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.
They were married on July 1 in the garden of a bed and breakfast, cheered on by the staff that cobbled together a wedding cake and helped them make arrangements in spite of the national holiday.
Their honeymoon was spent in British Columbia among people who were eager to join in their celebrations and echoed their laments that the United States would not follow Canada’s lead on gay rights.
That pioneering position, and Spaulding’s own union, were called into question on Thursday after a twist in a Charter of Rights case launched in Ontario by two foreign women seeking a divorce.





5 Comments


Yeah, but if the court does accept that filing for any reason, we could all go from secure to screwed in single moment.
Mostly this is the current Conservative administration poking their noses where it doesn’t belong. Harper and the Conservatives went into power in 2006 with a burning desire to rescind marriage equality (passed nationally in 2004). The Conservatives backed down quickly when the rest of the country said they really didn’t want to talk about it any more, but mansex has clearly been on someone’s mind all this time.
I’m glad things worked out for now. I remember the not recognizing marriages performed elsewhere was an issue Romney tried to dredge up too back in the day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/us/romney-won-t-let-gay-outsiders-wed-in-massachusetts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
“Romney Won’t Let Gay Outsiders Wed In Massachusetts
By PAM BELLUCK
Published: April 25, 2004
Same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts will not be able to marry in Massachusetts when gay marriage becomes legal here next month, Gov. Mitt Romney said.
…
Gay rights advocates, including Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who in November persuaded Massachusetts’ highest court to legalize gay marriage, said that the 1913 law, which was created in part to prohibit interracial marriage, was archaic and discriminatory.”
My understanding (from the opposing lawyer http://live.theglobeandmail.com/Event/Same_sex_discussion ) is that this is from an Answer. This Answer contains an indication of what a lawyer plans to argue in court. The planned court dates are Feb 27-28. Note that the lawyer does not have to argue this in court; hopefully they won’t.
…they only mean that the government intends to make this argument in Court. Nothing has changed in the legal landscape. If they withdrew the argument, or lost in Court, there would be no effect…
by Martha McCarthy
The Conservative government sez they will do the right thing, so that’s good. Hopefully they will fix the law so this nonsense doesn’t come up again.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/13/pol-same-sex-marriage-nicholson.html
Nah, the original law was poorly written and some lawyer found some technicality/loophole to argue his case (surprise surprise).
They will look at fixing it, so that would be the first freakin’ kudoes to the PC government I’ve ever given.