It matters only if you are right.
Yeah, it does. Why should a foreigner get special rights? Until the day that Americans get that right (and I hope they do soon) no one else does. All we’re talking about is filling out two forms instead of one form. When you are a guest somewhere, you abide by the rules or stay home.
I understand that you were speaking hypothetically about the teaching job. It was an analogy. One that fell flat. Whatever.
Haj
Haj, the point is that the couple are legally married here in Canada. Something which is new here, and was a hard-fought status to attain – and, if the right wing has its way, will be torn away before it’s fairly rooted in.
The point is that, with U.S. Customs lacking a form to deal with their case, the couple had the choice of entering the US by lying and saying they were single – thereby denying who they were, tarnishing their principles and giving in to the sort of entrenched discrimination that their new-found Canadian legal status is a blow against – or being true to themselves and remaining at home.
The point is that they were barred from entering the US by their refusal to countenance a narrow-minded and moribund view of sexuality, humanity and morality.
The fixed link on which matt punned. About 13 K long (8 miles), it replaced the ferry service between Prince Edward Island (sweet home) and New Brunswick.
I don’t blame them a bit for staying home. Still, US law is US law. You follow it if you want to come here or enter here. End of story. You’re letting your feelings, with which I agree, cloud your opinion.
There are over 200 other countries that would have done the same thing.
Open gays are not barred from entering the country. Open gays who are married in another country are not barred from entering the country. Anyone, gay or not, who does not fill out the paper work correctly cannot enter until they do. It’s the same in Canada or anywhere else.
What don’t you not understand about this? When you go to a foreign country, you abide by their rules of entry or you can’t come in. If you can’t stomach those rules, it is reasonable to not enter. Why won’t someone address this point? We are in agreement that gay marriage should exist here.
Haj
Haj,
so you are saying that if gaylandia refused to recognize US heterosexual marriage, because it didn’t allow it for it’s citizens, then you would have no problem lying ot get in if you really wanted to visit?
the issue here is not only what to do with gay couples from Canada, but also what to do with many other countries that do or will recognize gay marriages. are you saying that if I finally get married, I can only travel to those countries, and no other? I wonder how the EU is dealing with member countries and it’s open border travel with countries that have/ don’t have gay marriage laws? gee, maybe the eurotrash 
are more socially correct then this “free” land of ours. hmm?
on a side note, Matt, how easy would it be for me to emmigrate to canada? if you know, pop me an e-mail.
I understand your point, Haj. Which is why I said the couple were barred by their own refusal… Of course they couldn’t legally enter as a married couple. That’s why they didn’t. They couldn’t stomach the rule.
Having the rule changed so that same-sex couples legally married in Canada are able to use the “married” form as they enter the US might (I am not an optimist) be a small step towards same-sex marriages being legalized in the US.
As I said in an earlier post, I wouldn’t have a problem with that if I really wanted to go there. It wouldn’t be lying either. According to Gaylandia, I would not be married. On a Gaylandian form, I would be telling the truth. In other words, in Gaylandia, I would not be married.
You can go where ever you want. Just fill out the forms in the way that the law in that country says to do so. If you want to protest those laws, don’t go. I would totally support you. If there was a country that actually barred entry to gay people, I would never go there in a million years.
Haj
I find it hysterically funny that in the course of defending our nation’s morality, we’re telling people that in order to get into our country, they must lie.
Does that strike anyone else as a little bit… off?
You’re looking for irony that isn’t there. Show me where someone defended the morality of the US anywhere in this thread.
Again, they did not have to lie. They were told to answer the question according to US law.
Haj
It’s not a lie to say, “Not married as far as the United States of America is concerned.”
Canada should permit unlimited cigarette importation. Here is the logic: If the USA MUST consider marriage in another country as legal, NO MATTER WHAT, then Canada MUST consider cigarettes purchased under US and state sales taxes as having their tax burden PAID IN FULL, NO MATTER WHAT.
Say a 13 year old girl and a 14 year old boy get married in New Hampshire (legal with parental consent). Then got to Mississippi for their honeymoon, are they still married?
If they consumate that marriage on honeymoon is it statutary rape?
matt_mcl, as much as I agree with you on most things, and as much as I think the BCIS/INS/whatever are a collection of petty tyrants with too much authority, I have to agree with Monty and the others on this one. The rules in this case were clear, and the agents at Pearson followed them.
I firmly agree that they’re stupid rules, and that they’re placing the couple in question in a very unfortunate position. But those stupid rules are the stupid rules currently in effect.
For the benefit of others who may be interested, check this out:
Gov’t of Canada pages for immigrants
It depends on whether you have family in Canada willing to sponsor you (now including same-sex partners/spouses!) or if you are immigrating on your lonesome.
As an aside…
My wife is a non-US citizen. We’re currently in the process of getting her permanent resident status.
Recently we returned from a trip to her home country. When we returned, we filled out one customs declaration form as the handy dandy in flight video instructed (i.e. one family, one form).
However, since she doesn’t yet have her green card she goes through a separate immigration line. When she got to the customs person she was berated harshly for not having her own form and even told that she could be sent back to her own country for such an egregious error.
So even when you follow the “rules” it’s no guarantee that things will go well–even with all of our hetero cachet.
If the form says “professional qualifications”, and he puts down “lawyer”, and the customs officer asks “Are you qualified to practice law in the US?” and he says “No”, then I don’t think that it’s at all inappropiate for the customs officer to say “Then don’t put down ‘lawyer’”. Not putting down “lawyer” would not be lying, because as far as the US is concerned he is not qualified to be a lawyer.
But the form doesn’t ask whether you have a marriage recognized by another country, it asks whether you have a marriage recognized by the US.
Any definition “discrimination” which would include the latter would also include the former.
I think it’s pretty clear what happened here. Two gay men wanted to visit the US. Then they discovered this great “affront” to their dignity, and decided that they could vacation elsewhere, and raise a big stink about US policy. Had they really wanted to visit the US, they would have gone along with US policy. It sounds to me that they went to the US consulate, asked for the forms, and said “Hey, look at this! Never mind visiting the US, it would be much more fun to not go to the US, and then claim that we were ‘barred’ from the US, even though we choose not to go of our own free will!”
I think that you people championing their cause is rather self-defeating. They were not barred from the US, they were not asked to lie, and claiming this just makes you look completely oblivious to reality and willing to distort facts to anything that helps your cause.
Ironic that you’d state this after stating
If you actually read the cites, you’d see they were invited to speak at a human rights conference. So much for your fidelity.
The US Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause guarantees that STATES must recognize the licenses granted by other STATES.
This says nothing at all about US policy in regards to foreign countries.
Nit: They were in the United States. Customs territories in foreign countries are the diplomatic territory of the country operating it. If one of our travelers had decked a customs official (something which most international travelers have been tempted to do from time to time), he would have been liable under the laws of the United States. Likewise, if someone fleeing a foreign country got through Canada’s airport into the U.S. customs area and asked for asylum, it would be the United States and not Canada which would have to consider the case.
As a practical matter these kinds of things are usually worked out with the host country, but legally customs territories have the same status as embassies.
So…what’s the deal if a married gay couple enters the US, having buckled under and signed the lying pieces of paper they’re required to to enter the country, and one of them is critically injured or has a heart attack or stroke and ends up in the critical care ward of a US hospital? Will their legal next-of-kin (the spouse) not be allowed to make decisions, visit, or sign any permission forms? Will that legal next-of-kin be relegated to stranger status as US gay partners are?
Is this an international incident waiting to happen?
I’m thisclose to encouraging foreign gays to boycott US tourism until we get some civilized laws passed about gay marriage…