This will piss our non American gay members

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-18 11:13pm

Durran Korr wrote:Customs policy is not my forte, as I'm sure you can imagine, but yeah, I would assume so, since it would be a heterosexual marriage and he wouldn't be trying to enter America as a polygamist. But unfortunately, we don't recognize homosexual marriages.

This still doesn't establish that Customs policy for foreign marriages not recognized in the US is to force them to enter separately. And I'm curious as to whether a polygamist would be able to enter with more than one wife, even if he has recognition problems once he's in the country.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-09-18 11:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:I personally say don't blame the guy for following the letter of his regs even if you believe their spirit would be a better guide.
You have yet to establish that the letter of his regs involves forcing married couples to enter separately if their marriage is not recognized by the US. Everyone is simply assuming this; is there any more information on this subject?

Well the US Customs site is currently down or non-responsive so the direct route seems out for the time being, am currently searching for other sources. * Added:INS doens't seem to be a help either.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-18 11:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:I personally say don't blame the guy for following the letter of his regs even if you believe their spirit would be a better guide.
You have yet to establish that the letter of his regs involves forcing married couples to enter separately if their marriage is not recognized by the US. Everyone is simply assuming this; is there any more information on this subject?

Well, everywhere else in the country legislative grace is required, at the moment, to mandate the acceptance of homosexual unions. I should think it wouldn't be any different for Customs.

In any case, Customs is down (probably because of people looking for information), so I'll have to look elsewhere.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-18 11:24pm

Dalton wrote: You're quite fond of strawmen, aren't you?

As if your post wasn't one

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-18 11:26pm

Darth Wong wrote: Just curious: if a polygamist from a Muslim country shows up at the border, do they make him and his wife enter separately, using separate forms?

Probably not if only one was with him and marked down. But if some guy showed up with five women I'd expect they'd all have to file separately.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-09-18 11:36pm

Without having the regulatons in front of me, or access to Customs's website, I would imagine that if there are no provisions for dealing with marriages not legally recognized in the United States, the customs agents can't let them in as a couple. That being said, I suspect there ARE provisions for dealing with polygamous unions, but not homosexual ones.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-09-18 11:56pm

From http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1101.html

United States Code Title 8 Seciton 1101:

(35)
The term ''spouse'', ''wife'', or ''husband'' do not include a spouse, wife, or husband by reason of any marriage ceremony where the contracting parties thereto are not physically present in the presence of each other, unless the marriage shall have been consummated.

(39)
The term ''unmarried'', when used in reference to any individual as of any time, means an individual who at such time is not married, whether or not previously married.

(50)
The term ''intended spouse'' means any alien who meets the criteria set forth in section 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(BB), 1154(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa)(BB), or 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) of this title.

Note: 1154 relates to marriage by stating this:
"who believed that he or she had married a citizen of the United States and with whom a marriage ceremony was actually performed and who otherwise meets any applicable requirements under this chapter to establish the existence of and bona fides of a marriage, but whose marriage is not legitimate solely because of the bigamy of such citizen of the United States;"

So basically it means nothing here. Also 1129 repeatrs the notation about bigamy.

In other words nothin in the definitions of Title 8 prohibits a marriage being recognized for purposes of entry even if it is not recognized by the US. I withdraw my previous statements and question who made this call.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-18 11:57pm

Ditto.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-09-18 11:58pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Dalton wrote: You're quite fond of strawmen, aren't you?
As if your post wasn't one

Oh, no. I was asking a question. You put words in my mouth. Fine distinction.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-19 10:50am

Topic moved as it really belongs in News and Politics.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-09-19 04:19pm

I think that this just shows how the policy in the United States towards marriage is still firmly rooted in Christianity. Marriage is a CIVIL matter and there is nothing that should prevent two people of the same sex to be married. But because marriage comes from a church ceremony, politicians in the US are hesitant to open marriage up to gays.

This is still a thorny issue around here and it is going to become even more so. The state where I live, California, still has not recognized gay marriages even though we have a large gay population and are considered one of the most progressive states in the US (no recall jokes please). I'm still not sure exactly why lawmakers in this country are so resistant to the idea, but I imagine that this is once again the result of the puritanical foundation upon which this country was founded.