"you're not really married," Canada tells foreign gays.

[PDH]

Assuming for the sake of argument that both of the lebiangs wanted the divorce, and neither was contesting any property, income, or custody, what's the difference?

Because, even with these stipulations, every time either one went to Canada they would be married again.  EVERY FUCKING TIME.

Even I can see the horror of this.

[Barrister]

I suspect that at least one of them cares very much as the division of assets might be a big issue and that is often the reason why the question of what law applies is raised.

That is why I said 'maybe' also I was saying that Yi was not saying that those two states are equivalent, only that perhaps if you were getting divorced you would be ok with that set of affairs.

But a Canadian court has no jurisdiction over non-citizen's property located abroad so it couldn't be anything more than a suggested division of property right?

Depends on whether a Canadian judicial decision on the matter would be "recognized and enforced" by a court in the place where they reside. Which is a whole 'nother song and dance. Such as: does the fact that they chose to get married here create a "real and substantial connection" with this jurisdiction, such that a court in the other ought to recognize the decision as binding by virtue of judicial comity? (Or some equivalent reasoning in the state in which enforcement is sought?)

Isn't conflict of laws fun? 

Beyond the "real and substantial connection" part though, isn't there something in conflicts that the laws in both jurisdictions have to be similar (or not in conflict)?  I'm pretty sure Canada would decline to recognize any divorce judgment from Saudi Arabia with respect to multiple wives, for example, on the grounds we do not recognize polygamous marriages, not on the lack of a real and substantial connection.

[Admiral Yi]

Because, even with these stipulations, every time either one went to Canada they would be married again.  EVERY FUCKING TIME.

Even I can see the horror of this.

Only if they both switched domiciles to state or country that recognizes gay marriage AND both spent a year in Canada.

[Barrister]

Because, even with these stipulations, every time either one went to Canada they would be married again.  EVERY FUCKING TIME.

Even I can see the horror of this.

Only if they both switched domiciles to state or country that recognizes gay marriage AND both spent a year in Canada.

Only one would need to spend a year in Canada.

[Malthus]

Beyond the "real and substantial connection" part though, isn't there something in conflicts that the laws in both jurisdictions have to be similar (or not in conflict)?  I'm pretty sure Canada would decline to recognize any divorce judgment from Saudi Arabia with respect to multiple wives, for example, on the grounds we do not recognize polygamous marriages, not on the lack of a real and substantial connection.

That's another issue - whether the difference is such that the decision would, if enforced, offend against "public policy". This is not straightforward, as not all differences result in decisions that offend against public policy.

To give an example: say a Saudi dude owns propery in Canada. Saudi dude has ten wives (not recognized as valid here). He gets divorced in Saudi Arabia vs. all of them and the court there awards the property in Canada split between the 10 wives. Would Canada enforce that judgment if the wives came a-calling? I think they would.

OTOH assume the court awards each wife a whipping for pissing the dude off by divorcing him. A wife is in Canada. Would the court enforce the whipping? Clearly they would not. It offends public policy.

The question in each state would be whether allowing gays to marry is in category (1) - a different legal situation that nonetheless does not offend public policy - or category (2) - something so offensive as to be denied recignition and enforcement in the face of judicial comity. 

[Neil]

Homosexuality is not something you can "contract". It's not a disease. 

It's a mental disorder.

[Valmy]

I believe Saudi only lets you have four wives 

[crazy canuck]

There is an article in the Globe online now about how this might be Harper's attempt to "luanch a cultural war through the back door".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/same-sex-stumble-feeds-conspiracy-theories-on-harper-agenda/article2300080/

To me the most significant part of the story is the willingness of media types to jump on the hidden agenda bandwagon rather then first trying to understand why the Federal lawyers took the position regarding the resolution of the conflicts of laws question in this case.

[Ed Anger]

a cultural war through the back door

HAR HAR

[Malthus]

There is an article in the Globe online now about how this might be Harper's attempt to "luanch a cultural war through the back door".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/same-sex-stumble-feeds-conspiracy-theories-on-harper-agenda/article2300080/

To me the most significant part of the story is the willingness of media types to jump on the hidden agenda bandwagon rather then first trying to understand why the Federal lawyers took the position regarding the resolution of the conflicts of laws question in this case.

This falls into the same category as "OMG Ontario is enacting Sharia Law by allowing religious-based arbitration".

It seems a misunderstanding, perhaps willful, of what is at stake or going on concerning an otherwise-obscure legal issue.

It is a lot harder to actually educate the reading public in the principles of conflict of laws or arbitrations or whatever. 

[HVC]

The headline "Law is complicated but all is well" makes for less readers

[crazy canuck]

The headline "Law is complicated but all is well" makes for less readers

[dps]

It is a lot harder to actually educate the reading public in the principles of conflict of laws or arbitrations or whatever. 

Well, it's hard to teach anyone something that you don't know yourself.  This is why the press hardly ever teaches anyone anything.

[Zoupa]

Malthus taught me that Toronto media never has any bias. 

[Malthus]

Malthus taught me that Toronto media never has any bias. 

Huh?