http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/despite-legal-about-face-harper-has-no-intention-of-reopening-same-sex-marriage/article2299574/
In a nutshell, the Canadian government has siad that the thousands of same-sex couples who have come to Canada to get married are not legall married.
To be fair that's kind of an odd position for a Canadian court to be put in. For foreign residents, with no ties to Canada, whose marriage is not recognized in their own home country, to be asking for a divorce judgment from a Canadian court?
I think they should have stuck with "you need to be resident in Canada for one year" angle though.
The test case was brought by a lebiang couple that wanted to get a divorce. If that's what they wanted, shouldn't they be just as happy if they were never in fact married? :huh:
Am I missing something, or is this bitching for the sake of bitching?
Seems to me what happened is some application of ancient conflict-of-laws rules being applied in a new "hot button" setting.
I dunno the details of the domicle requirements for determining the legitimacy of marriages generally - I'd guess this is something that, prior to the same-sex marriage business, rarely came up. However, it would not surprise me if somewhere in the relevant (probably ancient) caselaw a notion arose that a marriage is only valid if it is valid in one of the jurisdictions the person actually resides in.
So, someone asks a government lawyer what the score is, he looks up Castel on Conflicts of Law, and writes an opinion - which happens to have significant real-world application.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 10:36:33 AM
The test case was brought by a lebiang couple that wanted to get a divorce. If that's what they wanted, shouldn't they be just as happy if they were never in fact married? :huh:
Am I missing something, or is this bitching for the sake of bitching?
They may be happy; those who thought they were happily married will not be.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 10:36:33 AM
The test case was brought by a lebiang couple that wanted to get a divorce. If that's what they wanted, shouldn't they be just as happy if they were never in fact married? :huh:
Am I missing something, or is this bitching for the sake of bitching?
I tend to think it is the latter, but could be persuaded otherwise.
But I don't see how it makes any difference to the lesbian couple in question whether or not Canada grants them a divorce, since their marriage isn't recognized anywhere in the first place.
kind of like the canadian governemnt yelling "psych!". Anyway it's stupid, and i'm kind of ashamed at our about face, really.
Martinusism must be crushed at any cost.
Quote from: HVC on January 12, 2012, 10:50:32 AM
kind of like the canadian governemnt yelling "psych!". Anyway it's stupid, and i'm kind of ashamed at our about face, really.
I'm unsure if there has been any "about face".
More like the issue simply did not arise. When you get married here, the officials simply do not ask if the laws in your home jurisdiction(s) would make the marriage invalid. That's sort of your concern, They only want to know if it is valid here.
The issue only arose because people in jurisdiction(s) where the marriage was invalid came back to Canada to get a divorce. Getting divorced is a more judicially-intensive process than getting married.
it seems like an about face becasue when the law was passed there was a whole "come to canada and get married" theme going on. They failed to mention, oh ya, your marriage isn't really valid. our bad.
or maybe it's the wy it's being portrayed that's swaying me. i don't really have a dog in the fight, what with me not planniong on marrying a dude :lol:
Quote from: HVC on January 12, 2012, 11:30:58 AM
it seems like an about face becasue when the law was passed there was a whole "come to canada and get married" theme going on. They failed to mention, oh ya, your marriage isn't really valid. our bad.
I dunno if that was ever the purpose of the legislation. More like a side-effect.
Edit: I'll bet that the legal positions of different countries are different on this issue. Some places may recognize foriegn marriages as valid even if they would not be valid if solemized in that state (I know Israel does this, as there is a whole industry of getting Israelis married on Cypris to avoid the crazy stranglehold of the religious types on "valid" marriages within Israel).
I think the problem is this:
Canada's marriage laws do not have a residency requirement. But federal divorce laws do.
This CBC article tries to explain it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2012/01/12/pol-harper-same-sex-marriage.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 10:36:33 AM
The test case was brought by a lebiang couple that wanted to get a divorce. If that's what they wanted, shouldn't they be just as happy if they were never in fact married? :huh:
Am I missing something, or is this bitching for the sake of bitching?
You do realize that when people divorce each other, the outcome is not that they are treated as if they never were married, right? :huh:
Quote from: Josephus on January 12, 2012, 11:47:16 AM
I think the problem is this:
Canada's marriage laws do not have a residency requirement. But federal divorce laws do.
This CBC article tries to explain it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2012/01/12/pol-harper-same-sex-marriage.html
That's only half the issue. What is really raising hackles is the notion that
for Canadian purposes, a marriage contracted in Canada between persons resident in a state that does not recognize that marriage as valid, is not valid.
This is classic conflict-of-laws stuff that confuses lawyers (including me).
For example: in some countries, a marriage contracted between certain people (say, same-sex) is not valid if it is contracted in that country, but would be considered valid if contracted elsewhere.
This is the process of legislative comity - states attempt to recognize that things under the legislation of other states are different, and attempt not to interfere.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2012, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: Josephus on January 12, 2012, 11:47:16 AM
I think the problem is this:
Canada's marriage laws do not have a residency requirement. But federal divorce laws do.
This CBC article tries to explain it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2012/01/12/pol-harper-same-sex-marriage.html
That's only half the issue. What is really raising hackles is the notion that for Canadian purposes, a marriage contracted in Canada between persons resident in a state that does not recognize that marriage as valid, is not valid.
This is classic conflict-of-laws stuff that confuses lawyers (including me).
For example: in some countries, a marriage contracted between certain people (say, same-sex) is not valid if it is contracted in that country, but would be considered valid if contracted elsewhere.
Homosexuality is not something you can "contract". It's not a disease. :rolleyes:
Yep, this is just a conflicts of laws case. But I suppose the media must be ever vigilant to sniff out that evil hidden agenda thing...
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
You do realize that when people divorce each other, the outcome is not that they are treated as if they never were married, right? :huh:
That is not what he was saying. He was saying that if you are getting divorced maybe it would be fine with you if you were never married.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 10:36:33 AM
The test case was brought by a lebiang couple that wanted to get a divorce. If that's what they wanted, shouldn't they be just as happy if they were never in fact married? :huh:
Am I missing something, or is this bitching for the sake of bitching?
You do realize that when people divorce each other, the outcome is not that they are treated as if they never were married, right? :huh:
But that's only true when people live in a jurisdiction that recognized their marriage in the first place.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2012, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
You do realize that when people divorce each other, the outcome is not that they are treated as if they never were married, right? :huh:
That is not what he was saying. He was saying that if you are getting divorced maybe it would be fine with you if you were never married.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
You do realize that when people divorce each other, the outcome is not that they are treated as if they never were married, right? :huh:
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?
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:57:13 AM
Homosexuality is not something you can "contract". It's not a disease. :rolleyes:
It is marriage that is "contracted". As to whether marriage is a disease or not, I'll remain prudently silent. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
You do realize that when people divorce each other, the outcome is not that they are treated as if they never were married, right? :huh:
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?
Making all those assumptions, there is still an open question as to whether the marriage is valid in another jurisdiction. For finality they still might want a court to rule on the issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
You do realize that when people divorce each other, the outcome is not that they are treated as if they never were married, right? :huh:
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?
Even assuming that the second part of your assumption is correct (doubtful), I guess there may be tax consequences.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
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' :P 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?
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 12:06:16 PM
Even assuming that the second part of your assumption is correct (doubtful), I guess there may be tax consequences.
Do they own any assets or make any money in Canada? Then how would there be tax consequences? What sort of ruling could a Canadian court make here that would be of any significance? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
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' :P 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?
Well not quite - if a Canadian court held that they ahd jurisdiction to make a divorce judgment, then they say they have jurisdiction.
The trouble would be trying to convince a foreign court to actually enforce that judgment, which I'm pretty sure they would decline to do so.
I could well be wrong though - as Malthus keeps pointing out, conflict of laws questions are ones notoriously tricky even for lawyers to get right.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 12:06:16 PM
Even assuming that the second part of your assumption is correct (doubtful)
I thought it was a reasonable assumption based on the fact that there's one lawyer representing both of them.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
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?
Boldly stated but may not be correct in all cases. That is the very reason we have the Law of Conflicts to sort out such questions - and indeed that issue appears to be at the heart of this case.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
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' :P 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? :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 12:03:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2012, 12:12:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
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' :P 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? :D
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.
Quote from: PDH on January 12, 2012, 01:19:12 PM
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. :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 01:32:45 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 12, 2012, 01:19:12 PM
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. :nerd:
Only one would need to spend a year in Canada. :nerd: :nerd:
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2012, 01:24:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:57:13 AM
Homosexuality is not something you can "contract". It's not a disease. :rolleyes:
It's a mental disorder. :bowler:
I believe Saudi only lets you have four wives :osama:
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.
Quotea cultural war through the back door
HAR HAR
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 02:10:05 PM
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.
The headline "Law is complicated but all is well" makes for less readers :lol:
Quote from: HVC on January 12, 2012, 02:28:02 PM
The headline "Law is complicated but all is well" makes for less readers :lol:
:D
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2012, 02:22:42 PM
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.
Malthus taught me that Toronto media never has any bias. :)
Quote from: Zoupa on January 13, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
Malthus taught me that Toronto media never has any bias. :)
Huh? :lol:
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2012, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2012, 02:22:42 PM
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.
Fair enough. The funny part is that the Harper Conservatives are, for once, totally blameless - they are being hammered in the media for engaging in "discrimination" against gays because a lawyer in their employ correctly set out the relevant and long-standing conflict of laws principles. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 09:12:45 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 13, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
Malthus taught me that Toronto media never has any bias. :)
Huh? :lol:
How you eagerly accept all the yellow journalism that distorts the truth about noble and virtuous Quebec of course.
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 09:16:16 AM
Fair enough. The funny part is that the Harper Conservatives are, for once, totally blameless - they are being hammered in the media for engaging in "discrimination" against gays because a lawyer in their employ correctly set out the relevant and long-standing conflict of laws principles. :lol:
For once? What has BB and company been up to?
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 09:20:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 09:16:16 AM
Fair enough. The funny part is that the Harper Conservatives are, for once, totally blameless - they are being hammered in the media for engaging in "discrimination" against gays because a lawyer in their employ correctly set out the relevant and long-standing conflict of laws principles. :lol:
For once? What has BB and company been up to?
Destroying Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 09:20:12 AM
For once? What has BB and company been up to?
:ph34r:
There is a longstanding meme that the conservatives are stealthily attempting to impose social conservatism - I don't buy into it, but I do riff on it. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 09:19:39 AM
How you eagerly accept all the yellow journalism that distorts the truth about noble and virtuous Quebec of course.
Yes it is amazing how every possible story has to do with Toronto dissing Quebec. Conflict of laws issues concerning same sex marrages? All, ultimately, about that. Somehow. :hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2012, 09:22:11 AM
Destroying Canada.
Then I am surprised the Conservative Party does not do better in Quebec.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 13, 2012, 09:22:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 09:20:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 09:16:16 AM
Fair enough. The funny part is that the Harper Conservatives are, for once, totally blameless - they are being hammered in the media for engaging in "discrimination" against gays because a lawyer in their employ correctly set out the relevant and long-standing conflict of laws principles. :lol:
For once? What has BB and company been up to?
Destroying Canada.
We must destroy Canada in order to save her. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2012, 09:41:03 AM
We must destroy Canada in order to save her. -_-
I look forward to the new Conservative strategic hamlet program. ;)
To eh or not to eh.
Apparently it's not a conflict of laws question, but ratehr the language of the Civil Marriage Act. The Feds have announced they will change that language so that Canada does recognize such unions, even if they would not be recognized in the home jurisdiction.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/harper-government-working-to-clarify-same-sex-marriage-law-so-all-marriages-are-correctly-recognized-in-canada/
But note that they still can't get a Canadian divorce - you have to be resident in Canada for one year before filing for divorce. :menace:
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
Apparently it's not a conflict of laws question, but ratehr the language of the Civil Marriage Act. The Feds have announced they will change that language so that Canada does recognize such unions, even if they would not be recognized in the home jurisdiction.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/harper-government-working-to-clarify-same-sex-marriage-law-so-all-marriages-are-correctly-recognized-in-canada/
But note that they still can't get a Canadian divorce - you have to be resident in Canada for one year before filing for divorce. :menace:
That's not correct - it's a conflict of law issue that the government intends to fix by overriding the common law through a statutory amendment.
The entire text of the Civil Marriages Act is (currently) as follows:
QuoteShort title
1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.
Marriage — certain aspects of capacity
2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs
3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Marriage not void or voidable
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
This thread has descended into lawyers fighting amongst each other :lmfao:
Quote from: Josephus on January 13, 2012, 03:32:58 PM
This thread has descended into lawyers fighting amongst each other :lmfao:
The best kind of fights. :menace:
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2012, 03:36:14 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 13, 2012, 03:32:58 PM
This thread has descended into lawyers fighting amongst each other :lmfao:
The best kind of fights. :menace:
If only they were to the death. :(
And involved all rather than just the ones on this forum. :(
People love to compain about lawyers. Until they actually need one that is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2012, 09:10:51 AM
People love to compain about lawyers. Until they actually need one that is.
And your little guild loves to make sure that people need them, don't they?
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2012, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2012, 09:10:51 AM
People love to compain about lawyers. Until they actually need one that is.
And your little guild loves to make sure that people need them, don't they?
Yeah, we have agents who go out to make sure people breach their contracts, lie, cheat and steal and generally act unreasonably so that their victims need the services of a lawyer. Without our agents doing such things people would always keep their word and act reasonably and then I would have nothing to do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2012, 10:21:12 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2012, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2012, 09:10:51 AM
People love to compain about lawyers. Until they actually need one that is.
And your little guild loves to make sure that people need them, don't they?
Yeah, we have agents who go out to make sure people breach their contracts, lie, cheat and steal and generally act unreasonably so that their victims need the services of a lawyer. Without our agents doing such things people would always keep their word and act reasonably and then I would have nothing to do.
Don't you think that's a little much? Isn't it enough to simply write the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws to your own advantage and the detriment of society at every turn?
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
Don't you think that's a little much? Isn't it enough to simply write the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws to your own advantage and the detriment of society at every turn?
Why rewrite the laws when you can rewrite the dictionary? Why, Neil, that's positively Orwellian. :P
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2012, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2012, 09:10:51 AM
People love to compain about lawyers. Until they actually need one that is.
And your little guild loves to make sure that people need them, don't they?
they'd be lost without us.
Looks like the government is promising to change the marriage laws to make marriages performed here legal whether or not they're recognized elsewhere.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1115215--ottawa-to-change-law-so-same-sex-marriages-are-valid?bn=1
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2012, 10:33:59 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2012, 10:21:12 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2012, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2012, 09:10:51 AM
People love to compain about lawyers. Until they actually need one that is.
And your little guild loves to make sure that people need them, don't they?
Yeah, we have agents who go out to make sure people breach their contracts, lie, cheat and steal and generally act unreasonably so that their victims need the services of a lawyer. Without our agents doing such things people would always keep their word and act reasonably and then I would have nothing to do.
Don't you think that's a little much? Isn't it enough to simply write the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws to your own advantage and the detriment of society at every turn?
Yes - all those laws against assault, theft, and murder - they are all for my personal benefit, and are to the detriment of society. :mellow:
Well you are the only one here who profits from enforcing them. Kinda suspicious, ain't it?
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 11:57:13 AM
Homosexuality is not something you can "contract". It's not a disease. :rolleyes:
Some diseases are genetic and thus are not contracted either. :nerd: