Actually, Otto, the Canadian court decision mentioned in Cecil’s column recognized gay “divorce” and not gay marriage. It found applicable to gays as well as straights a Canadian law that provided that on break-up, members of certain long-time cohabitating unmarried couples could apply for financial support.
In a similar vein, yesterday the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that in a lesbian couple that broke up, the non-biological “psychological parent” could have rights of visitation with children of the union. The implications of this case are being discussed in the Gay Marriage a step closer? thread in Great Debates.
You don’t have a thing to worry about. I’ll have the jury eating out of my hand. Meanwhile, try to escape.
Sig by Wally M7, master signature architect to the SDMB
My understanding of the decision in M vs H is that it extended de facto common-law status to same-sex couples and required the provinces to change their definition of “spouse” to include the members of such a couple.
Always good for courts to issue favorable rulings on gay issues, but I don’t think that particular ruling is going to be that significant in the larger battle over same-sex marriage.