response 134 of 191:

Sep 19 21:57 UTC 2003

If they were just coming as tourists, how did their relationship even
come up? Each person has their own personal identification, tickets,
etc. When my wife and I travel nobody raises any questions about our
relationship.

response 136 of 191:

Sep 19 22:30 UTC 2003

They should have written "none" - unless they did seek to test the system.
In which case - more power to them. The system should be changed. 

response 138 of 191:

Sep 19 23:06 UTC 2003

Even if they did say they were married, and it turned out that the customs
officer didn't agree with the relationship, why would they be denied entry?
(Were they denied entry in the first palce?)

response 140 of 191:

Sep 20 02:03 UTC 2003

Re #138: They were denied entry because they refused to fill out forms 
listing them as single instead of married.  The customs official was 
unwilling to accept a form stating they were a married couple.

response 142 of 191:

Sep 20 02:37 UTC 2003

Exactly. I'd think if your country of citizenship saw you as married, you're
married.

response 144 of 191:

Sep 20 04:58 UTC 2003

Don't know of any country that condones polygamy except the Muslim ones. And
if theri country is ok with it, I don't see why any other government should
object. Now if they wanted to become citizens of the US, I can see why a stink
would be raised.

response 146 of 191:

Sep 20 06:27 UTC 2003

Gay marriages aren't condoned by the federal govt. If you're a citizen, you
need to abide by the rules. (If you become resident of a state that allows
gay marriages, I guess it would be ok)

response 148 of 191:

Sep 21 06:07 UTC 2003

The Defense of Marriage Act, adopted and signed in 1996, is the only
relevant federal law. It has not, however, been tested in the courts (but
that is developing). There are unconstitutional aspects of the Act, among
which is the constitutional requirement of "full faith" between states and
their laws. The major opposition comes from religious organizations, for
religious reasons. These are arbitrary and certainly not automatically
relevant to the common social good. 

Most important, there are no sensible reasons to forbide such marriages.
It certainly has zero effect upon opposite-sex marriages and, in fact, it
furthers the wish of many to increase the stability of families. 

One argument used against same-sex marriages is that marriage is concerned
with procreation and the protection of children. However it is not also
argued that married opposite-sex couples must have children, or even
attempt to have children: certainly no laws mandate that. In addition,
same-sex couples currently adopt children, and provide them with stable
families, a desirable social goal.

More states are adopting laws that convey legal rights to same-sex
"married" couples.

I expect that when it finally reaches the Supreme Court, the Act will be
found unconstitutional. This is why there is all the frantic effort by
religious organizations to further a constitutional amendment. If that
even comes to the states, I expect the majority of people will have
concluded that there is no harm to anyone from same-sex marriages. 

response 150 of 191:

Sep 21 08:04 UTC 2003

Don't several "Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage
in cases where the couple wouldn't be able to have children (for known
medical reasons, or she's just too old)?

response 152 of 191:

Sep 21 23:06 UTC 2003

Re: #151
I suggest that you start reading more.  Start by Googling on "Henry",
"Roman Catholic Church", and "Church of England".

You may also want to read a bit about the words & deeds of Jesus in
the first three gospels and compare them to the behaviors of various
self-styled Christian churches.  The freaky fringe is the only place
where you can find people actually trying to follow the teachings &
example of Jesus.  For a quick example, read Matthew 6.  

response 154 of 191:

Sep 22 01:33 UTC 2003

  re #152: 

  > I suggest that you start reading more. 

  You got me..  Ask anyone who knows me and they'll definitely tell you
  I'm nearly illiterate and notoriously misinformed..

  Perhaps you can help clear up some of my notorious ignorance by explaining
  (in short, simple sentences, please..) how you think the schism which divided
  the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic church applies to your point
  that 'several "Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage
  in cases where the couple wouldn't be able to have children.'  I am unaware
  that either the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church follows such
  a policy and am so benighted that I was under the impression that Henry's 
  dissent with the Roman Catholic Church was over the Church's refusal to
  annul a marriage on grounds of infertility, not over refusing to *perform*
  one on grounds of infertility..

  > You may also want to read a bit about the words & deeds of Jesus in
  > the first three gospels and compare them to the behaviors of various
  > self-styled Christian churches.  The freaky fringe is the only place
  > where you can find people actually trying to follow the teachings &
  > example of Jesus.  For a quick example, read Matthew 6.

  This still doesn't explain to me why you insisted on the odd scare quotes
  around "Christian" in your previous response.  Perhaps you intended them
  to convey some impression other than the one that I formed, in which case
  your intended meaning escaped me utterly.

response 156 of 191:

Sep 22 22:27 UTC 2003

Fire away!