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

#81 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 01:30 PM

sierraleone, on Sep 19 2003, 01:25 PM, said:

What? They can't, or shouldn't go to the US to discuss gay marriage/unions?

Avast, ye scurvy landlubber! Cast a weather-eye on me sayin's!

EDITED because it's "Talk like a pirate day."  :nervousninja:

Edited by Drew, 19 September 2003 - 02:45 PM.

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

#82 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,226 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 01:42 PM

Drew, on Sep 19 2003, 10:30 AM, said:

sierraleone, on Sep 19 2003, 01:25 PM, said:

What? They can't, or shouldn't go to the US to discuss gay marriage/unions?
Um, if this is directed to me, I certainly didn't say anything like that. Please read more closely.
I might have misinterpetated something, if so sorry Drew. I feel like kicking my computer :p Pages aren't loading properly, I'm having trouble posting, and I don't have time to deal with a finicky computer! :D My frustration has probably lead me to be quick or lax about reading replies. I'll review the thread again when my computer isn't playing games with me ;)
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

#83 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:12 PM

They are going to need to come in on seperate immigration forms just as we would require of a Arabic visitor who had more than one wife traveling with him.  Is this fair yes becasue it shows no biases.
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.

#84 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:19 PM

HubcapDave, on Sep 19 2003, 11:04 AM, said:

I again refer to my earlier example of American couple who go to Saudi Arabia to work.

I don't think we'd take the trouble to observe the local customs and laws of Saudi Arabia and then sit by while an Arab sheik disobeys ours.

Baloney. In one case you're talking about blending in and observing local customs, not asking a person to disavow, say, their marriage or their religion or their family so they can spend a few days at a conference or on vacation. That's ludicrous in the extreme.

If, for instance, they wanted a green card, then sure -  they should observe our laws if they're planning on taking up residency.

But the original example - that of pretending on paper that they're not legally married in their country JUST so they can attend a conference in the US is just plain silly. That would be like saying a Catholic should fill out visa paperwork to visit a country like Iraq and  "pretend" to be a Muslim so that he or she could vacation there.

Edited by Rhea, 19 September 2003 - 02:23 PM.

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

#85 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:40 PM

Quote

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

What I see in this thread is several people making the mistake of not understanding how the US Constitution operates and the concept of Federalism.  I get the impression sometimes that many people would like to wish away Federalism in favor of a monolithic national government.  James Madison lost that argument a long time ago and Federalism is here to stay.  

Quote

Lil: In this country, State law does NOT equate to federal law.

State law is just as binding and applicable as Federal law when you are operating within or visiting the territory of that state.  The Federal Government and the representatives of the Federal government including the Customs Officials are held to the standards of both Federal and State laws.  These two men were trying to file binding legal paperwork to enter Georgia where that form of union is not recognized.  Georgia state law is very applicable under those circumstances.    

Quote

Bella: Sorry, but you're wrong - they weren't trying to enter Georgia, they were denied entry to the U.S. by U.S. Customs officials at Toronto International Airport, before they had even boarded a plane!

Am I wrong?  They were trying to board a plane that was bound for Georgia,.  Their union would not be recognized within the territory of that state this they were banned from entry until they entered the correct information.    

Quote

Rhea: My contention is that enforcing laws meant to apply to United States citizens and residents on *VISITORS* from other countries is ludicrous.

You know that is a brilliant idea why not apply the laws of whatever country someone happens to be from to them when they enter the US.  If we happen to get any Saudis in the US committing murder, rape, or smuggle drugs then we can stage a good old public beheading of them!  It will save money even following the local tradition of not even giving them a trial!  How about chopping their hands of for theft?  They are in US territory on their own volition that means they should follow the laws of this country.      

The United States is a sovereign nation that governs her own territory and provides for the defense of it.  That sovereignty is vested in the people of this country who delegate it out through the Constitution to the state governments and Federal government.  In this case that government, state and federal, happened to agree that these two individuals are not a civil union.  They can always operate within the US system to attempt to change those laws to allow this practice.  However if any country or the citizens of that nation want to impose their sovereignty within US territory then they should consult the US Constitution.  If they still want to take that course of action Iím sure the US Military would be more than happy to teach them why trying to force their laws on the US is a unwise move.
"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

#86 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 02:49 PM

Rhea, you're emphasizing the difference, when it is the similarity that makes the point.

In the good ol' U. S. of A. a woman has the same rights and freedoms a man has. She can wear what she wants and do as she pleases.

Not so in Saudi Arabia. A woman's status there is not much more than a possesion, and there are strict rules of conduct they must follow. Furthermore, it is nopt merely "custom", it is law that they do so. And even further, they require it of any american female within their country, regardless of their reason for being there.

Therefore, it sets up as a nice example.

:D

As for the original example, it is all a matter of legal status. As provided in the DOMA, this country does not recognize gay marriage. Therefore, in the process of filling out a legal document, such as a customs form, they technically in the eyes of US law, are not family, since the thing that makes them a family as a legal definition (the gay marriage) isn't recognized here.

Now, you may not like that it happened, and that's fine. But this is nothing more than a problem with paperwork.

#87 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 03:05 PM

This is still a bit confusing to me, so can someone please clarify something.

Am I correct in understanding that the Federal Government of the USA does NOT recognize same-sex marriage for AMERICA?

Am I correct in understanding that each state has the right to the decision of whether to allow same-sex marriage?

Am I correct in understanding that if one state A allows same-sex marriage and state B does not, that if a same-sex married couple moves from state A to state B that their marriage will NOT be recognized?

I need to understand in order to make a judgement for me--

Thanks

Lady

#88 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 03:12 PM

Arr! An' what state be ye hailin' from, fair lass?  :ninja:

EDITED: It be "Talk like a Pirate Day," matey!

Edited by Drew, 19 September 2003 - 03:13 PM.

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

#89 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 03:45 PM

Kosh, on Sep 19 2003, 01:09 PM, 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.
Just to stir the pot a bit more, many Minorities find it VERY offensive when sexual preference is equated with race and ethnicity.  Homosexuality is an act or behaviour -- whether inborn or genetic or not, whether deviant, immoral or not -- it is still something you do and not something you are.

Sorry, but your analogy does not hold.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#90 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Preview Guy

  • Islander
  • 831 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 03:47 PM

Lady of Mystery, on Sep 19 2003, 03:05 PM, said:

This is still a bit confusing to me, so can someone please clarify something.

Am I correct in understanding that the Federal Government of the USA does NOT recognize same-sex marriage for AMERICA?

Am I correct in understanding that each state has the right to the decision of whether to allow same-sex marriage?

Am I correct in understanding that if one state A allows same-sex marriage and state B does not, that if a same-sex married couple moves from state A to state B that their marriage will NOT be recognized?

I need to understand in order to make a judgement for me--

Thanks

Lady
You are correct that the Federal Government of the USA does NOT recognize same-sex marriages period.

You are correct in your understanding that each state has the right to decide if it will allow same-sex marriages.

Your last understanding is not quite so simple ...
I will attempt to explain ...

If State A decides to sanction same-sex marriages
AND
State B has already passed a law forbidding same-sex marriages
THEN
The marriage will NOT be recognized by State B

NOW IF
State B HAS NOT already passed a law forbidding same-sex marriages
THEN
Federal law requires State B to recognize State A's same-sex marriages.


15 of the 50 states so far have enacted laws forbidding same-sex marriages
THEREFORE
in those 15 states
same-sex marriages will NEVER be recognized

AT THIS TIME
There is NO state in the US that allows same-sex marriages

Vermont does NOT allow same-sex marriages
BUT
skirts the law by allowing same-sex "CIVIL UNIONS"

Civil Unions are NOT the same as same-sex marriages
AND
no other state is required to recognize Vermonts decision.


Hope this helps make this issue clear
E.
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."

#91 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 03:56 PM

Rhea, on Sep 19 2003, 03:40 PM, said:

My contention is that enforcing laws meant to apply to United States citizens and residents on *VISITORS* from other countries is ludicrous.

Quite the contrary.  The idea that *VISITORS* to the United States are somehow exempt from the laws of the United States and it states is absolutely ludicrious.

Suppose a *VISITOR* came from a country where the age of consent was eight.  Would you allow him to bring along his eight-year-old wife?

Suppose they came from a country with chattel slavery (such as Sudan).  Would you allow them to bring along their slave?

Applying laws to citizens and well as *VISITORS* is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty.  Without it, there would be no justice for anyone, gay or straight.

Edited by Yama, 19 September 2003 - 04:03 PM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#92 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:07 PM

Eclipse, on Sep 19 2003, 08:47 PM, said:

Lady of Mystery, on Sep 19 2003, 03:05 PM, said:

This is still a bit confusing to me, so can someone please clarify something.

Am I correct in understanding that the Federal Government of the USA does NOT recognize same-sex marriage for AMERICA?

Am I correct in understanding that each state has the right to the decision of whether to allow same-sex marriage?

Am I correct in understanding that if one state A allows same-sex marriage and state B does not, that if a same-sex married couple moves from state A to state B that their marriage will NOT be recognized?

I need to understand in order to make a judgement for me--

Thanks

Lady
You are correct that the Federal Government of the USA does NOT recognize same-sex marriages period.

You are correct in your understanding that each state has the right to decide if it will allow same-sex marriages.

Your last understanding is not quite so simple ...
I will attempt to explain ...

If State A decides to sanction same-sex marriages
AND
State B has already passed a law forbidding same-sex marriages
THEN
The marriage will NOT be recognized by State B

NOW IF
State B HAS NOT already passed a law forbidding same-sex marriages
THEN
Federal law requires State B to recognize State A's same-sex marriages.


15 of the 50 states so far have enacted laws forbidding same-sex marriages
THEREFORE
in those 15 states
same-sex marriages will NEVER be recognized

AT THIS TIME
There is NO state in the US that allows same-sex marriages

Vermont does NOT allow same-sex marriages
BUT
skirts the law by allowing same-sex "CIVIL UNIONS"

Civil Unions are NOT the same as same-sex marriages
AND
no other state is required to recognize Vermonts decision.


Hope this helps make this issue clear
E.
Forgive me but just to add the point, the current bruhaha in the Federal government regarding a "Sanctity of Marriage" act or even constitutional amendment would -- using the examples above -- allow State B not to recognize same-sex marriages even if they did not have specific laws against them.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#93 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:24 PM

Yama, on Sep 19 2003, 01:45 PM, said:

Just to stir the pot a bit more, many Minorities find it VERY offensive when sexual preference is equated with race and ethnicity.  Homosexuality is an act or behaviour -- whether inborn or genetic or not, whether deviant, immoral or not -- it is still something you do and not something you are.

Sorry, but your analogy does not hold.
There is a reason why laws regarding discrimination against gays use the term  sexual ORIENTATION, not PREFERENCE.

As far as I'm concerned, a person's sexual orientation is as genetic as whether they're born female or with light skin.

In other words, your assertion is only an opinion and is FAR from established as fact.

But that's a different can of worms...;)

Lil
Posted Image

#94 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:32 PM

Eclipse, on Sep 19 2003, 08:47 PM, said:

Hope this helps make this issue clear
I just have to say Welcome to Federalism!  It is a much beloved but very complicated system. ;)
"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

#95 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:32 PM

It must be late on a Friday. I keep seeing this subject header as "Canadian Gay Couple Bored . . ."
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#96 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:39 PM

Drew, on Sep 19 2003, 05:32 PM, said:

It must be late on a Friday. I keep seeing this subject header as "Canadian Gay Couple Bored . . ."
Maybe it's that one eye there cap'n...
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#97 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:43 PM

Chipper, on Sep 19 2003, 04:39 PM, said:

Drew, on Sep 19 2003, 05:32 PM, said:

It must be late on a Friday. I keep seeing this subject header as "Canadian Gay Couple Bored . . ."
Maybe it's that one eye there cap'n...
Avast ye sea dogs! Ostrogoths! Bashi-Bazouks!

Er, uh . . .

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

#98 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:47 PM

Yama, on Sep 19 2003, 01:45 PM, said:

Kosh, on Sep 19 2003, 01:09 PM, 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.
Just to stir the pot a bit more, many Minorities find it VERY offensive when sexual preference is equated with race and ethnicity.  Homosexuality is an act or behaviour -- whether inborn or genetic or not, whether deviant, immoral or not -- it is still something you do and not something you are.

Sorry, but your analogy does not hold.
Actually, you're wrong, in part. There is more and more compelling medical evidence that homosexuality is *AlSO* who you ARE, not what you choose.

I'm not going to add all those links to the research into this thread, but suffice it to say that the evidence is compelling enough that both the AMA and the APA have policy statements to that effect.

So you may not like the comparison, but sexual preference is likely as much a part of who you are as your hair color or how fast your nails grow. :p :p
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

#99 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:47 PM

Lady [/QUOTE]

Hope this helps make this issue clear
E. [/QUOTE]
:) Thanks Eclipse, and also for going the extra mile to explain how it functions with the states.  That makes it easier for me to understand.

Now that I understand these are my thoughts--

The Federal Law of the land is the law that would apply first, because when any traveler from another country comes to America they enter the US [u]first[/u] and then the state.    So, these men from Canada who wanted to enter the US must first abide by the Federal Law that does NOT accept same-sex marriages. And that it appears is what the custom officials followed which to me is correct.  So it has nothing to do with agreeing with same-sex marriage or disagreeing or being unfair.  It has to do with following the letter of the law.  And I don't see any error here.

If a traveler from another country feels that the US Federal Law is unjust, they I am sure can appeal to the Federal Government and state their case.  But if the Federal Government stands by the law, then the traveler must also, or not enter into the US.  

Now, if citizens of the US feel this law is wrong and should be amended they should make their feelings known by trying to bringing about change.
If the majority of the lawmakers, and those citizens of the country agree then the law CAN be changed.  

But until that time, the law is the law.  And trying to bypass the law or find a route around it doesn't make it right either.

So in a nutshell, whether one agrees with the fact that same-sex marriages should be allowed or that they shouldn't be allowed, is not the case here.  It is a case of "What specifically does the law say?"  This couple from Canada want to be acknowledged as a "family", and that is fine.  But it is clear that this couple also "knew" the Federal Law of the US.  So why would they insist on being allowed to enter as a "family" when the law of the US specifically does not recognize their 'union' as a family?  

Something just doesn't sound right, whether one agrees or disagrees with same-sex unions or marriages.

Lady

Edited because I hope I shortened the post!  Sorry all--

Edited by Lady of Mystery, 19 September 2003 - 04:50 PM.


#100 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 19 September 2003 - 04:48 PM

Drew, on Sep 19 2003, 05:43 PM, said:

Chipper, on Sep 19 2003, 04:39 PM, said:

Drew, on Sep 19 2003, 05:32 PM, said:

It must be late on a Friday. I keep seeing this subject header as "Canadian Gay Couple Bored . . ."
Maybe it's that one eye there cap'n...
Avast ye sea dogs! Ostrogoths! Bashi-Bazouks!

Er, uh . . .

:eh:
*pats Drew's head...*

DOn't worry, Pirates of the Carribbean comes out on DVD in December...calm yourself now....


:p
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy



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