Friday, January 13, 2012

Gay Marriage Hubbub.. and who's wearing no clothes.



Remember the story about the Emperor and his New Clothes?

You know, he had a tailor who told him he would produce an outfit of the most remarkable fabric - which was of the finest cloth - a cloth so fine that it would appear invisible to anyone who was so simple that they could not appreciate its quality.

And sure enough, when the King donned the new clothes, he himself saw nothing - but he was so vain that he could not possibly admit to being simple - and he accepted the clothes and strode proudly through the streets of his kingdom - with none of his citizens having the courage to tell him that, indeed, he was naked.

Until a small, simple and honest boy, pointed out what everyone was too timid to say.  That the Emperor, in fact, had no clothes.

So it goes with the Liberals and the issue of Gay Marriage - coming to a head this week with a host of morons, from Don Martin, to Irwin Cotler, to Craig Oliver - all telling foreigners married in Canada that their new cloak of marriage is made of the finest materials and of the finest colors.

Until the Conservatives had the honesty and the decency to say to them all.. uhm.. no.  The marriage you thought you had, is perhaps, an illusion.

Not to be evil or homophobic.. but to point out the reality.

That a marriage in Canada isn't much good unless you stay in Canada.

Because when you take your new marriage home, well, in Florida and in the United Kingdom, it's invisible.

And when you decide that you don't want to be married anymore, and you live in Florida or the U.K., their governments look at you like the idiot emperor, and say, "You're not married, as far as we are concerned, so you most certainly can't get divorced."

And suddenly, and sadly, the wedded couple realize that while they were told by the Liberals and by others how wonderful their marriage was, in fact, it was an illusion.

And how sad, then, that they seek to apply to have Canada terminate their marriage - only to discover, much to their chagrin, that you can't get divorced in Canada if you don't have a real and substantial connection with Canada.

Whether you are gay, heterosexual, whatever..   you or your spouse need to be permanently resident in the country for at least one year prior to filing for divorce.

For good reason.

Because to have jurisdiction over divorce, you also take jurisdiction to make decisions about children's parenting, about child and spousal support, and about division of assets.  And what authority does Canada have to make decisions on those issues where there is no connection with our jurisdiction.

It's fundamental conflict law.

To make decisions regarding an asset or a person, they have to "exist" before the court.

Of course, Irwin Cotler, the former Liberal Minister of Justice - didn't tell anyone that when Canada ratified gay marriage.  No one explained to parties marrying in Canada that their marriage, and the legal realtions that arise from that union, would not exist outside of Canada unless their home state also accepted gay marriage.

So it was small wonder that Irwin Cotler was babbling like a simpleton last night on CTV trying to wag his finger at the Conservatives who did nothing but point out the reality of the legal downside of a Canadian marriage of gay persons not resident here.  Something the Liberals knew, but were too dishonest or disenguous to point out when they were in power.

Remeber Irwin Cotler.. he was the ass who left Omar Khadr to rot in Guantanamo, until of course he was no longer in power, and then he lead the charge for the government to repatriate him.

Same guy.  Left gay couples out to dry when he brought in the Civil Marriage Act by not addressing the reality of divorce of those couples, and now is complaining about the mess he created.

At least he's consistent in his inconsistency.

What are the Conservatives doing?

Nothing.

No change in the law.

No effort to suggest that our citizens who are parties to gay marriages are any different that married heterosexual couples.

The Conservatives simply spoke up and told the truth. 

How dare they.

8 comments:

maryT said...

Gee, imagine a govt telling the truth, then getting blamed for it all across the world. Craig just said this could hurt support for PMSH from coast to coast. How many of those ss couples married from other countries would/could vote for him.
I think this story broke to take the good news re shipbuilding off the radar.

maryT said...

Could our justice minister change the rules re divorce, even when international law says if your country doesn't recognize ssm, then you can't get a divorce in another country.

Robert G. Harvie said...

Certainly he could change the law, and stupidly, in response to the hue and cry, it sounds like they might just do that.. problem is:

- there may be a question as to whether the divorce is valid;

- we definitley have no ability tot ell them what to do with children or rpoeprty or support outside the country.

The Balf said...

Thanks for setting the record straight. I've referenced you on my conservative blog, http://outheretoo.blogspot.com
Are you interested in a link exchange?
The Balf

Robert G. Harvie said...

LOL.. done and done Balf :)

greg said...

Conflicts may not have been my best grade, but this was a total farce, and really a dishonest ruse by anyone who who calls themselves a lawyer.

Congrats on the QC by the way.

Greg

Robert G. Harvie said...

I'm not sure of your point, Greg, however, my understanding of U.S. law is that for a divorce to be recognized, one party must be domiciled in the state in which the divorce is granted.

As such, if Canada grants a divorce, the divorce would not be recognized in the U.S.

Now, granted, the divorce isn't recognized in Florida anyway because the marriage wasn't recognized in the first place - however, that then begs the question of why the divorce is necessary anyway, other than with regarding to some personal notion that the parties want "a divorce" - but should they desire to re-marry, say, in California, I think there is a liklihood that they would be barred as not having been validly divorced if the divorce was granted by a state without jurisdiction (ie. Canada).

So.

Maybe I'm wrong.

My expertise is family law, generally, not conflict of laws, specifically, but if you think that I'm wrong, point out the law suggesting same.

I would recommend starting with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Williams v. North Carolina.

maryT said...

And the first female couple married in CA when it was legal, who had been friends for 40 yrs, together 18 yrs, and married 3 yrs are filing for divorce.
First ssm was legal in CA, then Prop 8 said no, now the court has said Prop is unconstitutional. Could they make up their minds.