Gay married couple fear separation again

Gay married couple fear separation again

There are 56 comments on the EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA story from Nov 12, 2010, titled Gay married couple fear separation again. In it, EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA reports that:

Haverhill: Tim Coco, of Haverhill, sits at his dinner table with a photo from his wedding day.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Nov 12, 2010
I think the asylum tack was misguided.

He should have just kept using tourist visas and applied for green card status.

They should also have married in another country which allows it, then made a case for honoring it based upon the international treaty conventions that recognize the marriages of other Nations.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#3 Nov 12, 2010
Being in the same boat (or having been) I sympathize with them, but unless they wanted to be political martyrs, they should not have gotten married in the US. The non-US resident might have had a chance through other means. Note that I am commenting in terms of practicality not ideals.

The fed government is LESS likely to treat a same-sex couple fairly if they have a marriage license from a state that issues one simply because it still has the "DOMA mentality."

One is better off trying to either find another legitimate means, or to enter into a sham marriage, having done one's homework first. Honest, no. Ideal, no. But it boils down to whether you put family ahead of a government (or of martyrdom).

As for the comments of the "false" Frank Stanton, it is not Christians that one would need to shoot in this case but rather Feds, and that would require a revolution with popular support beyond LGBT's.

My partner made the mistake of trying for asylum (on some grounds other than being gay; he was not even out at that point) LONG before he even met me. Snyper is correct; once an asylum request is denied, the person is pretty much damned by the US immigration system. One can only buy time.

Asylum based on gay persecution can work in the US but I think the person would have to be Iranian. I even doubt they'd honor a request from a Zimbabwean or Jamaican. Here is Canada, it is more likely to work but then if one is partnered to someone here, it is rather moot as you can marry.
fedupwiththemess

Ashburn, VA

#4 Nov 12, 2010
It was a play marriage to start with. Two men don't marry each other...for what. They can't have kids together...whats the point?
Getflushed

Torrance, CA

#5 Nov 12, 2010
America is supposed to deform health care, deform insurance coverage, deform public health policies, deform all levels of economic policy, deform immigration law, deform teaching of children, deform health standards in work environments, deform churches, deform concepts of marriage dating six thousand years... All to accommodate less than 1% of the population who've actually chosen a suicidal lifestyle detrimental to everyone around them. Makes a lot of sense.

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6 Nov 12, 2010
Getflushed wrote:
America is supposed to deform health care, deform insurance coverage, deform public health policies, deform all levels of economic policy, deform immigration law, deform teaching of children, deform health standards in work environments, deform churches, deform concepts of marriage dating six thousand years... All to accommodate less than 1% of the population who've actually chosen a suicidal lifestyle detrimental to everyone around them. Makes a lot of sense.
What in the above paragraph will stop working if that 1% is allowed to benefit from it? Will straight people stop overpopulating the planet? Or will the marxist contagious gays infect the world bringing it to a sudden halt?

Moron.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#7 Nov 12, 2010
fedupwiththemess wrote:
It was a play marriage to start with. Two men don't marry each other...for what. They can't have kids together...whats the point?
Two elderly people can't either, they're still allowed to marry.

Two infertile people can't either, they're still allowed to marry.

What's YOUR point?
Getflushed

Torrance, CA

#8 Nov 12, 2010
whitefalcon1678 wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the above paragraph will stop working if that 1% is allowed to benefit from it? Will straight people stop overpopulating the planet? Or will the marxist contagious gays infect the world bringing it to a sudden halt?
Moron.
Benefit from total destruction? Talk about relativistic thinking!

Promotion of gays and any of their behaviors is exactly like promoting an infestation of diseased rats.

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#9 Nov 12, 2010
Getflushed wrote:
<quoted text>
Benefit from total destruction? Talk about relativistic thinking!
Promotion of gays and any of their behaviors is exactly like promoting an infestation of diseased rats.
LMAO.

Considering that the majority of people with STD's are straight, I'd say that you're full of crap.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Nov 12, 2010
Getflushed wrote:
<quoted text>
Benefit from total destruction? Talk about relativistic thinking!
Promotion of gays and any of their behaviors is exactly like promoting an infestation of diseased rats.
Again, as I mentioned to you in another thread where you posted your view, you refer to gay people as if they were some form of invasion from the outside, instead of full Citizens of our Nation, and the children of hetero Citizens.

And as I wrote on the other thread, please keep it coming.

It is very useful in the ever-growing pages of evidence being collected from Forums, Pages, Blogs, Chatrooms and Tweets all over the web.

Please continue. You are helping us to build our case regarding the ANIMUS against us.

Thank you.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11 Nov 12, 2010
fedupwiththemess wrote:
It was a play marriage to start with. Two men don't marry each other...for what. They can't have kids together...whats the point?
So, "wife only as broodmare" and husband as only "beast of burden" is your idea of a model marriage?

I pity your poor unloved spouse.

Fortunately, most other folks see marriage as something more that an platonic arrangement in which to make babies.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Nov 12, 2010

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13 Nov 12, 2010
Getflushed wrote:
America is supposed to deform health care, deform insurance coverage, deform public health policies, deform all levels of economic policy, deform immigration law, deform teaching of children, deform health standards in work environments, deform churches, deform concepts of marriage dating six thousand years... All to accommodate less than 1% of the population who've actually chosen a suicidal lifestyle detrimental to everyone around them. Makes a lot of sense.
1) The word you are looking for is "reform"...not "deform"...

2) What is is about my "lifestyle" that is detrimental to those around me?

3) There are records of formal same sex marriages going back to the most ancient Chinese histories. In some parts of China these marriages continued until the late 17th (or early 18th) century.

Same sex unions and formal marriages were also performed in both ancient Greece and early Rome. In each case it was the introduction of Christianity and then western colonialism that forced these cultures to adopt a more European (Christian) view of human sexuality.

In Rome it was the first Christian Emperor who declared same sex marriage illegal. His actions were based on the teachings (and at the urging) of the early church.

A "Christian" Emperor declares homosexuality a crime against the state and many homosexuals are put to death.

That was when the gay community in Europe went "under-ground".

It was almost 2,000 years later, in early 20th century Europe that the gay community began to live in the open again.

They were greeted by the Nazi Holocaust. Thrown in the concentration camps, tortured, experimented on, forcibly castrated and killed.

It's only now that the gay and lesbian communities in the western democracies are finally free to live their lives in the open.

It is only now that countries around the world have started to recognize the legal status of same sex couples.

It is only now that the civilized world is beginning to recognize the right that it took away from us 2,000 years ago...a right we had known since before there was a written history to record it...the right to love and marry who we choose.

“Married as I can be!”

Since: Jun 07

Las Vegas

#14 Nov 12, 2010
fedupwiththemess wrote:
It was a play marriage to start with. Two men don't marry each other...for what. They can't have kids together...whats the point?
My parents couldn't have kids together either. What's YOUR point?
Frank Stanton

Omaha, NE

#15 Nov 12, 2010
why all you people arguing with an ameriKKKan christian? just shoot it in the head and take back your constitutional rights. this is your country! stop being weak, it's what they want!

:(

PEACE.

Frank
fedupwiththemess

Ashburn, VA

#16 Nov 18, 2010
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Two elderly people can't either, they're still allowed to marry.
Two infertile people can't either, they're still allowed to marry.
What's YOUR point?
The point is man goes with woman and woman goes with man...no other equation is right together. That is my point. Now get that.
fedupwiththemess

Ashburn, VA

#17 Nov 18, 2010
ltndncr59 wrote:
<quoted text>
My parents couldn't have kids together either. What's YOUR point?
However if GOD wanted to grant them a miracle they have the equation right which is man plus woman =Child. Not man plus man=ZERO.

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#18 Nov 18, 2010
fedupwiththemess wrote:
<quoted text>However if GOD wanted to grant them a miracle they have the equation right which is man plus woman =Child. Not man plus man=ZERO.
People don't have sex just to have children, idiot.
fedupwiththemess

Ashburn, VA

#19 Nov 18, 2010
whitefalcon1678 wrote:
<quoted text>
People don't have sex just to have children, idiot.
Yeah I know and your point is what? GOD gave a woman and a man marriage to have kids. He did not give two men a marriage at all for nothing.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#20 Nov 18, 2010
Thank goodness that our "FIERCE ADVOCATE" is on their side ! He will lay across the railroad tracks to defend their RIGHTS !

ALL HAIL OBAMANIAC®!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Nov 18, 2010
When the economy improves and the sheeple can get back to their contented cud-chewing of consumer products they'll be less likely to use us as scapegoats, and legislative improvements in our favor will be more possible ... IF ... we have the legislators in place to take advantage of their natural contented apathy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Haverhill Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Urban gangs seen moving into suburbs (Jun '06) Dec 6 Stephen D Clark 30
News Trial set for three Haverhill cops accused of c... (Mar '11) Nov 26 Henry 3
Local Politics Do you approve of James J. Fiorentini as ? Nov '17 Danilo Rosario 1
Wal Mart in Methuen Ma Oct '17 Dont Hang Up On Me 4
gordon (chuckie, charlie) lister..anybody know ... (Jun '10) Oct '17 Oceanbreeze 5
News Arrest Log: 8/8/2017 Oct '17 Unknowing 3
News N.H. judge says she closes eyes, but doesn't sl... (Feb '06) Sep '17 Stephen D Clark 248

Haverhill Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Haverhill Mortgages