Thank you for letting us know. We will review this comment.

COOKIES & PRIVACY POLICY

Canada to close gay marriage loophole

Foreigners who marry in the country to have their marriage recognised in Canada even if it is not recognised in their home jurisdiction.

Stacey Cosens

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:35:18 GMT | Updated 1 years today

Canada will address a loophole in its gay marriage laws that means foreigners who marry in the country will have their marriage recognised in Canada even if it is not recognised in their home jurisdiction.

 

The loophole meant gay marriages could not be dissolved in Canada if gay marriage was not legal in their home country.

 

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told Reuters: "We will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren't recognised in the couple's home jurisdiction will be recognised in Canada. This of course will apply to all marriages performed in Canada."

 

Court documents emerged on Thursday about a government argument concerning two women, one from Britain and one from Florida, who married in Canada but could not seek a divorce there because their marriage was not valid.  

 

Under Canadian law the marriage of the two women was not valid because the two women could not have legally wed in England or Florida. The Canadian Divorce Act also states any couple wishing to end a marriage in Canada must have lived there for a year.

 

Thousands of gay couples have flocked to Canada since 2005, when the country became one of the first to legalise gay marriage.

More images

Video

DIVA Linked Stories

Comments

  • Jessica Marie - Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:22:11 GMT -

    Report Abuse

    I love it! I knew there was a reason I always wanted to move to Canada. Its because Canada is freakin awesome. ----({*})---- A Warm Cup of Vulva Love www.VulvaLoveLovely.com

  • Ali Eleison Wearing - Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:06:29 GMT -

    Report Abuse

    This has to be the most confusing article I've read. First para = Foreigners who marry in the country are to have their marriage recognised in Canada even if it is not recognised in their home country/ies. = Positive but I thought this was already true 2nd para = Canada will address a loophole ... ... that means foreigners who marry in the country will have their marriage recognised in Canada even if it is not recognised in their home jurisdiction. looks like they're getting rid of a loophole that was positive = negative 3rd para = The loophole meant gay marriages could not be dissolved in Canada if gay marriage was not legal in their home country. not sure if positive or negative 4th para = Justice Minister ...said: "We will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren't recognised in the couple's home jurisdiction will be recognised in Canada. This of course will apply to all marriages performed in Canada." but isn't this what it already does? = confusing 5th para = Court documents emerged ......concerning two women, one from Britain and one from Florida, who married in Canada but could not seek a divorce there because their marriage was not valid. ok, so they need to divorce in Canada, fair enough as they got married there 6th para = Under Canadian law the marriage of the two women was not valid because the two women could not have legally wed in England or Florida. The Canadian Divorce Act also states any couple wishing to end a marriage in Canada must have lived there for a year. Confused? you betcha! To divorce in Canada, you need to live there for a year even if you're a "holiday married couple". Held to ransom then? Can you please tell us exactly what is going to change in one simple paragraph? The Canadians have realised that they don't recognise marriages in Canada of foreign nationals if those foreign nationals can't get married in their home countries, despite giving the impression that they do. So they're tidying up their law so they do what it says on the tin? What are they doing about the divorce law?

  • Ali Eleison Wearing - Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:23:42 GMT -

    Report Abuse

    This has to be the most confusing article I've read. First para = Foreigners who marry in the country are to have their marriage recognised in Canada even if it is not recognised in their home country/ies. = Positive but I thought this was already true 2nd para = Canada will address a loophole ... ... that means foreigners who marry in the country will have their marriage recognised in Canada even if it is not recognised in their home jurisdiction. looks like they're getting rid of a loophole that was positive = negative 3rd para = The loophole meant gay marriages could not be dissolved in Canada if gay marriage was not legal in their home country. not sure if positive or negative 4th para = Justice Minister ...said: "We will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren't recognised in the couple's home jurisdiction will be recognised in Canada. This of course will apply to all marriages performed in Canada." but isn't this what it already does? = confusing 5th para = Court documents emerged ......concerning two women, one from Britain and one from Florida, who married in Canada but could not seek a divorce there because their marriage was not valid. ok, so they need to divorce in Canada, fair enough as they got married there 6th para = Under Canadian law the marriage of the two women was not valid because the two women could not have legally wed in England or Florida. The Canadian Divorce Act also states any couple wishing to end a marriage in Canada must have lived there for a year. Confused? you betcha! To divorce in Canada, you need to live there for a year even if you're a "holiday married couple". Held to ransom then? Can you please tell us exactly what is going to change in one simple paragraph? The Canadians have realised that they don't recognise marriages in Canada of foreign nationals if those foreign nationals can't get married in their home countries, despite giving the impression that they do. So they're tidying up their law so they do what it says on the tin? What are they doing about the divorce law?