Harper social conservative agenda rears its head - moves against same sex marriage

[blackrock13]

It was a test flag run up the pole to see what the reaction would be and they are even beginning to back pedal already.

As far as Harpo's lying, no 'policy' goes forward without his okie dokie and one of this profile is very special and potentially dynamite. He may not have stamped the lawyer statement or wrote it, but he knew what was going to be done, as his office was going to wear the mud it kicked up.

From; http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Clarify+same+marriage/5987098/story.html

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tried to clarify the situation Thursday, saying the government was looking at ways to make divorce possible for same-sex couples who came here to get married and now find themselves unable to get divorced. That would be welcomed by many. But it does not address the more explosive issue — that the government, in the court filing, says these couples were never legally married at all
.

 

[Tangwhich]

It was a test flag run up the pole to see what the reaction would be and they are even beginning to back pedal already.

As far as Harpo's lying, no 'policy' goes forward without his okie dokie and one of this profile is very special and potentially dynamite. He may not have stamped the lawyer statement or wrote it, but he knew what was going to be done, as his office was going to wear the mud it kicked up.

I'm assuming you have proof of this?
Let me be clear, I don't like harper any more than many here do, but if you're going to slam him, do it with facts and not opinions. This posting is as bad as one of fuji's

 

[rld]

Politicians who don't understand the law are trying to make an issue out of this.

The law here is clear. In order to get a divorce in Canada you must:

a) reside here for a year; and

b) have a marriage that is legally recognized in your domicile.

Gay couples cannot do that. No more, no less. No move, no conspiracy, just a typical legal problem. I expect the court to grant the government a win and do a work around b). There are very valid reasons that Canadian family courts should not be taking jurisdiction over foreign marriages for the purpose of divorce.

 

[fuji]

Firstly you are now accusing the PM of lying because he said that he was not aware.

Correct. I am accusing the PM of lying in saying that he was unaware. It is unfathomable that he was not briefed. He may have been honest in saying he is not aware of the "details", but he certainly would have been told that the Justice Ministry was going to pursue this at least in general terms.

Secondly there is nothing in the case which I have read so far that opposes same sex-marriage.

That is a novel interpretation.

The plain goal of the government filing was to limit same sex marriages in Canada in cases where they are illegal in other jurisdictions. Presumably the Harper Government agrees with the definition of marriage in those other places, and is trying to prevent Canada from being used there as a loophole.

They have agreed not to "reopen the debate" in the sense that they will not introduce any legislation because they know that their view on same sex marriage is abhorrent to a majority of Canadians. However, they are pursuing their social agenda where they can through administrative policy, without introducing legislation.

 

[fuji]

In order to get a divorce in Canada you must...

Has anyone seen the text of the government's actual filling? The papers are reporting that they wrote an opinion that the marriages were never legal in Canada, that the couple cannot only not divorce, but was never actually married in the first place.

I would like to see the actual text of the opinion the government lawyers delivered to the court, but have not seen it online anywhere yet.

If the government actually wrote an opinion that the marriages were never legal then my headline is 100% correct. If all they actually filed was that the divorce act requires residency, etc., then the papers have horribly misrepresented the story. In that case, if the facts change, then I will change my opinion too.

 

[toguy5252]

Correct. I am accusing the PM of lying in saying that he was unaware. It is unfathomable that he was not briefed. He may have been honest in saying he is not aware of the "details", but he certainly would have been told that the Justice Ministry was going to pursue this at least in general terms.



That is a novel interpretation.

The plain goal of the government filing was to limit same sex marriages in Canada in cases where they are illegal in other jurisdictions. Presumably the Harper Government agrees with the definition of marriage in those other places, and is trying to prevent Canada from being used there as a loophole.

They have agreed not to "reopen the debate" in the sense that they will not introduce any legislation because they know that their view on same sex marriage is abhorrent to a majority of Canadians. However, they are pursuing their social agenda where they can through administrative policy, without introducing legislation.

You are obviously to vain to believe that there is anything that you cannot fathom. i am not.

Again you betray your ignorance about how courts work etc. The Crown lawyers are there to give effect to the law. The Court will tell us all what the law says. If the government is unhappy with what the law is it can change the law.

 

[blackrock13]

I'm assuming you have proof of this?
Let me be clear, I don't like harper any more than many here do, but if you're going to slam him, do it with facts and not opinions. This posting is as bad as one of fuji's

Sure I have a seat at the caucus table and hear it all the time, but the notes are taken on rice paper with vanishing ink, so sorry there is no public evidence. Having done some work with the Sol Gen, it's all over the place, mst recently I have come face to face with his control issues with the Aboriginal Affairs. He's one of the biggest control freak in years, especially now that he has a majority.

 

[fuji]

Again you betray your ignorance about how courts work etc. The Crown lawyers are there to give effect to the law. The Court will tell us all what the law says. If the government is unhappy with what the law is it can change the law.

Yes, the government's opinion is just an opinion unless a judge rules on it. To say that means the government isn't doing anything is stupid. The government intervened in these cases to advance its legal claim that the couples were never married. The government may well be over-ruled by the court, but it is using its legal resources to pursue that claim. Thus it is moving against same sex marriage. Will it succeed? Who knows, but it is trying.

 

[rld]

Has anyone seen the text of the government's actual filling? The papers are reporting that they wrote an opinion that the marriages were never legal in Canada, that the couple cannot only not divorce, but was never actually married in the first place.

I would like to see the actual text of the opinion the government lawyers delivered to the court, but have not seen it online anywhere yet.

If the government actually wrote an opinion that the marriages were never legal then my headline is 100% correct. If all they actually filed was that the divorce act requires residency, etc., then the papers have horribly misrepresented the story. In that case, if the facts change, then I will change my opinion too.

Fuji, you and things legal is such a sad mix. Governments do not write opinions, they file factums. Factums contain argument. Court and judges write opinions.

The question before the court that is being decided is: should Canadian courts take jurisdiction over these divorces. The court will decide yes or no, and give long reasons for doing so.

This court, cannot and will not decide whether these marriages were legit in the first place.

What you seem to be suggesting, (and the opposing party is arguing), is that Canadian family law courts should take special jurisdiction over gay marriages when they would not take jurisdiction over straight marriages in the same set of facts. I think the government position is correct.

 

[toguy5252]

Yes, the government's opinion is just an opinion unless a judge rules on it. To say that means the government isn't doing anything is stupid. The government intervened in these cases to advance its legal claim that the couples were never married. The government may well be over-ruled by the court, but it is using its legal resources to pursue that claim. Thus it is moving against same sex marriage. Will it succeed? Who knows, but it is trying.

LOL. I have not read the factums either, although i think I can find them on one of my data bases, but the issue appears to be not what the law is but what the couple would like the law to be. read the comments of their lawyer. You really are clueless when it comes to things legal.

 

[fuji]

Governments do not write opinions, they file factums. Factums contain argument.

So, the key question here: Did the Government of Canada file a factum that argued these marriages were never legal in the first place?

 

[toguy5252]

So, the key question here: Did the Government of Canada file a factum that argued these marriages were never legal in the first place?

The governments role is to file a factum setting out whet it believes the law IS. Not what it should be. You don't seem to grasp that.

 

[fmahovalich]

Here is a question....

I go to Mexico....or Vegas...marry a girl...come back to Canada....and the marriage is recognized here...as would a subsequent Divorce. Correct.

So in the reverse....I come from India...to Canada and marry my gay manfriend. I go back to India. Is the marriage recognized there. Could I then get divorced there? Probably not.

So would I have to travel from India...to fight out this Indian divorce, in a Canadian court, to get a decision, that is not recognized back home in India anyway.

Is this not the issue the government is try a clarify?

 

[fuji]

The governments role is to file a factum setting out whet it believes the law IS. Not what it should be. You don't seem to grasp that.

I grasp that completely. The Harper Government believes that the law is these couples should never have been married. A Liberal or an NDP government would believe something else.

 

[toguy5252]

I grasp that completely. The Harper Government believes that the law is these couples should never have been married. A Liberal or an NDP government would believe something else.

Not at all. The factum will set out what it believes the law to be at the moment. Not what its should or might be. The Court will ultimately agree or not and it will be the Court which declares what the law is.

 

[fuji]

That's what I wrote. The Harper Government believes that it is the law at the moment that these couples were never legally married. A different government would have had a different belief.

 

[rld]

So, the key question here: Did the Government of Canada file a factum that argued these marriages were never legal in the first place?

The government is arguing that "The Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the joint applicants a divorce because under principles of private international law that apply in Canada the joint applicants are not legally married under Canadian law."

And they are right.

 

[toguy5252]

That's what I wrote. The Harper Government believes that it is the law at the moment that these couples were never legally married. A different government would have had a different belief.

That would not change what the law IS. the case is not about marriage it is about jurisdiction. From the article it appears that the couples own lawyer accepts the governments view of the law and that she is trying to get the Courts to change it. It is very easy for some MOP to make statements for political effect when they have not considered the actual law. So no I do not accept that a different government would have a different belief.

 

[rld]

That would not change what the law IS. the case is not about marriage it is about jurisdiction. From the article it appears that the couples own lawyer accepts the governments view of the law and that she is trying to get the Courts to change it. It is very easy for some MOP to make statements for political effect when they have not considered the actual law. So no I do not accept that a different government would have a different belief.

It really is about jurisdiction. If these folks had their marriage ceremony here, and then lived here the court would be able to deal with them. Based on their facts they cannot. And it is not a gay issue. Straight marriages, with the same facts, would get the same result.

 

[fuji]

So where the hell did that come from? When 1000's of these people were previously married, when it was fought in the courts previously, where was this claim that "under principles of private international law that apply in Canada the joint applicants are not legally married under Canadian law"?

Where is the basis for that claim?

On the other hand I have no real objection to the government asserting the residency requirement for divorce. It's specifically this claim that they were never legally married that strikes me as dubious, and as evidence of the social conservative agenda being pushed through the legal system.