More

Dan Savage Divorced? In Canada, Maybe

Dan Savage Divorce

First Posted: 01/12/12 04:41 PM ET Updated: 01/12/12 04:41 PM ET

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird

The Stranger:

After issuing thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples from United States and other nations where same-sex marriage is not yet legal -- marriage licenses that did not come with a disclaimer or an asterisk -- Canada's conservative government has now decided that those marriages -- marriages like mine -- are not legally valid.

Read the whole story: The Stranger

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA LIVING

After issuing thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples from United States and other nations where same-sex marriage is not yet legal -- marriage licenses that did not come with a disclaimer ...
After issuing thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples from United States and other nations where same-sex marriage is not yet legal -- marriage licenses that did not come with a disclaimer ...
Filed by Rebecca Zamon  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
168 Fans
09:50 PM on 01/15/2012
Will Dan retract these lies?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/andrew-coyne-on-gay-marriage-shoddy-reporting-and-cheap-politics-create-a-phony-crisis/
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
168 Fans
09:48 PM on 01/15/2012
The real story here is the media's utter lack of honesty and integrity.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/andrew-coyne-on-gay-marriage-shoddy-reporting-and-cheap-politics-create-a-phony-crisis/

As usual, they lie through their teeth about Harper every time they get a chance.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
168 Fans
09:42 PM on 01/15/2012
Another pack of lies from the usual suspects....

Funny how they wouldn't retract it after they were shown how it is a farce.
Permalink  |
photo
Claudius II
12 Fans
02:37 AM on 01/14/2012
I like Dan a lot, I admire him for sticking up for freedom of speech (someone should be allowed to say the "F" word)... but this is just a baseless cheap shot at Harper.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sbrez
raining blue
300 Fans
12:42 PM on 01/13/2012
the sickness of the conservative movement is not limited to just the united states
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
168 Fans
09:45 PM on 01/15/2012
This story is about the sickness of the media, here's the truth of the matter, if you are interested in the truth:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/andrew-coyne-on-gay-marriage-shoddy-reporting-and-cheap-politics-create-a-phony-crisis/

"The “formal validity” of the marriage — that is, whether the vows were exchanged in the appropriate manner— is determined by the laws of the place where the marriage was performed. But the “essential validity” — that is, whether the couple were eligible to get married at all — is determined by the laws of each partner’s “ante-nuptial domicile,” the place they lived before they were married.

There’s no actual controversy on this point. It’s supported by reams of precedent. It’s not some invention of this government, or of Canada for that matter, but is part of the fabric of international law. Nor is it surprising: I’m basing this article in part on a piece by Jeffrey Talpis, professor of law at the University of Montreal, in the Lawyer’s Weekly of Sept. 22, 2006. It’s hard not to sympathize with those who were told when they came to Canada they were legally married. But the fault lies with those who misstated the law then, not those who correctly interpret it now."
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PrdAmerican
Unitarian Universalist - True Acceptance :)
313 Fans
03:36 AM on 01/13/2012
Way to go canada....mucked up a perfectly good day with this drivel. My partner of 15 years and I married in Whistler, BC in 2004, it was a quaint, sweet ceremony and the entire village seemed to know it was going on. got lots of well wishes that weekend! The only people who were outraged; A group of American tourists. go figure. While I'm not happy about this turn of events, my two kids were absolutely mortified, and really has my youngest upset....she was asking me tonight; "so, the government can kill people (death penalty), they can kill your dog (long story), and now they can un-marry you even if you're happily married?! I think I'm beginning to hate government!".
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
unimatrix0
265 Fans
02:36 AM on 01/13/2012
So is Canada going to be giving back the millions of dollars they collected in fees and tourism as a result of people getting marriage licenses and traveling there specifically so they could get married? Isn't it fraud to take someone's money for a marriage license, give them one, and then tell them it's invalid when they try to use it?
Permalink  |
serious george
0 Fans
12:53 AM on 01/13/2012
So a lawyer finds out that things have not been properly articulated ,and this becomes a government plot ?. What about all those old laws that have not been removed or repealed,like driving sheep on sundays,or any of those old ridiculous laws?Plots against farmers etc ???
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Devlin
26 Fans
10:42 PM on 01/12/2012
Part of the issue here is that legislative jurisdiction in Canada is split between Parliament and the provincial legislatures.

Crucially in this context, the "formalities" of marriage (licensing requirements, basically) are in provincial jurisdiction, while the capacity to marry is in federal jurisdiction. The provinces can't make capacity a licensing issue. They don't have the constitutional power to do so.

The upshot is that they don't investigate capacity before they issue licenses.

It's always been the law (in Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and, subject to the odious "Defense of Marriage Act," the United States) that a person's capacity to marry is determined by reference to the law of that person's domicile at the time the marriage was celebrated.

The principle articulated in the DOJ memorandum is therefore correct as a matter of law.
Whether Parliament should consider changing that law is another matter.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
monstersfromtheid
micro-bio is empty - and staying that way
221 Fans
10:01 PM on 01/12/2012
oops, you really, really don't want to make Dan Savage angry.

Looking forward to the re-definition of 'Harper' on google.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnanimation
342 Fans
09:38 PM on 01/12/2012
I'm no fan of King Steve, but this may not be what it seems. The lawyer in question might have spoken out of line and Steve's dark hordes might be taking him to the woodshed as we speak (write).
It is fun to watch this whole mess though. Conservatives find this whole 'gay thing' icky, and watching them squirm uncomfortably is a joy. Then again, I might be totally wrong and Steve-O might just have stepped in it again. Conservatives, working hard every day to turn back Canada to the 1950's! LOL!
Permalink  |
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
6211 Fans
07:46 PM on 01/12/2012
It is one situation to block marriage equality where it has not existed, but now that same-gender couples have married and it has had no detrimental effect -- but rather boosted Canada's international perception as being modern and a model of human rights -- Harper may find himself and his party in a position to lose big.

Canadians who have friends, family or friends-of-friends who are gay and have married will have a strong reaction to rights being destroyed without cause.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Henk Bos
7 Fans
05:29 PM on 01/12/2012
After homosexual marriages, what next?
Permalink  |
photo
BeninOakland
Don't tell me you love me. Let me guess.
727 Fans
05:45 PM on 01/12/2012
The same thing as happened before.

Life will go on, heterosexuals will continue to dishonor their so-called sacred institution, and the lives, families, relationshuips, children, and assets of gay people in our country will continue to be asterisked, disparaged, denigrated, and diminished.

Self-righteous, self-satisfied, self-aggrandizing so-called Christians (and similarly situated others) will continue to believe that only their lives, their faiths, and their faiths matter, and that they can continue to makes the lives of their fellow americans, tax-payers, Christians, and neighbors as difficult, unpleasant, and expensive as possible.

Gay people will continue to have to listen anti-gay bigotry, we will continue to have to accept second class citizenship, and we will continue to have to pay thousands for all of the legal protections that and man and woman can have for the cost of a $100 mareriage license.

What else do you expect to happen?
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jonandian
Small Business Owner RepubliCANT Debater
370 Fans
05:54 PM on 01/12/2012
It costs gay couples $1500 more a year in taxes in the USA just because of health insurance benefits through the workplace. At least some companies are off setting that. Some companies are more accepting than countries...
Permalink  |
photo
StevenWells
Objects in the avatar are larger than they appear
1516 Fans
06:06 PM on 01/12/2012
And, if I may add, we'll continue to live happily ever after, in spite of them (30 years and counting).

#213
Permalink  |
photo
lovingthismoment50
1338 Fans
05:58 PM on 01/12/2012
Straight and gay people alike will continue to get married.
Permalink  |
photo
Swinger Style
16 Fans
05:10 PM on 01/12/2012
;.p, So that means we are not married....Swinger Boo............
Permalink  |