Because that would really hurt those responsible for the dumb laws. No gay people coming here! How would they cope?
Uh, you might want to rethink the strategy there. Better to get as many gays as possible to jump though the INS hoops. Tell 'em all to go to Branson, MO and say they’re coming back twice a year until we get better laws. 
I believe that the US should allow gay marriage, but until it does: the pieces of paper did not contain lies under the laws of the US; the partner is not a spouse or legal next-of-kin under the laws of the US. Why is this so difficult to understand?
If that’s what the law says, then sure.
If a king in some third world country is allowed to commit murder, should he be allowed to come here and commit murder? I mean, under his system, it’s legal. We shouldn’t be repressing him with our silly laws.
Hey, you might disagree with it, and it may be a stupid law - but it’s a law. You can’t hen pick and say ‘well when it comes to this matter, we’ll apply canadian law, but on other matters, we’ll apply US laws’.
Regarding the “lie” stuff - every state can determine what it means to be married. Take marriage out of the picture, and say every country grants some citizens “Condition X” status. In Canada, this means the person has blonde hair and a big nose. In the US, that means the person has black hair and a small nose. Would they be lying if they didn’t claim “Condition X” on US custom forms? Of course not - on the matter in question, US law determines what it is. And so they have to consider themselves in the context of US law. I know that’s a random, silly example - but it demonstrates the point. There’s nothing special about marriage which elevates it above whatever other statuses states grant - the place in question gets to set it’s own laws.
There’s an obvious implication in the question: “Are you married [as US law defines marriage]?” It’s so basic that there’s no need to write it explicitly like that - but some people are trying to turn it into an “evil US government oppresses gays!” issue.
There are only like three or four countries that have gay marriage at this time. Are you also calling for a boycott of the other 200+ countries that would have done the exact same thing? There are still quite a number of coutries where being gay is against the law. I’m not talking about some lame little law in a southern state that’s never enforced either. I’m talking about places where gay folks are routinely jailed. Look at the Anwar case in Malaysia for example, a twenty year sentence for sodomy. Your ire would be better served there.
As an aside, between this post and my last one, I was on a flight from Taiwan to Los Angeles. With this thread in mind, I listened to the official announcement on how to fill out the customs form. There is no box on this form asking weather one is single or married by the way. This pretty much negates the “being asked to lie” argument. There is a rule that married couples can, but do not have to, fill out one form between them only if they have the same sir name. It seems that even some hetero couple have to fill out two separate forms too.
Haj
whether, whether, whether…
I blame the jet lag.
Haj
I was stating my opinion about their motivations. The examples I gave were not of people presenting their opinions, but of presenting false statements of fact. And if their reason for visiting the US was to speak at a human rights conference, doesn’t that support my view of things? They’re getting an even larger audience now! They aren’t just speaking to a human rights conference, they’re speaking to the world. They’re saying that they’re angry at not allowed in, but because they were not allowed let in, they are accomplishing their original goal and more. The only reason this is an issue is because they made it an issue, and the only reason they made it an issue was because they wanted it to be an issue. Seeing as how they’re getting what they want, complaining seems disingenuous to me.
[spelling nazi]You also spelled “surname” wrong.[/spelling nazi]
You sure about this? customs.ustreas.gov seems to be down right now, but a googlecache of the entry instructions seems to indicate that all members of a “family unit” are requested to fill out the same form. It also appears (again, we’ll wait till the actual page cooperates to say for certain) that whilst it doesn’t specifically ask if one is married, it does ask “number of family members traveling with you (do not include yourself).” ( provisional cite: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:ckguPuKaxpcJ:www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/sample_declaration_form.xml+“united+states”+entry+form+customs+instructions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )
Aw, crap. That was me. Sorry for the error.
It does ask for number of family members travelling with you. The announcement over the intercom on the plane made the surname distinction. It was the first time I had noticed that but I was paying special attention this time.
Haj
Yes. Under US law, it is illegal to bring anyone under the age of 16 across state lines with the intent of sexual contact.
Isn’t there a treaty between the US and Canada that says that the United States will honor Canadian marriages? Aren’t treaties the supreme law of the land, overriding mere statutory pronouncements? Wouldn’t this treaty (which I am pretty sure exists, although I cannot verify it at this time) override the statutory DOMA?
Why does our country have to be run by such bigots?
Nah, on this board, it’s preferable to complain about the EVIL AMERICANS.
harajio, the mere fact that some countries are worse than the United States is not a reason why disapproval those aspects of the United States that we determine not to be ideal is wrong.
Why does Malaysia have to be run by such bigots?
If I’ve been knighted in the UK, and I want to come to the US, which does not knight people, is it OK for me to list my name as Sir gex gex?
Even the FFC clause has its limits. No state is required to extend full faith and credit to laws of other states when doing so would abridge its own public policy interests. See, e.g., Nevada v. Hall: “[T]he Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” The definition of marriage is one such legitimate state public policy interest.
Hall doesn’t deal with family law, but it is a clear statement of the rule in play. And the courts have consistently held that the FFC clause doesn’t apply to many facets of family law. See, e.g., Estin v. Estin (state may continue enforcing support order even after an out-of-state divorce purportedly terminated it), Olmstead v. Olmstead (state need not honor another state’s statute legitimizing children born out of wedlock), and Hood v. McGhee (state need not respect another state’s adoption proceedings in determining land inheritance).
Put simply: if, say, California decided to recognize polygamous marriages, the Constitution would not require the other 49 states to honor those arrangements.
Indeed it does not. I just think that in light of that, calls for a US boycott over this are ridiculous.
Haj
hajario: I disagree. The United States needs to learn that it cannot “go it alone” in the world. I think a boycott is fully appropriate.
In this case, the US is not going it alone, not even close. If you’re going to boycott the US over this, you are being a hypocrite if you go anywhere else other than Canada, Holland and a couple other countries. Boycott over Iraq if you must but over this is ridiculous.
As I said, Canada had the exact same law just a few months ago.
Haj