So it seems that's government just decided to retroactively annul same-sex marriages performed in Canada if the spouses' respective native countries would not have permitted them.
I looked at the law that created same-sex marriage in Canada  (via linked metafilter) but see no mention of such a requirement. I don't see, legally, why Canada should give a shit about whether people who want to marry there could get married in their native countries. AFAIK there's no treaty obligation of this kind; if anything, international human rights treaties would argue in the other direction.
Can anyone dig up the actual, formal legal argument being put forward by the Harper administration for why this requirement actually exists and is binding? I understand their action only if such requirement already exists; I don't see how they could do so merely by administrative fiat.
Preëmptively: please don't use comments on my post to rant about this. Do so on your own turf. The rant is too obvious to be worth the space. (I'll summarize for you: WTF Canada, you're supposed to be our
hatsane, nice friends. And what Dan Savage said .) So please stick to more interesting commentary.
s/2012/01/12/canadas-conservative-govern ment-turns-my-husband-back-into-my-boyfr iend
Catch 167: Harper government pulls rug out from under non-Canadian gay couples who married here in good faith | MetaFilter