![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldA ,Slap Upside the Head post on the recent furor regarding recognition of same-sex marriages in Canada between non-Canadians, thankfully aborted by the Canadian government's promise to ensure full recognition is worth sharing. To wit:
News reports at the time suggested that in border cities like Windsor, Canadian judges did recognize the legality of same-sex marriages contracted by non-Canadian citizens living in jurisdictions where their marriages lacked recognition on a case-by-case basis. It's not clear to me that whether, even if the Canadian government had actively supported the lawyer's argument, whether it would have been possible to deny recognition simply as a legal matter.
The post's author is right, too, to note that the Conservative Party should have the good taste not to explicitly congratulate itself for fixing a problem overlooked by the Liberal government that introduced same-sex marriage back in the day, inasmuch as the Conservative Party as a whole was opposed to same-sex marriage (not all Conservative MPs, it should be noted, many in fact voting in favour of same-sex marriage). Modesty in situations like these, where party policies have changed notably well within living memory, is a virtue.
I most liked the author's conclusion: "Attempts to strip rights away from gay people will result in a demonstrated public outrage capable of severely threatening the government’s popularity. Despite some very loud voices of bigotry out there, support for equal rights and acceptance of gay people is the mainstream view in Canada. And that’s worth celebrating."
A couple from the UK got married in Canada and then later decided they wanted a divorce. When it comes to divorce and other matters of legal consequence, though, it turns out that Canadian law requires that the couple’s marriage be recognized in their country of citizenship. A lawyer with the Department of Justice, arguing on behalf of the government, thus declared that the couple’s same-sex marriage is not legally recognizable in this case, and was therefore never valid in the first place. This, he extended, means that virtually all other same-sex marriages issued to foreigners are likewise invalid.
[. . .]
Now, I’m not at all fond of being in the position of defending Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (I find most of their policies indefensible and the others generally pretty sucky), but I truly think this whole interpretation caught them off guard. I don’t believe that the Department of Justice lawyer was arguing based on explicit instruction from the PMO, nor do I think Harper is actively seeking to end same-sex marriage in Canada. (He still does his best to prevent other advances in equality and protection; equalizing the age of consent and adding protections for trans Canadians comes to mind, but I sincerely don’t think he wants to take away our right to marry.)
At any rate, despite what you may read, there was no policy change here—just a lawyer making a foolish argument. Rather than side with the lawyer’s interpretation, the government has stated that they will remedy the situation the same way I would: Explicitly clarify the law to recognize marriages in legal matters, no matter what the legality of those marriages are in the couple’s home country.
News reports at the time suggested that in border cities like Windsor, Canadian judges did recognize the legality of same-sex marriages contracted by non-Canadian citizens living in jurisdictions where their marriages lacked recognition on a case-by-case basis. It's not clear to me that whether, even if the Canadian government had actively supported the lawyer's argument, whether it would have been possible to deny recognition simply as a legal matter.
The post's author is right, too, to note that the Conservative Party should have the good taste not to explicitly congratulate itself for fixing a problem overlooked by the Liberal government that introduced same-sex marriage back in the day, inasmuch as the Conservative Party as a whole was opposed to same-sex marriage (not all Conservative MPs, it should be noted, many in fact voting in favour of same-sex marriage). Modesty in situations like these, where party policies have changed notably well within living memory, is a virtue.
I most liked the author's conclusion: "Attempts to strip rights away from gay people will result in a demonstrated public outrage capable of severely threatening the government’s popularity. Despite some very loud voices of bigotry out there, support for equal rights and acceptance of gay people is the mainstream view in Canada. And that’s worth celebrating."
