# Katie, bar the border! Married Canadians a-comin'! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 18, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461 "2003-09-18T20:17:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/101 "2003-09-20T14:04:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Wouldn’t you agree that Canada would have done the same thing this time last year? Wouldn’t you agree that the US is better than average in it’s treatment of gay people? I agree that the US has made enormous strides, but that even that swift progress is still too slow when the US has been outpaced in the recognition of gay civil rights by Canada and The Netherlands. “We’re better than Saudi Arabia” isn’t much to brag about, if one stops to think. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/102 "2003-09-20T14:09:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > \*\*You keep a civil tongue in your head when you are talking to my boyfriend. Do you hear me? \*\* Tell him to keep a civil tongue in his head when talking about my country, and we’ll have no problems. Even in the Pit. Heck, get him to recognize that of the 191 U.N. Member states this issue is common to about 188 of them and was even present in his beloved Canada until just a few months ago and I’ll even withdraw the “stupid” bit. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/103 "2003-09-20T14:14:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Tell him to keep a civil tongue in his head when talking about my country, and we’ll have no problems. So argumentum ad hominem is now a suitable response to a political point, is it. How pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Potter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Potter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Potter)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/104 "2003-09-20T14:18:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hajario \* > **Wouldn’t you agree that the US is better than average in it’s treatment of gay people?** Hm. On a policy level, I do, but it’s not going as far as it has the potential to. Which is precisely why I expect it to make a little effort and go further. I don’t expect the US to legalise gay marriage in a hurry; it’s a conservative, right-wing, Christian country at heart (which is why I don’t live there, unlike my conservative, right-wing siblings) and I don’t expect (right away) its government to go against the majority of its people’s wishes and legalise gay marriage. But I do expect the States to at least attempt some diplomacy and figure a way to deal with this situation with a little more grace and understanding. FWIW, I’ll be ten times as pissed when this happens in the UK (which I’m sure it will). Why? Because I expect more and believe I have every right and responsibility to do so. I agree that the States is more civilised than most. I also feel it has a great way to go and that this incident is one more indicator of that. I hope its response to this situation and others like it will show me that the country is still evolving into what it has the potential to be. I’m worried that its response will do no such thing. I didn’t realise that being critical of US policy was tantamount to heresy 'round these parts. Oops. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/105 "2003-09-20T14:22:09Z")
When I walked right up to the Wailing Wall I had to leave my girlfriend behind. She covered up when we went to Muslim countries. The history of Irish girls having to come to England for abortions. American 18 year-olds drink in London pubs, English 18 year olds don’t drink (legally) in American bars. I can smoke a joint in a London street but I can’t in New York . . . I might not like the Irish abortion laws or the US drinking laws but so what, it’s their democractic right to make their own laws and for me to do otherwise feels like I’m imposing my/our moral values on other socities, and goodness knows the white man’s done plenty of that around the world. I really don’t see the issue here. It actually feels somewhat ironic; if I read it right, according to this OP, the US can’t dare to be different to Canada, it has to conform with Canada and it’s wrong that Canada can’t impose its values on others . . . Will there soon be a law requiring us all to wear chiffon ? Are you gay people entirely sure you’re not having trouble shaking off the oppressed culture ? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/106 "2003-09-20T14:25:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > \*\*So argumentum ad hominem is now a suitable response to a political point, is it. How pathetic. \*\* 1. Calling the United States less than “half-civilized” because they haven’t updated their entry forms to cover something legal in other countries and not here is a political point now? No it’s not. 2. Check the forum label, chief. 3. We’ve covered the stupid part. Factually speaking, he was. ---
**Author:** ![Potter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Potter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Potter)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/107 "2003-09-20T14:39:01Z")
I don’t think the US is half-civilised for not yet updating its forms. I will think its refusal to acknowledge this situation half-civilised if it does continue to ignore a change in the law of its immediate neighbours on a subject which involves the hearts and minds of many of its citizens. I rather hope this doesn’t happen, though. I’ll be terribly pleased if it doesn’t. I’m off to buy a bathtub. Manny, do please continue to refer to me as stupid while I’m away. I’m finding it extremely validating, and something of a turn-on. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/108 "2003-09-20T14:49:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Potter \* > \*\* I rather hope this doesn’t happen, though. I’ll be terribly pleased if it doesn’t. \*\* I’d be pleased if the United States made gay marriages legal. Until it does, I’m also pleased that our entry forms reflect the (dumb) law of the land rather than allowing some mid-level State Department functionary to muck things up in highly unpredictable ways. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/109 "2003-09-20T14:52:19Z")
Oh, and since you enjoy being called stupid: You’ve doubtless measured for the bathtub. Don’t forget to measure the width of the doorway, too. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/110 "2003-09-20T14:58:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Potter \* > \*\* I didn’t realise that being critical of US policy was tantamount to heresy 'round these parts. Oops. My bad. \*\* Get over yourself. I disagree with your particular criticism, not that you criticized. Haj ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/111 "2003-09-20T15:53:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > Interesting though that my two (female) friends married in San Francisco, albeit at the French Consulate. Another variation on a theme, I guess. I was under the impression that marriages were no longer performed at any consulates. But I’m willing to be enlightened if you’d post a cite of the appropriate and current French legislation that permits it. Also, aren’t the French consulate grounds considered to be French territory? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/112 "2003-09-20T16:19:02Z")
Doors > [@](#): > > If they had been allowed to enter as a family, that would have legitimized the situation immediately as two men married to each other, with the approval of an agent of the US government, and as a result the government as a whole. If that were the case then they would have had all the rights of married people, in violation of our laws. I disagree that being allowed to fill out one form instead of two would have conferred upon them any such rights and privileges. It’s a difference of opinion, which amazingly enough does not mean it’s a “msrepresentation” on my part. NotInAnger > [@](#): > > These guys went to the border as a political gesture, knowing full well what they would find. So they found it. And have made a fuss. If they actually wanted into the US, they would have filled out the forms as instructed. Damn, where are the howls of the masses at this "misrepresentation, which would actually be better classified as a flat-out **lie**? A married couple presented themselves at the border to enter the United States at the invitation of a group to which they were going to make a speech. Your statements about their intentions and motives are lies. I’m amazed at the reactions of some of the people here. You act like a family that gets told it’s not a family has no business being upset by or challenging that. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/113 "2003-09-20T16:22:33Z")
POTTER – > [@](#): > > Whether or not the US government considers them to be single, they are not. For the 400th time, when they are filling out U.S. government forms, what the U.S. government considers them to be is the only relevant inquiry. The U.S. does not recognize gay marriage. You too appear to proceed from the starting point that it must or it should, totally ignoring (for some reason) that it DOESN’T. So kindly do not post again to reiterate that they are married. The relevant inquiry is whether they are married \*in the eyes of the U.S. government \*, because it is the entity requiring the forms. And the answer to that is very clearly “no.” > [@](#): > > As Matt pointed out in his thread on this subject, dr\_mom\_mcl is not licenced to practice medicine in any other country than Canada. When she enters another country, she is not licenced to practice: However, I highly doubt she is expected to fill out a form that states she is not a doctor. First, they were not expected to fill out any form that declared they were not married, just one form each, which (IIRC) does not even require them to affirmatively declare that they are single. Second, DR. MCL is NOT a doctor in the U.S. if she isn’t licensed to practice here, and it is probable that in any way that counted in the government’s eyes – including filling out forms – she would not be able to claim she is a doctor licensed to practice in the states, becasue she isn’t. Third, the situation is not analogous because the U.S. does not have any definition codified into law that affirmatively declares that the only doctors in the government’s eyes are doctors licensed here. (Though, practically speaking, that is the case, because if you’re not licensed here, you can’t practice here.) In contrast, the U.S. has a specific definition under the law and specifically excludes same-sex marriages from the definition of marriage. > [@](#): > > Therefore, they should not be required to fill out forms that would catagorise them as single guys, because they are not single guys, they are married, regardless of whether or not the US decides to recognise that or not. You are missing the point; there were no correct forms to fill in. OBVIOUSLY, if in the eyes of the form-requirers, they are not considered to be married – which they are not – then the correct form for them to fill out is one each for a single person. You mean there was not a form that appeared to be correct or acceptable _to them_, which apparently was true. But they, as the applicants to come into our country, do not get to decide what is the “correct” or proper paperwork, and neither do you. This is not that hard: (1) In the eyes of the U.S., they are not married. Do not tiresomely bleat about how they are married anyway, in your eyes, in Canada’s eyes, in their own eyes, etc. The only entity whose opinion matters when one is attempting to enter the U.S. is the U.S., and in the eyes of the U.S. _they are not married_. (2) Therefore, they have two choices: They can fill out a form each, as two single men are required to do – and they are two single men in the eyes of the U.S. law – or they can decide the whole thing affronts their dignity and go home. (3) They chose to do the latter, which was a reasonable choice given their relationship and status as gay-marriage activists. This does not mean the customs agents were wrong to enforce _American_ law and policy on people coming into _America_, and to make these men fill out the “correct” paperwork according to _American_ standards. > [@](#): > > Should the US government create a document to cover this situation? If it considers itself to be any kind of civilised country, yes, it should. The US wouldn’t necessarily have to recognise the legality of the marriage or vindicate it, it would just have to produce a form that doesn’t expect people to lie or misrepresent their status. Right, because the true benchmark for being halfway to civility in a 4,967th customs form. :rolleyes: I have already said this: If it’s just a piece of paper with no importance, fill the damn thing out. If it is something that is so important that you would refuse to fill it out on principle, then surely it is important enough for the U.S. to refuse to allow people to use it in order to present as valid and legal a union the U.S. does NOT consider valid or legal. > [@](#): > > Sort it the fuck out: you don’t have to approve of queers marrying, but it’s hardly the most unreasonable request to accept that we do and expect at least a begrudging acknowledgement of that. But you see, it is an unreasonable request to expect government employees operating under a definition that marriage equals one man and one woman, period, to “accept” a marriage of two men. Because, _by definition_, that’s not a marriage. So we have “sorted it the fuck out,” actually. 1 man + 1 woman = marriage. Anything else != marriage. It coud hardly be sorted out any further than that. You just don’t happen to like it, which I can sure understand, but there it is. I could go to France and say that I’m a lawyer. But France will not grant me the privilege to practice law there, because I wasn’t schooled there and am not licensed there. To all intents and purposes, in the eyes of the French government, I am not a lawyer. And since I cannot practice law there, if they required me to fill out a form listing a job or profession in the event I wished to stay long-term, they could reasonably demand I list something other than “lawyer.” And if I then decided they were making me say I wasn’t a lawyer in the U.S. – which is crap, of course, they could give two shits what I am in the U.S., they want to know my status in France – and decided not to fill in the form right and therefore not to enter the country, well, that’s my perogative. But it hardly advances the argument at all for my friends and supporters to claim “She is a lawyer! Everywhere, and all the time!” when that pretty clearly isn’t true under the definition of “lawyer” that France employs, and under circumstances where the only opinion that matters is France’s, since that’s the country I’m trying to get in. Jesus, POTTER, this ain’t that hard. In fact, it’s pretty easy. Quit looking at it as a “gay issue” for a minute and look at it as an issue of paperwork. Is it reasonable to people entering a country to insist they be given a particular status in that country, when for _whatever_ reason, the grant of that status is inconsistent with the laws of that land? Is that reasonable? No, it is not. > [@](#): > > I have full US citizenship; this thread, along with numerous other factors, is just making me more and more pleased that I should be able to dump it in favour of Canadian citizenship in the next few years. And we’ll miss you very much, but you gotta do what you gotta do, so _arrivederci_. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/114 "2003-09-20T16:30:34Z")
OTTO – > [@](#): > > I’m amazed at the reactions of some of the people here. You act like a family that gets told it’s not a family has no business being upset by or challenging that. Actually, I’m a little surprised by your reaction, OTTO. Do you think these two guys were shocked to discover the U.S. doesn’t consider them married? I have already said, I’m sure it _was_ upsetting to have made so explicit this fact by having the U.S. effectively say “You are not considered married here, and therefore you must fill out the paperwork of single people, because you are not considered married here.” So upset? Sure. Surprised or shocked? Nah. And there’s no basis to challenge it, as you well know, beyond saying “man that sucks. The law sucks, and they ought to change it,” which you will find almost everyone posting to this thread _has_ said. But your OP sounded like you thought the actions of the customs agents were outrageous and wrong, and I’m sorry, under the law as it now stands, they just weren’t. But if what you really want is another opportunity to bitch about how shitty it is that the U.S. has actually codified a definition of marriage that intentionally excludes same-sex unions – hey, go crazy. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/115 "2003-09-20T16:36:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hajario \* > \*\*Get over yourself. I disagree with your particular criticism, not that you criticized. > > Haj \*\* I believe he was referring to **Manhattan** calling him a stupid evil fuck, **hajario**. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/116 "2003-09-20T16:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > \*\*I believe he was referring to **Manhattan** calling him a stupid evil fuck, **hajario**. \*\* OK. In that case I have to agree. I’ve made a few of points that have been glossed over. 1. According to the disembarkment announcement that I heard on my plane from Taiwan just yesterday, a married man/woman couple must also fill out sepatate forms if they have different surnames. Therefore, this is not an anti-gay regulation. 2. They did not have to say that they were married or single on this form. They just had to fill out one form each. 3. Canada would have done the same thing just a few short months ago, true? The overwhelming majority of the world would have too. 4. Why don’t you think that people entering a county as a guest have to follow that country’s rules? Who gets to decide which rules are the immoral ones and therefore don’t count? Haj ---
**Author:** ![Potter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Potter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Potter)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/117 "2003-09-20T18:08:25Z")
Stupid, evil fuck that I am, I was indeed referring to Manhattan’s comment. 1. No, it’s not an anti-gay regulation, I never said that it was and, I believe, pointed out a couple of times that I don’t think this is all part of an anti-gay blahdeblah. However, I would assume that the hetero couple filling out seperate forms on the plane from Taiwan would not be denied rights of any other married couple entering the US. Excepting the same-sex ones. That’s not the issue at point, not something I’m happy about, but not something I see changing in a hurry. I don’t expect the US to change its laws to fit in with the rest of the world. However, I _do_ expect the US to realise that it would be the nice, neighbourly thing to do to realise this is becoming more of an issue, what with more countries legalising same-sex marriage, and perhaps decide to find some nice, neighbourly manner of dealing with it a little more gracefully than they’ve managed so far. Recognising the valid claim that the couple is a family in another country does not equal giving said-couple all the rights and legalities of any other married couple in the States. It doesn’t change that much, but it doesn’t put anyone out and it will mean a hell of a lot to a lot of people who are feeling marginalised and ignored. 2. Fine, long as they don’t have to lie or misrepresent themselves, fine. I’d like something better and more positive, but then of course I would. 3. True. And now it wouldn’t. Nice how things change, hmm? I wonder how changes happen in that manner. Because people are vocal about what they expect from their country politically? I don’t expect the US to change its laws on gay marriage in a hurry, I really don’t see how I can make that more clear. But I would find it insular and backward if the US decides not to recognise the changes going on the world around it. Especially on an issue so close to home. 4. Yes, I do. I really don’t see how any form recognising them as a married couple _within their country of residence_ would mean they wouldn’t be following US law. I also fail to see why it’s such a BFD to expect a world leader like the US to take a place at the forefront of progress: not by changing its own laws, but by recognising and respecting those of other countries. I don’t believe that’s too much to ask. Obviously I’m in the minority. I don’t see everyone in this thread saying that the law sucks and they ought to change it. I see the majority of posters saying ‘that’s the way it is, like it or lump it’. I’m sure everyone will also be relieved to hear that I did measure for the bathtub. But not the door. However, I have double glazing and it only takes 60 seconds to take out the window (it’s on the ground floor). ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/118 "2003-09-20T18:13:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > Try Singapore or China or Saudi Arabia. They got ways of dealing with folks like you. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni \* > **Wishing death on someone… > This is a no-no, even in the Pit.** Asshole. I’d have thought former moderators would at least adhere to board rules. ---
**Author:** ![Potter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Potter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Potter)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/119 "2003-09-20T18:22:30Z")
I don’t think he was wishing it on me. I think he was attempting to illustrate as a cautionary tale what could happen to me if I ever decide to display my powers of stupid, evil fuckery in a more-international manner. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461/120 "2003-09-20T18:29:02Z")
I dunno. His words to me sound like an endorsement of the actions that would be taken in those jurisdictions, which in one of them include execution. I don’t think he would, in sober prose, endorse said actions, but his words in that post do. He wants to advocate killing people, he can damn well live with the consequences. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katie-bar-the-border-married-canadians-a-comin/202461.md?page=7)