|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 119 of 191:
| 
Jul 7 17:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 120 of 191:
|
Jul 7 21:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #112: RU-486 is a relatively simple HCG antagonist. I seem to
recall that it has found use in cancer treatment (in men), to name
one thing that drives the anti-abortion crusaders nuts - if it is
approved for any medical use, doctors can prescribe it "off label".
|
gull
|
|
response 121 of 191:
|
Sep 19 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Well, this was predictable:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/18/gay_customs030918
Canadian gay couple barred from U.S.
Last Updated Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:32:16
TORONTO - A married gay couple say they were refused entry into the U.S.
because an American customs officer wouldn't accept their clearance
forms as a family.
Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell said they ended their trip to Georgia
because the customs official at Toronto's Pearson airport insisted they
fill out separate forms as single people.
Bourassa said he complained to a customs supervisor and was told the
couple wouldn't be allowed to enter the U.S. as a family because the
country doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.
Bourassa, who works as an advocate for same-sex marriage, said the
couple made the decision not to fill out separate forms because they
felt it was an insult to their dignity.
Bourassa and Varnell were heading to Braselton, Ga., to speak at a human
rights conference.
The couple married in 2001, before last June's Ontario court decision
that recognized the right of gays to wed.
Their marriage was recognized as a legal union in light of the Ontario
Court of Appeal decision.
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.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 122 of 191:
|
Sep 19 16:59 UTC 2003 |
Canadian citizen legal action against the US goverment for *this*? BS!
You don't get to dicate another country's rules for entry. Don't like it,
stay away. Wounded dignity? Get over it, and just fill out separate forms,
if you're really more interested in entering the US than playing the martyr.
|
gull
|
|
response 123 of 191:
|
Sep 19 17:07 UTC 2003 |
Granted, though I bet if it were another country not recognizing U.S.
marriages the U.S. government would make a big stink about it.
|
klg
|
|
response 124 of 191:
|
Sep 19 18:03 UTC 2003 |
The same "big stink" that our noble Department of State has made over
legal issues such as custody disputes over children who have been
abducted by their fathers to Saudi Arabia?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 191:
|
Sep 19 18:45 UTC 2003 |
They should have tried to enter via Vermont. Then a State's rights issue
would also be involved, since same-sex "marriages" are recognized there.
(I recognize that immigration is a federal matter, but having a state
involved might lead sooner to a better resolution.)
It has been the international norm to recognize the legal forms of other
nations for many things - including different-sex marriages, driving
licenses - lots more. There is no good reason not to recognize Canada's
laws in this respect.
|
tod
|
|
response 126 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:05 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 127 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:17 UTC 2003 |
I think it was Customs because they were only coming to the U.S. for a few
days, not trying to relocate here.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 128 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:18 UTC 2003 |
had bruse been accounted for?
|
tod
|
|
response 129 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 130 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:47 UTC 2003 |
/crosses arms in haughty and righteous fundamentalist christian
indignation
THEY DERSERVED IT!
><
--
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 131 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:52 UTC 2003 |
LOL. Even if they were coming in for a few days, I'd still think they had to
go through INS? Or is it different with Canadian citizens? They don't go
through an INS checkpoint at all at the border, where their passports are
checked?
|
tod
|
|
response 132 of 191:
|
Sep 19 20:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 133 of 191:
|
Sep 19 20:16 UTC 2003 |
bru works in an airport now?
|
rcurl
|
|
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 135 of 191:
|
Sep 19 22:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 137 of 191:
|
Sep 19 22:37 UTC 2003 |
They're activists. Of course they were trying to test the system.
|
mynxcat
|
|
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?)
|
other
|
|
response 139 of 191:
|
Sep 20 00:08 UTC 2003 |
The issue here is not gay marriage, it is compliance with bureaucratic
regulation. They were denied entry by a bureaucrat who was defending the
petty fiefdom he rules against those who would force him to alter his
routine.
|
gull
|
|
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 141 of 191:
|
Sep 20 02:04 UTC 2003 |
(Hmm...come to think of it, if they *had* declared themselves as single,
wouldn't they be guilty of lying on a Customs form?)
|
mynxcat
|
|
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 191:
|
Sep 20 03:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|