Canada caters to same-sex couples for lucrative weddings but what about divorces?

A gender-exclusive couple previously married in Canada sought a divorce but was refused due to the fact that they weren’t legally married.

Say what?

Due to a court order, the two women cannot be identified.  The partners are from England and Florida, neither of which recognizes same-sex marriage.  A Canadian Department of Justice lawyer said they couldn’t dissolve their marriage since it wasn’t considered valid by their home countries.

The women’s attorney Martha McCarthy called the Canadian government’s refusal to divorce the partners “scandalous.”

The Globe and Mail quoted McCarthy: 

 “It is offensive to their dignity and human rights to suggest they weren’t married or that they have something that is a nullity.”

 Is same-sex marriage in Canada a tourist trap?

“It is appalling and outrageous that two levels of government would be taking this position without ever having raised it before, telling anybody it was an issue or doing anything pro-active about it,” she said. “All the while, they were handing out licences to perform marriages across the country to non-resident people.”

 Canada wants wedding dollars from same-sex couples but not their expensive and court-clogging divorces.  Gender-exclusive partners have a higher rate of divorce than gender-integrated couples.  A study of Norway and Sweden found that “lesbians were six times more likely to divorce compared to heterosexuals.”  A senior government official said amending the Divorce Act would create a new batch of problems.

From the Vancouver Sun:

"[It could] make Canada kind of the divorce location of choice and that would put burdens on the courts here."

 Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government is seeking other methods to close the “legislative gap” that same-sex couples have fallen through.

"We will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren't recognized in the couple's home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada," he said. "This of course will apply to all marriages performed in Canada."

 A follow up article allayed fears that up to 5,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued to foreign tourists, including many from the United States, are invalid. 

"The message, then, is not that gay marriage has to fit into the pre-existing framework of laws, but that the legal framework has to be made to fit gay marriage."

 Once again society is expected to adapt to a minority of people who don’t want gender-integrated marriage. 

Ex-gay Cohen says he is ‘pro-choice regarding homosexuality’

Ex-gay author and therapist Richard Cohen struggled with same-sex attraction for years before successfully ridding himself of “unwanted SSA.”  He chronicles his transition to health in his book Coming Out Straight:  Understanding and Healing Homosexuality, which also offers therapy suggestions and an appeal for compassion for gays.

Because of his own personal and professional experiences, Cohen is convinced that "people are not born 'gay.'"  Although he offers hope and reparative healing for same-sex strugglers, he considers himself “pro-choice regarding homosexuality.”

"If someone wants to live a gay life, that needs to be respected. If someone wants to change and come out straight, that too needs to be respected. Let us practice true tolerance, real diversity, and equality for all."

 Gay rights activists’ lack of tolerance for ex-gays and reparative therapy actually generated more sales of Cohen’s book in Spain.

Online outrage boosts sales of reparative therapy for same-sex attraction

The online outcry against a book about reparative therapy for homosexuals actually had a reverse effect in Spain:  increasing sales.

Lifesitenews reports: 

“Understanding and Healing Homosexuality,” which has been available since 2004 in Spanish, became the object of protest in Spain in December when the book was republished by Libros Libres.
The book, written by therapist Richard Cohen, discusses Cohen’s own liberation from homosexual attraction, what he regards as the principal causes of the problem, and methods for bringing about the healing of same-sex desires.The appearance of the new edition sparked a protest on Twitter and other Internet media, including a petition that gathered tens of thousands of signatures demanding the removal of the book. 

 The online activists inadvertently ushered in free media attention.  Due to an overwhelming response, the publisher has authorized printing for 7,000 more copies.  

Why did Pope Benedict XVI comments about marriage generate over 7000 comments?

Pope Benedict said on Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself".

The Reuters article quoted Pope Benedict XVI who remains stalwart in his defense of gender-integrated marriage claiming that it is best for children and society: 

“He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."

 Why the outrage over these commonsense statements?  Why did more than 7,000 people respond?

Because the article was posted on the Huffington Post.  How they love to hate the Pope on Huff Po.

Video: Teen launches Girl Scout cookie boycott due to transgender boys in troop

A teenage scout urges people to boycott the cookie campaign because officials are misleading girls and their families about allowing boys in the Girl Scouts.  Taylor launched the boycott in response to Girl Scouts of Colorado's welcoming Bobby Montoya into their troop since he is "living life as a girl."

Read more on Huffington Post.

Video: Newt Gingrich defends freedom of religion while CNN defends freedom to redefine family

Newt Gingrich defends freedom of religion.  CNN defends freedom to redefine marriage.
Guess who wins.

Community activist urges politicians to 'support the right to gay marriage without supporting gay marriage itself'

“Why can't politicians like Santorum and Romney support the right to gay marriage without supporting gay marriage itself?”

From Eliyahu Federman's article on the Huffington Post titled Gay Marriage:  Support the Right if Not the Act:

“Religious people and politicians who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are making a huge mistake by failing to recognize the distinction between supporting someone's right to do something and supporting the act itself.”

Can we support the right to gender discrimination without supporting actual gender discrimination?  Can we support the right to segregation without supporting segregation itself?  


The problem with same-sex marriage is precisely that it does support actual gender segregation.  Unwittingly or not, it helps advance the abolish gender movement.

Marriage is a social institution.  It impacts all of society, primarily through the creation and care for children.  The underlying problem with same-sex marriage is that it is a disguised attack on gender itself.  On our genders, our bodies, ourselves.

Is the elimination of fathers from the lives of children a social good?  How about robbing mothers from other children?  How does this benefit children or society?

Federman, I support your right to disagree with Santorum and Romney.  I support your right to free speech.  But I do not support undermining gender.  I do not support depriving children of their mother and father.  And I do not believe you have a “right” to impose your religious belief in gender-segregated marriage on businesses, churches, or children.

Why can’t you support the right of Santorum and Romney to disagree with you without supporting disagreement itself?  You can take your own advice and “recognize that in a free society, believing in someone's right to do something does not mean you have to support what they are doing.”