Call me suspicous but this sounds an awful lot like a PR stunt. One of these two is a same-sex amrriage advocate?
Pretty fucking unlikely that it's be HIM and his husband of all the potential gay couples that gets stopped.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Also,
quote: when the customs official at Pearson International Airport rejected their family customs declaration form, insisting that they fill out separate forms as single people.
Meh, so they just had to fill out a different form.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sissys. Pansys. Marys.
Huh. Anything deragatoty I write about them sounds like a gay-bashing comment.
Not like I'm mentioning that today is "talk like a Pirate day and they're butt pirates" or anything insensitive like that...
Nope. I'm just saying they're probably attention grubbing fuckos that could cost a border patrol guard his job for their publicity.
It's not my fault: i'm just following my spirit guide: unfortunately my guide is one of those deep-sea anglerfish with the long sharp teeth.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yeah, because, it's not like the U.S. airline industry keeps a list of dangerous leftist subversives. Oh, wait.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The airline industry considers gays subversive? Better check out those stewards. Fl-am-in! Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I am not suggesting that they are actually on that list, but people who say certain politically unpopular things have been having more difficulty boarding flights. So it is not, you know, crazy.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Really? Wow.
And before Omega leaps in, you got anything to prove that, Simon old chap?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Actually, it is nothing more than a serious matter of National Security.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I think the U.S. was totally wrong to invade Iraq. And I think George W. Bush is an ego wrenching, power crazed, oil hungry, dictatorial lunatic.
There, now I've said a politically unpopular thing. I expect to be denied entry/held at gunpoint/thrown in the tombs/anally fingerprobed.
Seriously, I wonder if there are people who go up to a U.S. Customs official and say that straight to their face.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Believe it or not, Customs officials could care less (as a rule) if you're wearing a dress and snapping your fingers in a "Z" formation. They're looking for weapons, drugs and imporntant things. I'm sure many customs officers feel just as strongly against Bush as you do.
This couple probably heard of some assinine regulation that would prevent their crossing and set out to make a stink about it. It could cost someone their job in a region where jobs are hard to come by.
And for what? So they wont have to take an extra second and fill out an alternate form? It's not like using the "married" form instead is a big treat or that it's somehow easier to fill out.
quote:Mr. Elliott said he's also investigating whether any legal action can be undertaken on his clients' behalf.
I see a publicity lawsuit in the near future. Probably just in time for the '04 elections.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Liam: Sort of. That I am not completely sure about it is why I am not holed up in secret mountainous location. It's going to take me some time to find the articles I was thinking about, though.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: I expect to be denied entry/held at gunpoint/thrown in the tombs/anally fingerprobed.
So, really, it won't be much different from your normal holiday weekends.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"And for what? So they wont have to take an extra second and fill out an alternate form?"
Principle, dear, principle.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Thank you, Cartman.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "And for what? So they wont have to take an extra second and fill out an alternate form?"
Principle, dear, principle.
Of all the things to fight for on princliple, this one seems pretty weak, don't you think? I mean, why not fight for equal medical coverage for gay couples that matches married couples? That at least would lend publicity to an IMPORNTANT issue that affects thousands, if not millions. Of all the added secutiry measures that the Brder Patrol and Immigration offices have shoved down their throats since 9/11, do they really need to have to second guess every couple that wants to cross the border for fear of bad P.R.? Give me a break.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
You sure are lucky you are a straight, American, white, middle class, male.
OR:
Those black people in the 1960's, they should hacve fought for something more important than to sit at the front of the bus. Who does that affect? Fight for medical care, is what they should of done. Not some trivial bus matter.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We're NOT talking about gays being segregated to sitting sections, seperate schools or waterfountains so don't make that comparison. We're not even talking about equal rights for gays, (something I support wholeheartedly). We're talking about two guy making a big deal about a form. They'll almost certainly be filing a lawsuit over this precieved discrimination as well and possibly costing some working stiff his job (shit rolls down hill after all).
I agree that this form could be changed to include the aknowledgement of same sex marriages but NOT untill the laws in america governing marriages is changed.
They're going after the symptom for publicity instead of the more daunting task of trying to change the marriage laws in this country.
Border patrol has better things to be concerned with. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That form has EVERYTHING to do with equal rights.
"They're going after the symptom for publicity instead of the more daunting task of trying to change the marriage laws in this country."
And what do you do when you want to effect change? You seek publicity.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:And what do you do when you want to effect change? You seek publicity.
You seek to change the CAUSE.
Lets say that the form is changed with no argument: the same core problem is still there- the lack of aknoweledgment for same sex couples. I imagine the hollow victory of winning so easily would garner no publicity for their cause.
Put into medical terms, if you have a compound fracture and someone puts a band-aid on it, you're not really healed: the problem is just less obvious.
These guys have a just cause but have little chance of making real change by protesting against this form's usage. Even if the US aknowledges their Canadian marriage as a courtsey to our northern brothers, it's not going to change policy regarding marriages in the US. It's a placebo at best and tilting at windmills at worst.
As neither of these guys is an american citizen, their voices will carry very little weight with those that set US policy.
I just think their efforts would be better served elsewhere (like working with gay rights groups in the US to promote education on how the more open-minded marriage laws work in Canada- eliminating legal oppositions to changing the law by demonstrating that it works).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You seek to change the CAUSE."
But the cause here isn't some carryover religious ordinance from 1620. It's the extreme myopia of the bible-thumping population in general and fundamentalist judges like Santorum and Scalia in particular. Public opinions that deeply rooted won't change if you don't make a hell of a lot of noise re: civil rights in public.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
How are theses guys doing anything to raise awareness? This looks like a lawsuit-motivated stunt. If it's done for publicity, it'll probably hurt the cause more than help it. If people lose their jobs over this minor inconvience, it'll just add weight to theose (like Scalia) that say the gay activsts are a bunch of crybabies.
It's not really what they're doing that I disagree with but how they're going about it.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Laws vary state to state, one not recognizing the others laws, so by not recognizing another countries same sex marriages isn't that big of a deal.
This couple knew that their marriage wouldn't be recognized in the US, so they do this anyway, figuring to draw attention to their cause, whether it is to garner support for the same law here in the US or to fill their wallets, or does one carry a purse?
Now, knowing that they know US law, is this a frivalous law suit?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What are the rules for Canadian citizens filing lawsuits against US agencies anyway?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:"We could have filled out separate forms, but how much of your dignity do you want to have chipped away? We feel we had an affront to our dignity, so we decided to go back home."
Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. Fill out the damned form like everybody else. That's what "equal rights" is really about. You put up with the same crap the rest of us do, and like it.
quote:Mr. Elliott said although the U.S. customs official was enforcing American law by not allowing Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Varnell into the United States, "he was doing it on Canadian soil."
Questions of extraterritoriality. It may very well depend on where he was standing whether he was on 'Canadian' soil or not.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
First: You're getting married, right? How would you feel if the U.S. doesn't recognize your marriage for some assinine reason and both of you had to fill out separate forms or the like? And don't say that your marriage is recognized because it's between a man and a woman. That's not the point. Equal rights means you are treated like every other married couple. Including this one.
Also, FYI, because a good majority of Canadian travellers are to the U.S, it was decided that instead of having Canadian travellers hogging customs lines in the U.S., there would be a Customs booth in every Canadian airport serving travellers to the U.S. You get cleared by customs BEFORE you leave for the U.S.
So yes, technically, they were still in Canadian soil. But there is no validity to that portion of the complaint. The customs workers in Canadian Airports are American Citizens, and I agree that they have every right to block entry to questionable people. But there is nothing questionable about these two people who were turned away.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: First: You're getting married, right? How would you feel if the U.S. doesn't recognize your marriage for some assinine reason and both of you had to fill out separate forms or the like?
I'd feel like the US isn't deserving of my tourism dollars and travel elsewhere.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Gee, It's not like they were suprised or anything: They already knew the situation and were trying to make a point with this stunt. They were even traveling to a "equal rights conference" and I'm sure this was staged for that purpose intentionally.
None of my gay freinds think this is such a big deal. We're SO worried about any potential double standard that we'll make this into a far larger issue than it needs to be while really imporntant things are ignored.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)