179 replies to this topic

[Tilter]

Why don't the lesbians go to an Arabic country for their divorce? all the husband has to do is walk around the woman 3 times saying-- "I divorce you" each circuit .
Oh--- sorry, in a lesbian marriage there is no guy to do the walking.
OR--Use the other Arab alternative--- drown them in some canal or other-- foolproof and no splitting of assets.

Edited by Tilter, 13 January 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Black Dog]

Why don't the lesbians go to an Arabic country for their divorce? all the husband has to do is walk around the woman 3 times saying-- "I divorce you" each circuit .
Oh--- sorry, in a lesbian marriage there is no guy to do the walking.
OR--Use the other Arab alternative--- drown them in some canal or other-- foolproof and no splitting of assets.

You must really have them rolling in the aisles in your Grade 4 class.

[TimG]

What are you talking about? If you get a divorce in Canada, you use Canadian law. End of story. The courts don't apply foreign laws.

You missed the point entirely. The issue is what happens if the spouses do not agree on the juristion because different countries have different rules on division of assets. That is why courts should refuse to hear cases from non-residents.

[fellowtraveller]

The residency requirement exists because without divorcing couples will shop around for the best venue to divorce. How are the courts supposed to divide property if one spouse wants to use Canadian law and another wants to use their home country?

The residency issue is not a problem, many Canadian laws and particularly many provinces have resdiency requiremnts for a host of civil issues. Health care, welfare, old age security, licensing of many things etc. There is no reason for the Canadian govt to change the residency issue, or there will be no end to lawyers shopping for jurisdictions and easy ways to screw the other side in a nasty splitup.
What I heard briefly on the radio today is that the government will move to amend legislation that deletes the requirement to have your marriage elsewhere in order to have the Canadian marriage acknowledged in Canada. That would aspply to all marriages in any combination of genders.
Problem solved.

[scribblet]

Working quickly to fix it

No problem for tourists to wed or divorce in Canada... much ado over nothing, just pushing the 'secret agenda' onto gullible as usual.

[fellowtraveller]

Working quickly to fix it

No problem for tourists to wed or divorce in Canada... much ado over nothing, just pushing the 'secret agenda' onto gullible as usual.

Yep.
Harpers opposition is dogged but kind of dumb much of the time. He is vulnerable on so many things, but they keep coming back to things like SSM and abortion where he has proven to be bulletproof because he either refuses to engage at all or simply does the right thing, as in this case.
It is not that he is a step ahead, it is that his haters are wilfully a step behind.

Edited by fellowtraveller, 13 January 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[Peeves]

I don't undertsand what the issue is here.
The divorce laws apply to everybody that is married, it does not matter if they are gay, foreigners or Canadian citizens as the residency rerquirement applies to all. Why would we differntiate for any of those groups?

The difference is Canadians- Non Canadians.


Canadians married in Canada are married. Others, non Canadians are not according to some other countries laws. If their marriage isn't recognized where they are citizens they are not married and can't seek a divorce since it is not legal. So, why would they expect a country as Canada to provide the costs for their divorce from a non existent marriage? Why should my taxes go to that pointless exercise in futility?

[eyeball]

I don't undertsand what the issue is here.
The divorce laws apply to everybody that is married, it does not matter if they are gay, foreigners or Canadian citizens as the residency rerquirement applies to all. Why would we differntiate for any of those groups?

Morality and disgust...fear and loathing...political pandering and opportunism...the oldest reasons in the book. What more do people need?

It also makes for a nice distraction from other issues...like pipelines for example.

[Wilber]

I don't see the big deal here. If there is a question, it is the court which should have the final say and that is what is happening now. The residency rule is there for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual orientation so let the court decide if it is valid.

As far as division of assets go when it comes to non resident foreign citizens who were married in Canada. Who cares. They don't live here or have assets here. Give them their divorce and let someone else deal with that mess. Not our problem.

[guyser]

You missed the point entirely. The issue is what happens if the spouses do not agree on the juristion because different countries have different rules on division of assets. That is why courts should refuse to hear cases from non-residents.

Who cares if they cant agree? Thats a non starter.

Courts in this country hear cases from non-residents all the time.

[The_Squid]

Canada accepted their money and gave them a certificate that said they were legally married. To now say that those were never legal is mean-spirited and idiotic.

[dre]

The state has never accepted marriage as a private contract. It regularily overrides the terms of the private contract in the name of some arbitrary standard of "fairess". It is rather rediculous to appeal to this argument unless you want to argue that all marriages should be treated as private contracts which implies our existing divorce laws should be tossed out.

Theres laws that govern all private contracts, that doesnt mean they arent private contracts. In this case you have two people that signed a document and made commitments to each other. Now, of their own free will they want to end that contract. What on earth is gained by the government refusing to recognize the reality that these two people have mutually decided not to honor the terms of the contract?


Heres a snippet about uncontested divorces in Canada.

Uncontested Divorce in Canada

What happens if my spouse and I agree on all the issues raised by the divorce?

If you and your spouse agree on all issues, you have an uncontested divorce. In most provinces and territories, court officials process uncontested divorces and you do not have to appear in court.

Note that you cannot file an 'uncontested divorce' - the divorce becomes 'uncontested' only after your spouse has been served (given a copy of the filed Application for Divorce) and he or she does not respond by filing an Answer within the required time period. If he or she does not file an Answer, the divorce becomes 'uncontested'.

You dont even need to go to court. From the governments standpoint the disolution is entirely a clerical job. Some civil servant needs to the enter the information into a computer, and assign you a new legal status.

$35 bux seems reasonable, and you should be able to do it online.


The idea that there would even be a national dialog about this is silly. These people dont want to withdraw from their contract, and theres no good reason to not allow them to. Charge them a reasonable administrative fee, and have the right paper pusher do the work.

Edited by dre, 13 January 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[dre]

I don't see the big deal here. If there is a question, it is the court which should have the final say and that is what is happening now. The residency rule is there for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual orientation so let the court decide if it is valid.

But if this is an uncontested or a joint divorce, why waste even one penny bringing it before the courts?

[dre]

I fundamentally disagree. Breach of contract (divorce) should be costly and difficult, as an incentive to avoid opportunistic contracts (unhappy marriages).

When you date or sleep around, you are free to choose. But when you marry, you cross the Rubicon, burn your bridges and commit.

Well then you and I just have a different fundamental view on the role of government. I think its basically none of their business if two individuals wish to dissolve their marriage contract. You want the government to make it "hard" for these individuals to make their own choice. Its almost like you think the government should play relationship councilor.

Where does the government logically derive the authority to even have a seat at the table for such decisions?

[Wilber]

But if this is an uncontested or a joint divorce, why waste even one penny bringing it before the courts?

The court needs to decide on the residency requirement, not this particular divorce. It is an issue if people come to this country for no other reason than to get married, so it should be sorted out once and for all.