Here’s an interesting B.C. case. This is a divorce proceeding. Count the parties.
**British Columbia Court of Appeal
Between
Grace Cheng-Po Yang formerly known as Cheng-Po Yang, respondent, appellant by cross-appeal (petitioner)
And
Hui Chia Yang, respondent (respondent), and Chen Li Ging, appellant, respondent by cross-appeal (respondent)
And between
Hui Chia Yang, respondent (plaintiff), and Grace Cheng-Po Yang formerly known as Cheng-Po
Yang, appellant by cross-appeal (defendant)**
The court noted: “Apparently, during the period from the second “marriage”, the first respondent, from his substantial income as a pilot, supported both families punctiliously, which is more than can be said of some men who have successive wives.”
I’m not saying there absolutely is… I’m proposing that it seems likely. After all, the US does recognize Canadian marriages, else my mom would not have had to divorce her first husband (they moved here married).
Jodi said, "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. "
But they’re NOT enforcing the law. The law says that families fill out one form. Just because same sex marriage isn’t legal in the US doesn’t mean it’s not a legal union in Canada. They are married. No, they wouldn’t be in the US, but they didn’t SAY they married in the US. They said they married in Canada. Where it’s legal. They let their own prejudice color their decision. This is a no-brainer.
I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up Rosa Parks. She did what she did and was arrested and fined. She did it as a political protest, knowing (I imagine) that she would be arrested. OK, she made her point and galvanized a lot of people to take action.
The two Canadian guys were not arrested, were not fined, and in fact, were given a way to easily and legally come to the US (fill out the other paper). Instead, they chose to go home (and agian, I’m going to imagine here) as a form of protest. OK. I see their point, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
I see a difference here, you don’t. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree…
As Arlo Guthrie said, “If you wanna end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud!” These guys sang sotto voce.
Calling me a bigot is yet another of your lies, you jackass. For one thing, I merely pointed out that as far as the United States is concerned a marriage between homosexuals does not exist. Pull your head out for once in your life and perhaps you’ll finally realize that not everything’s about your stupidity.
The fact you don’t like being called a bigot, Monty, doesn’t change the fact of your bigotry.
And I don’t lie.
So go fuck yourself, you worthless shit. I’m sick to fucking death of three and a half years of your being a total prick to me for no goddamn reason (and as much as you need to deny that you started chewing on me starting my second day here, the truth speaks for itself). You’re a skeevy little cretin and you’re not worth another minute of my time. Rave away, tiny man. I won’t be reading it.
And exactly, you asshole, how am I a bigot? Where have I condemned homosexuals for the fact of homesexuals? Now you, OTOH, are a bigot who has refused for the last 3 1/2 years to apologize for your bigoted and insane attack on a group blaming them for someone’s death.
Just so you know now, you pathecit fool, I condemn you for your insanity, your bigotry, and most especially your stupidity. And it doesn’t matter to me if you’re homosexual or heterosexual. It’s your fucking stupid stunts that get you flamed, you jerkish twit.
And exactly, you asshole, how am I a bigot? Where have I condemned homosexuals for the fact of them being homesexuals? NOWHERE!
Now you, OTOH, are a bigot who has refused for the last 3 1/2 years to apologize for your bigoted and insane attack on a group blaming them for someone’s death.
Just so you know now, you pathetic fool, I condemn you for your insanity, your bigotry, and most especially your stupidity. And it doesn’t matter to me if you’re homosexual or heterosexual. It’s your fucking stupid stunts that get you flamed, you jerkish twit.
I also condemn you for your lies. And, you jackass, others have very recently proven you are a liar.
Yes, they were barred as entering as a family, because under US law, they are NOT a family. They are the legal equivalent of two shlubs going across the border at Buffalo for beers.
Here’s your misrepresentation:
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.
And the thing is, you know it, which is why I characterize it as a misrepresentation. I know you’re not stupid. Your complaint is that they couldn’t get legitimization through the back door on some border guy who made the right decision. Well, waaaaah. Congress will address this issue, and I hope it passes. But trying to sneak in decriminalization through the back door (boy, is that a bad phrasing) is a load of crap. As activists, they knew it too, which is why they threw a damn hissy fit over it instead of just filling out the correct forms for entry into the US.
Damn, Airman, that’s a good point! And one that never even ocurred to me (see why I steer clear of posting in GD?).
Anyone want to bet that if these two guys were going on vacation to Florida to lay out on the beach, they’d have just filled out the correct forms and we’d never have heard a word about it?
Was your dad a woman? I’m only being half facetious.
According to the U.S. of A. a valid marriage – contracted anywhere – requires a maximum of one man and a maximum of one woman. Does the U.S. recognize marriages following the required formula that were contracted elsewhere? Sure. But they do NOT recognize marriages that do NOT involve a maximum of one man and a maximum of one woman, no matter where such marriages were contracted.
So if your theory is that they are somehow required by treaty or otherwise to recognize same-sex marriages from other countries – well, that would be wrong. Because they don’t.
KALHOUN –
Of course they were. Do not be silly, matey. (It’s still Talk Like A Pirate Day in my timezone.) These are American custom agents, enforcing American law, which does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. These two men are married in the eyes of Canada; they are not married in the eyes of the U.S., unfortunately.
They are married IN CANADA. They are NOT married in the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. refuses to acknowledge that a same-sex marriage is a valid marriage. Cross the border and – pow, in the eyes of the law, you ain’t married. Sucks, don’t it? I never said it didn’t, but that’s the fact, jack.
Say you (generic male you) and your Canadian husband, to whom you have been married for 20 years (hey, it’s a hypothetical), come to the U.S. and your beloved is gravely injured in an accident and placed in the hospital where important decisions regarding his care have to be made by his closest family member. Well, guess what? Strictly speaking, under American law, THAT’S NOT YOU. Why? Because you’re not considered married over here. So here’s tip, same sex married Canadian couples: If you come to the U.S., pack a copy of a valid grant of power of attorney to your spouse/partner, or at the very least a declaration that all important medical and financial decisions are to be made by your spouse/partner in the event of your incapacitation.
You, KALHOUN, seem to proceed from the assumption that the U.S. must accept the validity of such marriages, while breezing right by the salient point, which is the U.S. DOESN’T. So don’t just inform me that they’re married. I know they’re married in Canada. They are not legally married down here.
The question isn’t whether they’re married in Canada, or in their hearts, or in your opinion. The question is whether they are married in the eyes of the U.S. law. And the answer to that is very clearly “no.” It is indeed a “no brainer,” which is why it’s surprising you’re having such trouble with it.
Thanks, Eva Luna. I guess I’d still like to see how they fill out the forms (besides saying, “Dude. I’m a billionaire. Why am I filling out this form?”). But in the absence of that, I think your answer will do quite nicely. The available evidence indicates that this is not some anti-gay plot but rather bureaucrats trying to fit square pegs into their round forms.
I dunno. Polygamous marriage is not directly analogous to gay marriage with regards to the issue at hand, as polygamy is actually illegal in the US, while gay marriage is simply not recognized. This is not to say that the square pegs in round holes theory is not correct - I suspect it is, in fact - but merely that we shouldn’t conclude anything from the manner in which polygamous marriages are handled.
