Ottawa to explore same-sex divorce options

Same-sex couples from abroad who received marriage licences in Canada were stunned to learn that their unions may no longer be valid. CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife explains the confusion over Ottawa's stance on gay marriage.

CTV British Columbia: Legal limbo for same-sex couples

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he does not intend to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. Bhinder Sajan has more.

Power Play: Legal about-face on same-sex marriage

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice Kerry-Lynne Findlay discusses divorce laws in Canada, and the fact that thousands of couples wed in this country may not be legally married.

Power Play: Thousands wed may not be married

Liberal MP Irwin Cotler says residency requirements seem to only be applied to same-sex marriages, and explains everybody should be dealt with equally.

National Affairs: Dan Savage calls out feds

Dan Savage and Terry Miller, co-founders of the 'It Gets Better Project,' discuss the distressing nature of the federal government's position that their marriage may not be legal in Canada based on the laws in their home state.

National Affairs: Same-sex divorce policy

Brenda Cossman, a family law professor at the University of Toronto, explains how the one-year residency requirement for divorce in Canada is impacting Canada's marriage laws.

National Affairs: Were the feds caught napping?

National Affairs Co-host Scott Reid discusses why the government was caught unaware of the political implications of what was being argued in court in regards to same-sex marriage.

CTV News Channel: Confusion over ruling

CTV Chief Political Correspondent Craig Oliver says there is complete and utter confusion in Ottawa, and no one seems to have an answer on whether thousands of same-sex marriages in Canada are actually valid.

CTV News Channel: Grant Gold, lawyer

Family Lawyer Grant Gold says making a same-sex union granted in Canada invalid if the partners involved live in regions where same-sex marriage is illegal makes no sense.

CTV News Channel: Andrew Feldstein, lawyer

Family lawyer Andrew Feldstein weighs in on the notion that a couple cannot be granted a divorce if they have not lived in a Canadian province for one year or more. Feldstein says that standpoint is morally wrong.

CTV News Channel: Tories change stance

CTV News correspondent Merella Fernandez says Tories position on same-sex marriage is unclear. She says although a same-sex couple was allowed to marry in Canada, they were denied the right to divorce in the country which was a bit unusual.

CTV News Channel: Harper mum on position

CTV's Atlantic bureau chief Todd Battis says when asked about the Tories position on same-sex marriage, the prime minster had very little to say. He says Harper would not comment on the details of an issue printed in an article in the Globe and Mail and says it is before lawyers.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (130) Tweet

Prime Minister Stephen Harper addresses the crowd in Halifax on Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012. (Andrew Vaughan / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

View Larger Image

Sonja Puzic, CTVNews.ca

Date: Thu. Jan. 12 2012 11:30 PM ET

The federal government is considering changes to the law that will make it easier for foreign same-sex couples who married in Canada to obtain divorces, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Thursday.

Nicholson also stressed the government has no intention of reopening the same-sex marriage debate after a day of confusion over the validity of marriage licences issued in Canada to same-sex couples from abroad.

Ottawa was pressed to clarify its position on gay marriage after an apparent about-face on the issue surfaced in a Toronto divorce case.

A lesbian couple who married in Canada seven years ago and recently filed for divorce was told by a Department of Justice lawyer that their marriage was not legal.

The stated reason was that because the partners live in Florida and England, where same-sex marriage remains illegal, their Canadian union was invalid too.

The case threw into question thousands of marriages non-residents entered into since 2004, when same-sex marriage became legal in Canada under a Liberal government.

In a statement, Nicholson said the issue centres on dissolution of marriages performed in Canada.

Non-resident couples who marry here must live in Canada for one year before they can legally divorce. The lesbian couple at the centre of the controversy has launched a constitutional challenge of that provision in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Nicholson said he will be "looking at options to clarify the law so that marriages performed in Canada can be undone in Canada."

In an interview with CTV's Power Play, Nicholson's parliamentary secretary Kerry-Lynne Findlay said the Canadian marriages of non-resident same-sex couples are legal in Canada.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had little to say Thursday other than relate his government's reluctance to wade back into a same-sex marriage debate.

"We have no intention further of opening or reopening this issue," Harper told reporters gathered for a shipbuilding agreement announcement in Halifax.

"This, I gather, is a case before the courts where Canadian lawyers have taken particular positions based on the law. But I will be asking officials to provide me more details with this particular case."

Opposition parties and critics quickly weighed in on the issue, accusing the prime minister of trying to rewrite Canada's same-sex marriage laws "in stealth."

In a statement, Egale Canada, a human rights organization advocating equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, called the apparent flip-flop "a direct insult to gays and lesbians both in Canada and abroad."

If the federal lawyer's arguments in the Toronto divorce case are a misunderstanding, Harper should make that clear, NDP MP Olivia Chow said.

With files from Kieron Lang and The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

Do your homework
said

I am a woman, married to a man. We decided to have a fun destination wedding and got married in Mexico. We had two options in mexico - a legal (in mexico) ceremony, or a symbolic ceremony. Had we gone the legal ceremony, our marriage would not have been legally recognized in Canada until we had our mexican marriage certificate translated, notarized and certified here in Canada. We opted to get legally married by a marriage comissioner in Canada prior to having a ceremony in mexico to save all the red tape. My brother also got married in Mexico and opted for the legal marriage - it took him and his wife several months to get all the paperwork processed for their marriage to be legal in Canada. I guess what I'm saying is, gay or straight, just because you are married in one country, doesn't mean you are considered married in another - people should look into their own country's laws before assuming things are good to go. If your country/state will not legally marry you, why would you assume they will recognize your marriage?

Dave from Calgary
said

The issue here is the divorce proceedings and a reasonable financial settlement between the ex-partners.
Should one get support from the other? How about division of property? These are the issues that need to be addressed and so having gotten married they now need that legal piece of paper declaring the separation.

Deanna
said

Okay, first I am neutral on same sex marriage. Neither for it or against it. However, I am thinking that it's getting tiresome to hear about it all the time. It's legal, Canada made it legal....yay and rah, rah....now can we just move on please? Can we maybe talk about jobs, education, the economy? A little more important to me than whether two people of the same sex can marry or divorce.

shawbrooke
said

One comment said "But you cannot use religious rights to limit somebody else's rights to live free from discrimination based on sexual orientation."Really? Then why do we have education systems that teach only one belief system, that of "secular" humanism? Isn't secular humanism using their rights to limit the rights of everyone else to live free from discrimination in the public system that everybody funds?

David J
said

@ Wild woman: Time to listen up. People who oppose do so on principle and firm convictions on what they feel is right and appropriate for society. Don't expect them to roll over just because you tell them to "get over it". We live in a pluralistic society and all members have a say not just the gay community who represents a small minority contrary to what some might think.

peter in mb
said

Why do lawyers think that they have the right make the laws and to over rule the laws past by parliament. The government might have to step in on this one to defend civil unions. A man and a women can have a civil union by a Justus of the peace. Just like same sex couples can do the same. They singed a legal contract and if they want a divorce then they are entitled to have one.

shawbrooke
said

The first problem here was the cruise and tour companies that marketed Canadian weddings without mentioning the whole law. The number of "foreign" weddings might seem small to the US with a population 10 times Canada's. The same number of weddings makes more of a statistical difference when part of a much small jurisdiction, like BC. But now our government has to ride to the rescue, exposing all the alarmists for the lack of commonsense that they exhibit, Maybe that's a good thing. Now the rest of the public knows what to think the next time they cry wolf.

Neilson Milianoson
said

@Joan in the real world. So does that mean that based on my sexual orientation that I have the basic human right to choose to have one or more wives or husbands? If I so choose to a life style that religous groups or the mainstream says is wrong, then I have a case of discrimination against those who are opposed to my choice of lifestyle, because their beliefs and views of how I sexually orientate myself impead how I live based on Canada's charter of rights. So, where does all this end?

GUTSHOT!! in Thunder Bay
said

We wouldnt be in this whole mess if all you HETEROphobes never got us into this in the first place. We, the citizens of Canada were never given the vote to decide what we believe is best for this country. Not only is the left a democracy dodger, they're phobic issues with marriage between a man and a woman are tearing us all apart. So much for their "love" eh?

Catherine
said

You all seem to be missing the point here. This is not about gay rights or same sex marriages. It's a loop hole in the legislation. This couple cannot get divorced in England or Florida because they don't recognize the union, however in order to get divorced in Canada, you need to have been a resident for over a year. NOTHING to do with the fact that they are same sex! At least from a Canadian perspective... Think twice before you start freaking out. I for one agree that if you don't live here, you shoudn't be tying up our legal system.

KJ in Calgary
said

Get over it already...same sex or alien...make it all the same for both marriage and divorce...and while you are at it...clean up the divorce laws so that people don't have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to end a relationship simply because the lawyers see each divorce as nothing more than a goldmine....there is way to much grey in the laws themselves. Plug the loopholes and ensure consistency from province to province and marriage to marriage.

Remarkable
said

God created man and woman, God created man and woman to be married, God created man and woman to have children. Also, God very explicitly called homosexuality an abomination. If God says its wrong, then I will take God's word over mans word anyday. God create marriage, it is his institution that me meant for a man and a women, a covenant, but if we choose to misalign and twist what he has said and done, then we will pay a terrible price, maybe not in this world right here and now, but a day is coming when we will all have to answer to God, no matter how intellectually advanced or well educated you or I may think we are.

Linda in Vancouver
said

I would stand with "simone",but for the fact that gays and lesbians demanded that government get involved when they wanted to get married.It seems to me that it's the gay and lesbian community that made this bed.They could easily have lived their lives as couples and no one would have given it a second thought. But no ! They wanted all the pension and social services benefits of marriage.All costs to other taxpayers. Once they got there,surely the responsibilites of heterosexual couples now apply to them too. The truth is,government should have stayed out of this in the first place.If Chretien had lived up to his original promise,this would not be an issue now.He opened Pandoras box to pander to a special interest group,and now someone else is going to have to clean up his mess.

keith
said

Good, now go fix the law so all the whiny babies on both sides of the debate will shut up already!

lc
said

More double speak from Harper and the wordsmiths in the PMO.Harper is not planning on opening the marriage debate because he already has blown the doors wide open.Just another day in Harperville where yes means no,up means down and the perversion of the English language all makes sense to the corporate media.

Doug ^^^ BC
said

There goes Oliva Chow Again.Never concerned about Canadians,but always asking more for foreigners.More money for immigrants who will never work in Canada,and changes in divorce laws to accomodate foreigners who come here to bet married because they cannot legally marry in their own countries. Here's an idea.When foreigners come here to marry,give them a copy of Canadian dvorce laws BEFORE they tie the knot. When all the usual left wing hate speech is over, I expect the current govenment will look for way to make it easier for foreigners to have their same sex.Canadian marriages disolved.But for people to use Canada to get married because they can't do it in their home country,to now come back and demand new divorce laws here is beyond hypocritical.They steeped around the laws in their own country to get what they wanted in the first place.Let them enjoy the benefits of what they sought so hard to get. Obviously you can't get a divorce in a state that doesnt' recognize your marriage.If you want to get one here,our laws apply. Marriage,same sex or otherwise,is something people should consider more carefully.Anyone with more than half an ounce of brain matter saw this coming all along. The best we can hope for now is that it is these stupid couples who will be financing whatever has to happen to anull or absolve them of their deeply felt,life long commitment to their spouses. Taxpayers have more than enough of their money in this now.

Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Firstly, there's no same-sex marriage "debate" here. Secondly, an issue that affects "foreigners" is our problem when their plight is based squarely upon our legislative doing. It is apparent that a farcical legal glitch exists that voids the publicly assumed lawful intent of Bill C-38. It requires rectification, in my estimation, as I cannot imagine that anyone can demonstrate that it was a previous Liberal government's desire to exclude the marital binding of "foreigners." (Our Justice Department acts on the determined letter of the law. It's off the hook.) A clarification emanating from Parliament Hill is in order, and our PM is obligated to facilitate it. The notion that our country has, willfully, allowed a huge number of non-resident gay couples to wed on our soil, without legislative support (including the federal Divorce Act), is asinine. Moreover, the notion that our PM is supportive of this technical preclusion is politically goofy. This matter certainly needs to be addressed, and I expect that it will. Our Civil Marriage Act (Bill C-38) -- an important sociocultural measure of Canada's acknowledgement and respecting of equal rights and areligious liberty -- needs to possess full legal credibility.

Jason Daniel Baker, Toronto
said

Straight or gay, the institution of marriage is one that fewer and fewer people can fully live up to as a level of commitment. You would think people would have seen this coming.

Darrell Manthorne
said

It isn't all that surprising. I live abroad and, over the years, straight friends of mine have gotten married to locals. The hoops they have to go through to get their marriages recognized is ridiculous.

PBW
said

Has the Conservative government done something about the gay Marriage issue that no-one has heard about? or is the divorce being denied based on the legislation passed by the Chretien majority government? If the latter, then until that legislation - and any regulations associated with the legislation - are changes, the former by a vote in BOTH houses, then the status quo remains. It's the law until it is changed.

Mr John.
said

@Raj.....
You are correct....I do not understand how this story ended in a question to the PM on his revisiting the so called issue.
It is fact that a legal marriage between two CANADIANS CITIZENS is recoginized in other parts of the world if they should move else where.
The same for those moving to Canada from another country.

Sandra
said

It's not about love, it's about sex. The agenda here is to legalize sodomy and use the Charter to do so.

Mike on PEI
said

Funny how those citing the "amorality" of society use the bible as their measure. A book which considers slavery, infanticide, forced marriage to ones rapist, the death penalty for being gay, eating shrimp, or wearing blended fabrics, all justifiable by their "god".Neither of the usual Xian arguments "but that was the OLD testament" or "cultural differences of the time" stand up to examination. If you're saying only the New Testament counts then stop cherry picking the things from the Old Testament that you want to whine about. It's all or nothing.As for the "cultural" or "it was a different time then" defense of the bible... Really? The "god" that punishes people for ETERNITY is so lax about paying attention to and enforcing his word that is doesn't actually matter?It would seem that culture actually trumps 'god' then. Fancy that. So which is more moral now than? A society that learns to treat others with respect and equality, or an authoritarian system based on ignorance and the threat of damnation?At least you religious dinosaurs are on your way out.

Wild woman 39
said

Just saying Ottawa,I think your govt better get their butts in gear and create jobs, and solve the issues witht the EI, and start listening to Canadians. Just saying, people need jobs & EI. Get over your ego trip fast.

Wild woman 39
said

I think it is time for people who are opposed to just to accept it , that same sex marriage is allowed in Canada.

Lara
said

@Remarkable - so if you believe that marriage is for the purpose of a man and a woman procreating, do you also believe that infertile men and women should not be allowed to get married?

Joan in Real World
said

GC in Ontario. You can oppose gay rights based on religion... that's why religous authorities could never be forced to perform gay mariages in Canada. They're right to oppose them on religous grounds is recognized. But you cannot use religious rights to limit somebody else's rights to live free from discrimination based on sexual orientation. What that means is that you can't say "gays shouldn't be able to get married because it goes against my religious rights".

Separate Church and State
said

GC in Ont. If you want to argue that religious belief is a sufficient argument to deny people rights, get ready for Sharia law in Canada. That is essentially what you are advocating for. Many religions do not preach tolerance or human rights. Do you think these people, based on religious belief have a legitimate argument to remove rights? Many Muslims and Christians believe that homosexuals deserve death. Just because it is believed, does not mean it is a justifiable argument. The Catholic Church horribly and violently killed many people in the name of what they believe. Your argument seems to say you think that was correct, and they were within their rights using an acceptable argument. Church and state are separate. Believe what you want, but don't force it on others.

franck commonsens
said

Forget about foreigners using Canadians divorce courts, or religion or views against gays or anythingThe first question should be: IF it is illegal in their country, WHY did we took their money and married them in the first place?!?!Anyone even bothered to check if they where living in Canada first or if there was any legal limbo behind this legal process BEFORE executing it?Another clear display of INCOMPETENCE!

simone
said

The government has no right in peoples relationships. They are supposed to be running the country not checking whose sleeping in whose bed.!It has always amazed me why we even allow them into the most personal parts of our lives. It is none of their business.There are very important economic issues at hand right now. Stay out of our homes and get TO WORK.and get your hands off our money too! Try earning your own HONESTLY.

Tjold Jasou
said

Marriage can be a holy sacramental union or a farce.

Zoe
said

To Mrs. Chow and all you Harper bashers out there, get off your high horses.....this DOES NOT affect Canadians! Harper himself said that he doesn't yet know the ins and outs of this legal matter, so why the heck would he act or not act on something he is not yet educated on? Second , if your Country , State, Province , ect does not do or recognize gay marriage, why did you think that going and doing it here was going to make you an exception? If your area doesnt recognize it then no, you are not legally married, and since you do not reside in Canada, I dont see why my tax money should be paying Canadian courts to deal with this. Go take it up with whoever is in charge of the area you live in and quit bashing Harper! Has nothing to do with him or us.

JD
said

The same way that the people who opposed letting women vote died off, the people opposing marriage equality will die off. Another generation and it will look so silly that anyone opposed it.

Canadian Bob
said

Marg MM, your case it weak at best. The issue is far more complex than your silly proposal of what's done is done. People like you should do your homework! It's not like the story isn't available all over the internet right now in an educational manner and in simple english so that even a Conservative should be able to grasp.Even the Prime Minister today was caught off guard and fumbled his way around the issue. There are problems brewing on Capital Hill for your beloved, and it's his mess. At one point, people aren't going to be so nice in how they approach their rights if these are the games we can all expect from Harper and Company. Get used to it.

Devoted Tory
said

Yes! I agree with all my other conservatives friends here. I don't think the PM should allow public debate on any issues. Political and social issues are way too complicated and Harper should be the one who decides for the people of Canada. The less the public understands, the better!

Debbie
said

@Remarkable: not everyone wants children but may still want to be married and committed to a partner. There's more to a happy life than having children.

NVancity
said

An unnecessary reaction from the judge in this case. It would have been easy enough to have granted a divorce in the frame of "the country of Canada no longer recognizes your union" and that's it. Any claims on property or alimony etc. would be left for settlement in the pairs' own countries.

GC in Ont
said

I'm curious..why is it that religious beliefs are not a legitimate reason for someone to oppose gay marriage. Is this not a person's right to do so?Seems like reverse discrimination to me?

GC in Ont
said

I'm curious..why is it that religious beliefs are not a legitimate reason for someone to oppose gay marriage. Is this not a person's right to do so?Seems like reverse discrimination to me?

Amanda
said

I don't think it will really change anything by re opening this debate. I am against gay-marriage (NOT against people that are gay), but it seems many people are falling to accept gay marriage because if they don't, they think they are not accepting gay people. I do really hope that our society doesn't continue to go alogn with what media portrays as right and start thinking a little more about these types of ethical dilemnas... All those 'old fashioned' ways are jsut old fashioned ways, they are there for very good reasons and i think this is what we have forgotten..

LongLeanLezzi
said

Chow and the rest are misrepresenting the situtation. The PM is absolutely correct, and so is the government lawyer. This will not affect the marriages of those who are residents of Canada or any other juristiction which recognises the validity of the marriage. End of story

Sandra
said

This is the result of ceasing to teach the difference between right and wrong in schools, and at home. We have become an amoral society in which anything goes, all is acceptable and woe to those who still have a voice and disagree.

Bruce
said

Good, Wasted enough time on this issue

slawek
said

Ms Chow, are you trying to force PM Harper to influence lawyers decisions? Your boss would be happy to see it!!!

J.C.
said

Well I guess the Liberals under Paul Martin did not thoroughly do their homework before they passed the bill. They obviously left something out of it for those coming from other countries to marry. What I find funny is the number of commentors here that are blaming the current government for this error!!

Louis
said

If two people "Love" each other let them be. Who cares what sex they are as long as they are happy.

wilson
said

They came to Canada as tourists, non-residents, and their marriage certificate does not stand up the challenge to Provincial residency laws for a divorce.So...... lucky you, don't need a divorce nor a divorce lawyer.

Why fight it
said

So my question is, why are we paying this lawyer tens of thousands of dollars just to try and fight a gay couples ability to get a divorce? Sounds to me gay marriage is not legal if it is treated separately and different from regular marriage. Just let them get the divorce. Anything else smacks of an underhanded attempt by the government and their lawyers to attack the current status of gay marriage weakening the law and their rights. I see no other reason to fight this. It appears to be an attempt to placate and please those in the party that want this issue re-opened. They are saying "we can't open it now, but we can still attack it quietly." In some countries Muslims are only allowed to marry Muslims. Does that mean Canadian interfaith marriages are not valid in countries where such laws apply?

Simon
said

@ everyone opposed to gay marriage:If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry one!

J.C.
said

This court case has no bearing whatsoever on Canadian Citizens. Before these people come to Canada to get married they should check to see if the marriage would be valid in their own country. I can't believe people would spend that much money on a marriage in any foreign country without checking the legitimacy of it in their own country, since that is where they would take up residency. Besides I don't know what their complaint is as many would be happy if they were told they do not have to pay for a divorce. There has to be one side after the other side's money, alimony , property, or something to make an issue of this matter. If so they might be better to look at partnership laws in their country of residence. After all Canada cannot force other countries to legalize same sex marriage!!

Frank
said

@Remarkable again: Nobody doubts that male and female gametes are required for human reproduction...that was not the point of my reply to you, the point was your statement implying that reproduction is the sole purpose of marriage, but since you have no more arguments to refute my reply to change the subject...how convenient and how myopic-minded.

mahanna ali
said

i don't see the problem here....pm harper is respecting the 123 - 175 result of the FREE VOTE in favour of same sex marriage held in the hoc shortly after the conservatives won their minority government ... this particular case is before the courts and is being based on the leslation that was passed by the previous liberal government(s)...and we all know that the "dictator" conservatives should not be interfering in matters before the courts....RIGHT????....you people would have it no other way...RIGHT???

Maggie
said

Two thumbs up to Raj's comments - don't be clogging up our system with their divorces too; they're far more complicated and expensive!!

Roger in Ottawa
said

It is clear that the debate is not over. As a matter of fact, it must not be over. The Canadian population never got to vote on this issue and I strongly believe that the majority of Canadians would be against it. Homosexuals can live together if they want but getting married is out of the question.

Liberal Mindset
said

Interesting. At the peak of the Liberals power in Ottawa you had people comparing Canada to liberal European countries with drug use, considering this and that, ties to opening up laws to be more "Holland like" etc, even in major media outlets like CTV. Since the Cons took over you hear none of that talk anymore. Nobody thinks Canada is that liberal in it's thinking anymore. Conservative thinking is front and center now. How do you want your Canada?

Jamie
said

There's a lot of stupid here. Maybe people should stop making assumptions on partisan politics, and actually see the facts-Harper hasn't done anything, and this is a legal ruling. If you are a citizen of another country, get married here, and go back to your country, and your marriage is considered null and void, then that carries over to here. Secondly, it means you don't need a divorce. But instead we have too many people who can't use critical thinking but instead start their decision making with, "Who's saying it? Harper? OH IT'S BECAUSE HE'S EVIL!! DURRR!!" The guy could say spousal abuse is wrong, and the same people would use that as an example of how he's a control freak.

ST Mannew
said

Chow is being irrational, no matter what the Canadian government does it does not affecting anything in the couples country of residence, in the UK and US they don't have the same law as in Canada. It seems like Chow wants Harper to lie so peoples feelings are not hurt.

MARG MM
said

The article clearly states that the PM will NOT re-open the issue of gay marriage. It also clearly states that MP's were allowed to freely vote in the HOC on the re-opening of the same sex marriage debate and it was defeated 175 to 123. End of story. The article is actually about two foreigners, married in Canada, living in their respective countries, now trying to get a divorce. If their countries DO NOT recognize their marriage, why go through costly divorce proceedings?? The same sex marriage issue has been settled in Canada, and it is legal, that should be the end of discussion.

as2012
said

One thing people are forgetting here is that the debate is not about gay marriage but about the divorce act. Since the women are not residents of Canada, and same sex marriage is not legal in their respective countries, Canada is stating that it wouldn't be legal here either, BECAUSE they are not residents of Canada. How can our laws apply to people that are not even residents of Canada? I know I would be upset if another country tried to impose their laws on me. The only thing that is being debated here is can these women be considered legally married in Canada when neither person resides in Canada. And to the person who spoke about how they paid to get married, that is just a silly question, no one would get a refund from a divorce, regardless of straight or gay.

Canadian Bob
said

It is painfully clear that those who are speaking out against gay marriage and are supportive of the current legal situation in regards to the validity of same-sex marriage by foreigners are speaking without any degree of education, compassion, tolerance, acceptance, or commons sense. Opinions like the ones I'm reading here from Harper's supporters, and from those who continue to inflict their religious beliefs on the rest of us need to remove your blinders and become far more informed before posting your thoughts.

susie-q
said

Gays & lesbians have the same rights as anyone else. they should be treated the same. So what if 2 men or 2 women want to get married if they genuinely love each other.More power to them. If they want children that'S Why we have surgate people. Also we also have sperm banks. Some-
times I think these people would make great Foster parents.Something for Batshaw to think about. There are lots of men-women who break up.Just visit Women's abuse center. You can hear all about it. Susie-q

Raj
said

We all know that.Its not a pressing issue. I don't understand the problem. If the marriage isn't recognized in the country where they live, why do they need a divorce? They're not considered married.It's not up to us to clog up our divorce courts deciding on settlements for people who have no commitment to our country, gay straight or otherwise.The real issue here is not gay marriage vs. no gay marriage, it's Canadian citizen vs. Non-Canadian citizen. Please stay focused people. The inconsistency with our marriage laws for these citizens is what is being discussed here not the allowance of gay marriage itself in Canada, which is still unquestionable. Read a little beyond the headlines, jeez.

Remarkable
said

@Frank - Regardless of your weak attempt to justify the natural for the unatural, marriage or no marriage, you still need two of the opposite sex to make babies. No matter what you try and say in whatever words you try and put together, you need one male organ and a female organ, sperm from a male and an egg from a female to allow Gods magic to begin.

Franck commonsens
said

Classic Harper's methods! First promise everything in order to get some votes, spend public funds to start it to get ratings and exposure, and then cancel everything, do the opposite and say to everyone to shut up as he, oh mighty absolute despot, will not even lower himself in front of the little population to even explain it!Hope the 23% of Canadians who actually voted for this guy's party enjoy there absolute ruler!

Frank
said

@ Remarkable: True, two married guys cannot produce children, but reproduction ceased to be the sole justification for marriage lomg time ago. If that were the case the heterosexual couples wanting to marry should have medical tests to prove they can produce offsprings, if that is not the case then they should be banned from getting married because they would not fulfill the purpose of marriage, that is, having children, or if the couple fails to reproduce after a few years then the marriage should be invalidated for the same reason.....after all they got married and failed to "be fruitful and multiply"....fair enough

Paul
said

There's no flip flop on the issue. The only thing this does is to stop foreigners (which by the way make up most of same sex 'marriages' in Canada) from having a same sex 'marriage' if their country doesn't recognize the 'marriage'. Since they are foreigners, the Charter of Rights don't apply to them. Its not all that complicated.

davew
said

I find it incredible that Olivia Chow would even suggest the Prime Minister should "intervene" by contacting a civil servant lawyer and tell him how to do his job. Politicians should avoid interfering with the courts.I think its amazing that opposition members will suggest such a thing, then on the next issue that crops up - be critical of the government for "meddling with the court system".

Linda In The Valley
said

Can we just give this a drink!

This issue for me is a non starter, it's the law end of story. The lope hole for this couple is not being a resident of Canada. If they hadn't wanted a divorce, this story would never have been written.

With the divorce rate in Canada being at an all time high, "Till Death Do We Part" I think the word "Marriage" has taken on a whole new meaning!!!

Adam - GTA
said

My last comment. I still see a lot of homophobia here in some comments. Some of you still think gay people have to hide what they are. Wrong ! You don't. I salute the Professor. He hit the nail on the head. Getting married is a right that was denied gays. That's all there is to it, we just want the same freedoms and human right's you have. And please keep your bible to your self (thanks).

Bill in Ontario
said

First of all, who cares. If you are a legal adult and you consent to the marriage, why not get married.

Be real
said

There are lots of more important issue than this. There are more homeless people in our country. There are lots more unemployed people in this country. Our PM should spend more time with the important issues.

George (Ottawa)
said

People, let's stop this as the Prime Minsiter himself has chosen to do too.We have a recesion to deal with, a budget to balance, an economy to be fixed and thousands of jobs to be created.If we work together towards achieving these goals, it makes no difference your sexual orintation or the type of relationship one is in.

Cambob in Toronto
said

I'm 100% supportive of gay marriage, but it's always bugged me that foreigners would come here for that purpose. Yes, we want their tourist dollars, but marriage is NOT a tourist destination. Basically, if you're an American, Brit, etc, then you should be living by the laws of your country (and working to change those laws that are unjust). Waving a Canadian marriage certificate around when it has not validity (in your country) trivializes the process. It's like proudly wearing a cheap tourist t-shirt while attending court.

jkuz
said

Its so funny to read some of the debate going on here. You'd think that some heterosexual people were afraid to lose something by allowing same sex marriage. Seriously, this debate is old and dead. Equality prevailed.Also marriage has NOTHING to do with having a family or children. Otherwise maybe we'd have fewer single teenage moms? I'm being sarcastic.

fed up
said

The right to die in this country should be discuss like he promise he would do but since Harper is a real coward and afraid to talk bout it then this tells me he should not be leading this country at all. a leader that does not keep is promises should not be in charge of this country.

norchic
said

Why even bother with the love and honour thing? Let's get two, three, even more people co-habitating (or not) and engaging in unloving and dishonouring behaviours (because that can happen in any marriage while people are still legally married) and call it a legal union so that everyone can get everyone else's health benefits and be able to visit each other in the ICU. I love relativism! It's so fun!

Professer
said

Can we just try a quick thought experiment? First off, gay marriage is a reality in Canada, Hurrah! But everyone, try for a minute to imagine (regardless of your preferences) that someone is going to take away one of your civil liberties, dissolve your marriage, keep you from going to school, something..... If it even scares you a little, then try to imagine what I feel, to know that there are people who would gleefully dissolve my marriage, because it doesn't fit their definition. I am TERRIFIED of these people.

CE
said

The arguement for legalizing same sex marriage is to protect minority right. This is fine as long as there is no cherry picking on which minority group to protect. I am sure there are minorities in Canada whose cultural or religious beliefs allow polygamy. Are we going to legalize polygamy then?I have no problem with same sex marriage. Just call it something else...like civil union.

Gregory Wollf
said

Explain to me why Canada should settle same sex disputes for people who are not its citizens and do not even live in the country? Canadian law applies to Canadian citizens who live in Canada. If you live somewhere else then you live under those laws. It's just silly to create an international legal loop hole where you can just 'go to Canada' to bypass the laws of your own country.

Steve T
said

Olivia Chow is putting politics ahead of the law. The point isn't whether gay marriage is legal in Canada; it is whether a legal "contract" between two foreign nationals is enforceable in Canada, if the contract would be unenforceable in the individuals' home jurisdiction.This is yet another example of why the NDP will never be fit to govern the country. Too many populist sound-bite answers, without any real thought or appreciation of legal realities.

Dave in Saanich
said

It must be a slow day in the news room when you make an issue out of something the PM is not interested in doing. The news would be more interesting if you reported what was happening rather than what is not. Oh yes, please stop with the glass half empty and start looking at the glass as half full. People are growing tired of fear and terror style reporting.

Jim-Surrey
said

Enough of this disgustingly sick topic. Why can't they just live together? We don't need to know if you are gay and married or not!Most could careless unless you try and disrupt their lives.What goes on behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors, the world doesn't need to know!

Layla
said

@ Remarkable: But why is that important? We live in a time where having children is a choice and somewhat of a luxury, we don't NEED to have children to survive and ensure our livlihood, and therefore marriage doesn't have to INCLUDE having them to still be considered marriage.

Jay
said

Marriage was also defined in a time when a woman was considered CHATTEL. So that being said if a man and a woman marry should ``she`` then not become ``his`` property... see this is how ridiculous it is to still be debating if people of same sex should be allowed to marry.

David ON
said

Thanks Harper for not reopening this debate it's old news, let's move on.

Jim
said

Stephen Harper is, hands down, the best Prime Minister this counrty has ever had. Good job Prime Minister Harper!

Remarkable
said

@Layla: Sure, gay people can marry and may love each other, but without a man and a woman, you still cannot produce children.

Don't trust him
said

I'm wondering if Harper is using some of his now famous double speak. He says he will not open the debate. Does that mean he will just ram it through parliament with no debate as he has done with every piece of legislation since getting a majority? I would not put it past him. He has been very vocal about this issue in the past, and when he had a minority he attempted to make same sex marriage illegal. I think the laws will be changed before we know it. All it takes is one of his MPs to introduce the legislation. Not one Conservative MP would vote against it, as it would be the end of their base support.

Richard D
said

I love how a legal position by a lawyer (a legal position that may just have quite a bit of validity, might I add) as to whether a specific marriage could even be considered to have been legally performed is automatically turned by the media into a "Prime Minister, are you reversing your stand on same sex marriage?" question.Just a head's up, media: questions like this and "Do you love this country" are why Harper may not like you very much and treats you with such disdain.

Adam - GTA
said

Marriage, two pepole who love each other; same sex or not. Get over it !

Ian Liberman
said

@Lane I had no idea that the Oxford dictionary was the definitive in defining social policy . Do you know know that the Oxford dictionary considered the N word acceptable for use as a descriptive word for black people and now it describes the word offensive. Things change in life and actually believe it or not dictionaries do not decide social values or law.

The Right are always right
said

This is now a right wing generation. There must be some discipline measures that citizens must obey laws right or wrong. If Harper refuses to debate on this discipline topic then a new further right-wing party must be formed perhaps some Conservative MPs could form this party. The Liberals and NDP will fall into extinction. Further more the unemployed and those who were unable to complete their post-secondary education must serve in the military. Not just for any future combat but but for any emergency rescues.

Chris
said

No wasting time to open or reopen that debate. That insanity will fall down by itself. But why Canada need to be involved with that US-UK garbage?

Lorne -MTL
said

The law has no residency requirement for mariages, which means that anyone married here, regardless of place of residence, is legally married. The Law is clear on that. The government lawyer's argument doesn't pass the test of the law. So why is he attempting to make it at all? ---- No,no,no says Harper, we will not reopen the same sexe mariage debate. We will just try to interfere with same sex mariages any way we can (even when we don't have a legal leg to stand on).

Canadian Bob
said

Someone should pray for people like Thomas, but not me. I've had all I can take from the holier-than-thout christian right-winged nut cases that seem to think they have right to demand how the rest of us lead our lives. You don't agree with gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. I don't need your prayers Thomas, nor your silly lecture. The Harper government needs to make this one completely equal up and down the board. It's not something he should have a choice about, and this does not derive from some special interest group or a bunch of sinners. You want to find a sinner? Drive by your local church. the places are full of them.

JB in Ontario
said

You can't blame someone because they are a little light in the loafers! Aren't there more important issues? Personally, I am against same sex marriage.

Drewarama
said

Is it not a personal belief that someones personal beliefs should be kept to themselves.

gus
said

This issue is so over already. It has been settled. Move on people and live your lives. Life is too short.

Charlie
said

Can we not talk about the same sex issue right in the beginning of a new year. Who gives a damn, anyway?

Charlie
said

The stated reason? Because the partners live in Florida and England, where same-sex marriage remains illegal, their Canadian union is legally invalid too. Then why return to Canada to get divorced? If all they want is to get divorced, just stay where they are in Florida and England and forget about the whole thing. Unless, they are part of a movement to make a point, as usual.

jjaycee
said

This really has nothing to do with Canada! It has to do with Jurisdictions that do not recognize same sex marriages. You folks need to take a course on "Reading Comprehension".

LorraineH
said

@Professer
I agree with everything you said but living in Quebec gives a prime example of what happens when civil liberties of minorities are voted upon by the majority.

Layla
said

@ Laurie: Healthy stable families come from healthy stable relationships between 2 individuals, regardless of gender. You are lying to yourself if you think that by definition a family is only healthy if it includes just a man and a woman.@ Lane: The Oxford dictionary is a book that changes and updates definitions all the time, and it most certainly can change this one too.

Franck Commonsens
said

Let's say that the statement that divorce cannot be legally granted because this marriage is illegal in their country etc etc OK! means DEFACTO that the marriage was NUL to begin with! Therefore no divorce is necessary and that ALL expenses from the initial marriage, including for the divorce must be REFUNDED as the Government has done an illegal act to begin with!If it goes one way, it goes BOTH ways!

James Durning
said

By the same reasoning, interracial couples from countries that ban interracial marriage could not be married in Canada.

Using this false interpretation of the law as it was intended is an assault on democracy and justice.

Layla
said

Maybe the idea of marriage needs to be redefined rather than redefining the laws of marriage. People seem to get so hung up on the term "marriage" and how sacred it is, when really the concept of heterosexual marriage was really just a way to encourage, control and promote procreation in a time when offspring and alliances were essential. It provided the contraints for ensuring that procreation occurred, and that it did so in a way that could be verified for confirming lineage. The reality is that today there are many heterosexual couples getting "married" with no intention of procreating, yet we still allow them to marry, so why should gender be a factor when we now have 7 billion people and don't really need to worry about it? As long as they fit the requirement of loving and honouring the other person then they fit the important requirements, regardless of what Book you do or don't follow.

Peter
said

Religion is a choice,a lifestyle and has no place in the making of public policy. It is these religious people that are trying to dominate society with their personal beliefs and that where their beliefs should stay,personal.

Lane
said

When I seek a definition of a work in the English language, I consult the Oxford dictionary. That volume tells me that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Courts and parliament can no more change the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples than they can change the definition of "dog" to include cats. Having said that, I agree that homosexual couples should have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples when it comes to naming beneficiaries of insurance policies and pension or claiming dependents. The state should have no role whatsoever in defining marriage or in discriminating among couples.

willyb
said

Who cares! If two gay people want to get married, who is it hurting? They are people too, with the right to be joined in anyway they choose to. It is 2012, we have mixed race marriages, and single parent families joining together creating step-Moms and step-Dads. The important thing is that the love is there. The world is changing at a fast pace, and the laws and views on this subject must change with along with it...merely my opinion.

Professer
said

The civil liberties of the minorities should not be debated and voted upon by the majority. What does that mean?? If you aren't A) homosexual and B) thinking about tying the knot, then why does your opinion count? There isn't a religious order in the world that owns the concept of marriage. But I do need my union to be legally recognized so that I can visit my partner in an ICU, so that he is entitled to my death benefits, so that we have the same social standing as any other law abiding, socially responsible couple. If you're so terrified that my relationship is going to bring the end of civilization, maybe you should move to the States.

MB
said

@Peter... Shame on YOU for not reading the article and adding your pointless jab at the PM...

Pip
said

I guess Peter did not read the VERY FIRST sentence of this article. Gays have the right to marriage: Harper will not re-open the issue with his government. How can that be defined as ". . . not protecting minorities"? Everyone knows he has personal opinions on the matter - and is entitled to those personal opinions, just like anyone else under the the protection of sections 2a and 2b of our Charter (the same Charter, incidentally, that the SCC used to grant gays the right to marriage). However, he has made his public, political stance quite clear, as stated in sentence one of the article. It must be that Peter accepted Chretien's ancient statement to the contrary as Gospel Truth - all evidence since to the contrary.

M
said

Glad to see. This was decided upon all ready. Move on to other more pressing issues.

Outraged in ottawa
said

@Thomas your comments disgust me! What harm does it to you if 2 gay men marry? None.. What threat is it to you? People are people, and all should be given the SAME rights and freedoms as everyone regardless of colour, race religion and sexual orientation. I personally believe that the Harper government (AS HE CALLS IT) is ruining this country bit by bit...... I for one can not wait till 2015.......

Laurie
said

Healthy stability of society depends on strong families. That is.... family defined as ...one man, one woman committed for life who welcome children. No apologies for the truth of the matter.

albertam
said

rescind the same sex marriage laws is like taking a step back into ignorance and single mindedness and the original definition of marriage to that being between a couple is like any other that have tied the knot based on love. it shouldn't be just a group of believers think they owned the definition cause they say so.Anyone can or that is helping in reshaping our culture is good and makes our country better then it was before. you can either stick your head in the ground while the world changes and goes forth to something better. you can only hold society back for so long. the only thing that demeans a marriage is divorce for whatever reason like falling out of love with each other or it wasn't mean to be.

Jay
said

This is a free country and if you`re in love with another person and you are both concenting adults then why not enter into the bond of marriage. Marriage is about dedication to that person, about wanting to enjoy a life together with that person, and it is also about hardship. So if i want to have that with a person of same or oposite sex then that is your choice your are not hurting anyone. Love is love and I can feel the same for a person either way and as long as you share an address with a person you are pretty much married (common law). Let people live their lives as they want to untill it actually makes a negative difference in your life. Keep religion out of this debate and you will see that everyone should be allowed to be happy

Paul
said

And this is why he gets my vote!

Layla
said

Why won't people just let this go. He says he is not interested in reopening it, and I think that is just great. If you think about it it is also a politically smart move. It is a contentious issue (for some) that deals with something that really has no basis in the political realm, other than protecting the right to engage in it. As for people still not supporting this, you are living in the dark ages. Deal with your issues of homophobia and move on. Marriage is about declaring your love for another person and your pledge to them that you want to spend your life with them. Just because the bible says it's wrong or because it deviates from biological reproduction does make it any less legitimate to the people who choose to follow it. And judging from the number of failed heterosexual relationships what makes them any better? Humans are the only species who seem to get hung up on homosexuality, yet we are not the only species who engage it is. Which part of that is more unnatural?

Longleanlezzi
said

No matter how you feel about the issue of same sex marriage (I question the wisdom of making it anything other than a "relationship equivalent to marriage" myself), the matter is closed. A right once enshrined in law cannot be taken away. Time to move on. This is just the usual pathetic attempts to demonize the PM by the usual suspects.

geebee
said

For all the "hidden agenda" conspiracy theorists there's not much there. In reality though, S.S.M. should be rescinded...it's there because of gutless politicos in ALL parties.

dkjd
said

The term `marriage`should have no legal defination in law. All ``unions`between 2 people, gay or straight should be legally defined as a civil contract between 2 people. (or more depending on the current court case regarding polygymy). If you want to call it a marriage or anything else that is your business.

Just Saying - Ottawa
said

Glad Harper is not going into this again and this will be a disappointment to Jean Chretien who said on an interview with CTV that Harper planned to attack "gay marriage" why come out with things that are not true and you know nothing about. Will be watching to see if you are riding around on a "scooter" in China while the Prime Minister is there on his visit soon. Please go and enjoy your "retirement" the taxpayers awarded you with.

Rob
said

Good.People should mind their own business. Do two homosexuals harm you in anyway if they get married? No. People that are living in the stone age are just scared their children will "choose" to be gay. Grow up.

Jack @ Ottawa
said

Anxious to hear how Bob Rae will 'spin' this news to suit the 3rd place Liberals.

CYL
said

Mr Harper, let alone good ! did it cost these couples to get married ? do they get a refund ? Instead of getting married, what's wrong with just living together.

Peter
said

Marraige is defined as between two persons gender is not asked. Shame on harper for not protecting minorties

Mark in Newmarket
said

Oh please, can we drop this long dead subject, we are doing nothing but beating a dead horse. Gay marriage is now legalized in Canada and Harper isn't stupid enough to reopen this very contentious issue. I for one am against gay marriage, however with that being said I believe this debate and conversation is over, its legal, lets move on with life.

JB in Ontario
said

That is a good decision not to open the debate on same sex marriage.

Intelligent Liberal
said

Darn Harper, banning gay marriage was supposed to be his secret agenda, now he's wrecked any chance of Liberal revival. How clever of him to change his mind.

Today's Top Stories

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt speaks in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Monday, May 28, 2012. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Pick your location

Top Stories -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: