Gay Married Man Gets Green Card

There are 734 comments on the EDGE story from Jul 3, 2013, titled Gay Married Man Gets Green Card. In it, EDGE reports that:

Late Friday, just two days after the US Supreme Court released their decision gutting the Defense of Marriage Act, a permanent visa, aka green card, was issued to Traian Popov, a Bulgarian man married to Florida-based club DJ Julian Marsh.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#497 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you stop repeating that defamation, I'll accept your apology.
I have already mentioned on several threads that I was mistaken and you are in fact NOT divorced. I don't care if my apology is accepted or not. It was offered as a gift. Too bad you can't exchange it.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do you want to argue same sex marriage would affect divorce? How else would divorce matter?
See, right away you want to dictate my answer. Same Sex Marriage would probably have little impact on the over all divorce rate of heterosexuals as it doesn't impact heterosexual marriages any more than a divorce of a heterosexual couples jeopardizes anyone else's marriage.

Your "segregated marriage" definition ignores the divorce issue completely. It also ignores those marriages where one spouse dies, from war, an "act of god" or a health issue.

I have no problem with you not wanting a same sex marriage for yourself. Just as I have no problem with two heterosexuals being married as long as they are married under the same rules gays and lesbians are married under.

You keep making claims that if SSM passes then everyone in the State will face lawsuits. That's a bit much even from you.

You'll come up with any lame brained slogan or theory to support your homophobia. Why? Because you know you have no reasonable LEGAL excuse NOT to follow the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution.

So you whine about NOM's tax forms becoming public. Even though as a Non Profit those tax forms are part of the public record. You whine about children, even though every study over the last 10 years shows that children in SS households actually do as well or BETTER than those in "gender diverse" couples.(BTW if two men marry and one is a drag queen that REALLY messes up your neat little "gender segregated marriage" bit.
somoney

Santa Ana, CA

#498 Jul 27, 2013
Stop caring so much about who marries who. People need to mind their own f__kin business and mind their own.I don't agree with all this gay sh1t but. I'm sure I'm not perfect so hey life is short get over it biatch!!!!!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#499 Jul 28, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
Divorce doesn't matter to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?
Divorce adds to the sanctity of marriage by avoiding trapped marriages, abusive marriages and forced marriages. Divorce is the sanctity of free will, justice when one or both partners refuse to honor the terms of marriage.

Divorce adds the sanctity of consent to marriage.

.
Gay And Proud wrote:
You'd better inform the Vatican as I think they missed the memo.
Like I care about your religion? You believe what you want, I'll advocate my goals.

.
Gay And Proud wrote:
And by the way, that statement alone does more to undermine your credibility for your crusade to protect heterosexual marriage than anything anyone else has posted so far.
There's no such thing as heterosexual marriage; homosexuals have always married under the same laws and rites as everyone else. Integrated sex marriage define all written marriage law, up to the 21st century. Segregated sex marriage are a novel institution, let's wait a few generations before leaping off a cliff like lemmings.

This is a big step, telling government it can enforce the standard gender doesn't matter and it may prosecute and sue those who refuse to behave to that standard. Take the Washington florist who wouldn't service a same sex wedding because of religious conviction. Would the government have the right to prosecute a businesswoman who didn't want to service a G.O.P. convention? Why give government so much power, loss of individual sovereignty and freedom?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#500 Jul 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
...See, right away you want to dictate my answer.
I apologize, DNF likes to be the one who dictates.

.
DNF wrote:
Same Sex Marriage would probably have little impact on the over all divorce rate of heterosexuals as it doesn't impact heterosexual marriages any more than a divorce of a heterosexual couples jeopardizes anyone else's marriage.
The problem is: rewriting marriage law to license two men or two women for marriage jeopardizes everyone, not just me personally. Nobody cares about how you live, we care about how government treats us and we don't want a nanny state imposing unisex standards of conduct, suing private businessmen, punishing military chaplains for professing faith. Down with same sex marriage AND radical secularism.

.
DNF wrote:
Your "segregated marriage" definition ignores the divorce issue completely. It also ignores... issue[s].
Sure, it ignores those issues because it doesn't apply. Bad is bad and integration is good. Forcing government to foster segregated sex marriages won't do anyone good.

.
DNF wrote:
I have no problem with you not wanting a same sex marriage for yourself.
Nor do I have a problem with your not wanting traditional marriage and voicing your opinion. It's when you pretend your political goals are rights; that never existed before the 20th Century, in written law, I get skeptical.

I don't hate gays, I love them like I love all. Every human being deserves dignity, when you forget that fact and act like offended victims who can say or do whatever they believes furthers their political goals, where's the love? Reminding everyone of the facts of life is tough love. We are divided male/female and marriage heals the breach.

.
DNF wrote:
Just as I have no problem with two heterosexuals being married as long as they are married under the same rules gays and lesbians are married under.
They are and vice versa. Sex integrated marriage provide society with posterity; sex segregated marriage don't, but they bring new disunity, imbalance, prejudice, apartheid, separation and political strife.

.
DNF wrote:
You keep making claims that if SSM passes then everyone in the State will face lawsuits. That's a bit much even from you.
I give the examples in Washington and Colorado; care to discuss?

.
DNF wrote:
You'll come up with any lame brained slogan or theory to support your homophobia. Why? Because you know you have no reasonable LEGAL excuse NOT to follow the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes there's no male/female equality right in our Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification because states don't want gender blind government and same sex marriage. The 14th Amendment is about repealing the evils of slavery and disenfranchisement; homosexuals have always passed to avoid such evils.

.
DNF wrote:
So you whine about NOM's tax forms becoming public. Even though as a Non Profit those tax forms are part of the public record.
Not the 2008 donor list (Schedule B) posted by the Huffington Post, attributed to the HRC and blamed on an IRS whistleblower. Obama's chasing every whistleblower but this one, too bad Snowden's not gay.

.
DNF wrote:
You whine about children, even though every study over the last 10 years shows that children in SS households actually do as well or BETTER than those in "gender diverse" couples.
^^^Utter nonsense, I neither dispute nor attend these short term, small scale and politically biased 'study'. The only point I make about the children:

Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either a mother or a father.

.
DNF wrote:
(BTW if two men marry and one is a drag queen that REALLY messes up your neat little "gender segregated marriage" bit.
In what universe isn't a drag queen a man?

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#501 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Segregated sex marriage are a novel institution, let's wait a few generations before leaping off a cliff like lemmings.
Sorry Brian, but it is JUST marriage regardless of the gender make-up.......so in essence Segregated sex marriage DOESN'T exist either.......it would still JUST be a marriage EITHER involving an opposite-sex couple or a Same-Sex Couple........and no matter how much you want to insist that we should wait until at sometime you feel it would be okay.....WELL, IT'S JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN......every Gay and Lesbian couple who has gotten married since 2004 are JUST AS MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as you are!!!

The florist in Washington State VIOLATED the State's ANTI-DISCRIMINATION policies and that is the REASON she is being sued........and though I would tend to agree it would be easier to just find another florist......WHEN DOES THE DISCRIMINATION END? Would it be okay for that same florist to deny an inter-faith couple who happens to be of the opposite-sex and getting married flowers as well?

See, you make NO SENSE because no matter what......DISCRIMINATION is still DISCRIMINATION and if it's based on one's personal religious convictions.....then GET OUT OF A PUBLIC BUSINESS.......or just state that you will not supply flowers for ANY wedding.......that would end this lawsuit.......she can not pick and choose......that is the LAW!!!

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#502 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nor do I have a problem with your not wanting traditional marriage and voicing your opinion. It's when you pretend your political goals are rights; that never existed before the 20th Century, in written law, I get skeptical.
You have been shown that Marital rights existed for male Same-Sex Couples prior to the 20th century.....just because you opt not to agree or accept it DOESN'T mean it didn't happen or take place and that information has been recorded in previous centuries!!!

It is YOU who keep insisting that your way is correct and right......it is you who wants to discriminate against the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples because you can't stand that they are as legally married as you are........all of which happen to be YOUR PROBLEM!!!

Section 3 of DOMA is OFFICIALLY gone........soon, so will Section 2........leaving DOMA nothing but an empty document!!!

By 2016.......we could have a total of 22 states with Marriage Equality......that equates to 44%........and if just one of the cases should reach SCOTUS again by that time......we could have Marriage Equality in all 50 States.....what will you do then?

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#503 Jul 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

The florist in Washington State VIOLATED the State's ANTI-DISCRIMINATION policies and that is the REASON she is being sued........and though I would tend to agree it would be easier to just find another florist......WHEN DOES THE DISCRIMINATION END? Would it be okay for that same florist to deny an inter-faith couple who happens to be of the opposite-sex and getting married flowers as well?
!!!
This will be one of the most interesting cases to reach the Supreme Court because I am certain it will due to Free Exercise Clause.

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#504 Jul 28, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
This will be one of the most interesting cases to reach the Supreme Court because I am certain it will due to Free Exercise Clause.
Sorry, but she has violated an ANTI-DISCRIMINATION policy.......and though there is a Free Exercise Clause(you might want to read about it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Free_Exercise_Clause).....sh e will pretty much face the same sanctions as the photographer in New Mexico......a person running a PUBLIC business DOES NOT have the right to decide who they will serve regarding RACE, RELIGION, GENDER OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION......she can refuse service based on health regulations like no shoes or shirts.......but she will lose this case......she didn't have to invoke her religious beliefs and had NOT done so previously with this particular customer over 9 years.

I guess it would be okay for her to discriminate against an inter-faith couple as well, right?

One has the right to believe as they see fit, that same religious belief DOES NOT apply to running a PUBLIC business!!!

Why do you think the passed Marriage Equality Acts by various legislators have very comprehensive Religious Exceptions in them? NONE of them protect the florist, cake maker or the photographer....hell, even the Church in New Jersey lost over the "PUBLIC" use of a Pavilion!!!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#505 Jul 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but she has violated an ANTI-DISCRIMINATION policy.......and though there is a Free Exercise Clause(you might want to read about it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Free_Exercise_Clause).....sh e will pretty much face the same sanctions as the photographer in New Mexico......a person running a PUBLIC business DOES NOT have the right to decide who they will serve regarding RACE, RELIGION, GENDER OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION......she can refuse service based on health regulations like no shoes or shirts.......but she will lose this case......she didn't have to invoke her religious beliefs and had NOT done so previously with this particular customer over 9 years.
I guess it would be okay for her to discriminate against an inter-faith couple as well, right?
One has the right to believe as they see fit, that same religious belief DOES NOT apply to running a PUBLIC business!!!
Why do you think the passed Marriage Equality Acts by various legislators have very comprehensive Religious Exceptions in them? NONE of them protect the florist, cake maker or the photographer....hell, even the Church in New Jersey lost over the "PUBLIC" use of a Pavilion!!!
I agree the case will be lost all the way to the Supreme Court however the highest court in the land will rule based on Free Exercise Clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" " whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities" What is the "compelling interest" in restricting by enacting a law that specifically targets religious activities is what will need to be answered.

“RELAX”

Level 8

Since: Dec 12

EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT

#506 Jul 28, 2013
After the florist loses her right to refuse service to same sex couples, same sex couples will have to beware of what they get. A wedding cake filled with public hair, out of focus wedding photos, catered meals filled with e coli bacteria and floral arrangements made of noxious weeds. Of course they can always sue in small claims court for a refund.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#507 Jul 28, 2013
-Dont Panic- wrote:
After the florist loses her right to refuse service to same sex couples, same sex couples will have to beware of what they get. A wedding cake filled with public hair, out of focus wedding photos, catered meals filled with e coli bacteria and floral arrangements made of noxious weeds. Of course they can always sue in small claims court for a refund.
I don't know if the florist will or will not loses her right to refuse service. I do see this case setting precedence throughout the country.

Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? This case will truly answer this question because the Supreme Court has sole power to interpret Free Exercise Clause.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#508 Jul 28, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
I don't know if the florist will or will not loses her right to refuse service. I do see this case setting precedence throughout the country.
Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? This case will truly answer this question because the Supreme Court has sole power to interpret Free Exercise Clause.
Since the ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not target a specific religious practice or belief, these business owners do not have a leg to stand on under the free exercise clause. The state has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination in the public square, regardless of religious beliefs. See: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#509 Jul 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Since the ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not target a specific religious practice or belief, these business owners do not have a leg to stand on under the free exercise clause. The state has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination in the public square, regardless of religious beliefs. See: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Yes, I am aware of this however the Supreme Court has not ever ruled on such a case and why I see it having such precedence. Free Exercise Clause most certainly does have grounds in the florist case. She is clearly exercising that right when she refused business based on her religious convictions. "Public Square" is key and you fail to see that.

Since: Apr 08

Rockwood, Canada

#510 Jul 28, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am aware of this however the Supreme Court has not ever ruled on such a case and why I see it having such precedence. Free Exercise Clause most certainly does have grounds in the florist case. She is clearly exercising that right when she refused business based on her religious convictions. "Public Square" is key and you fail to see that.
Should the florist be allowed to refuse service to customers based on their race or ethnicity with the excuse that it's part of a firmly held religious belief?

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#511 Jul 28, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
Yes, I am aware of this however the Supreme Court has not ever ruled on such a case and why I see it having such precedence. Free Exercise Clause most certainly does have grounds in the florist case. She is clearly exercising that right when she refused business based on her religious convictions. "Public Square" is key and you fail to see that.
While the SCOTUS has yet to rule in a case such as this, the existing precedent is clearly against them. Since the anti-discrimination laws are not singling out specific religious practices and beliefs, the free exercise clause is useless to these folk. Under the law, businesses are places of public accommodation (that's the "Public Square") and as such, are not free to discriminate based on any suspect classification covered under the law, whether they say God approves or not. Sorry.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#512 Jul 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While the SCOTUS has yet to rule in a case such as this, the existing precedent is clearly against them. Since the anti-discrimination laws are not singling out specific religious practices and beliefs, the free exercise clause is useless to these folk. Under the law, businesses are places of public accommodation (that's the "Public Square") and as such, are not free to discriminate based on any suspect classification covered under the law, whether they say God approves or not. Sorry.
Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? Under the Free Exercise Clause the florist (business owner), has the right to exercise her religious beliefs regardless if you agree with them or not. I have not read a case where the Supreme Court has classified the florist's act to refuse business based on her religious practices as discrimination as covered by the law. This is the first case of its kind. IMO it will clarify clearly how the court views Free Exercise Clause as well as business owners private rights.

It is a very important case to the private sector business owner who have less than 15 employees under federal law.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#513 Jul 28, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Should the florist be allowed to refuse service to customers based on their race or ethnicity with the excuse that it's part of a firmly held religious belief?
Race meets the "compelling interest" standard in Free Exercise Clause cases.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#514 Jul 28, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Race meets the "compelling interest" standard in Free Exercise Clause cases.
Why should people of certain races not be discriminated against, but it's okay to bully people of different sexual orientations?

“RELAX”

Level 8

Since: Dec 12

EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT

#515 Jul 28, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should people of certain races not be discriminated against, but it's okay to bully people of different sexual orientations?
It is harder to hide ones race or disability then it is to keep your sexual orientation to yourself.

If you tell someone that you are gay then don't be surprised if they ask you for advise on interior design of something gay like that.

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#516 Jul 28, 2013
-Dont Panic- wrote:
<quoted text>
It is harder to hide ones race or disability then it is to keep your sexual orientation to yourself.
If you tell someone that you are gay then don't be surprised if they ask you for advise on interior design of something gay like that.
Not totally true......Gays and Lesbians can't always "HIDE" who they are......and no matter what.....ONE STILL CAN'T DISCRIMINATE against Gays and Lesbians especially when ANTI-DISCRIMINATION policies exist!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Tea Party affiliate FreedomWorks refocuses, cha... 37 min serfs up 22
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 1 hr Sweepyface 138,193
News Scott Walker Approved Pro-Immigration Reform Lo... 1 hr wild child 7
News Three immigration bills to watch at the Nevada ... 1 hr Local 8
News What Should Citizenship Mean? 2 hr Memo From Turner 46
News GOP bill blocks pregnant immigrants from enteri... 4 hr sandy1 21
News Revenge Voting? Hell Yea (Nov '12) 6 hr Truth is might 9,368
More from around the web