[foxyshaman]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Although it's "only one lawyer" from the Department of Justice according to the articles, I really don't doubt that all the other conservative "good ol' boys" (including Nicholson himself, despite what he might say to the press) weren't in the dark about this and that they supported this "lone layer" testing the waters. A random Department of Justice lawyer isn't going to make such a huge proclamation that would affect thousands of marriages on Canadian soil without getting some kind of "ok" from a head honcho. Like others have said, Harper and co. show their true faces from time to time and anyone with a brain can see through it, but in front of the press they're snakes in the grass. Unlike the American breed of far right evangelist fundies who rave their bigotry from the rooftops, our breed are much more subtle, which is what allowed these previous Canadian Alliance bros to get into power in the first place.

So yeah, Supreme Court will likely reject it, I agree, but they still like to test the boundaries as far as how much they can even temporarily hinder same-sex marriage rights without outright waging war on it as they did before same-sex marriage laws were passed. It's the same as the whole Planned Parenthood fiasco. Harper kept his "PR face on" while Brad Trost and co. ranted and raved about how funding to International Planned Parenthood had already been cut. The application for funding was sitting on Oda's desk for over a year with no response, and they only got their funding after a stink was made about it. Same thing here. If nobody notices they'll passively allow certain rights to fall by the wayside, but as long as people notice they'll claim it was a "mistake" or a "lone" perpetrator and wait for another day to do the same until people believe "they would never do such a thing." But let's not kid ourselves. Shit like this will continue to happen. And as for the Supreme Court. The Harper government's two new appointments so far were right-leaning as expected, and he's got the opportunity to continue to stack the Supreme Court with at least two more appointments by the next federal election. So while it doesn't seem likely now, I sometimes do wonder about the changing face of the Supreme Court under his government.

*waits to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist*

But as for this particular fight. Yeah, I agree. This will die in Supreme Court.

Conspiracy accusations aside

It has been my experience that small departments within the Department of Justice, do, all the time, opinions that are no "ok"ed by the Big Boys. I am not saying that Nicholson and others were in the LIGHT; however, it would appear as though a lawyer was assigned the task of preparing a briefing note and opinion based on a question, posed by another lawyer within the Department. A divorce case, as has been described here, is a test case. And a very good one.

While I am sorry SoulShineFemme that you, and others, are caught in limbo, this appears to be a very intrinsic question to be answered. Can someone be legally divorced in a country that does not recognize them as married. It appears that perhaps the rulings made by the Supreme Court were short sighted, or perhaps overly optimistic, in not considering that question. The Supreme Court ruled on the 'rights' of same sex couples to be married. They were not asked to consider, or rule, on whether a divorce would be obtainable within a less open minded jurisdiction - residency requirements aside.

I cannot comment specifically on the laws regarding residency requirements for divorce. I do have compassion for individuals seeking divorce and having to incur, on top of those expenses, further costs to legally prove they are married, therefore eligible for divorce.

I attended many of the hearings where I live regarding this issue, and was surprised, and humbled, by the number of people who came out to support same sex marriages. Despite being the Red Neck Capital of Canada, well except maybe Regina, but I am not throwing stones . I am confident that the Harper gov't, despite its valium like qualities, has no intention of back tracking on this issue. This is an important issue to be resolved. I am interested to see what policy has to be put into place to ensure divorces for those couples who are not residents.