Jason Cormier wrote:
> On 6/29/03 20:21, in article bdnvqr$udqff$1@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no feelings about the decisions of Canadian courts. I don't
>> even have thoughts about them. For the same reason, I couldn't
>> comment about the issue of courts/legislatures in Canada even if I
>> wanted to because I haven't the slightest idea about the workings of
>> the various levels of Canadian government. They are of no
>> consequence to me.
>
> Perhaps not you, personally but marriages in Canada have been
> recognised in the US, when the issue arose. Should this, in your
> view, remain the same now that homosexual marriage is a reality in
> most of Canada? I do not mean is it likely for the relevant
> government bodies to recognise these marriages but
> do you personally think they should?

No. I do not think that foreign marriages that do not conform with American
marriage laws should be recognized here.

Canadian marriages, like other foreign marriages, are recognized by the US
only as far as they are compatible with domestic marriage laws. For example,
a polygamous marriage from Saudi Arabia would not be recognized here. The
issue most often comes up in immigration issues when a person with more than
one spouse tries to sponsor all of them to immigrate to the US on a
family-based visa petition. This issue has come up in same-sex marriage
cases, BTW. The outcome is always the same. AFAIK, there is no US-Canada
agreement that says that whatever passes for a marriage in one country must
be recognized in the other. The US already deals with this issue with the
Netherlands and Belgium i.e. it does not recognize their same-sex marriages.
I see no reason why we should deal with Canada any differently.

Does Canada recognize foreign marriages that do not conform with Canadian
law e.g. a polygamous marriage? (assuming that polygamy is not legal in
Canada)

> (I keep writing "most" because of issues in Alberta regarding use of
> the notwithstanding clause. http://tinyurl.com/fmsl <== It should be
> noted that, since this article was written, the federal Government
> has announced that it will not appeal the ruling.)

Yes, I saw that. The dissent in _Lawrence_ notes this fact.

> I thought I was fairly clear. I was asking your view on homosexual
> marriage, not on the the legal issues (constitutional, procedural,
> jurisdictional, etc.)

Well, the legal issues do form part of my views, as marriage is a legality.

> Does the fact that you are against the Defence
> of Marriage Act and would have voted to abolish the Texas law mean
> that your have no problem
> with homosexuals marrying?

No. Well, let me qualify that statement. If a same-sex couple wishes to have
some ceremony in which they pledge lifelong devotion to each other, I have
no problem with that. I would have a problem only if they were recognized by
the state in which I live.

I hasten to add that the majority of the states have passed Defense of
Marriage Acts. I have no problem with those. I would be remiss if I did not
note the same-sex civil unions that have existed in Vermont for the past few
years. As an American jurisdiction, Vermont's shenanigans have much more
likelihood of affecting me than anything the Dutch or Canadians might have
to say about marriage. As of right now, they are only recognized in Vermont,
so I really couldn't give a damn about that, either. Ask me again if such
unions get conferred all the right, benefits, and privileges of married
couples.

> If not, I am simply interested in hearing
> your opinion on that issue, separate of legislative/judicial
> authority.

If I were a member of a state legislature and there were a bill that would
establish same-sex marriage, I would vote against that bill.

-- 
Kevin Gowen
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
(D-MO), presidential candidate