Drew, on Sep 19 2003, 02:30 PM, said:
And the reason I suspect it is because they had the option of filing out the proper forms as required by customs officials and they refused. I suspect they knew that this would happen and they were hoping to draw attention to same-sex marriage in the US. (Note that they were heading to a same-sex marriage advocacy event in Georgia, not in their native Canada. So obviously they're interested in changing U.S. Law.) As a result, we have sensational headlines like the one used as a subject header on this thread. But like all sensationalism, it doesn't tell the whole story. It front-loads the article with half-truths designed to elicit a particular emotional response in the reader. They're having more success getting their message out by making headlines than by showing up at an event where they'd pretty much be preaching to the converted already.
The two men in question don't need to draw attention to this issue, since it's already been the focus of a Parliamentary vote this very week. It's a news topic here every day right now (we also have a Provincial election on October 2nd, where it's an issue) - their story just happened at a time that the link would draw even more attention.
As for your comment that "they're interested in changing U.S. law", I'm sure they know they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. One of the men has written a book about their experiences in going through the church wedding and it's more likely that they were there to discuss their experience, in addition to providing information on gay rights issues in Canada.
I doubt that most Americans, unless they are involved in the same-sex marriage issue themselves, have been following what's going on with the Cdn government's position on this issue. Since canada.com is a site that's a pain to link to, I'll repost the article on a Parliamentary vote. BTW, the Cdn Alliance is our most right-wing party:
Thursday, September 18, 2003
OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian Alliance isn't giving up its fight to block same-sex marriage.
Two days after the party narrowly lost a vote in the House of Commons on a motion to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, an Alliance MP introduced a private member's bill Thursday calling on Parliament to define marriage as the union of "one man and one woman."
The bill says it should be up to the provinces to legalize any other kinds of relationships.
The Liberal government announced plans to legalize gay unions after several courts ruled that the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Draft legislation has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure it's compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An opinion is not expected for several months.
Alberta MP Grant Hill, who introduced the Alliance bill, said he believes the top court would uphold the current definition of marriage.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon dismissed the Alliance bill as one more effort to short-circuit the government's plans to allow same-sex couples to wed.
"It's a tremendous lack of respect for the Canadian people, a tremendous lack of respect as well for the court system and parliamentarians."
Cauchon also rejected continued suggestions by Liberal leadership frontrunner Paul Martin that other options, such as civil unions, could be considered.
Martin is widely expected to replace Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who retires in February.
Cauchon noted that courts in both B.C. and Ontario rejected civil unions as a solution.
"Separate but equal institutions are not something that would meet the criteria of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
A private member's bill rarely passes, but the issue of same-sex marriage is a volatile one and many Liberals could support the Alliance.
On Tuesday, the House voted 137-132 against an Alliance motion to maintain the current definition of marriage. More than 50 Liberals sided with the Opposition. "