Homosexual Divorce....

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/07/21/551610-cp.html

Lesbian couple seeks divorce

By CHRIS WILSON-SMITH

TORONTO (CP) - Barely a year after an Ontario court gave its blessing to same-sex marriage, a lesbian couple is trying to untie the knot in what critics dismissed Wednesday as little more than a judicial stunt to test the limits of Canada's divorce laws.

The pair, identified in court documents only as J.H. and M.M., were together for five years prior to their decision to get married last June, but were separated just five days later - two weeks after the Ontario Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriages.

"It's clearly a set-up case after five days where they are intentionally trying to push their agenda," said Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Rushfeldt dismissed the application as "judicial rot" and assailed the courts for agreeing to hear the divorce petition, which was filed last month in Ontario Superior Court.

"I don't see how you could have a judge hearing a case of two (same-sex) people, when legally in Canada, we don't even have the Supreme Court nor the Parliament legitimizing homosexual marriage."

While courts in three provinces and the Yukon have ruled that the freedom of gays and lesbians to marry is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, the Divorce Act hasn't been amended to apply to same-sex couples.

It's believed to be the first time in Canada that a legally married same-sex couple has filed for divorce, but it shouldn't come as a surprise, said Julie Hannaford, a Toronto lawyer representing one of the women.

Indeed, preventing same-sex couples from getting divorced would be an even greater violation of their constitutional rights than barring them from getting married, Hannaford said.

"You can't say to people that we're going to punish you for being in a same-sex marriage by never allowing you out of that marriage," she said.

"That just doesn't make sense."

Hannaford dismissed accusations that the divorce is anything more than the "sad end of a marriage," just like any typical divorce proceeding.

"Our clients were in a long-term relationship, and they had a short term - a very short-term - marriage," she said.

Hannaford said she expects the petition will result in amendments to the Divorce Act that would complement the marriage rights that same-sex couples have.

Currently, the law defines "spouse" as "a man or woman who are married to each other." The complainants say they want the definition amended to reflect that men and women need not be married to each other to be legally married.

Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler doesn't think the issue is all that complicated.

"It's really basically the same principle as in the same-sex marriage reference, and mainly, gays and lesbians should have the right to divorce as they should have the right to marry," Cotler said on Wednesday night.

Court documents argue the couple is seeking rights already afforded to heterosexual couples.

"Same-sex couples are entitled to the equal respect, recognition and benefit of the law, including all family-law rights and obligations guaranteed to heterosexual couples," M.M. says in supporting court documents.

She and her lawyer, Martha McCarthy, are asking the court to grant the divorce and issue an order that the definition of "spouse" under the Divorce Act is unconstitutional and offensive to their equality rights under the Charter.

Federal lawyers have asked the court to defer hearing the case until after the Supreme Court of Canada delivers its landmark decision this fall on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

But Superior Court Justice Ruth Mesbur has already established a strict schedule of trial-management conferences throughout the summer and set Sept. 13 as a date to hear the motion.

For his part, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty suggested Wednesday that the case should be allowed to continue.

"We certainly support same-sex marriages and logically what flows from that are divorces," he said.

So much for showing straights how it is done eh?...gotta love those who flagrantly abuse a system...
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Right. . . 'cause straights are so much better at it.

hey, just saying one of the most repeated phrases here was that the homosexuals would show us straights how marriage should be done....looks like it might not be the case afterall.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Right. . . 'cause straights are so much better at it.

hey, just saying one of the most repeated phrases here was that the homosexuals would show us straights how marriage should be done....looks like it might not be the case afterall.


Man people are people no matter what they do in the bedroom, they are fallible, just like the president, the baker, the seamstress, the preacher, etc. The sooner you get over the hangups with sex the better we will all be. We all make mistakes and we all do something that someone else would consider wrong or perverse. Get over it man.
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Right. . . 'cause straights are so much better at it.

hey, just saying one of the most repeated phrases here was that the homosexuals would show us straights how marriage should be done....looks like it might not be the case afterall.

Sure, because one couple decided to divorce that shoots the argument to hell.... Sure.

It's also not clear whether this was a move to advance legislation yet or not.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Sure, because one couple decided to divorce that shoots the argument to hell.... Sure.

It's also not clear whether this was a move to advance legislation yet or not.

All it takes is one bad example right....like I said, I remember everyone going on and on about how the Homosexuals will get it right and show the straights how marriage should be done...now we have an example that not only contradicts that theory, but also shows what they are willing to degrade in the name of agendas....interesting.
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Sure, because one couple decided to divorce that shoots the argument to hell.... Sure.

It's also not clear whether this was a move to advance legislation yet or not.

All it takes is one bad example right....like I said, I remember everyone going on and on about how the Homosexuals will get it right and show the straights how marriage should be done...now we have an example that not only contradicts that theory, but also shows what they are willing to degrade in the name of agendas....interesting.

Oh, bullsh!t, and you know it.

This is one couple of which you know very little, but yet you'll jump to a conclusion nice and quick-like.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Sure, because one couple decided to divorce that shoots the argument to hell.... Sure.

It's also not clear whether this was a move to advance legislation yet or not.

All it takes is one bad example right....like I said, I remember everyone going on and on about how the Homosexuals will get it right and show the straights how marriage should be done...now we have an example that not only contradicts that theory, but also shows what they are willing to degrade in the name of agendas....interesting.

You are promoting your agenda too, man. We all do, calm down. If we only need one bad example then I say the whole institution of marriage is Bunk.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Right. . . 'cause straights are so much better at it.

hey, just saying one of the most repeated phrases here was that the homosexuals would show us straights how marriage should be done....looks like it might not be the case afterall.

Who ever said they would show the straights how it done? They just want the same right, marriage and divorce. No better, no worse.

*look at the shiney keys, over here* --> keep your eye on important things people: WMDs or lack thereof, 9/11 commision, two wars, unfunded education, rolling back of evirnmental regulations, growing deficit, etc.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Oh, bullsh!t, and you know it.

This is one couple of which you know very little, but yet you'll jump to a conclusion nice and quick-like.

So it is BS that they are getting a divorce? that I am posting news here or what? like I said the general concensus here was that Homosexuals were going to show the straights how marriage should be done, the implication was that they would do it for love...this is clearly a case where that was BS....I am just pointing it out.

Originally posted by: judasmachine

You are promoting your agenda too, man. We all do, calm down. If we only need one bad example then I say the whole institution of marriage is Bunk.

Agenda? heck I am here just sharing a news story that no one else linked to which I felt was interesting....why would I push my "agenda" on ATPN as I know here it will do nothing, well other than get a rise out of some people :)
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Todd33

Who ever said they would show the straights how it done? They just want the same right, marriage and divorce. No better, no worse.

are you new here?....or at least in PN? did you read any of the past threads on this?? if the answer is no then go back and study up on what people said here before interjecting something which you know nothing about, thanks.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Todd33

Who ever said they would show the straights how it done? They just want the same right, marriage and divorce. No better, no worse.

are you new here?....or at least in PN? did you read any of the past threads on this?? if the answer is no then go back and study up on what people said here before interjecting something which you know nothing about, thanks.


LOL, STFU moron. You posted an independent thread based on one article. Did you cross reference evrey old post? Post any old quotes? Did you even mention them? Idiot.
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: bozack
this is clearly a case where that was BS....I am just pointing it out.

Originally posted by: judasmachine

You are promoting your agenda too, man. We all do, calm down. If we only need one bad example then I say the whole institution of marriage is Bunk.

Agenda? heck I am here just sharing a news story that no one else linked to which I felt was interesting....why would I push my "agenda" on ATPN as I know here it will do nothing, well other than get a rise out of some people :)

No, it's not clearly a case.

That you posted the story is fine, it's newsworthy. Nobody's saying that it's wrong to post the story.

That you make the absurd claim that this one case debunks the entire argument for homosexual marriage is completely assinine and nigh on flamebait.

edit: That being said, there are other folks that make absurd claims/assumptions with the perceived goal of "getting a rise out of people" or simply jabbing at somebody. It does, imho, get out of hand. There are stories posted from just about all points of view that come across more as flamebait than anything else. If it's an opinion I'm not familiar with or disagree with, I'll read it, listen to it, whatever, so long as it's thought out. I apologize for coming across so strongly on this one, but I felt I couldn't just let it pass.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: judasmachine

You are promoting your agenda too, man. We all do, calm down. If we only need one bad example then I say the whole institution of marriage is Bunk.

Agenda? heck I am here just sharing a news story that no one else linked to which I felt was interesting....why would I push my "agenda" on ATPN as I know here it will do nothing, well other than get a rise out of some people :)


Yes your agenda, whether it is getting a rise out of ppl, or argueing that all we need is one bad example before we throw an issue out the window, it's an agenda. Agenda just means personal preferance (in it's crudest of course).

But the one example arguement is weak. I was just promoting my agenda by saying that. ;) (BTW it takes alot more than this to get a rise out of me, though I'll push buttons all day long)
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

That you make the absurd claim that this one case debunks the entire argument for homosexual marriage is completely assinine and nigh on flamebait.

edit: That being said, there are other folks that make absurd claims/assumptions with the perceived goal of "getting a rise out of people" or simply jabbing at somebody. It does, imho, get out of hand. There are stories posted from just about all points of view that come across more as flamebait than anything else. If it's an opinion I'm not familiar with or disagree with, I'll read it, listen to it, whatever, so long as it's thought out. I apologize for coming across so strongly on this one, but I felt I couldn't just let it pass.

Read....I am not making any claim of the sort, I am just saying here is an instance that clearly proves that they most likely won't "get it right" as so many harped on about...never said it debunks the basis for homosexual marriage, just those bafoons who insisted that they would treat marriage with more respect than straight people would simply because they were denied the right...
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Yes your agenda, whether it is getting a rise out of ppl, or argueing that all we need is one bad example before we throw an issue out the window, it's an agenda. Agenda just means personal preferance (in it's crudest of course).

But the one example arguement is weak. I was just promoting my agenda by saying that. ;) (BTW it takes alot more than this to get a rise out of me, though I'll push buttons all day long)

Judas, see my response to Hossen....again I just found it interesting that we had so many here who insisted that homosexuals would treat marriage as it should be treated and teach us straight people a lesson and I happened to find a story that proves the exact opposite...this is a case of two people who either didn't act any differently or are using it as a tool...not respecting it or anything else that was implied would be done...as far as an agenda, well if pointing out quirky situations is an agenda then sure...
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

That you make the absurd claim that this one case debunks the entire argument for homosexual marriage is completely assinine and nigh on flamebait.

edit: That being said, there are other folks that make absurd claims/assumptions with the perceived goal of "getting a rise out of people" or simply jabbing at somebody. It does, imho, get out of hand. There are stories posted from just about all points of view that come across more as flamebait than anything else. If it's an opinion I'm not familiar with or disagree with, I'll read it, listen to it, whatever, so long as it's thought out. I apologize for coming across so strongly on this one, but I felt I couldn't just let it pass.

Read....I am not making any claim of the sort, I am just saying here is an instance that clearly proves that they most likely won't "get it right" as so many harped on about...never said it debunks the basis for homosexual marriage, just those bafoons who insisted that they would treat marriage with more respect than straight people would simply because they were denied the right...

Likewise, it doesn't clearly prove "that they most likely won't 'get it right' as so many harped on about". Once again, it's illogical to make that jump. This is one couple who, if I may repeat myself, you don't know much about, yet.

(Personally, I'm not aware of folks that said gays/lesbians would "get it right", but I'm chalking that up to ignorance or being unaware.)
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
What's the point to posting this article?

why shouldn't it be posted, it is news afterall...

Oh you're more than welcome to post it... but it's about as surprising as 'man changes underwear: still farts once in a while'.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
What's the point to posting this article?

why shouldn't it be posted, it is news afterall...

Oh you're more than welcome to post it... but it's about as surprising as 'man changes underwear: still farts once in a while'.

I completely disagree. This seems like a fairly important and significant piece of news that is connected to various forms of debate on these very forums.
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
What's the point to posting this article?

why shouldn't it be posted, it is news afterall...

Oh you're more than welcome to post it... but it's about as surprising as 'man changes underwear: still farts once in a while'.

I completely disagree. This seems like a fairly important and significant piece of news that is connected to various forms of debate on these very forums.

My personal opinion is that it falls somewhere between 3chord's and Rabid's take on it. It's a bit more eventful than farting once in a while after changing your underwear. It's also "fairly" significant, just not worth much more than mentioning right now until more details are known.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
I want to see a refence to this whole "They would prove how it should be done."
I have never heard such a thing as a argument for gay marriage.
And I live 3 blocks from the biggest concentration of homosexuals in america (Castro District.)
Coming up with BS like this just makes you look like a bitter closet-case.