Ottawa does about face on same-sex marriage for non-Canadians. The Harper government has served notice that thousands of same-sex couples who flocked to Canada from abroad since 2004 to get married are not legally wed. The reversal of federal policy is revealed in a document filed in a Toronto test case launched recently by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce.... The government’s hard line has cast sudden doubt on the rights and legal status of couples who wed in Canada after a series of court decisions opened the floodgates to same-sex marriage. The mechanics of determining issues such as tax status, employment benefits and immigration have been thrown into legal limbo. [The lesbian couple's] divorce application will be considered next month by an Ontario Superior Court judge. They are asking the judge to either craft an exemption allowing them to divorce or to strike down any legislative provision that has the effect of preventing them from doing so. [more inside]
posted by maudlin
on Jan 12, 2012 -
116 comments
The Navy's first kiss tradition enters the post Don't Ask, Don't Tell era If you're like me you may never have heard of the Navy's first kiss tradition. But it's not unusual for a ship returning from deployment to run a contest or raffle which gives the winner the first kiss with their sweetie on the dock;
you can find wikipedia media showing past events. After tonight's news broadcasts pretty much everyone in the country will have heard of it because you can be sure, whether it's portrayed as a step forward or a sign of the end times, every broadcast is going to lead with the first same-sex Navy first kiss between disembarking Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta and her girlfriend, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell of Los Angeles.
posted by phearlez
on Dec 21, 2011 -
82 comments
Kudzu and the California Marriage Amendment
Proposition 8
Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry: Initiative Constitutional Amendment
SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The biggest problem is that laws like the California initiative will make the courts decide who is male and who is female — and all available decision criteria create unavoidable miscarriages of justice that will, or should, dismay initiative proponents.
You're probably thinking, about now, that I'm going to exaggerate the sex-definitional 1 problem: Probably, you and everyone you know is unambiguously male or female — or at least has always believed himself or herself to be so, and nobody's challenged that, and nobody's likely to.
That's true, absolutely: Only maybe one live birth in 100 has some non-standard sex anatomy, and genetic anomalies are slightly rarer than that. However, let's talk about those 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 cases — because those could be you, or your aunt, or your best friend — and because our system of law has to deal with 1-in-1000 situations, too.
posted by robbyrobs
on Jul 21, 2011 -
50 comments
In September of 2004, a Superior Court in Washington state ruled
the state's 1998 "Defense of Marriage" act unconstitutional, a ruling which would have allowed the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In 2006, the state Supreme Court issued in an opinion in
Andersen v. King County overturning the lower court's ruling, noting "that
our decision [pdf] is not based on an independent
determination of what we believe the law should be." The legislature, in response,
created the state-registered domestic partnership in 2007, expanding many (but not all) marriage-related rights to same-sex couples. Last month,
a new law expanded the partnership to cover the remaining rights, creating an "all-but-marriage" partnership.
This year, the Washington Values Alliance has
filed Referendum 71, which would put this expansion to a ballot vote. The referendum will need 120,000 signatures to make it to the ballot.
WhoSigned.org intends to make these signatures searchable.
Predictably, this is
creating some controversy.
[more inside]
posted by 0xFCAF
on Jun 2, 2009 -
114 comments
Axis of Medieval? Hot on the heels of Bush's announcement that his adminstration is seeking ways to ban gay marriage, the Vatican has issued a
document condemning same-sex unions as "deviant" and "gravely immoral." One Bishop has
warned Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (a Catholic) that "his eternal salvation is in jeopardy. He is making a morally grave error and he's not being accountable to God."
Are we witnessing a coordinated attack on the burgeoning campaign for broader gay rights? What is the relevance of the Church's edicts, in combination with Bush's announcement? Are we about to see "the backlash" that some gay rights activists have warned of, or is this the (almost) last gasp of self-evidently outmoded thinking?
posted by stonerose
on Jul 31, 2003 -
160 comments
Gay Marriage - Go Canada Canada is only the third country, after Netherlands and Belgium, to legalize gay marriages. This surprised me because I figured we were playing catch up to most 1st world countries. Not so surprisingly my home province of
Alberta is promising to block same sex marriages and will refuse to issue licenses to same sex couples. Which must be putting smiles on faces at
Tourism BC. Interestingly this may cause big waves in the USA as they have traditionally recognized Canadian marriages as valid under US law and Canada has no
residency requirement for marriage licenses. How surprised would you be if your local authority followed Canada’s example?
posted by Mitheral
on Jun 18, 2003 -
39 comments
"Going Dutch" will never mean the same again. As of today, Dutch law allows same-sex marriages. Though other countries register same-sex couples, this new Dutch law is groundbreaking as it eliminates all references to gender in laws governing marriage, adoption, inheritance, pension rights, taxes and divorce. Even the dictionary's definition of marriage will be changed.
posted by prolific
on Apr 1, 2001 -
18 comments
politically incorrect may air a gay marriage. if they can find two guys who will exchange vows, P.I. will air it on febuary 18th. hmm. "The on-screen wedding will kick off an episode devoted entirely to gay marriage, a particularly timely topic given Vermont's recent block of an anti-marriage bill, California's upcoming Proposition 22"
posted by palegirl
on Feb 11, 2000 -
0 comments
