No, I don’t think Canada did. Canada didn’t prohibit people who happened to be married in a way that Canada doesn’t offer from entering the country.
This isn’t just about gay marriage. It’s about the United States being so stuck up about gay marriage that it won’t even let people who are from countries that let they marry visit the United States. It’s as much about the United States’ “fuck you” attitude as anything else.
What the hell are you talking about?
The could have entered if they simply filled out one customs declaration apiece. The same rule applies for a “normal” married couple with different surnames.
Though is doesn’t make it right, it’s the same in almost every country in the world. Are you calling for a boycott there too? Canada certainly wouldn’t have let a same sex couple in under the same rule until they passed the gay marriage law.
Haj
This statement is not true. The US lets gay people, married or not, visit the country same as anyone else.
Contrary to the headlines, the induhviduals in question were not barred from entering because they are gay, or because they are gay and married, in fact, they were not barred from entering at all. They chose not to continue their trip.
Not only did Canada not recognize same sex marriages a few months ago, but also the US had the same laws on this subject during the Clinton Administration as we do today. Did people like KellyM complain that the “US is run by bigots” from 1993-2001? No? Hmmm, why not?
Nope. The Consitution is the supreme law of the land, as anyone who paid attention in civics class knows.
What, is this the new liberal mantra? Anytime the US does anything liberals don’t like, they’re “going it alone”? If “going it alone” is the criterion, then the fact that other countries are worse is a reason not to disapprove of the US, since it would show that the US is not going it alone. In fact, considering the scarcity of countries recognzing same-sex marriages, it is Canada that is “going it alone”.
So, where’s the outrage? Where’s the denunciations of Canada for its “unilateralism”? Canada didn’t get permission from the UN to recognize same-sex marriage, did it?
Obviously not, The Ryan, because the US would’ve vetoed it. :rolleyes:
Sheez Louise! The laws are different. Nobody was “barred” from entering. When traveling to a foreign land, one must adhere to the laws of that land. I disagree with the broad US policy in this matter, but them’s the breaks.
Really? What form where they using that asked that?
From the US Customs website:
Canadian citizens who are visiting the US or in transit don’t need to fill out the I-94 form, not that the form asks about marital status anyway.
The only other form that I can think of that they would have had to fill out is the normal Customs Declaration Form, but that doesn’t ask about marital status either. So, how did the marital status of this couple become an issue?
The issue is that the marriage that was claimed to be, was not a legal marriage in federal community they were entering.
Nothing more than that.
It’s not that Bush hates gay people.
It’s that marriage legally does not include two of the same sex.
This is based on all religions found in America - translated to legality.
sneaks up to the above quote
paints a big red bullseye target on it
sneaks away
It’s because if a married couple (if they have the same surname) are travelling together, they can fill out one form for the both of them. These guys were asked to fill out two separate forms.
Haj
I got the impression from the OP that they were being asked to declare themselves to be single. Perhaps I should have said “If the form asks whether you are married…”
haha… great post.
And yes, I’m waiting.
If you meant to quote my response to your post, ExecutiveJesus, and therefore are asking for clarification of what I mean, the phrase “This is based on all religions found in America-translated to legality” is inaccurate in many ways.
It’s not according to all religions in North America. And religions are not translated to legality here.
The two guys in the original quoted article may well be married under the laws of Canada, but according to the article, they still have different surnames.
So even if the US did recognize their Canadian-legal marriage for purposes of that form, they would still have had to fill out two forms because they have different surnames, correct?
Weren’t they invited to speak at a conference somewhere? I had the impression that they weren’t just travelling as tourists, in which case they would have had to apply for a B visa at the border. (I think. I’m not an immigration lawyer, I’m just a Canadian who crosses the border a lot.) The paperwork requirements for non-tourist visas are substantially different from the requirements for tourist visas.
Canadians don’t need a visa per se to come to the U.S. for brief periods in business visitor status (B-1). If they were attending the conference, they wouldn’t necessarily have needed a visa. But if one of them was being paid to speak at the conference, he may have needed to fill out additional paperwork (but as a Canadian citizen, he could still have it processed at the border, in most circumstances).
It doesn’t sound like this was an immigration issue. Please keep in mind that immigration and Customs are completely separate sets of regulations, administered by completely different bunches of people. I don’t know squat about Customs forms.
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
I stand corrected, thanks.
Nope. NAFTA is about free trade in goods. It’s doesn’t give rights to citizens of one country to enter another, nor does it require one country to recognize all the laws/legal status of another country.
In the forlorn hope of injecting some actual content into thsi debate, is this the first time this situation has arisen? My understanding is that other countries, such as the Netherlands, have recognized same sex marriages for years. Surely there has been at least one married gay Dutch couple that tried to visit the US in the past. What are the precedents?
Wrong; NAFTA also applies to free movement of humans. It allows Canadians to apply for most types of visas merely by showing up at the border with the necessary paperwork (exceptions are the E Treaty Trader/Treaty Investor category and the K Fiance(e)category),rather than having to apply with the Dept. of Homeland Security (formerly INS) and wait several weeks, months, or even longer.
I don’t know the specific section of law which requires the U.S. to recognize Canadian marriages, but I can try and dig something up tomorrow. In practice, though, I can tell you that birth and marriage certificates for Canadians are required to be the state-issued (rather than church- or hospital-issued versions) to be recognized for U.S. immigration purposes. Except for Quebec; for Quebec marriages, church certificates are acceptable, and baptismal certificates are acceptable as proof of birth information. (I don’t know whether that applies to the Catholic Church only, but I’ve only seen Catholic Church-issued ones for Quebec.) But I would have to poke around to telll you why a state-issued marriage certificate involving a man and a woman will work for this purpose, but one involving 2 men will not. I suspect the answer lies in U.S. rather than Canadian law. Anyone familiar with the text of the Defense of Marriage Act?
Eva, I agree that there are provisions in the NAFTA for temporary entry of citizens of one party-state into another party-state. That’s set out in Chapter 16 of the NAFTA. However, article 1601 makes it clear that this obligation is aimed only at temporary entry related to trade. It doesn’t create a general right of citizens of one party-state to enter another party-state on a visit, which was the case of the two Canadians in this case, as I understand it - they weren’t seeking temporary entry in relation to trade, but on a holiday to attend a conference. So I don’t see that Article 16 would apply to them. As well, the NAFTA doesn’t create an obligation to recognise the laws of other party-states that are not related to trade, which was the point I was responding to. Sorry if I overstated it.
I obviously defer to your knowledge of the visa requirements, but I have a follow-up question: are Mexican citizens entitled to the same treatment as Canadian citizens that you’ve outlined?
