It is unfortunate that when the Liberals legalized gay marriage they did not make it easier for gay foreigners to get divorced, even if those unions are not recognized where they live. Irwin Cotler really dropped the ball (maybe he should consider retirement). Twas a bit insane how the media caught fire today speculating about a Tory secret plan to crush gay marriage because a foreign couple filed a legal claim against a provision in the law that denied them a divorce. The crown attorney (independent of the PMO) tried to make a case defending our Liberal law as it exists, and suddenly the Stephen Harper conspiracy theorists went bananas. What the f**k?
I have no objection to gays getting married, and I have no objection to them getting divorced. What seems ridiculous to me is that this case is even before our courts. The places these two live never recognized the original marriage, so spending money to have it reversed serves an entirely symbolic purpose. It doesn't legally affect their lives at home, because there, it never legally happened. Gay foreign divorce is legal in Canada, provided you have lived here for a year, these two did not. Why the Liberals put that in the law, I have no idea. So if Stephen Harper wants to appease those in the media upset about this, is his only recourse to fully legalize gay foreign divorce? Would that shut up the conspiracy theorists?
This feels oddly similar to that time when Ignatieff blew a gasket because the government decided not to fund foreign abortions as part of a maternal health initiative abroad, and the media spun it as the Conservatives trying to re-open the abortion debate. Same shit, different day. It's not like we need to protect the sanctity of divorce. Like a moth to the flame, Evan Soloman's poll question today was "Do you believe the federal government is trying to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage?" 67% of his audience voted yes.
I don't think non residents ss or mf who are not living in Canada should be allowed to get married here. There should be a minimum residential requirement for everyone.
ReplyDeleteIf one watched P&P today you could understand why 67% might be persuaded to answer yes. Over 35 minutes was devoted to this non-story by Solomon. The only sensible comment came from Tom Flanagan, that PM Harper could have used more sophisticated strategy then employ an anonymous government lawyer, if he really wanted to amend the SSM status. Otherwise the majority of commentary was negative to the government's position.
ReplyDeleteOur oh so brilliant national media pretends like the vote in didn't happened.
ReplyDeleteLiberal MPs joined the Harper MINORITY govt to vote DOWN the Liberal motion to fund 3rd world abortions.
Iffy's own social conservative MPs foiled the plan.
Was that Bob Rae's motion? i can't rememeber
Yes, it was Bob Rae's motion
Deletehttp://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/783898--liberal-motion-defeated-no-clarity-on-abortion
"... Liberal MP Bob Rae's motion concerning a maternal health initiative at this summer's G8 summit was nominally supported by all three opposition parties in the Commons, but was defeated 144-138 when a number of Liberal MPs failed to show up for the vote.
Three staunchly pro-life Liberals also voted with the Tories. ..."
-- Gabby in QC
I've become use to this typeof media spin. Lefties and the media can print all they want that Harper will undo samesex marriage laws or introduce a new law that regulates abortion. He doesn't want to and when he hasn't done it by the end of this mandate it will only further erode their credibility and further cement our hold on the centre and moderate right wing voters.
ReplyDeleteCanada's not Vegas after all? Little MPs mumbling about abortion, nah, no social policy here.
ReplyDeleteNow, moove along.
This is a non issue being pushed by the consensus media, which is disgusting considering the major issues taking place. To name just a couple is the foreigners and foreign money being used to shut down the oil sands, which is a vital part of our economy, and second is the outrageous action taken by RCMP bureaucrats to declare retroactively firearms illegal. I refer to firearms legally purchased and registered when the registry was brought in, but due to cosmetics are now deemed illegal. This has resulted in confiscation without due compensation which is theft.
ReplyDeleteAs for the two lesbians their "marriage" was not and cannot be recognised in their home countries, therefore pretending to require a Canadian divorce is a sham. They clearly have an agenda, but it is not to obtain a Canadian divorce.
Yah, they are suing for $30k in damages if they don't get their divorce.
Deletehow about we divorce ourselves from them.
ReplyDeleteIf one googles INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE LAWS RE SS MARRIAGE, you get a whole different take than what Soloman, Martin and others are saying. Our divorce laws haven't changed in years, you must live in Canada for a year. Same sex or normal marriages.
ReplyDeleteWhy did this story break yesterday, could it be to keep the ship building announcements out of the news, or get our attention away from all the foreign money being paid to organizations and native bands to oppose the pipeline. And who is the govt lawyer that started this, we need a name.
If anyone has an agenda it is the media and opposition parties. Another 4 yrs of this crap and PMSH will be re-elected with a 60% majority or better.
I think this is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteI think parliament should mull legislation that would allow same sex couples to annul their union, but that it should be reviewed on a case by case basis solely by the PM.
"So...you want to annul your marriage, eh? Well, these things happen --it's $100,ooo to cover the processing fee, and then it's solely at the discretion of the Prime Minister --and to be honest, he takes the whole sanctity of marriage thing seriously."
Gay couples should be able to get divorced, but it should be as costly (and as ridiculously involved) as King Henry VIII's divorce from his squeeze from Aragon.
When approved for divorce, said couple will be led into a lavender chamber, and recite the oath of annulment: "We, who condemn the short-sighted and ill-thought out policies of the Liberal Party are gathered here today ...."etc.
This would make great TV too, and could be a boon for the CBC... Just sayin.
Maybe the source of this discrimination would be a good subject for an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee. The committee could "quiz" Martin and Cotler about their "hidden agenda" when drafting and advancing the law. Surely they both "knew" as well as the other members of the Liberal cabinet and government that advanced the legislation. If they didn't know then it would be "incompetence" and we all know how likely the Liberals would be to admit that.
ReplyDelete