and cannily manipulative, flexible, determined, clear-sighted, and non-distractable from his ultimate goal(s). His only real weaknesses are his egomania, his obvious cruelty, and his (common to the right-wing) propensity to promote and give power to thieves and idiots.
32
I'm glad you and Terry are still married. I know, I know, go to the end of the long line of your supportive readers.
However, I too am sufficiently paranoid to believe that the Canadian (or, to be more accurate, the repugnant Harper) government released this story as a trial balloon (whether accurate, intentional or ... whatever isn't the point) to see what kind of a reaction it'd create and whether they could get away with it.
Fortunately, the twitterati et alia got a hold of the story and boosted the signal so that more people would spread the word. AFAIC, I think that's a very good thing and hope it will make it so much more difficult for the CONS to con the Canadian public again when the time of the next federal election rolls around. ::crosses fingers:: OTOH, these results may just make the CONS act in a more devious manner (which would so NOT surprise me), so we'll all have to remain ever-vigilant.
Now I'm wondering what difference there is in electronic saturation levels between the Canadian and American populace. IMO I'd think there'd be a higher percentage of Canadians linked in this manner precisely because our population is spread across Canada as a narrow ribbon that hugs the border with the U.S. [Ooh, something for me to investigate.]
In any case, I hope that one day soon you and Terry will be HIA too.
However, I too am sufficiently paranoid to believe that the Canadian (or, to be more accurate, the repugnant Harper) government released this story as a trial balloon (whether accurate, intentional or ... whatever isn't the point) to see what kind of a reaction it'd create and whether they could get away with it.
Fortunately, the twitterati et alia got a hold of the story and boosted the signal so that more people would spread the word. AFAIC, I think that's a very good thing and hope it will make it so much more difficult for the CONS to con the Canadian public again when the time of the next federal election rolls around. ::crosses fingers:: OTOH, these results may just make the CONS act in a more devious manner (which would so NOT surprise me), so we'll all have to remain ever-vigilant.
Now I'm wondering what difference there is in electronic saturation levels between the Canadian and American populace. IMO I'd think there'd be a higher percentage of Canadians linked in this manner precisely because our population is spread across Canada as a narrow ribbon that hugs the border with the U.S. [Ooh, something for me to investigate.]
In any case, I hope that one day soon you and Terry will be HIA too.
33
@29 I've wondered about that. But for many legal purposes, the date of marriage matters (how long a marriage has been in effect can be a factor for some things such as social security), so I'm not sure what the effect of "re" marrying in more local districts as the permissions change. I think that could make things very difficult later on. In your particular example, I think even if WA legalizes SSM tomorrow, Dan and Terry would be best off using their Canadian marriage as the legal start of their marriage (unless WA does something really weird, it should recognize foreign marriages). Of course the best thing to do would be to contact one's lawyer...
34
@6, @9 Yeah, he's not a real Albertan.
I live in small town Alberta (not suburbs, but a real small town) Even here, social conservatism doesn't get much play. I have never heard anybody ever bring up issues like abortion, same sex marriage, etc, when talking politics. Immigration might get some interest, racial issues around first nations, but on the whole, when people talk politics here they are talking about taxes, regulations, and bureaucracy. That Harper is open about his religious affiliation is a strike against him for most Canadians, rather than in his favour. Most mainstream religious people don't approve of it being used politically, even though some fundies do. We haven't really got a whole lot of fundies, though.
I suspect even most Conservatives didn't like the taste of this - it smells of sharp practice and going back on your word, which in general Canadians aren't too fond of.
I live in small town Alberta (not suburbs, but a real small town) Even here, social conservatism doesn't get much play. I have never heard anybody ever bring up issues like abortion, same sex marriage, etc, when talking politics. Immigration might get some interest, racial issues around first nations, but on the whole, when people talk politics here they are talking about taxes, regulations, and bureaucracy. That Harper is open about his religious affiliation is a strike against him for most Canadians, rather than in his favour. Most mainstream religious people don't approve of it being used politically, even though some fundies do. We haven't really got a whole lot of fundies, though.
I suspect even most Conservatives didn't like the taste of this - it smells of sharp practice and going back on your word, which in general Canadians aren't too fond of.
35
And I agree, this was probably a trial balloon, and the big reaction was exactly the right reaction.
36
Dan: you're welcome! :)
@9 Hey hey, let's not get ugly. I was born in Toronto.
Let's just say he's American and leave it at that. :p
@9 Hey hey, let's not get ugly. I was born in Toronto.
Let's just say he's American and leave it at that. :p
37
Dan, you guys are husbands ONLY IF you reject the abomination that is side-bacon, and only eat back-bacon.
40
@31 Hairhead (Jan 13)
While I agree with all that you say about the douchebag that is our PM, I do have to take issue with your assertion that, "He fucking HATES gays".
Two of of his most powerful Ministers are gay albeit self-loathing and firmly in the closet:
Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird & Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney are both gay and Harper, ever the control freak, certainly knows this.
While I agree with all that you say about the douchebag that is our PM, I do have to take issue with your assertion that, "He fucking HATES gays".
Two of of his most powerful Ministers are gay albeit self-loathing and firmly in the closet:
Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird & Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney are both gay and Harper, ever the control freak, certainly knows this.
41
@40: "Two of of his most powerful Ministers are gay albeit self-loathing and firmly in the closet:"
By that logic, the modern GOP *loves* gays, especially the Family Values voters :D
By that logic, the modern GOP *loves* gays, especially the Family Values voters :D
42
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYCLKaQc…
Urge you all to watch this. This kid (maybe 17 by now?) has got a brilliant grasp of this. I say brilliant. i mean he doesnt freak the fuck out before learning the facts.
I disapointed in dan also.
Urge you all to watch this. This kid (maybe 17 by now?) has got a brilliant grasp of this. I say brilliant. i mean he doesnt freak the fuck out before learning the facts.
I disapointed in dan also.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS