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

#41 Taryn Wander'r

Taryn Wander'r

    scott pilgrim's precious little lover

  • Islander
  • 605 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:45 PM

DWF, on Sep 19 2003, 02:44 AM, said:

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:
You mean the President's *not* homophobic?  :crazy:

#42 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:50 PM

Taryn Wander'r, on Sep 18 2003, 09:24 PM, said:

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.
You probably don't lick doorknobs in order to give Gary Bauer the flu either.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#43 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:55 PM

Taryn Wander'r, on Sep 18 2003, 10:45 PM, said:

DWF, on Sep 19 2003, 02:44 AM, said:

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:
You mean the President's *not* homophobic?  :crazy:
I can't make that claim, anfd it could have Reagan who signed that law, I would go around accusing somebody of being something that they aren't, or that I have no knowledge of, even if I don't like that person. :alien:
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

#44 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:55 PM

Who?   Anyone who opposes the gay rights platform is homophobic, because the opposition must have something to do with being afraid of gays or something.  Talk about another washed out, meaningless word that used to have real meaning before it was hijacked and applied to anyone who didn't agree with the user of the word on gay issues.  

It must be wonderful to have a platform SO correct that anyone who opposes it must be mentally unbalanced.

Oh, and Clinton signed that law.   :rolleyes:

Edited by Uncle Sid, 18 September 2003 - 09:57 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

#45 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:58 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 19 2003, 02:19 AM, said:

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

Quote

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

Federalism Lil.  The United States operates under a Federal system still where two distinct governments are at work and the laws of both must be obeyed.

Since you ask for it letís break out the old Constitution for this one.  Now Iím sure you as a lawyer must be familiar with the Enumerated powers of Congress.  They spell out the powers of the Federal Government and thus doing so illustrate what powers the Fed have.  Any power not listed is vested with the states. That leaves marriage laws largely under the jurisdiction of the state of Georgia.

These two men were trying to enter the state of Georgia under the legal guise of a married couple.  Since same sex unions are illegal in Georgia they would be violating the law of that state by officially declaring themselves as a legal couple.  If the Customs Officials had allowed them to do so they would have been violating Georgia State Law.  Now link this with the Federal DOMA Rov cited above and you have a very stout case why a Federal law and at least the laws of one state would have been violated.

Welcome to Federalism at work. ;)

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 18 September 2003 - 10:02 PM.

"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

#46 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:59 PM

^^^You mean the guy who put gays into the millitary could be homophobic??? ;)  :eek2:  :wacko:
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

#47 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 10:37 PM

colour me confused  :unsure: What is the legal, and actual difference between a civil "union" and a civil marriage? (or in fact a religous marriage, because, I might be wrong, but aren't they usually civil marriages as well? as they need the papers to have it recongised as legal). I thought they were the same thing. Other than genders of course. So is it just a different name to make people more comfortable with it, or are there actual differences?  :suspect: I'm just totally confused, I think I need to reread the thread .... I think I was confusing the terms civil union and civil marriage perhaps.... don't know why, or how.... every marriage is a union though. I must be really tired or something  :eh: I'll be back tomarrow  :D If I don't make any sense, feel free to ignorn me ;) :D

Edited by sierraleone, 18 September 2003 - 11:57 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

#48 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Preview Guy

  • Islander
  • 831 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 10:40 PM

Quote

Beth Poisson, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Ottawa, noted that U.S. law defines marriage as the legal union of a man and woman, and spouse as a member of the opposite sex.

"The customs officers were upholding U.S. law,'' she said.

If the U.S. Embassy says it's U.S. law ...
it must be the law
Ashley Edward Miller said:
"Eclipse ...hmmmm .... for a minute, I thought you were someone important,
but, now I remember .... you're just that preview guy."

#49 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 10:43 PM

So since same sex marriages are prohibited in the US not by national law but by the fact that maybe two states have laws concerning it (one for and one against).

Just as a person who had more than one wife/husband which while recogized  would not be allowed to file for entry as a family.  Why would these people be allowed to? Just becasue Canada recognizes these marriages while we refuse to recognize the group marriages of say Jordan or other arabic nation?

Wouldn't that be a seperate case of double standards.

Yet I do not see folks wanting to push to changes theses.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#50 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Preview Guy

  • Islander
  • 831 posts

Posted 18 September 2003 - 10:57 PM

Quote

US Federal Government "DOMA" Law

A "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)" was written by Representative Steve Largent (R-OK). It defines the term marriage within Federal law as meaning "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." The act also excuses each state from having to follow the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution; this would allow a state to refuse to recognize a marriage made in another state if the spouses were of the same gender. A similar bill, S. 1740, was introduced to the Senate on 1996-MAY-8 by Senator Don Nickles (OK). This act is a unique intrusion by the federal government into an area that had always been under the control of the individual states.

The bill passed the House with an overwhelming majority (342-67) in 1996-JUL. It passed the Senate 85 to 14 on 1996-SEP-10. It was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996-SEP. It he had not signed it, his veto would probably have been overturned by Congress.

There ya go Lil

Your law clerk,
Eclipse
Ashley Edward Miller said:
"Eclipse ...hmmmm .... for a minute, I thought you were someone important,
but, now I remember .... you're just that preview guy."

#51 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 01:30 AM

Thank you Eclipse.  :love:

It's so nice to have someone actually ANSWER the question instead of dancing around it or sputtering on about how evil liberals are.:)

Now, who's got the law that says that participants in a "civil union" (ala Vermont) are not considered to be a "family".

:ninja:  :angel:  :ninja:
Posted Image

#52 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 01:49 AM

The fact that most of the US doesn't recongise civil unions? ;)  :angel:

Under a family form, I'd assume there would be spaces for a husband, wife and possible kids/dependents. Considering, before now, the US federal, and 50 state governments, agreed that a family meant at *least* meant two married adults (of opposite gender) or a parent and a child. Even if they accept a civil union in Vermont as a family, I'd think they'd need new forms ;) And the men from Canada didn't have the option of that, and even then they might have not agreed with it, as they aren't a civil union, but a civil marriage, completely the same as a straight marriage, in the eyes of the law, unless I remember incorrectly. And it doesn't sound like a state would have to accept a marriage as valid from another state, if I'm getting any of this right. Just like Vermont wouldn't have to accept the marriage of a practicers of Polygamy from Utah(?). Of course, I believe it is illegal in Utah as well ;) But, please, correct my ignorance in any of my ramblings, if I'm wrong  :blush:

Also the fact, if they don't recongise the marriage (or "civil union", pth :p ), then its sort of hard to recongise them as a family

Edited by sierraleone, 19 September 2003 - 01:52 AM.

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

#53 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:05 AM

Sierra you are continuing to make the mistake that several people in this thread have made (Eclipse and Drew excepted).

State law is not FEDERAL law.

I asked about FEDERAL law.

And the question I asked in my last post was about the FEDERAL law in a situation where there IS a civil union (ala Vermont).

In this country, State law does NOT equate to federal law.  Good heavens can you imagine if California law on issues like sexual harassment, abortion, and discrimination based on sexual orientation equated with federal law?   Methinks that advocates of state sovereignty (not to mention those who think that CA law is wrong) might have a thing or two to say about that.

I guess the reason I'm hammering at this is that too many people seem to be a little too cavalier about throwing around the term "US Law" when they can't even really cite what they're talking about.  In fact, several people are still apparently confusing state and federal law.  And that's just not the way it works.
Posted Image

#54 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:33 AM

You're asking me to know the laws of the USA, when I don't very well know my own country's? ;) I remember someone telling me that no state had to accept a marriage from another, much less the US (or any states in it) had to accept them from other countries. I honestly don't know how to answer your question. I'm not even completely sure I understand the question :D Perhaps I should just stay out of this thread ;) Are you saying that because they were entering the US, their approval to come into the US was under federal law? Or are you just annoying with people throwing around the term "US Law" when they don't neccessarily know what they are talking about? (using state laws as examples, or other mix-ups).

I'm just guessing, but since I know nothing regarding this, that there isn't a federal law on the status of civil unions at all. Even if it was recongised as a legal union, it wouldn't be recongised as a marriaged from what Eclipse has quoted. And I don't know of any law that defines family, even in my country. Marriage yes, family no. It sounds, from here, like a loop-hole. And loop-holes are notorious for being annoying, and being used to someone's advantage ;) Though, where would their names go, their being no space for "spouse" #1 and "spouse" #2 (or alphabetical order, or whichever you think is fairest :p :D ), instead of husband and wife ;) I think I already mentioned, they need new forms :p :D

I have a hard enough time with provincial and federal laws, thank you very much ;)  :blush: Here, though, I figure quit with their belly-aching, and prosecute the people who *live* here and are breaking our marriage laws (polygamous people practice in the interior of BC, somewhere). There certainly isn't extra spaces for the extra wives when traveling ;) :D
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

#55 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:40 AM

You're asking me to know the laws of the USA, when I don't very well know my own country's? ;) I remember someone telling me that no state had to accept a marriage from another, much less the US (or any states in it) had to accept them from other countries. I honestly don't know how to answer your question. I'm not even completely sure I understand the question :D Perhaps I should just stay out of this thread ;) Are you saying that because they were entering the US, their approval to come into the US was under federal law? Or are you just annoying with people throwing around the term "US Law" when they don't neccessarily know what they are talking about? (using state laws as examples, or other mix-ups).

I'm just guessing, but since I know nothing regarding this, that there isn't a federal law on the status of civil unions at all. Even if it was recongised as a legal union, it wouldn't be recongised as a marriaged from what Eclipse has quoted. And I don't know of any law that defines family, even in my country. Marriage yes, family no. It sounds, from here, like a loop-hole. And loop-holes are notorious for being annoying, and being used to someone's advantage ;) Though, where would their names go, their being no space for "spouse" #1 and "spouse" #2 (or alphabetical order, or whichever you think is fairest :p :D ), instead of husband and wife ;) I think I already mentioned, they need new forms :p :D

I have a hard enough time with provincial and federal laws, thank you very much ;)  :blush: Here, though, I figure quit with their belly-aching, and prosecute the people who *live* here and are breaking our marriage laws (polygamous people practice in the interior of BC, somewhere). There certainly isn't extra spaces for the extra wives when traveling ;) :D

Actually I would think it would be better to get any visitors coming there together to sign up as a group, whether as family, or whatever. Because if they end up "missing", you might have a better chance of finding them if you have registered them together.
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

#56 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:43 AM

Arg! Strange clones.... *glares at her computer*
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

#57 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Preview Guy

  • Islander
  • 831 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 05:39 AM

Quote

Section 3 of DOMA provides that for purpose of interpreting federal law, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife..." This defines what the term "marriage" means when used in federal law (such as federal income tax law and federal social security laws) only. The definition of such terms is a routine function of any legal system..

The definition of marriage in section 3 is not imposed upon any state law. DOMA says only that if a state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage within its own jurisdiction, that will not force the federal government to use that radical redefinition of marriage in federal programs and federal laws. Section 3 does not interfere with the ability of the states to define and regulate marriage for themselves. Nor does it deprive Congress of the ability to define marriage some other way if it were to decide that for some particular program that same-sex unions should be treated as marriages. However, DOMA accurately clarifies the fact that Congress has never intended to include homosexual unions when extending federal benefits to "marriages."

Up until 1967 when the miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, many states refused to recognize any inter-racial marriages that were made in other states. Couples had to fight for their rights on a state-by-state basis. It is probable that the same phenomenon would occur in the future over same-sex marriages, if any state legalized them.

Legal efforts have been taken towards legalized same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Vermont,  Alaska, and other states. Court decisions favoring equal rights for gays and lesbians were overturned by state constitutional amendments in Hawaii and Alaska. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to either:

allow gays and lesbians to marry

or

create a new form of government-recognized partnership for gays and lesbians which is equivalent to marriage in terms of benefits, obligations, and rights defined as a "civil union".

Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution states that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the...judicial proceedings of every other state." Thus, if one state legalizes same-sex marriages, and a couple is married in that state, then the remaining 49 states might be required to recognize the marriage. However, if a state passes a law expressly prohibiting same-sex marriages before they become available somewhere, then  they would not be compelled to recognize the marriage.

The federal DOMA act allows each state to enact it's own bills to outlaw same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages recognized in other states. Many have been passed and signed into law. An updated list is available.  As of 2000-MAR the following states have passed laws:

1995: One state: UT
1996: 15 additional states: AK, AZ, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MI, MO, NC, OK, PA, SC, SD, and TN. In two states (AL, MS) state governors adopted an executive order declaring same-sex marriages void.
1997: Six additional states: AR, FL, HI, IN, ME, MN, MS, ND, VA.
1998: Four additional states: AL, IA, KY, WA. AK voters modified the state constitution to specifically discriminate against gays and lesbians. HI voters modified their state constitution to allow their legislature to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
1999: One additional state: LA
2000: California Proposition 22 to restrict marriage to heterosexuals was passed by the voters on 2000-MAR-7.

If gays get "unioned" in Vermont
apparantly, they are only legally unioned if they remain in Vermont
as each state has the right to refuse to recognize these "unions".

(Edited to change the term married to the word unioned in the above paragraph since Vermont did NOT allow marriages between same-sex persons, instead opting for allowing a "civil union" instead)

Edited by Eclipse, 19 September 2003 - 05:49 AM.

Ashley Edward Miller said:
"Eclipse ...hmmmm .... for a minute, I thought you were someone important,
but, now I remember .... you're just that preview guy."

#58 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 08:09 AM

DWF, on Sep 18 2003, 10:44 PM, said:

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 country in general. Our laws work against gays the same way they worked against minorities in the past. Liberty and Justice for all is a nice idea, but it does not exsist.
Can't Touch This!!

#59 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 08:37 AM

Kosh, on Sep 19 2003, 09:09 AM, said:

DWF, on Sep 18 2003, 10:44 PM, said:

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 country in general. Our laws work against gays the same way they worked against minorities in the past. Liberty and Justice for all is a nice idea, but it does not exsist.
But the conplaint that, this is homophobia gone amuck, so to speak it would have to be in the intent, and I don't think Clinton is homophobic, as I pointed out he put gays into the millitary, so I don't see who's been homophobic here. :wacko:  :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

#60 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 08:47 AM

Can we please dispense with that stupid, meaningless word and start using more precise language? Say what you mean in plainer terms, please.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."



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