Immigration servuce to recognize gay ...

Immigration servuce to recognize gay marriage from other states

There are 79 comments on the Yuma Sun story from Jul 28, 2013, titled Immigration servuce to recognize gay marriage from other states. In it, Yuma Sun reports that:

PHOENIX Gay Arizonans who legally wed to foreigners in other states will be able to use their status to gain a visa and a path to citizenship for their spouses living here even though Arizona won't recognize their union.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Yuma Sun.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#1 Jul 28, 2013
Federal rights, benefits and privileges, along with federal recognition of one's legal marriage SHOULD happen regardless of whether a State actually recognizes the marriage because sometimes a couple has to move for whatever reason and they should NOT become UNMARRIED just because of it......at the federal or state level!!!

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#2 Jul 28, 2013
Good news and Europa/Daniel P./FuFucksy, please shut up. We don't need to hear it.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#3 Jul 28, 2013
BTW, what is a "servuce?" Doesn't anyone proofread any longer?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Jul 28, 2013
JohnInToronto wrote:
BTW, what is a "servuce?" Doesn't anyone proofread any longer?
Not in Arizona.
Hoyt

Anonymous Proxy

#7 Jul 28, 2013
JohnInToronto wrote:
BTW, what is a "servuce?" Doesn't anyone proofread any longer?
Not queers. 99% of them are illiterate.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#8 Jul 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in Arizona.
Nor much anywhere else these days.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#9 Jul 28, 2013
This Immigration Service ruling could be the big breakthrough that automatically invalidates all state-level anti-gay constitutonal amendments and hate laws
.
With federally recognized and enforced legally married gay couples living in every state; the states no longer have a horse in the race
Big Boob Babe

Alpharetta, GA

#10 Jul 28, 2013
Hoyt wrote:
<quoted text>
Not queers. 99% of them are illiterate.
Are we making you moist?

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11 Jul 28, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
This Immigration Service ruling could be the big breakthrough that automatically invalidates all state-level anti-gay constitutonal amendments and hate laws
.
With federally recognized and enforced legally married gay couples living in every state; the states no longer have a horse in the race
I suspect the Immigration Service lacks authority overturn state laws.

Only the courts can do that.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#12 Jul 28, 2013
Bama Yankee wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect the Immigration Service lacks authority overturn state laws.
Only the courts can do that.
True
.
When state laws are trumped by the feds; it is up to each individual state to update or eliminate unenforceable state laws that are not in compliance

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#13 Jul 29, 2013
Hoyt wrote:
<quoted text>
Not queers. 99% of them are illiterate.
And your source for this revelatory piece of information?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#14 Jul 29, 2013
I wish our immigration service would follow our laws, instead of writing their own.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I wish our immigration service would follow our laws, instead of writing their own.
Earth to Brian, were you asleep when the US Supreme Court ruled on Windsor v United States? Immigration is a federal agency.

Do try to keep up.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I wish our immigration service would follow our laws, instead of writing their own.
You do realize that with the recent Supreme Court ruling, the federal government, including the INS, must now recognize the legal marriages of all Americans, don't you? They are merely setting up the rules to allow that to happen. Sorry.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#17 Jul 30, 2013
Immigration law is written by Congress, not the INS.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Immigration law is written by Congress, not the INS.
Both are at the federal level, and both must comply with federal law. After Windsor v United States that means the federal government acknowledges same sex marriages performed in jurisdictions that allow such unions.

Oh, and Brian, read this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marria...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Immigration law is written by Congress, not the INS.
Yes dear, the laws are written by Congress, the rules designed to carry out such laws are written by the agencies that those laws were written for. Understand now?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#20 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
Both are at the federal level, and both must comply with federal law. After Windsor v United States that means the federal government acknowledges same sex marriages performed in jurisdictions that allow such unions.
Oh, and Brian, read this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marria...
Windsor v United States applies to inheritance and tax law, not immigration law. Congress writes immigration law, they may set quotas or ban whoever they please. The case cited above was decided by government concession.

This is why we must vote to keep marriage one man and one woman.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#22 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Windsor v United States applies to inheritance and tax law, not immigration law. Congress writes immigration law, they may set quotas or ban whoever they please. The case cited above was decided by government concession.
This is why we must vote to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Sorry Charlie, try again. Windsor establishes that the federal government recognizes same sex marriages performed in states that allow them. There has additionally been a federal court ruling in Ohio holding that the state must recognize the same sex marriage of a couple who married in Maryland. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marria...

I am starting to think that you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You have certainly misinterpreted a myriad of legal decisions and legal concepts.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#23 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Windsor v United States applies to inheritance and tax law, not immigration law. Congress writes immigration law, they may set quotas or ban whoever they please. The case cited above was decided by government concession.
This is why we must vote to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Sorry Brian, but you'd be wrong......Windsor vs United States has to do with the Section 3 of DOMA and why it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

You might want to read the ruling to help educate yourself on why Section 3 is no longer in place!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 2 min LATER than WOODEN... 6,505
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 4 min Wondering 443
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 19 min Fa-Foxy 677
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 27 min Tre H 34,550
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 1 hr Your Ex 29
News Clerk to quit, cites 'moral conviction' 2 hr WasteWater 132
News Dennis Hastert Apparently Had Sex With Male Stu... 4 hr Poverty Sucks 39
More from around the web