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

#21 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,226 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:03 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Sep 18 2003, 03:58 PM, said:

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.
^^ So would the Arab sheik be able to bring along more than one wife if they all filed under seperate single forms?
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

#22 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:07 PM

Quote

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   Doesn't really say anything about Gay couples that I can see in there 

This is true, of course, but the laws I checked through are jam packed with references to "lawful" relationships and spouses.  Heck, there's even a line about consummation in one fo the sections I looked through...   :eh:  

The assumption is, since they are not allowing polygamists, is that the definition of a marriage is what it would be in the US, ie. 2 people, heterosexual.  Neither polygamy nor same sex marriages are legal in the US.  Indeed, even if one state made them legal as such, that might not even do it for the Federal government.  Therefore, those two are not married with respect to the US government.

In this case, it was probably less a case of homophobia and more a case of unemploymentophobia.
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

#23 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:08 PM

Douglas-- I'm fairly certain such a treaty would be unconstitutional/impossible. The federal government has virtually no say in how marriage works, and a state can't sign a treaty. Further, if such a 'marriage treaty' existed, I imagine it would haev been mentioned in the article....

Sierra-- I imagine they would be, yeah. If not, they *should* be.
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. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#24 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:40 PM

I thought the definition of marriage was on a state by state basis anyways.  I mean at least one state (I want to say Maryland but maybe it's Vermont) DOES recognize same sex marriages.  So what's this business of "the United States" doesn't recognize same sex marriages?

I wasn't aware of this as a national policy.

:p
Posted Image

#25 Douglas

Douglas
  • Islander
  • 424 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:42 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Sep 19 2003, 12:08 AM, said:

Douglas-- I'm fairly certain such a treaty would be unconstitutional/impossible. The federal government has virtually no say in how marriage works, and a state can't sign a treaty. Further, if such a 'marriage treaty' existed, I imagine it would haev been mentioned in the article....

Sierra-- I imagine they would be, yeah. If not, they *should* be.
Like I said I wasn't sure; looks like I've another source to add to my "Unreliable list".

#26 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:46 PM

Douglas, on Sep 19 2003, 12:00 AM, said:

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.
Actually no such treaty exists that I am aware of.  Marriages are recognized more as a matter of courteous relations between the two nations than treaty law.  Thus since gay marriages or polygamy violates US law they are barred from the country whereas marriages that would be legal in the US are allowed.  

Quote

Mystic: 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.

:inlove:tackle!No from a legal sense they might as well say that a Canadian can vote in the US because they can vote in Canada. ;)
"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

#27 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:49 PM

Maybe we could change that law, and shift the customs people over to checking incomming cargo.
Can't Touch This!!

#28 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:50 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 18 2003, 05:40 PM, said:

I thought the definition of marriage was on a state by state basis anyways.  I mean at least one state (I want to say Maryland but maybe it's Vermont) DOES recognize same sex marriages.  So what's this business of "the United States" doesn't recognize same sex marriages?
:) Douglas.

That's not the case; Vermont has Civil Unions.

Customs law *is* a federal policy. If any state does support gay marriages, we may have a conflict betwen immigration law and state law. We'll have to work that out, when the time comes.
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. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#29 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 07:56 PM

^

K, I'm feeling lazy.

Where precisely in the customs law does it say that the US does not recognize same sex marriages.

And Rov, two people bound by a "civil union" are certainly "family".
Posted Image

#30 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 08:46 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 19 2003, 12:56 AM, said:

And Rov, two people bound by a "civil union" are certainly "family".
Not under US law.  As I said above this is US territory and that means obeying the laws of this nation.   That is what sovereignty it and has been for a long time.  I see this as no different than an American not being allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights within Canada.  You are under the jurisdiction of the sovereign nation that you have decided under your freewill to enter.
"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

#31 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 08:56 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Sep 18 2003, 06:46 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 19 2003, 12:56 AM, said:

And Rov, two people bound by a "civil union" are certainly "family".
Not under US law.
I keep hearing references to "US Law" on these issues.

Cite me the law.:)

Also cite me the law that says that under US law, civil unions, sanctioned under the state law of Vermont, would not be recognized.
Posted Image

#32 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:15 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 19 2003, 01:56 AM, said:

I keep hearing references to "US Law" on these issues.
You really want that Lil?  It would be a violation of Georgia Law to allow them to enter that state under the umbrella of a Civil Union.  The marriages are not recognized within that state and thus their forms would be fraudulent because they were registered as a couple.  Id wager they could probably be arrested within Georgia for violating the law by citing false information on their entry forms.

Quote

Georgia: Marriage Protection Act (1996)
Marriages between persons of same sex prohibited; marriages not recognized.
(a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the union only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage.


Georgia Code 19-3-3.1

Quote

Lil: Also cite me the law that says that under US law, civil unions, sanctioned under the state law of Vermont, would not be recognized.

In Georgia they would not be and they would be open to legal action by the state if they attempted to fraudulently past themselves of as a legal couple within that state in official matters.  Customs Agents are not allowed to disobey state laws on their whim.
"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

#33 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:19 PM

You're citing me the law of a single STATE.

Come on people, you want to use "US law" as a basis for these arguments then

[cuba gooding]Show me the money![/cuba gooding]

I don't think such an animal exists.

Why do I think that's important?

Because in the absence of such an animal, the custom officials' actions were a reflection of their own personal biases regarding same sex marriages.

Which brings us right back to homophobia.

So go ahead, prove me wrong.

Show me the UNITED STATES LAW that 1) prohibits same sex marriage; 2) prohibits the characterization of participants in a same sex civil union as "family".

I'm waiting.:)

Lil
Posted Image

#34 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:20 PM

Vapor Trails, on Sep 18 2003, 05:32 PM, said:

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

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?
Because it suggests they were barred because they were a gay couple. Which is not true at all. The truth is that the US simply does not recognize them as married, and they needed to file the proper papers. They refused. It was their choice.

A more truthful headline would have been "Gay Couple refuses to enter the US." Again, they were not "barred from entering." They refused to file the proper papers in a country where their marriage is not legally recognized. And when I see that one of them is a same-sex marriage advocate, I suspect it's all a publicity stunt intended to draw attention.

Yes, color me cynical.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#35 Taryn Wander'r

Taryn Wander'r

    scott pilgrim's precious little lover

  • Islander
  • 605 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:22 PM

Go Lil.

And can I ask, if this is expected to be happen, why exactly are there so many American gay couples coming up to Canada to get married, and then move back down to the States?

IMO, if it had been a different group of customs officer (or, I hate to say it, possibly if they had been two hot lesbian babes) things would have been a little different.

In the end, though, it was their choice to not continue their trip. I probably would've let it go and filled out separate forms. But what do I know?  :whatsthat:

#36 Taryn Wander'r

Taryn Wander'r

    scott pilgrim's precious little lover

  • Islander
  • 605 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:24 PM

Drew, on Sep 19 2003, 02:20 AM, said:

And when I see that one of them is a same-sex marriage advocate, I suspect it's all a publicity stunt intended to draw attention.
*I'm* a gay marriage advocate and I don't do things like this.

#37 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:33 PM

Taryn Wander'r, on Sep 18 2003, 08:22 PM, said:

if this is expected to be happen, why exactly are there so many American gay couples coming up to Canada to get married, and then move back down to the States?
Because they feel like it. What does that have to do with anything?

For those talking about the "US law" here, consider that there's got to be a law requiring that the forms be filled out, and obviously you can't fill out the form if you're not a husband and wife and the form calls for the names of a husband and a wife.

#38 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:36 PM

Lil-- The DOMA is still in effect. http://edition.cnn.c...0/gay.marriage/ <-- Article from way back.

The federal government has defined marriage as 'between a man and a woman'. I'm not sure if it's specifically mentioned in customs law-- I can't find it-- but I would think that the definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) would be legally binding in all fields.
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. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#39 Taryn Wander'r

Taryn Wander'r

    scott pilgrim's precious little lover

  • Islander
  • 605 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:44 PM

Delvo, on Sep 19 2003, 02:33 AM, said:

Because they feel like it. What does that have to do with anything?
Because there's been talk of them doing it so they could go home and have all the benefits. Perhaps someone should start some sort of commercial campaign sorting this out for people? :p

#40 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:44 PM

If this is homophobic, then who's homophobic, the custom's agents enforcing the law, Congress for making the law, or the President for signing the law? :unsure:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido



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