Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Canadian Gay Couple Barred From U.S.

LGBT Canadian couple Barred from US

  • Please log in to reply
198 replies to this topic

#1 Guest-2112st-Guest

Guest-2112st-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 18 September 2003 - 04:37 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/st...y_customs030918

Quote

Canadian gay couple barred from U.S.
Last Updated Thu Sep 18 12:07:32 2003

TORONTO-- A married gay couple say they were refused entry into the U.S. because an American customs officer wouldn't accept their clearance forms as a family.

Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell said they ended their trip to Georgia because the customs official at Toronto's Pearson airport insisted they fill out separate forms as single people.

Bourassa said he complained to a customs supervisor and was told the couple wouldn't be allowed to enter the U.S. as a family because the country doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.

:angry:  :crazy:  :angry:  :glare:

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 04:41 PM

Sheesh!

:glare:
Posted Image

#3 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 04:44 PM

GAH!!!!
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#4 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 04:48 PM

Some key words left out. They were not "barred from entering," they were barred from entering "as a family." Because the US does not recognize same-sex marriages, they were simply required to fill out two forms as single men.

Quote

Bourassa said he complained to a customs supervisor and was told the couple wouldn't be allowed to enter the U.S. as a family because the country doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.

Bourassa, who works as an advocate for same-sex marriage, said the couple made the decision not to fill out separate forms because they felt it was an insult to their dignity.

They chose, of their own free will, to not fill out the required forms. You may call it civil disobedience if you wish, but leaving out this key information makes it appear that armed guards right out of Margaret Atwood's wildest fantasies prevented them from crossing the border.

Someone's just trying to play the martyr here. That's all.

Edited by Drew, 18 September 2003 - 04:48 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#5 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:09 PM

b*llsh*t. I would be willing to be that if some middle eastern sheik entered the country with a couple of his wives, they wouldn't ask the extra wives to fill out a form as single women!!

They should be recognized under whatever legal status is conferred by the country whose passport they hold.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#6 Guest-2112st-Guest

Guest-2112st-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:11 PM

Drew writes:

Quote

Some key words left out. They were not "barred from entering," they were barred from entering "as a family." Because the US does not recognize same-sex marriages, they were simply required to fill out two forms as single men.

"Simply required", huh? The only "simple" thing here is the simple-minded HOMOPHOBES who have kept this couple from entering the U.S.

Quote

They chose, of their own free will, to not fill out the required forms. You may call it civil disobedience if you wish, but leaving out this key information makes it appear that armed guards right out of Margaret Atwood's wildest fantasies prevented them from crossing the border.

Someone's just trying to play the martyr here. That's all.

So, trying to stand up for the right to be recognized as a couple is just "playing the martyr"??

That must be one of the most patronizing lines of bullsh!t I've EVER read.

Thanks for enlightening me a bit more about yourself.

:glare:

#7 silverwind

silverwind

    Not the only one

  • Islander
  • 3,032 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:14 PM

Yes, forcing the couple to fill out separate forms under "single" status is wrong.

But it is ALSO wrong to blatantly misrepresent what an article is saying, all in the interests of sensationalism.
Proud ally and supporter of Euro-snobs and international flakes.

Signs your coworker may be able to manipulate time:  "Is this the first time you've called here before?"

Signs your coworker needs to work on their vocabularly:  A:  "It opens up in Notepad and it's just jibberish."  B:  "So you can't understand it?"

#8 Guest-2112st-Guest

Guest-2112st-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:32 PM

silverwind, on Sep 18 2003, 10:14 PM, said:

Yes, forcing the couple to fill out separate forms under "single" status is wrong.

But it is ALSO wrong to blatantly misrepresent what an article is saying, all in the interests of sensationalism.
I'm not sure I agree with you here.

The title of the article is: "Canadian gay couple barred from U.S."

So-AS A COUPLE-they *were* barred from the U.S.

How is that misrepresenting the article? How is that sensationalism?

Please explain.

:eh:

Edited by Vapor Trails, 18 September 2003 - 05:34 PM.


#9 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:58 PM

Rhea, on Sep 18 2003, 02:09 PM, said:

b*llsh*t. I would be willing to be that if some middle eastern sheik entered the country with a couple of his wives, they wouldn't ask the extra wives to fill out a form as single women!!

They should be recognized under whatever legal status is conferred by the country whose passport they hold.
Thats a good question. If they'd let in someone with multiple wives in all under a family form, when they don't agree with polygamy, then they should let in another "family" under a family form, if they are a family, legally, where they come from.

Edited by sierraleone, 18 September 2003 - 05:59 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#10 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:31 PM

Rhea, on Sep 18 2003, 03:09 PM, said:

b*llsh*t. I would be willing to be that if some middle eastern sheik entered the country with a couple of his wives, they wouldn't ask the extra wives to fill out a form as single women!!

They should be recognized under whatever legal status is conferred by the country whose passport they hold.
Well, unless you can point to a case where such a thing has occurred, then you can't really use it as a rebuttal.


This article, particularly the headline, is more about sensationalism than anything else.

And I cetrainly don't see it as a case of homophobia (term that is waaayy overused and misused!). More of bureaucratic mentality thiing than anything else. Technically, the customs officer is correct: the US does not legally recognize gay marriage, thefore in the eyes of US law, these guys aren't married.

Besides, I don't see the big deal! Is there some special privlege that comes along with being declared "family" by customs upon entering the US? Would it really have been that bad just to check "Single" and get on with the business they came to accomplish?

#11 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:32 PM

Soverignity is a issue I hold near and dear to my heart.  

Iím with Drew on this one.  You are within the territory of the United States and last time I checked we are still a sovereign nation much to the angst of the UN.  That means when you are within the territory of this country you are a guest and are held to obey the laws of this country.  Frankly there is no reason why any Canadian Law or legal status should be recognized within our territory that fails to confer.  Last time I checked the Constitution is still in effect and is still the supreme law of the Land.  

Quote

US Constitution: Article 5: Paragraph 2: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

I see no clause there saying Canadian legal practices override US practices.  If they donít like filing under separate forms then they can stay out.    


Quote

Rhea: b*llsh*t. I would be willing to be that if some middle eastern sheik entered the country with a couple of his wives, they wouldn't ask the extra wives to fill out a form as single women!!

Actually Iím not sure on the polygamy issue but I bet they wouldnít allow it there either.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#12 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:34 PM

Oh man, this is hard to say. But...

*kicks dirt*

I agree with CJ AEGIS. ;)
Per aspera ad astra

#13 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:37 PM

Kevin Street, on Sep 18 2003, 11:34 PM, said:

I agree with CJ AEGIS. ;)
:blink:  :wideeyed:  :eek2:   Please someone....  check for horsemen.... :angel:
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#14 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:40 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Sep 18 2003, 04:32 PM, said:

Soverignity is a issue I hold near and dear to my heart. 

I?m with Drew on this one.  You are within the territory of the United States and last time I checked we are still a sovereign nation much to the angst of the UN.  That means when you are within the territory of this country you are a guest and are held to obey the laws of this country.  Frankly there is no reason why any Canadian Law or legal status should be recognized within our territory that fails to confer.  Last time I checked the Constitution is still in effect and is still the supreme law of the Land. 

Quote

US Constitution: Article 5: Paragraph 2: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

I see no clause there saying Canadian legal practices override US practices.  If they don?t like filing under separate forms then they can stay out.    


Quote

Rhea: b*llsh*t. I would be willing to be that if some middle eastern sheik entered the country with a couple of his wives, they wouldn't ask the extra wives to fill out a form as single women!!

Actually I?m not sure on the polygamy issue but I bet they wouldn?t allow it there either.
Thank you CJ!

I was just thinking along those lines as well. Specifically about women who went with their husbands to work in Saudi Arabia. These women had to obey the laws and customs of the Saudi kingdom, such as covering their faces in public, while they were living there.

#15 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:41 PM

Quote

INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY

(10) 15/ MISCELLANEOUS.-


(A) Practicing polygamists.-Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible.

http://www.immigrati...htm#slb-act212a

And there you have it.  :)  Granted they might be visitors, but I assume that they would not be signing up on the family form either.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 18 September 2003 - 06:44 PM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#16 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:48 PM

Uncle Sid, on Sep 18 2003, 04:41 PM, said:

Quote

INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY

(10) 15/ MISCELLANEOUS.-


(A) Practicing polygamists.-Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible.

http://www.immigrati...htm#slb-act212a

And there you have it.  :)  Granted they might be visitors, but I assume that they would not be signing up on the family form either.
Sounds like the Arab sheik wqould have to leave the harem at home! ;)

#17 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:54 PM

Uncle Sid, on Sep 18 2003, 03:41 PM, said:

Quote

INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY

(10) 15/ MISCELLANEOUS.-


(A) Practicing polygamists.-Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible.

http://www.immigrati...htm#slb-act212a

And there you have it.  :)  Granted they might be visitors, but I assume that they would not be signing up on the family form either.
Then its fair at least.

Is that for immigration, though, or for visitors? I could understand not allowing them to immigrate, but not allowing them into your country? Though I understand they would reserve the right to, it just doesn't make sense to me :p :D Doesn't really say anything about Gay couples that I can see in there ;) Of course, I assume a gay couple could immigrate there, but not as a couple, and it would be harder to immigrate as they'd have to go through as single people, where, IIRC, its would be much easier for them both to immigrate together if they were seen as spouses. That would be irksome, though I assume they do the same to polygamous families, which would be much harder ;) trying to get several people immigrated to the country :D Would someone who had several spouses actually be allowed to immigrate/get a visa, even if none of the spouses were coming with them? So they weren't practicing polygamy in the US anyways?  :blink: *decides to leave all theses threads of thoughts before her head starts hurting ;) *
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#18 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:57 PM

Thank you Uncle Sid for clearing that up. :)

Kevin Street and CJ agreeing... wow... I think hell froze over *looks outside* Well it is snowing here... close enough. ;)

Anyways, does this couple really have any basis in legal action?? I mean, Canadian law has no bearing in the States... I dont see how one would even think that it would.

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#19 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 06:58 PM

Please. I support gay marriage, but this is a perfectly rational case; they're obliged to fill out the forms the way they're supposed to be filled out. It's nothing to do with homophobia; it's custom law. They're welcome to fill out the appropriate forms, and enter any time they like.

Move along. Nothing to see here.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. ß 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#20 Douglas

Douglas
  • Islander
  • 424 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:00 PM

It was my understanding that the USA and Canada are required by treaty to recognize marriages made in the other nation.  If I am wrong about this somebody please correct me, but if I'm right about this then by the quote CJ Aegis so kindly cited those immigration officers just broke US law, since treaties are binding.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Canadian couple, Barred from US

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users