Same-sex couple forced apart

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

One of my friends is in this situation -- he's American, and his partner is British. They have a civil partnership in the UK and live together there legally. It was a no-brainer for them and apparently very straightforward.

[Peter&Jaime 1]

No matter how you feel about the issue, the thread title is simply not true. The couple is not "forced apart". One desired option among several, is simply not a legal option for being together. They can be together in other places or under other circumstances but not through the US spouse or fiance visa process.

By your title's logic, most of us have been "forced apart" for the duration of the immigration process.

Such exaggerations hurt rather than help any cause.

I just took the title from the CNN video. Everyone can come to their own opinion.

[iLoveAPolishGirl 0]

Well, the way I see it, there are really two issues here... should the US allow some for of partnership sponsoring AND/OR should gay marriage be recognized by USA. The first would be a completely new basis for immigration sponsorship. The second is currently an unresolved issue in the USA and I do NOT believe immigration is the proper place to tackling it.

Once same-sex marriage is approved by 26 states (or possibly even before) it is pretty certain that a case will be brought to the Supreme Court that will win.

As per partnership sponsoring, that would require a WHOLE lot of discussion and debate!!! Should it be restricted to same sex??? Why??? Would it pass anti-discrimination laws if so?

Lots of questions without answers in this issue.

dvc

Edited June 6, 2009 by iLoveAPolishGirl

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Once same-sex marriage is approved by 26 states (or possibly even before) it is pretty certain that a case will be brought to the Supreme Court that will win.

Nope, it doesn't work that way. States don't cede their rights to the federal government just because a slight majority of the states pass laws that take the same position on an issue.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 makes it clear that the federal government CANNOT force any state to recognize same sex marriage simply because it's recognized in another state. It also makes it clear that the federal government WILL NOT recognize same sex marriage, even though it may be recognized in the state where the same sex couple were wed. So far, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any case challenging the DOMA act. That's not likely to change anytime soon, since the DOMA act doesn't make same sex marriage illegal, nor could it - the federal government doesn't grant marriages.

Before this could become a federal issue, congress would have to repeal the DOMA act. This is possible because President Obama would like to have it repealed. After that, it's highly unlikely you're going to see any federal law that forces states to make same sex marriage legal. In order to do that, the federal government would have to seize authority over marriage from the states. Even states that currently allow same sex marriage would not tolerate that. A more likely scenario is that DOMO will be repealed, the majority of states will gradually begin to allow same sex marriage, and the federal government will agree to recognize a marriage provided it is recognized in the state where the marriage took place.

As I said before, some states will probably NEVER legalize same sex marriage.

[iLoveAPolishGirl 0]

You obviously don't understand the difference in powers assigned to the 3 branches of US gov't or common precedence used by the Supreme court in such cases. Often, once a significant majority of the states have recognized a 'right' the Supreme Court will recognize it and it then becomes the law of the land. The Supreme Court is not bound by federal statute passed by congress if it deems it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the final say in such matters. It can override any legislation passed by Congress, policies set by the Executive branch or even individual laws and policies of states.

dvc

[justashooter 430]

You obviously don't understand the difference in powers assigned to the 3 branches of US gov't or common precedence used by the Supreme court in such cases. Often, once a significant majority of the states have recognized a 'right' the Supreme Court will recognize it and it then becomes the law of the land. The Supreme Court is not bound by federal statute passed by congress if it deems it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the final say in such matters. It can override any legislation passed by Congress, policies set by the Executive branch or even individual laws and policies of states.

dvc

you obviously do not understand the 14th amendment incorporation principle. read up on it before you post on this subject again. you also obviously do not understand how the supreme court works, so lemme splain it to you:

someone gets appointed to SCOTUS.

they get an office and bunch of clerks.

they come to the office once in awhile and tell their clerks to look into "stuff".

they pay attention to or ignore the results of their clerks efforts at their discretion.

they take positions based upon the existing case law and statute, or their personal opinion.

they write decisions based upon caselaw, or their own personal desires.

they retire when they're too old to enjoy it anymore.

[bhajishah 4]

Oh wah!! did anderson cooper finda foreign mate?

[scandal 951]

Once same-sex marriage is approved by 26 states (or possibly even before) it is pretty certain that a case will be brought to the Supreme Court that will win.

Nope, it doesn't work that way. States don't cede their rights to the federal government just because a slight majority of the states pass laws that take the same position on an issue.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 makes it clear that the federal government CANNOT force any state to recognize same sex marriage simply because it's recognized in another state. It also makes it clear that the federal government WILL NOT recognize same sex marriage, even though it may be recognized in the state where the same sex couple were wed. So far, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any case challenging the DOMA act. That's not likely to change anytime soon, since the DOMA act doesn't make same sex marriage illegal, nor could it - the federal government doesn't grant marriages.

Before this could become a federal issue, congress would have to repeal the DOMA act. This is possible because President Obama would like to have it repealed. After that, it's highly unlikely you're going to see any federal law that forces states to make same sex marriage legal. In order to do that, the federal government would have to seize authority over marriage from the states. Even states that currently allow same sex marriage would not tolerate that. A more likely scenario is that DOMO will be repealed, the majority of states will gradually begin to allow same sex marriage, and the federal government will agree to recognize a marriage provided it is recognized in the state where the marriage took place.

As I said before, some states will probably NEVER legalize same sex marriage.

Good post - very good explanation of the current status of this important issue.

someone gets appointed to SCOTUS.

they get an office and bunch of clerks.

they come to the office once in awhile and tell their clerks to look into "stuff".

they pay attention to or ignore the results of their clerks efforts at their discretion.

they take positions based upon the existing case law and statute, or their personal opinion.

they write decisions based upon caselaw, or their own personal desires.

they retire when they're too old to enjoy it anymore.

Well now there's a really helpful contribution to the topic. Not. About what we've learned to expect from you.

[Susita 175]

you obviously do not understand the 14th amendment incorporation principle. read up on it before you post on this subject again. you also obviously do not understand how the supreme court works, so lemme splain it to you:

someone gets appointed to SCOTUS.

they get an office and bunch of clerks.

they come to the office once in awhile and tell their clerks to look into "stuff".

they pay attention to or ignore the results of their clerks efforts at their discretion.

they take positions based upon the existing case law and statute, or their personal opinion.

they write decisions based upon caselaw, or their own personal desires.

they retire when they're too old to enjoy it anymore.

Hey so, after that, you left out how they collect their pension and social security and buy a condo in Florida and join the local seniors club.

Yeah cause that's about just as important as useful as the garbage you just fed us.

I think I need you to splain it to me again I don't get it.

[iLoveAPolishGirl 0]

ou obviously do not understand the 14th amendment incorporation principle.

Ah, are you, perchance, refering to ...

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-a...bria-7-4-b.html

By 1937, freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition had all been "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment's due process clause. This meant that these First Amendment freedoms were now also part of the 14th Amendment, which limited state laws and actions. The Supreme Court had yet to explain why some rights from the Bill of Rights had been "incorporated" while others had not......

... hate to tell you, but this validates my argument -- for it is the supreme court that is responsible for interpreting the constitution and, thus, derived this 'principle' :D

The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 makes it clear that the federal government CANNOT force any state

If this act is challenged in court, the Supreme Court will decide on the constitutionality of the act itself. Sorry, you are wrong.

States don't cede their rights to the federal government...

The constitution describes what areas are the exclusive domain of state gov. If not explicitly assigned to the states, then Congress may pass laws if it so wishes, which the states MUST then abide. If there is a question on the constitutionality of any such federal legislation, it must be decided ultimately by the Supreme Court, not the states themselves, otherwise the issue will simply remain unresolved.

In short, in all such cases, the Supreme Court has final say... not congress, not the presidency, not the states.

There are numerous examples, but Roe v Wade is probably the most widely known.

dvc

Edited June 8, 2009 by iLoveAPolishGirl