Katie, bar the border! Married Canadians a-comin'!

US Customs has barred Canada’s first legally married same-sex couple from entering the country because the couple identified themselves as a family on the entrance form.

Fuckers. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. This mighty nation, so terrified at the idea that two men might actually love each other, that it refuses to allow them to fill out one form instead of two. Would this form have conferred any rights, privileges or responsibilities of marriage in the United States upon this couple? No. Would this form then require the United States or any of its citizens to recognize this marriage? No. Would this form have just made it a little easier for them to make it through Customs, saving them a little time and stress and speeding up things for everybody? Yes. But instead of just letting them fill out the form and be done with it, the fuckwit agent and the fuckwit supervisor have to make a huge fucking international incident out of it. Is respectful treatment too goddamn much to ask for?

Is there any way I can boycott my own country?

Yep. This pissed me off too, but I can’t say I was particularly surprised.

Well, actually they weren’t denied entry because of their marriage, they were denied entry because they refused to fill out a 2nd form.

The requirement may be silly, but to say they were denied entry is stretching the truth. The could have gotten into the US if they wished.

Sure. All they had to do was pretend they weren’t married. No reason why that should bother anyone.

Like I said in the thread over in GD, by this reasoning I could bring my gun into Canada, since it’s legal here. But I can’t. Laws in one place do not necessarily apply elsewhere.

The US doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, to our shame. But that doesn’t change the law. Congress does that, and to date they haven’t shown any desire to do so. So, sorry, but them’s the breaks.

Airman, you missed this part:

Or if you did, you didn’t bother to formulate a coherent argument to dispute it.

Well, that sucks.

But I have to agree with Waverly… they could have gotten in if they wanted to. They chose, instead, to refuse entry by not filling out the second form.

Not surprising considering that, according to the article you linked to, one of them “works full time as an advocate for same-sex marriages.” Instead of sucking it up and jumping through the hoops like everyone else trying to pass through customs, they chose to make a stink about it.

I’ve been there. It pissed me off. But you gotta follow the rules like everyone else or go home. That’s life.

Actually, since the form is exclusive to families, it would have recognized their marriage, since how else could they be a family?

The linked article specified that as a reason, lola. I don’t agree with Otto’s interpretation of the events.

And again, I repeat, it was wrong IMO, but I can’t do anything about it. Sorry.

Sure you can do something about it. It’s called voting.

:rolleyes:

I meant something directly, like casting a vote in Congress, or writing the law, or something similarly useful.

No, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be bothered, but they were not denied entry. Maybe I’m wrong but I see being denied entry as different then being unfairly singled out to fill in paperwork.

  • They offered them a second form to fill out and be done with it.
  • Rejecting the simple solution, the couple decided to make an incident out of it.

I agree that the requirement may be dumb but your description of events needs a little amending.

Doors

I hope that, in case the denizens of GD were too well-mannered to say how fucking ridiculously stupid it is to compare the idea of transporting a deadly weapon across international borders to letting two men fill out one form instead of two, this will suffice.

astroboy14

This would be called “blaming the victims.”

And it seems to me that those of you who are bothered by this want to have it both ways. You want the couple to not have to fill out the second form because it’s just paperwork, conferring no rights, privileges, or responsibilities, but at the same time you want to grant them the moral high ground for refusing to fill out the paperwork, because to do so would apparently be a tacit admission they’re not a family.

If it’s just paperwork, then it shouldn’t be any sweat to fill out the second form. If it’s something more than just paperwork, something fraught with symbolism and meaning and declarations of who is or isn’t family, that it’s unclear why the U.S. should not see that subtext as well and refuse to endorse a definition of “family” that is not accepted in this country.

I do not agree with the U.S.'s current position on same-sex marriage, but I don’t see this as any big injustice. It surely must be unpleasant to have it made so explicit that the U.S. does not acknowledge that your Canadian spouse is, in fact, your spouse, but surely this couple was not surprised by that fact.

Oh, so you want what you want, and nothing else matters, even if it would be the legal equivalent?

Whatever you say, dude. You’re wasting my time here, first with your gross misrepresentation of the truth, and second with your weak rationalization.

It’s simply a rule, a requirement, a law. We’re a nation of laws. Would you have us ignore them wholesale anytime someone wants to make a political statement?

I mean, what is it the U.S. was supposed to do? You think the couple was asked to “pretend they’re not married,” but it seems to me the other solution is for the U.S. to “pretend” they are.

The U.S. does not recognize same-sex marriages, no matter where done, no matter how long standing. Those who are participants of such unions are NOT considered married by the U.S. government.

Do I think this sucks? Yes. Do I think any agent of the government should be expected to pretend it’s not the reality? No.

“Blaming the victims”? Err… no.

They did nothing wrong. They simply made a choice. They chose not to do what the immigrations guy told them they had to do. And then they chose to go home.

As I said, that sucks.

Would Visas be issued to the multiple wives of officials from nations where it is allowed?

And I think it’s great that I, the tax payer, may have to pay for a legal defense because of it.

"The couple’s lawyer, Doug Elliott, said he has spoken to Ottawa on the issue and is investigating whether legal action can be taken against the governments of Canada and the U.S. "