|
|
Thursday, July 22, 2004
|
|
NOW WE'RE HEADING FOR THE BIG DIVORCE/ CALIFORNIA STYLE
"Allow me begin with the statement that I have no intellectual, philosophical or moral objection to gay marriage. I can't for I find the institution to be flawed, degenerate and outdated as a whole. Accordingly, I think that true equality dictates that gay men and women be allowed the opportunity to fuck up their lives, along with their emotional and financial well being with the same carelessness that is actually encouraged for the rest of society. I've always felt that bitterness, domestic violence and child custody disputes are privileges that everyone should enjoy equally. It would be wrong to argue that masochism is a pastime for the heterosexual alone. And, in all likelihood, the Government of Canada will soon amend the laws so that gays will join in the failed and tortuous tradition of marital bliss within weeks. With any luck, the decrimilization of marijuana will pass at the same time thus lessening everyone's pain."
From my old blog, Sunday June 15, 2003
I'm like a friggin' psychic. When Ontario became the first jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere to recognise same-sex marriages, I gloried in the idea that same-sex divorces wouldn't be far behind.
Guess what happened in Toronto this week?
A Toronto couple is seeking what is believed to be Canada's first same-sex divorce
Yes, it has come to pass and I couldn't feel more vindicated. The first filing for a same sex divorce, possibly anywhere, was made on Tuesday.
The women, known only as M.M. and J.H., tied the knot on June 18, 2003, a week after the Ontario Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage, but separated five days later.
Five days? Wow, gay people got up to speed in no time. Within a few years, they could be breaking records set by straight celebrities.
They had been a couple for more than five years, said Julie Hannaford, a lawyer representing J.H.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, nothing destroys a beautiful, committed relationship quite like marriage.
But there's a hitch....
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.
Uh-oh....
But M.M. and J.H. want the same divorce rights other couples have.
"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.
Now, that's just greedy. And ungrateful. You got allowed to marry and now you want to divorce, too?
On June 17, Mesbur also imposed a sweeping publication ban on the identities of M.M. and J.H., ordering no reference be made to their names, ages, occupations, addresses or other identifying characteristics.
Oh, right. I've never explained publication bans here before, have I?
You see, Canada doesn't really have any tradition of respecting such silly concepts like "a free press" or "the people's right to know." Judges are permitted to unilaterally bar the reporting of anything that occurs in their courtroom that they feel like. Originally, this was only supposed to happen in rare circumstances, like high profile criminal trials, where certain facts becoming public could inhibit jury selection. Of course if you were given total power, you'd always exercise it with maximum responsibility, right? Neither do Canadian judges. This is why I always smile when American conservatives howl about a "runaway, unaccountable judiciary." They haven't got a fucking clue what they're talking about. Oh, and another thing, Canadian judges don't undergo any confirmation process. Either the Prime Minister or a Premier says, "You're a judge" and POOF! You are! Pretty sweet, huh?
Sure, in theory you could appeal a publication ban. You're sweet innocent kids for asking. But one has never been overturned in Canadian history.
M.M. has "serious concerns about embarrassment and emotional distress as a result of the publication of her identity and does not wish for her personal life to become known to her professional colleagues," McCarthy said in court documents.
"There is a certain stigma associated with being ... the first gay or lesbian couple to divorce," the documents said, noting the case "will likely fuel further public debate."
You know what, sweetheart? Too fucking bad. The concept of gay marriage has had no more loyal a supporter than I, but now you're going too far. Divorce records, generally speaking, are public record. Earlier in your pleading you asked for "the equal respect, recognition and benefit of the law, including all family-law rights and obligations guaranteed to heterosexual couples." And heterosexual couples get to get fucked over in public. Welcome to the club. If you don't like the ride, you shouldn't have bought the fucking ticket.
Individuals seeking divorce are normally required to state their names on their court petition, but Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure allow for an exception "when necessary in the interest of justice."
It's necessary in this case because M.M. "will suffer irreparable harm" and be undermined professionally if identified, McCarthy said. J.H. consented to the ban.
Waitasecond. What "irreprable harm" will they suffer? I thought the whole idea of lobbying for gay marriage in the first place was to establish that being a homosexual wasn't dishonorable or harmful. And precisely which "interest of justice" is being served here? You wanted equal rights, and I was one of the first at bat to see that you got them. Now you want to be more equal. Tough shit. Now I'm telling you what I'd tell anyone else, "go fuck yourself." Equality rawks, don't it?
"It's a marriage that didn't work out," McCarthy said, "just like marriages of straight people."
Truer words were never spoken. Now all I expect of you is to deal with it like a big girl and we can all be on our way.
|
|
|
| |
