|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
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.
|
mynxcat
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 191:
|
Sep 20 05:17 UTC 2003 |
Why?
|
mynxcat
|
|
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)
|
bru
|
|
response 147 of 191:
|
Sep 20 22:21 UTC 2003 |
Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture are now merged into one organization.
We have not changed uniforms yet, but we have all always been crossed trained
in other departments. Customs ghas always had the right to make such
decisions. Think of it as working in a department store. You are an expert
in one area, but you can still act in another.
Customs also has immense power at the border. That is why we get to search
your cars and individuals (even strip searches) without warrants.
Fine, they wanted to provoke a confrontation and they got one. Whether it
stands up under federal law is one for Ashcroft and his attorneys to decide.
My guess is that it will hold up. I am sure the inspector did not make this
decision in a vacuum, that other supervisory inspectors were there to advise
him.
Also, i would have to look this up, but it is my belief that people from
countries that allow multiple wives, are only allowed to claim one unless they
are a diplomat.
|
rcurl
|
|
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.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 149 of 191:
|
Sep 21 08:01 UTC 2003 |
I'd be quite shocked if the Defense of Marriage Act were invalidated
by the current Supreme Court..
|