Canada Anulls Many Gay Marriages

Source

Personally, I think that's pretty terrible. I'm neither gay, nor Canadian, but you don't have to be either one to see what a slap in the face it is. It's especially surprising considering I usually think of our neighbor to the north as being a bit more level-headed, government-wise.

What do you think, AHers?

Difference? :| I kid, I kid

I think they shouldn't have done it in the first place IF they intended to do this (or at least made it a law that it affected citizens only). It's one thing to do something that's an emotional and political powderkeg. It's another thing entirely to waffle your stance on that as a later date. Frankly, I think they look like idiots for not just leaving it the way they intended in 05.

There must be an American behind this!

What about our marriage, Spence? T.T

I'm moving to Australia in Feb. We can do it there.

I see media sensationalism is not just for U.S. any more.

It seems to me that this is more about laws in the countries foreign to Canada and less about Canada itself.

The whole problem stems from the Canada Divorce Act, which says any couple seeking to end a marriage in Canada must have lived there for a year.

This is where the problem lies. Yes it's nice for gay couples to fly away somewhere to have an official marriage performed. It's another when they return to their original country and then try to claim rights that hetero couples in their country have.

And of course they can't just fly back to Canada and get divorced, since they don't live there.

I can see being mad that Canada isn't being more aggressive in their claim that their marriages performed aren't legal outside their jurisdiction.

^ what he said.

It's nothing to do with being gay or Canadian - it's purely about bureaucracy.

Could just as easily be a story about pet insurance or inheritance taxes.

this is the US, supposed to be a 'free' country...that doesn't to mean anything anymore.

if you want to be gay and get married, you should be free to do so.

if you ask a preacher to marry you and he says gtfo of my church you demon, he should be free to do so.

if someone wants to marry a ham sandwich, they should be free to do so.

if you want to make a company and make trillions of dollars (legitimately, not by taxation) and then fire all your employees cause you think they are ugly, you should be free to do so.

if trojan condoms want to put commercials on comedy central at 5 in the afternoon, they should be free to do so (if CC wants them).

if you want to get a bunch of your friends to boycott all products advertised on comedy central until they stop showing condom ads in the afternoon, you should be free to do so.

Freedom is either a right or its not. You don't get to pick and choose which freedoms people should have or not have.

You are either 100% free or you are 100% not.

Freedom is a myth thoroughly debunked by the U.S. Government.

Bolded: They spam those too lol... It's almost on every commercial break.

Italicized: I'd have to disagree with you there. No one in this world is 100% free. In this world its basically are you more or less free.

spoken like a true slave american

free·dom
[free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
I suppose we could go into the different types or views on freedom but lets face it. No matter where you are someone is forcing their will upon you. You are not free to do as you will in any place or nation on this planet. Whether it be your government, your family, your boss or maybe even a spouse someone is usually infringing upon your freedom. True freedom is anarchy, where you're able to do whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want. In every civilized nation people give up freedoms for safety and in some cases things are so standard these days that no one even realizes it anymore.

Now if you want to go and define freedom with limitations then by all means bring that to the table and then tell me what is standard to give up to then be free. Is just being able to walk around freedom? Am I not free if I can't park in that spot without being punished? What kind of freedom are we speaking about here?

Your generalization of me being American and therefore a slave is insulting and quite frankly immature and uneducated. It is nice to know that you can come in and try to insult someone for expressing an opinion though...

I think most of it comes down to semantics, really. Everything Sahzi listed IS actually possible... and has mostly happened, if you re-define the words a little bit. (Okay, everything except maybe the ham sandwich, but someone did legally marry a blow-up doll in Japan a while back.)

100% "freedom" does not mean "I can do whatever I want" though. That's called "anarchy", where I can murder your entire family for no reason and you can do whatever you want in retribution or, you know, do nothing at all because you didn't really like them anyway. I have never met anyone who actually wants to be in that kind of situation.

My 2 cents on the entire marriage issue in the US though is this: Marriage refers both to a "spiritual" / pseudo-religious joining of two people / souls / whatever and a legally binding socio-financial contract. Legislation would be so much easier if people could agree to use two completely separate terms. It's really too bad that laws have traditionally used the term "marriage", because as soon as someone mentions "sanctity", "institution", "tradition", or "money", the other half of the world tunes them out.

In my opinion, politics and religion should be strictly separated; otherwise both sides suffer. It's fine to legislate for public safety, but trying to legally enforce morality is way too much of a slippery slope.

If you marry a ham sandwich and then take a bite out of it, is that considered spousal abuse? What if you leave the sandwich out for a long time and it grows mold, is that considered spousal negligence?

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Nuff said.

This is a tough one, OP.

I'm not fully-versed on the details of this Canadian law, but I would assume that Canadian government officials did not anticipate such a heavy influx of foreigners seeking gay marriage when they created the law sanctioning same-sex marriage for Canadians.

I think it's safe to say that Canada doesn't want to be known internationally as the world's Las Vegas-style elopement hub for gays. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals in general ... but can you really blame people in the Canadian government for not wanting to promote such an image?

With that said, I do not think this is a "major slap" or "loss" for the international gay community. If Canada's government had all-of-a-sudden annulled all same-sex marriages for CANADIAN citizens, then yes, that would have been a major backwards step for gay rights. However, it looks like the Canadian government isn't doing that at all ... they're just aiming to stop the influx of non-Canadians who are immigrating solely to take advantage of Canadian law.