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

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#66 Aug 2, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Only generally.
After a Court Decision like this, the various administrative areas get their heads together with Administration Legal Counsel to determine the implications and applications of the Court Decision with respect to their departmental policies. This can take quite a long time; especially when there are additional Cases coming down the turnpike. The phone lines are burning (as is the midnight oil) with calls among the various sub-department supervisors all trying to come to a consensus understanding.
I've been through similar occurrences more than a few times. Nobody is dragging their feet. Consensus takes time. Likely interpretations are going all the way down to frontline staff meetings, and reactions and input are making their way back up the chain.
6 months to a year is pretty much standard for minor changes.
This one isn't a minor change.
Okay, thanks.

So, right now I guess we really don't know some of the answers.

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#67 Aug 2, 2013
Okay, this story just popped up...

Visa changes for same-sex couples

Visa applications from same-sex spouses will now receive equal consideration to those from opposite-sex couples.

Secretary of State John Kerry made the announcement in London Friday.

Kerry also said same-sex marriages would be legally valid under U.S. immigration law, as long as they were performed in places with legalized same-sex marriage.

The State Secretary said the new practices are in line with the State Department's responsibility to promote democracy and human rights around the world.

Full Story...
http://www.kfvs12.com/story/23033299/visa-cha...

So, I guess same-sex couples will be allowed to immigrate together just the same as a heterosexual couple.

Cool.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#68 Aug 3, 2013
Jaxxon wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, thanks.
So, right now I guess we really don't know some of the answers.
Apparently, the system had already been in discussions. This is FAST.

lol

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#69 Aug 3, 2013
No written law allows same sex marriage before the 21st Century. The same emperor who supposedly "formalized same-sex union" also married his horse.

Same sex marriage isn't just novel in written law, the fall of the Roman empire is proof it harms society.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#70 Aug 3, 2013
lides wrote:
Just how dumb do you want us to think you are? Now you are just trolling....
Do you favor Russia's restrictions on free speech? I don't; I stand with every gay and lesbian against real oppression; not for rewriting marriage laws for everyone.

Level 1

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#71 Aug 3, 2013
fr Hoyt:

>Not queers. 99% of them are illiterate.<

FAILED pre-school reading, did we? Mommy ordered you "Hooked on Phonics". Get with it. Kindergarten starts pretty soon again.

Level 1

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#72 Aug 3, 2013
fr Brian_G:

>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<

Oh, really? Why don't you move out of the country, say to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or an iceberg in the North Atlantic? There you could have your own little kingdom, complete with a "fort" that you made from sheets and the sofa cushions. I'm sure you'd be much happier. Heaven knows, we would be.

Level 1

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#73 Aug 3, 2013
fr Brian_G"

>That's a half-truth, SCOTUS found Sections One and Two of DOMA, perfectly Constitutional. If your immigrant same sex mate doesn't qualify under current law, the INS may not change the status willy-nilly. Sue like Windsor did; let's see what SCOTUS says then.<

DOMA, along with Prop H8, were found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and tossed out. DO try to keep up; you're slowing the class down.

Level 1

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#74 Aug 3, 2013
fr Brian_G:

>Same sex marriage is like criminal charges against showing a gay pride flag in Russia....<

Apples to oranges. Once AGAIN, sweet cheeks, you prove to be incapable of sticking to the topic at hand. Run along now. You're interrupting the adults here with your little temper tantrums.

Level 1

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#75 Aug 3, 2013
fr Brian _G:

>... I stand with every gay and lesbian against real oppression...<

No, you don't.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#76 Aug 3, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Bri...
DOMA, along with Prop H8, were found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and tossed out. DO try to keep up; you're slowing the class down.
The Supreme Court didn't decide on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, they ruled on jurisdiction. The State didn't defend Proposition 8, so they lost.

Same sex marriage is like a government that won't follow its own laws.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#77 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Supreme Court didn't decide on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, they ruled on jurisdiction. The State didn't defend Proposition 8, so they lost.
Same sex marriage is like a government that won't follow its own laws.
They did, however rule that DOMA was unconstitutional, and the rational that was stated does apply to the case in CA, even if they did not rule on that case's merits.

And please explain your last line, here. It doesn't seem to make a bit of sense. My marriage is in no way a government, good or bad. Is yours? How would that work?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#78 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No written law allows same sex marriage before the 21st Century....
But many laws allowed slavery before that. Kept women as chattel. Forced womem to pay estate taxes on their own property. All sorts of nasty laws.

Laws change, and often for the better.

Go figure.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#79 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do you favor Russia's restrictions on free speech? I don't; I stand with every gay and lesbian against real oppression; not for rewriting marriage laws for everyone.
But you are one of those doing the oppressing. You want to harm gay couples, harm their children, and directly harm gay youth. And all because you don't like the idea of gay Americans having the sane basic civil and human rights you have.

For no rational reason.

So, you are standing against yourself? How does that work?

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#80 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No written law allows same sex marriage before the 21st Century. The same emperor who supposedly "formalized same-sex union" also married his horse.
Same sex marriage isn't just novel in written law, the fall of the Roman empire is proof it harms society.
When the Roman Empire feel it had already been forcibly converted to Christianity and declared homosexuality a crime.

Crack a book...or a window.

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#81 Aug 3, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, the system had already been in discussions. This is FAST.
lol
That's what I thought, but I see it as good news.

Think about this.

Let's say a legally married gay couple immigrates to America (with the federal government recognizing their marriage as valid) and for whatever reason they end up living in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

All of the sudden the state says, "no, you're not really married".

That sets up a real conflict and I don't think it works out in the states favor.

In the short term, we could even see a situation where the state could be forced by the courts to give full recognition to the marriage of an immigrant couple while the state continues to tell it's native born, citizen residents, "no, you are not really married".

It may take a while for the dust to settle and all of this to get sorted out, but like I said earlier, state by state recognition will be over very soon.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#82 Aug 3, 2013
Under the common law, the recognition of a marriage from state to state has been a matter of comity, rather than requirement. Until the early 20th century, this favored the state of residence, your marriage was valid unless our public policy excludes it. This began to change in 1953, when New York's high court got invited into determining the on-going validity of a legally entered into marriage between an uncle and his somehow considerably older niece, who had then passed away some time later. It was entered into in Rhode Island, which for some reason, had a loophole allowing for any marriage not specifically prohibited in the Jewish law. Guess what family combo isn't specifically mentioned as a no go? New York's court ruled that since they were considered legal residents of Rhode Island when they entered into a marriage that Rhode Island was standing by as having been legal when they did it, it really didn't matter who freaked out later, it was still a legal marriage. Most other state courts have voluntarily gone along with this notion and actual legal challenges to a marriage's continuing legal validity by a state (as opposed to by the families) are actually rarer than hen's teeth. The only recent case I can recall was Nebraska going after the guy who married his 14 year-old girlfriend legally in Kansas before moving back to Nebraska where they frown on such acts and that was a about a decade ago now. The states passing all these darn amendments are mucking all that comity up when it comes to the many, many same sex couples other states are marrying. When comity fails, call in the law. The good news is that the first case that kills any of the remaining amendments, kills the rest.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#83 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No written law allows same sex marriage before the 21st Century. The same emperor who supposedly "formalized same-sex union" also married his horse.
Same sex marriage isn't just novel in written law, the fall of the Roman empire is proof it harms society.
The "Fall of Rome", as you describe it, never happened.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#84 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No written law allows same sex marriage before the 21st Century.
And? Slavery was allowable in the US until 150 years ago. Historical precedent is not necessarily a good thing.
Brian_G wrote:
The same emperor who supposedly "formalized same-sex union" also married his horse.
a) This is something of a non-sequitur.
b) The US doesn't have emperors, so this clearly isn't applicable to the topic at hand.
c) You are not so bright.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage isn't just novel in written law, the fall of the Roman empire is proof it harms society.
Brian, you are an idiot, not only that, you are utterly incapable of offering a single specific injury caused by allowing same sex couples to marry.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do you favor Russia's restrictions on free speech? I don't; I stand with every gay and lesbian against real oppression; not for rewriting marriage laws for everyone.
Brian, you are confusing the issue. Allowing homosexuals free speech while denying them equal protection of the laws is utterly hypocritical.

So once again, you illustrate that you are a disingenuous, hypocritical, bigoted, liar.

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.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 3 min Taletha 148,467
News President Donald Trump 4 min Taletha 22
Has Donald Trump Already Failed Us? (Nov '16) 6 min Taletha 16,439
News RNC blasts Cory Booker for 'mansplaining' doubl... 8 min Lawrence Wolf 14
News Leaders say Trump presidency is at odds with ML... 13 min spocko 267
News Illegal Immigration and Crime 24 min buildawallworkshop 2
News With Congress divided, US governemnt heads for ... 51 min spocko 32
More from around the web