As far as I know, nothing would change: Canada would continue to recognize the marriage (at least the feds, the eight provinces and territories that have SSM, plus Nunavut, which said it would recognize ones from elsewhere) and the US wouldn’t (apart from local laws).
The citizenship shouldn’t have anything to do with it, since you do not have to be a Canadian citizen (or even resident) to marry in Canada.
Homosexuality predated the existence of Canada too.
You don’t have to give up any other citizenship to become an American citizen.
And I think because of that, there will eventually be a court case where a couple that married in Canada then moved to the U.S. will challenge the failure of the government to recognize their bond.
Actually, it would be up to the individual U.S. states to decide whether or not to recognize a Canadian marriage, much as the present standards between states are – in the absence of a U.S.-Canada treaty which provides that marriages solemnized in either nation are recognized in the other, an extremely unlikely circumstance given the current U.S. Administration.
I’m curious what two provinces do not recognize SSMs. I presume Alberta is one.
In most US states it’s illegal for adopted siblings to marry. If this is the case in Canada too, it might just a a nod towards already existing restrictions. In any case, I like the wording. Two people rules out “next they’ll allow groups to marry or for people to marry their pets” diatribes.
Polycarp, I was under the impression that Canada and the U.S. did have a federal treaty recognizing each other country’s marriages, but the only reference I can find is in regards to tax law. Someone with access to a legal library could probably find more info than me.
I just finished a Family Law course this semester. The prof was pretty explicit about gay marriages from other countries not being recognized. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if there was such a treaty it is inconceivable to me that it would not get mentioned throughout the semester, and no such treaty was.
Three provinces and two territories: Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick; Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
So far, there hasn’t been a court ruling on the issue in any of these jurisdictions so the traditional definition of the common law is still used.
Some G&L couples have started a court action in New Brunswick within the past month, so the situation may change there in the near future, regardless of the fate of the federal bill.