The U.S. Constitution requires that the various states of the Union give “full faith and credit” to the laws and court decisions of other states, a concept that has been seriously eroded by the controversy over gay marriage. There was a consensus in this country for so long as to what marriage was and who could enter into it, it wasn’t much of an issue. Then conservatives became panicky that a single state permitting gay marriage would mean that all other states would have to acknowledge it, hence the (appallingly misnamed) Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress, and its state equivalents. I suspect and hope that DOMA in its various incarnations will someday fall before the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Yes, there is same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:
As there is, at least as of today, in five other states, Washington D.C., and within the jurisdiction of two Indian tribes:
OK, that’s a good step - it’s part of what I wanted to hear from the government and some criticism may have been launched preemptively while I waited (I’m bored and impatient…if I’m awake and doing stuff, why aren’t they ;))
But there is still a fundamental flaw in the system - the inability to divorce, ever. They will have to reexamine the Divorce Act, or let the courts bang things out over time, because the residency requirement is a major problem.
It’s easy to say “well, let them move to Canada for a year and then they can divorce the same as anyone else.”
Ever tried to do that? Immigration laws and policies pretty much means that none of these couples could ever hope to move to Canada - for a year or longer. It’s a hurdle that cannot be cleared.
One of the rights of marriage is the right to end it (at least, that’s how I see it!) and now this basically means that if you’re gay and get married in Canada but live abroad, you are married for life because no one will help you if you want a divorce. That’s a little messed up, IMHO.
What a quagmire. HJ - Québec doesn’t have common law marriage, but recognizes some laws for conjoints de fait couples and has civil unions for straight and same-sex couples with laws very similar to civil marriage.
We don’t have an express “full faith and credit clause” in our Constitution, although the SCC has said it is implicit at least for judgments of Canadian courts, but the grant of substantive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce is a different way of dealing with that issue: by making it federal, we have uniform substantive marriage and divorce law across the country.
I agree. Again, the situation of people being married in Canada wanting to get divorced - where the marriage is not recognized as valid in their home state - is the same for non-gay marriages as for gay marriages, but occurrs so infrequently as to be essentially a non-issue. It’s a neutral law that has a disproportionate impact because practically speaking it will affect only gay ‘forum-shopping’ weddings.
From what I can tell, same-sex marriages are now performed in New York. But you’re right that foreign same-sex marriages were recognized by New York for some time before they started celebrating them.
It seems to me like a way to pacify your constituents who are against same-sex marriage while still offering a way for gay couples to marry. I’m reminded of the way abortion is illegal in Ireland, but by law women who want to get an abortion abroad must be given the appropriate information and be allowed to travel. That’s politics I guess.
If it turns out Savage’s marriage is invalid, he can always enter in a new domestic partnership in Washington State with his partner.
You’d know more about it than I do, but everything I’ve seen shows that de facto couples emphatically do not have the same rights and duties as married or civil unioned couples. The government even broadcasts ads saying that despite what some people think, after a separation one of the ex-partners could find themself without any means of support.
I’ve been reading the latest adventures of Orly Taitz in the Elections forum, and wondered if there were any home-grown Canadian wacko fringe beliefs to match the Birthers, “Ohio isn’t a state so income tax is illegal”, “Fringes on the flag means it’s an Admiralty court so you aren’t subject to it’s jurisdiction”, and similar memes that keep popping up in the US?
I often wonder about the marriage issue. We were married in BC, where we have legally resided for over a year so we’re good on that score, but he owns property in Britain and I’m the only child of an American homeowner, so I may one day own a house where our marriage is definitely not recognized. If I die, would Mr. Mallard inherit the house because our marriage is valid where we’re domiciled, or would it go to a second cousin because our marriage is not recognized in Colorado?
If you want an authoritative answer to that question, you should consult a lawyer licensed to practice in Colorado.
I’m moderately surprised at the government’s response to this. I would have expected them to drag their butts, and blame the courts for foreigners’ marriages being invalidated while winking at their base. But instead they’re doing the right thing, and I don’t even really care if it’s just because they know the situation is a huge potential vote-loser. Whether they don’t pursue a social conservative agenda because they think it will cost them an election or because they don’t actually stand for social conservatism, it’s all fine with me just so long as they don’t actually pursue it.
Both of you should do wills rather than rely on the laws of various jurisdictions concerning intestacy. You should consider making separate wills for the property in each different country (to avoid your entire estate getting tangled up due to jurisdictional squabbles), and while you are at it, make all the wills in the International Wills format (the International Wills Convention is in force in Canada, but although the UK and the USA have both signed it, I don’t think that it is in force in those jurisdictions; it can’t hurt to use that format, and with any luck by the time you pass away, the UK and the USA might have the convention in force in their jurisdictions). Also, you should make powers of attorney in each jurisdiction in which you expect to reside, and if you are a same-sex couple, you’d best make POAs for every non-gay friendly jurisdiction in which you expect to travel (just make generic POAs or have them made for you by an estates lawyer, then cut and paste the different state names on each of them, and have a couple of friends over for dinner and a signing party).
That’s an inexplicable and unfair comparison. Ezra Levant is a dick, but he’s not insane, and he’s taken some positions that were quite correct. Orly Taitz is an absolute loon, tilting at windmills that don’t even exist.
Oh, dear God, no, we don’t need more Ezra Levants. We need more level-headed, articulate conservative pundits, not a big-mouthed jerk who seems to be mostly interested in getting his name in the news. He doesn’t speak for conservatives like me in any way.
I’ll grant you that Ezra is probably sane, except for his probable narcissistic disorder. As far as I can tell about Ezra’s positions, the position he takes is the most oppositional that is likely to get him the most media coverage.
I’m always amazed when these twenty- or thirty-year-old bands pop up. Somehow I expect them to be dead or retired or something. I guess we’ll see The Spoons, Trooper, and A Flock Of Seagulls next…
