The problem I see coming now is twofold. It seems likely that, under the current administration, this will likely result in some legal floundering while officials figure out how to not recognize same-sex marriages from other countries, even though (I believe) heterosexual, monogamous marriages from other nations are recognized as legal and binding here. Opinions, do you think lawmakers will find loopholes to disallow “imported” same-sex marriages, and if so, will they be able to do it in a way that isn’t blatantly discriminatory?
The second problem is that this is going to invite more animosity from many in the United States towards Canada, most likely with the tacit support of the Bush Administration. There’s no way I see the Bush Admin. backing up what Canada is doing, even if they don’t work actively against it. I expect some rhetoric to come soon from the direction of the White House, softly condemning Canada’s decision. Canada may just replace France in the “irrational dislike of another nation’s policies” department with this move.
All that said, I think this decision shows that it’s no longer a matter of “if”, but only of when gay marriage becomes legal and accepted in the United States. People against insitutionalized gay marriage are going to be increasingly marginalizing themselves as time goes on. It’s pretty clear to me that it won’t happen with Bush in office, but gay marriage will happen here eventually. I just hope it’s sooner rather than later.
I wouldn’t expect Canada to get added to the Axis of Evil. Sure, this will not be popular with the Bush Administration, but there’s an important point to remember before comparing this to France.
France has no political parties that agree with Bush policies.
Canada has a major party that is solidly for Bush’s policies (the Canadian Alliance), and another that will be helpful on many issues (the Progressive Conservatives).
Therefore, Bush shall not be denouncing Canada, but, rather, shall hope that the Alliance-Prog Cons win the next election.
(Also, to answer your question on recognization: They obviously haven’t been recognizing gay marriages in Belgium and the Netherlands, why would they recognize Canadian ones?)
Hoping that the “Alliance-Prog Cons win the next election” is like hoping the “Republican-Democrats” win the next U.S. election. Those two parties will never, ever see eye to eye.
The Progressive Conservative party is, in practice, much closer to the Liberal Party than it is to the Alliance, and even the Alliance is not as far right as the Republicans.
Well, that’s one question I have, because I honestly don’t know the answer: how has the U.S. histroically not recognized Belgian gay marriages, while I assume it recognizes hetero marriages? What legal language exists that makes this distinction?
Can’t speak about American law particularly, but the usual rule in private international law for recognizing legal rights from other countries is that they have to be analogous to rights in the domestic legal system, and cannot be contrary to the public policy of the domestic legal system. If the law in a particular state is that marriage is “a man and a woman and nothing else,” the courts of that state would likely say that a same-sex marriage is contrary to the state’s public policy and won’t be recognized.
The simple fact of the matter is that, over time, America will be swimming more and more on its lonesome here. I could see western Europe as a whole (with the exceptions of Italy and possibly Spain) moving towards approving same-sex marriage. The more countries doing so means more international pressure on the US to at least recognize the marriage rights of visitors. For example, say a lesbian couple from Canada are visiting friends in Detroit. One of them is in a car accident, and is rushed to the hospital. Does the hospital staff refuse visiting rights to the woman’s Canadian-recognized spouse? Doing so would cause a real shitstorm in their home country. Recognizing the visitation rights of the spouse, however, would be a pretty big chip in the so-called Defense of Marriage laws.
The US will not recognize gay marriages for a long, long time to come. Every poll puts it as very unpopular issue. Not even many Dems support it-- for fear of alienating their constituents.
Is it a part of the Dem party platform? I don’t know, but I’d doubt it.
I agree with Neurotic. There will be no comment unless asked, and then Bush will say he disagrees with it, as do most of the American public, and that’ll be it. Case closed.
The Bush haters here will have to come up with something else to demonize him about. This is a non-issue.
What if a man with two or more wives emigrates to America, from a country where polygamy is legal? Does U.S. law recognize all these women as his wives, or only the one he married first?
This is a problem I would expect to have come up in Europe, where there are a lot of immigrants from Islamic countries.
Serious answer, great question! If the man in question actually moves into the US, I would argue that the laws of the US would only recognize his first wife. I’m just talking out my ass. But, I haven’t seen any harem type situations extant within the US. Not counting rap stars and athletes, of course.
When they travel here under diplomatic cover, anything goes. Your question is much more interesting. I’m unaware of any treaty that would allow harems. Anyone else?
** Avalonian, [\b] I share your frustration on the lack of enlightenment on this issue in the U.S., but I don’t think the swipe at Bush does much to serve your cause. I agree with those who say Bush probably will not comment on this issue (maybe Ari will at one of the daily press conferences, and if he does so, any comment will be muted).
I think it’s possible that the assholish portion of the right wing (Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed) might make noise on this, but I doubt Bush is dumb enough to pull a Santorum. Not when there are far more important issues to deal with at present.
I admit much ignorance on this issue, but if I had to bet on it, I think it will evolve favorably (toward acceptance of gay marriage) over time in the U.S. I think it will originate on a state level (isn’t it already legal in Vermont and Hawaii?) and spread outward as the idea of preventing two people who love each other from making their union legal is ridiculed.
I think TV imagery is what really sways American public opinion over most social/political issues (except the state of their money) and the suburban masses are increasingly seeing positive images of gay people who are “normal” and a part of our everyday lives. I also think the market will play some role in the evolution as gay professionals migrate toward states and corporations who recognize them as valuable citizens/workers and recognize them/offer benefits accordingly.
Ultimately, **Avalonian[\b], I do think you’re right and that America will look increasingly silly if we don’t accept gay marriage as other Western countries do. But I’m optimistic that we’ll see the light.
Isn’t it actually a state matter, and not a federal one, since states set the laws concerning marriage? And don’t most states explicitly outlaw polygamous marriages? In that case, polygamy is different from gay marriage. While some states have statutes defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, I’m not sure that all states do.
“the usual rule in private international law for recognizing legal rights from other countries is that they have to be analogous to rights in the domestic legal system, and cannot be contrary to the public policy of the domestic legal system.”
soz, dont know the quote script but…
this raises another issue the US is going to hate canada for, decriminalising pot. We all know how big the war on drugs is, Bush etc will not like canadians smoking pot wihtout punishment, or for that matter bringing it into the country. This was brought to mind because in Mr Nice, the autobiography of Howard Marks, his extradition to the US from Spain is considered highly unusual because he is charged with a ‘conspiracy’ or thoughtcrime offence which do not exist in spain’s legal system and hence under the extradition treay America had no right to extradite him but such massive political pressure was put on by the DEA that he was handed over illegally. but i digress…
Because about 8% of Belgians and Dutch don’t drive down to a state governed by the President’s brother, increasing their economy and tax revenues, for the winter.
The U.S. is a major impact on Canada’s political policies and economy, owing to the relative population bases and GNPs, but the reverse is not totally without impact.
I can tell you right now that there’s one Republican in Congress whom I know personally, if not well, who would probably be strongly swayed to vote against his party’s stance if they espoused policies that resulted in Canadian consumers boycotting U.S. stores: John McHugh. I’d hazard a guess that enough of an impact on Florida’s economy and that of a number of border states would lead to a nice erosion of the thin GOP majority on issues that Canada feels strongly about.
such as gay marraige or cannabis as well do you think?
there must be some give and take between the countries, being that close. I think that’s quite interesting.
You guys are obviously not up on your axes, as John Cleese has patiently explained, Canada has joined the “Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America”.
