On Thursday, an article in the Globe and Mail declared that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives had annulled over five thousand Canadian same-sex marriages issued to non-residents since 2005. Worldwide panic and probably cannibalism ensued, with the government rapidly trying to diffuse the situation, and the media using a mixture of government-fed information and political spin to make things supremely confusing for anyone hoping to understand exactly what happened in the first place.

So, what did happen?

Depending on which articles you read, the situation has been described as anything from a sneaky reversal of marriage policy followed by intense backpedaling (I’m looking at you, Globe and Mail), to a heroic government announcement granting foreign same-sex couples legal recognition for the first time (That’s you, National Post). The truth is a third option entirely, and is every bit as boring as you’d expect the details of international law to be.

To spare you an unwanted nap, here’s what I understand in the utmost of brevity: A couple from the UK got married in Canada and then later decided they wanted a divorce. When it comes to divorce and other matters of legal consequence, though, it turns out that Canadian law requires that the couple’s marriage be recognized in their country of citizenship. A lawyer with the Department of Justice, arguing on behalf of the government, thus declared that the couple’s same-sex marriage is not legally recognizable in this case, and was therefore never valid in the first place. This, he extended, means that virtually all other same-sex marriages issued to foreigners are likewise invalid.

A poo tempest followed.

Now, I’m not at all fond of being in the position of defending Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (I find most of their policies indefensible and the others generally pretty sucky), but I truly think this whole interpretation caught them off guard. I don’t believe that the Department of Justice lawyer was arguing based on explicit instruction from the PMO, nor do I think Harper is actively seeking to end same-sex marriage in Canada. (He still does his best to prevent other advances in equality and protection; equalizing the age of consent and adding protections for trans Canadians comes to mind, but I sincerely don’t think he wants to take away our right to marry.)

At any rate, despite what you may read, there was no policy change here—just a lawyer making a foolish argument. Rather than side with the lawyer’s interpretation, the government has stated that they will remedy the situation the same way I would: Explicitly clarify the law to recognize marriages in legal matters, no matter what the legality of those marriages are in the couple’s home country.

What I wouldn’t do, though, is then try to score extra political points by blaming this debacle on the previous Liberal government, which is exactly what the Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson did in front of the media: “This is a legislative gap left by the Liberal government of the day when the law was changed in 2005,” he said. “The confusion and pain resulting from this gap is completely unfair to those who are affected.”

This legislative gap—which I doubt can accurately be described as such—existed long before same-sex marriage was even a reality in Canada. If the Tories had been in power in 2005 we simply wouldn’t have noticed because gays would not be able to marry—and since virtually all opposite-sex marriages are recognized abroad, no case to highlight this “gap” would ever have been brought forward. (Once Mr. Nicholson renounces the injustice demonstrated by the Tories in their previous attempts to prevent and then strip away our marriage rights, he may then comment on the unfairness of those affected by the government’s own lawyer’s interpretation.)

So, what should we take away from all this?

Something very encouraging, indeed.

Attempts to strip rights away from gay people will result in a demonstrated public outrage capable of severely threatening the government’s popularity. Despite some very loud voices of bigotry out there, support for equal rights and acceptance of gay people is the mainstream view in Canada. And that’s worth celebrating.

• Despite legal about-face, Harper has ‘no intention’ of reopening gay marriage [Globe and Mail]
• Ottawa moves to defuse same-sex controversy [Globe and Mail]
• All same-sex marriages declared legal and valid by justice minister Rob Nicholson [National Post]
• Conservatives to change civil marriage law [CBC News]

An appeals court in Texas has ruled that a gay couple who married out of state can not get divorced.

The couple, who married each other four years ago while living in Massachusetts, are now forced to remain legally married unless they move back to Massachusetts and get a divorce there. While a lower court initially granted the divorce, it was appealed by the state’s Attorney General on the claim that granting a divorce would lead to same-sex marriage.

So, there you go; forcing a gay couple to stay married is now a state strategy in keeping same-sex marriage illegal. It’s almost logical, I suppose… like stopping a kid from smoking by forcing him to finish an entire pack of cigarettes. Or something.

Texas, of course, doesn’t recognize equal marriage rights. What the state was really afraid of is that granting a divorce would essentially amount to having recognized the marriage. It’s a bit of absurd paranoia, if you ask me. Particularly since equal marriage rights is an inevitability as more and more people shed their fears and prejudices about gay people. In the meantime, enjoy your forced marriage, anonymous couple. Texas is seeing to it!

• Court says gay couples can’t divorce in Texas [Associated Press]

Same-sex couples are virtually identical to opposite-sex couples when it comes to age, income, and child rearing according to census data released in the United States this month.

A study conducted at UCLA analyzed the data for nearly 150,000 gay couples to compare how they fare in comparison to their straight counterparts—taking into account gay couples who were legally married as well as those that still referred to each other as being married even if equal marriage rights were not legal in their state. The results show that gay married couples are 52 years old on average, earn a combined household income of $91,558, and have children 31 percent of the time. This compares to straight couples who are 50 years old on average, earn a household income of $95,075, and have children 43 percent of the time.

Gary Gates, a UCLA researcher who compiled the results, said that these numbers show that gay and straight families aren’t as different as lobbyists claim:

Most proponents of traditional marriage will say that when you allow these couples to marry, you are going to change the fundamental nature of marriage by decoupling it from procreation. Clearly [same-sex couples] are not decoupling child rearing from marriage.

Just goes to show you, gay people really aren’t all that different from straight people. Except for our extrasensory abilities and ability to wither your crops by blinking, that is.

• Report: Gay couples similar to straight spouses [Associated Press]

Canada’s pretty cool. No matter who you are or where you’re from, you can make your marriage commitments official up here—including gay couples from countries where same-sex marriages are not recognized. Just, maybe, don’t expect to get divorced if things don’t work out.

Divorces in Canada are, in fact, a legal impossibility unless at least one half of the couple has lived here for over a year. This is presumably because, unlike marriages, divorces are costly legal ordeals involving joint property transfer that need to be dealt with in local jurisdictions. That’s a problem for same-sex couples who can’t get divorced in their local jurisdiction because their marriage isn’t recognized there in the first place.

It’s quite a pickle, really. Luckily there’s an elegant solution: Legalize equal marriage rights everywhere!

• Gay U.S. couples can’t get divorces for Canadian marriages [CBC News]
• Gay marriages easy but divorces are not [Canada.com]

Here’s another reason why the whole concept of separate civil unions instead of same-sex marriage is a terrible idea: New Jersey.

New Jersey happily recognises same-sex marriages performed out-of-state, but in-state, only civil unions can be issued for gay couples. Well, now a New Jersey couple who married in Canada in 2004 wants a divorce so one half can re-marry. Canada won’t issue a divorce because they aren’t citizens; New Jersey, until now, wouldn’t do it because they could only dissolve gay civil unions, not marriages; and, of course, Canada won’t let the other half re-marry if they don’t get a proper divorce first. What a mess!

Enter Judge Mary Jacobson, who ruled that the couple should be able to get a divorce within New Jersey because the state has a history of divorcing foreign marriages. This ruling comes much to the chagrin of The Attorney General’s Office, which had argued that only civil union dissolutions should be allowed for same-sex couples in-state, even if they were fully married, not civil-unioned. The argument resolved around the idea that allowing same-sex divorce would eventually lead to same-sex marriage.

So, there you go. Civil unions have become entangled in the long tentacles of the law, the state is arguing that divorce leads to gay marriage, and we’re now left with this fun fact: In New Jersey, same-sex couples can’t get married—but they’ll be happy to divorce you!

• Judge to rule on whether gay couple can divorce [Winnipeg SUN]
• Judge grants permission for NJ’s 1st gay divorce [Canoe CNEWS]