| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Gay couple denied U.S. entry |
| 2003-09-18 |
| TORONTO (CP) - Two gay men who are legally wed in Ontario say they were refused entry into the United States after a U.S. customs official at the airport wouldnât accept their customs clearance form as a family. Duh, because they are NOT! Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell went public Thursday after they abandoned their trip to Georgia when the customs official at Pearson International Airport rejected their family customs declaration form, insisting that they fill out separate forms as single people. After complaining to a customs supervisor, Bourassa said, the couple was told that they wouldnât be allowed into the United States as a family because the country doesnât recognize same-sex marriages. "When we realized we werenât going to be allowed into the country, we had to make a real hard decision," Bourassa, claiming a violation of human rights, said in an interview from their Toronto home. "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." We will miss youâŠNOT! The incident comes on the heels of a heated debate in the Commons earlier this week about same-sex marriage. A Canadian Alliance motion affirming marriage as the union of a man and woman was narrowly defeated. Same-sex marriage is legal in British Columbia and Ontario, where there have been favourable court rulings. Ottawa has drafted legislation that redefines marriage as a union of two persons, but it wonât be introduced in Parliament until the Supreme Court of Canada reviews the constitutionality of the proposed legislation, likely next year. Bourassa said he and Varnell were heading to Braselton, Ga., to speak at a human rights conference featuring Coretta Scott King, the widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Minority Civil Right = Gay Rights! Bourassa, who works full time as an advocate for same-sex marriages, and Varnell, a banking manager, were married in 2001 before the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized last June the right for gays to legally marry. Anyone seeing the connection here? Their 2001 ceremony was then recognized as a legal union in the province in light of the court decision. The coupleâs lawyer, Doug Elliott, said he spoke to Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham early Thursday and Graham advised him to deal with Deputy Prime Minister John Manley because he would have more authority over border issues. A spokesman in Manleyâs office said Immigration Minister Denis Coderre would have to deal with the issue, but there was no immediate response from his Ottawa office Thursday. Elliott said although the U.S. customs official was enforcing American law by not allowing Bourassa and Varnell into the United States, "he was doing it on Canadian soil." "We canât force the U.S. to change its laws on same-sex marriage, but we can insist that Canadian citizens be treated with respect, that the Canadian law regarding family recognition gets respected." Not going to happen real soon! Elliott said heâs also investigating whether any legal action can be undertaken on his clientsâ behalf. In the words of President Bush âBring it on!â Traveling to the U.S. is NOT a right but a privilege and that means you have to RESPECT our laws in this country. The U.S. does not (IMO should never) recognize that two homoâs want to play house like a âreal family.â Hatâs off to the customs person for standing his ground! P.S. I am NOT a HOMOPHOBE, I am HOMOFEDUP. |
| Posted by:Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) |
| #25 "If these gay guys are so in love with themselves" You made a grammatical mistake. You meant "are so in love with each other" instead. No sweat about it, though. When I was first studying English this sort of thing was an easy mistake to make also. ;-) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-18 11:02:41 PM |
| #24 Anonymous> Michael Jackson. And I've never seen evidence of any homosexuals that have become "straight"; at most I've heard of homosexuals who decided to abstain, or bisexuals who decided to pursue only straight relationships; but their desires and sexual drives remained the same... The sexual preference doesn't seem to be a choice at all; it's either biological or atleast forming very early in the childhood; and it seems it can even be detected through difference in the physiology/neurology/whatever-you-call-it of the brain. TGA> "Aris, first of all this article wasn't about whether the U.S. should have gay marriages or not. " No, but some of the commentary was about that. E.g. the "they are not a family" comment, which I disputed, and which launched the whole discussion. Or atleast (since I'm not sure if I'd call it discussion) it launched the whole accusing me of hypocricy thing. If you want to keep on repeating things about sovereignty and American law that I've already repeatedly conceded/accepted and so on, be my guest. But you are not participating in the discussion that *I* was involved in, or saying much if anything that's relevant to it. And as a sidenote, I've not still not heard from Ptah of evidence for my hypocricy, or gotten an answer from the original poster about why a gay couple can't be a family. So, TGA, *you* get over it. You keep on talking about forms and trivialities and this particular incident, I'm talking about the wider issue at hand. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-18 10:58:11 PM |
| #23 Homosexuality is exhibitionism. Therefore, homosexual 'families' are based upon the same concept, the roles are exhibitionism, not real. If these gay guys are so in love with themselves and their role they cannot see their way clear to raising a family with a woman as a partner, why should the USA raise a finger to help? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-18 10:45:07 PM |
| #22 Aris, first of all this article wasn't about whether the U.S. should have gay marriages or not. It's about U.S. sovereignty. It happened on Canadian soil but from what I know these "pre-clearing" of U.S. customs happen under U.S. jurisdiction by mutual consent between Canada and the U.S. to make immigration swifter. What I think of gay marriage hardly matters. But if you want my opinion, it's not just a tradition like wearing a turban or a nose ring, it's one of the essential biological conditions of mankind. Sure you may argue that in modern societies all this is no longer necessary. In 50 years women may buy their babies in labs, who knows, and the male as we know him may become extinct. Whatever. Maybe the U.S. will accept gay marriages in ten or 20 years. Maybe marriages will lose all their meanings. Maybe the sky will fall down in 50 years. But for now, the U.S. define family as a union between male and female. And for now this couple has to accept this if they want to enter the country. It's not that they were refused entry because they were married but because they refused to fill out the proper papers. Get over it. If a Chinese couple insisted on filling out the papers in Chinese letters they'd get into trouble, too. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-18 10:42:11 PM |
| #21 I know there are homosexuals who have become straight,but I don't know of any blacks who have changed their race.My point is homosexuals do not deserve minority treatment.Homosexuality is a choice.I would like to see empirical scientific evidence which proves homosexuality is not a choice. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-18 10:40:18 PM |
| #20 TGA, it's indeed not up to visitors to decide what the law is, but it *is* up to the US citizens. People here have shown little restraint in criticizing the laws of other countries (e.g. Belgium, e.g. Sweden) so I don't see why I should not be allowed to criticize American law. "I think since the beginning of mankind families have been defined as man, woman, children." You yourself have given the example of some definitions of family that are considered outdated by modern-day western civilisation. E.g. the Saudis and their many wives. Definitions change. What was once considered acceptable for the Mormons or the Saudis or the Hebrews or whatever most people no longer consider acceptable. Blind tradition can't work in this as an argument. We have to think what marriage means, in what way it functions, what role we want it to have. It seems to me healthy, IMAO, for society to recognize the loving bond of two people who've each proclaimed the other the most important part of their lives, and promised to aid and support each other through better and worse, etc, etc. The way I see it gender has very little to do with this, and therefore I'm in support of gay marriages. The tradition argument is extremely weak, as *traditionally* all traditions have always had a purpose for existing, and when that purpose ceased they slowly but surely fell by the wayside. So, what role does marriage have nowadays? If you say "tradition", as its self-proclaimed defenders do, then you're *depriving* it of any other meaning and function... And that's the way I see it - that the "defenders" are actually harming what they seek out to defend. By saying that gay people have no reason to marry (even if it's an affirmation of a loving relationship, even if it's a good way to legally give to the other partner certain exclusive rights of decision-making/financing/whatever, even if it's a good way to proclaim to society that the other person is the most important individual in your life)... what the "defenders of marriage" are actually saying is that none of the above reasons apply to hetero "traditional" couples either. Gay people seek the right to marry. That means that to them marriage is important. That means they value it and its importance. If people want to protect the meaning of marriage, then go after divorces. Or more accurately divorce-and-remarriages and those people who treat marriage as little more binding than going steady with your boyfriend/girlfriends. If a person has already divorced twice, don't allow them to legally remarry, because the state and society doesn't have to recognize the bonds of a person who has proved he doesn't have the responsibility required for marriage. But I guess it's not politically correct for me to criticize American law in this forum (even though I've never refrained from criticizing happenings in my own country either) so I doubt the ramble above will be appreciated by anyone. Ah, well. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-18 10:12:19 PM |
| #19 Aris, this has nothing to do with homophobia, this has to do with current U.S. law. It's not up to visitors to decide what the law is, it's up to the immigration officer. You know, he actually can refuse entry and send you back if he thinks America might have a problem with you. As it stands, the United States don't define "family" the same way as Canada (or Saudi Arabia). Whether the U.S. should change it's law is up to the American people. It's not up to two male Canadian visitors to force a U.S. immigration officer to bend the current law for them. I don't know about Vermont but a "civil union" between two people is not a family. If it were, the law would say so. To compare South Africa's racist laws with the U.S. not recognizing marriage betwen same sexes is ridiculous. I think since the beginning of mankind families have been defined as man, woman, children. For rather obvious and logical reasons. If Canada (and other countries) are changing this conception, that's their right. But it's not their right to force this conception upon others countries. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-18 9:34:14 PM |
| #18 Penguin> Yeah, it'd definitely change the opinions of millions of gay Americans on whether their country deserves their patriotism or not... :-) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-18 9:22:23 PM |
| #17 I guess they could have let them in, and then did the full luggage, strip search, and cavity search on them. Even get the drug dogs to sniff everything of theirs. Then hold them up for four hours saying you are waiting for paperwork to clear. Make 'em miss their flight connections. That might change their opinions a bit. |
| Posted by: penguin 2003-9-18 9:19:08 PM |
| #16 TGA, the discussion isn't on whether the Canadians should be admitted in violation of the American law, but on whether the American law in question ought to be changed. Don't mistake the matter of the incident that sparked this with the question at hand. A person said the gay couple aren't a family. I asked him why is that so, he still hasn't responded, and I don't think he can without bringing religion into this. Ah, well. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-18 9:04:59 PM |
| #15 Frank G.> Profiling about what? Sorry-me-confused-A-me-ri-can-lingo-com-pli-ca-ted. "You fill out the forms the way we tell you to, or you just stay out! " Well that's what they did, wasn't it? They stayed out. That doesn't anything however about the law does right in asking them to fill out the form in said specific way or not. Cyber Sarge> I know that *you* won't ever call gay people family, but that doesn't actually answer my question about why do you think that gay people can't be as much a family as straight people can. You know those things with question marks in the end? They are called "questions" and not all of them are rhetorical ones. The ones that aren't would like an answer returned. "Vermont recognizes civil unions between homos, not the same as the Canadian law." Yes, the Canadian law seems to me straightforward and honest, while the Vermont law is quibbling with terminology. It's not marriage, it's "civil union". That even smaller a difference than the difference between a "HOMOPHOBE" and a "HOMOFEDUP". Ptah> "What a hypocrite you are, Aris!" Really? "When it comes to Americans in foreign lands, its the Ugly American who doesn't respect the local laws and customs" When have I ever said that? Give me an example or I demand that you take your accusation back with an apology attached. "but it sure appears that you don't want to apply that rule to anybody else when they come to the US of A!" If a country said that black people can't be married to white ones (e.g. South Africa in the years of the apartheid) I'd have no problem calling it a racist country -- and I have no problem calling USA a homophobic country when it says that gay people can't be married to each other. Only difference is that currently most countries in the world share that homophobia so it doesn't strike anyone as uglily as it really is. Ah, well. Soon, my darlings, soon. *insert evil laughter as I plan to crumble the foundation of western society that is the sacred marriage between man and woman through my support of gay marriages* |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-18 9:01:35 PM |
| #14 This is an absurd discussion. Next thing I hear is Saudis claiming to fill in one form for their four wives, one maybe of preteen age. You enter the United States, you observe the laws of the United States. I can enter the U.S. without a visa, other nationalities can not. It's the sole discretion of the U.S. to decide this. Note customs didn't deny entry to the couple, they just wanted them to fill out the forms correctly. When will Canadians want to import marihuana into the U.S. because it's legal in Canada? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-18 8:55:16 PM |
| #13 What a hypocrite you are, Aris! When it comes to Americans in foreign lands, its the Ugly American who doesn't respect the local laws and customs, but it sure appears that you don't want to apply that rule to anybody else when they come to the US of A! The Ugly Greek is a fake to boot. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-9-18 8:00:33 PM |
| #12 Tom - well put. Wanna play games and establish precedent? I bow to AP's suggestion they try to visit Saudi and make the Hajj |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-18 7:50:37 PM |
| #11 Aris, EVERYONE else in the world can change and call to gay people a 'family' but I won't. I could care less if Canadians start marrying golphers and recognizing that as a 'family', not me. Note: Vermont recognizes civil unions between homos not the same as the Canadian law. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-9-18 7:50:12 PM |
| #10 Let's not confuse the issue. You want to enter our country? You fill out the forms the way we tell you to, or you just stay out! Doesn't matter what you are. Our customs and immigration officers are busy enough -- they don't need your crap. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-9-18 7:48:06 PM |
| #9 Ahh logic from the resident Greek - profiling again Aris? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-18 7:29:30 PM |
| #8 "Duh, because they are NOT!" In what way aren't they a family? In that they can't procreate? Neither can many sterile men or barren women and yet they are allowed to marry. "because the country doesnât recognize same-sex marriages." I thought that a handful of states (Vermont I believe?) do recognize same-sex marriages? And wasn't there a law or something that marriages recognized in one state are recognized in all? "The U.S. does not (IMO should never) recognize that two homoâs want to play house like a âreal family.â" Ah well once upon a time the US didn't recognize one black and one white person wanting to play house like a "real family" either. Times are changing. Wanna bet that in 10 or 15 years time, gay marriages will be recognized by the United States, if not at a federal level, at least in the majority of the states? "I am NOT a HOMOPHOBE, I am HOMOFEDUP." Ah, yes, I think that's something like the difference between the military and political wings of Hamas. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-18 7:10:16 PM |
| #7 "We canât force the U.S. to change its laws on same-sex marriage, but we can insist that Canadian citizens be treated with respect, that the Canadian law regarding family recognition gets respected." Sorry... but when it comes to CUSTOMs and entry into the US, US Law trumps Canadian law. If you don't like it we can pull our customs stations out of canada and make you go through customs (and immigrations) at an offical Port of Entry in the USA like every one else. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-9-18 6:30:05 PM |
| #6 How does the U.S. handle Saudi men with their wives? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-18 6:24:28 PM |
| #5 A staged non-event meant to influence the debate going on this country in hope of heading off our adopting a possible constitutional amendment. An affront to their dignity? What sanctimonious garbage. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-9-18 6:07:09 PM |
| #4 The happy couple ought to fill out some entry forms to get into Saudi Arabia and see how far they get. At least the US gave them the choice of entry if they filled out separate forms. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-9-18 5:20:29 PM |
| #3 Yeah, that just priceless. They were supposed to SPEAK at that Georgia gathering, but rather than filling out an extra form or two and adding the incident to their list of "grievances" to be aired at the conference, these worthless sots bailed out on their COMMITTMENT. How typical! |
| Posted by: Flaming Sword 2003-9-18 5:18:35 PM |
| #2 Are Coretta and her demon-brood still mining coin from MLK's corpse for christ's sake? Disgusting. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-9-18 5:16:28 PM |
| #1 P.S. I am NOT a HOMOPHOBE, I am HOMOFEDUP. Likewise. |
| Posted by: Katz. 2003-9-18 5:11:40 PM |