Polygamy is not recognized by U.S. immigration law. In fact, it’s grounds for denial of a visa. Also, to gain any immigration benefit through marriage, if you’ve been married before, you have to show documentary proof that the previous marriage was terminated (either by divorce or death of former spouse). I can dig up cites next week when I’m back at work if you’re interested.
One of the wackier cases I ever observed in my immigration court days actually hinged on this issue. Nigerian guy overstays tourist visa, marries US citizen. Now INS was usually not so sharp at picking up on fraudulent marriages, so most of the cases we saw in court were pretty egregious, but this one looked reasonable on the surface: same age, language in common, looked like they’d at least met each other before, etc.
But some sharp-eyed INS examiner looked at his original visitor visa application, where he listed a wife and six kids in Nigeria. So what happened to them, since if he was alreayd married his U.S. marriage wouldn’t have been valid to begin with?
His answer: “Ummmm, Nigerian tribal divorce. Yeah, that’s it.” There was a continuance, and the guy actually produced sworn affidavits from some Nigerian tribal chieftain that XYZ was accepted proxy divorce procedure among his tribe. The judge didn’t believe a word of it and tried to get the consulate to do an investigation, but they didn’t have the resources. I don’t know what happened in the end, but I seem to remember something about the dates on the affidavits not matching up with the rest of the case history. Anyway, bigamy is not legal in the U.S., and the immigraiton laws reflect that.
Where’s the GD thread, by the way? Is it on some other issue?
Why would they? So far as I can see, it’s a consistent stance. Same-sex marriage does not exist in the US, so have at it. What you do in Canada is your deal with Canada.
LOL, I would guess not… but your husband and wife WOULD! :eek:
Here’s the thing I don’t get: The US recognized (by treaty, I assume) the regular marriages performed in other countries. If there is a provision in the treaties for recognizing foreign marriages, is there any provision allowing them to exclude certain marriages? If not, I think there is a case here for an international incident.
BTW: I still can’t believe we haven’t passed this in CA for fuck’s sake.
MORRIGOON, are you saying there is a treaty between the U.S. and Canada by which the U.S. has agreed to accept all Canadian marriages as valid in the U.S.?
Airman Doors and Jodi, if you read the above, you will see that Canada has not made any decision regarding same-sex marriage. In fact, very few people here had ever thought about the question, and the people are profoundly divided 50/50. As is Parliament. This is touch and go stuff. So I’m not contradicting; I was (to my profound chagrin) agreeing. The existing law in Canada does not recognize same-sex marriages, period.
Neither Canada nor the USA are signatories of the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages. I don’t know if there is any bilateral agreement.
I should mention, just to muddy the waters, that in Canada, actually marrying people is a provincial jurisdiction, not federal. Which is why there have been marriages which are perfectly legal currently, though not legitimized by Canadian law, which has jurisdiction over defining marriage, unless and until it falls into provincial jurisdiction, I think.
We sell more headache pills than any other country on earth.
As I just posted to the GD thread, I’ve heard that NAFTA requires that the US and Canada recognise each others’ marriages, but I don’t have a cite myself.
Civil status, including performing and recording marriages, is a provincial responsibility; but the definition of marriage is a federal law.
The reason why Ontario and B.C. have marriage and the other courts don’t is because it was Ontario and B.C. courts that ruled that the federal law violated the Charter. In effect, the federal marriage law has been struck down insofar as it doesn’t include SSM; but this only applies in the courts’ jurisdiction.
In short, a provincial-sized ruling on a federal law.
I would prefer to state that the existing law in Canada does recognize same sex marriage in some jurisdictions, but does not recognize same sex marriage in other jurisdictions, because at the present time marriage is left to the provinces via their respective marriage acts, which may or may not have been tested against the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex.
There is no federal marriage act, and there is no federal definition of marriage, although there is a federal act dealing with whom one may not marry, and there is the divorce act. The federal Parliament has the power to enact a marriage law that defines marriage and which would trump the various provincial marriage acts, but it has not done so.
There is no need for provincial marriages (gay or straight) to be legitimized by federal law. The provincial marriage acts are entirely legitimate. The issue faced by Parliament (which just now has voted not to define marriage as being restricted to opposite sex couples) is how to go about ensuring that there are not different restrictions on marriage in different provinces. Thus it looks like Parliament will eventually get around to making some sort of definition that will stand up to the Charter test, and that will replace all the present provincial definitions.
Just for the record, the existing law in Ontario and British Columbia is that same sex marriage is legal. The Halpern decision is well worth reading.
why is it we americans feel that our laws are right, and everyone else is wrong? at least it seems that way readign some of the posts in this thread. that may not be the truth, but it is how I read them. while I agree with airman that gun laws, and murder, etc. need to be followed for the country you are traveling to, I think that in this changing world, we need to look at our civil law recognitions, particularly those regarding marraige in other countries, and probably rework them.
My guess? Culturally, the USA is to the right of Canada, and is more religious than Canada. Legally, the American constitution is far older than the Canadian constitution, so recent concepts such as equality rights for sexes are in the Canadian constitution, making it relatively easy to move a small step forward to protect gays.
I’m not sure that we really feel that way. My interpretation is that we feel our laws are right for us, that they’ve served us well in the past and that they’ll stay the way they are until there’s a popular measure to change them.
What I don’t see is this issue being an indictment of Canada’s law, nor a referendum for them or anyone else to change.
Interesting. As I read the thread, most of the Americans who have posted to say the officers were correct to enforce the law because it is the law, also mentioned in passing that they (we) think the law sucks. I wonder how that translates into feeling our laws are right and Canada’s are wrong.
Shoot, I’m kinda torn here. On the one hand, I share Otto’s visceral anger at this act of blatant anti-gay discrimination. OTOH, the law IS the law, and American sovereignty demands that our legal standards must be followed and not those of other countries. The heterosexist definition of marriage in American law must be challenged in the courts and at the polls until it is changed, but until then we have to fill out the goddamn second piece of paper.
You’re right, Otto. I should have said you were wasting OUR time here with your lies.
I notice you didn’t address anything else here, like your blatant misrepresentation of what was said in the article that I called you on. Is that all you have to say? Fuck you?
Which, you hypocrite, is exactly what the border folks told the Canadians who didn’t want to follow the rules, but the border folks told them more politely.
Let’s explore the reverse of this situation some, shall we?
Suppose for a moment that a couple who resides in the United States in a state which allows for common law marriage. Now further suppose that each member of this couple continues to use the surname each had prior to entering into the common law marriage. Next, let’s suppose these two decide to enter Canada for an extended stay (perhaps even to immigrate). Will Canada accept just their statement that they’re married or will Canada require some document that the government of Canada recognize as documentary evidence of said marriage?
