Oops. Poster Couple for "Gay" Rights Is Getting Divorced

[kittylondon 47]

and you need government to tell you this? You need government to validate how you feel about someone?

Kind of pathetic if that's the case.

how about in the case of visas - a gay USC is not able to petition for his/her partner to join them. in this case i bet they do not WANT the government to validate how they feel about each other, but yes they do "need" it do, since without it they can never be together. the system is pathetic, and you're disgusting homophobia is too.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Of course you don't need the government to validate how you feel about someone - if that's all it was, why would straight people ever get civilly married? However, the government provides rights that come with marriage and one of those rights is equitable distribution of property upon dissolution. I don't think any of us here need the government to tell us who to love and how to feel about them, but it's ironic that you say this on an immigration forum where the vast majority of people do need the government to recognize their relationship in order to be together. The government doesn't regulate the emotions, but they do regulate the laws. Obviously.

I see, so you need the government to write a contract for you? You don't have the ability to do this on your own?

I can write a will and testament and leave my property to whomever I wish. I don't need the government to tell me how to do that.

The moment you ask for government to be involved in your life, is the moment you're going to be discriminated against in one way or another. Be it on race, gender, creed, etc..

[Obama 2012 1,714]

how about in the case of visas - a gay USC is not able to petition for his/her partner to join them. in this case i bet they do not WANT the government to validate how they feel about each other, but yes they do "need" it do, since without it they can never be together. the system is pathetic, and you're disgusting homophobia is too.

#1 - you need to spend a little more time around here before calling me a homophobe. Calling me a homophobe makes you look like an idiot.

#2 - The last time I checked moving to the United States wasn't the only option. Rememebr your spouse has a home that he/she comes from. The fact that you (or they) are unwilling to move to where you two can be together speaks volumes of that relationship. If you truly love each other, you make do with the cards that were dealt to you or you find a way to be together elsewhere. When there's a will there's a way.

[sciencenerd 56]

I see, so you need the government to write a contract for you? You don't have the ability to do this on your own?

I can write a will and testament and leave my property to whomever I wish. I don't need the government to tell me how to do that.

The moment you ask for government to be involved in your life, is the moment you're going to be discriminated against in one way or another. Be it on race, gender, creed, etc..

Contracts don't provide for everything. And straight people don't have to write contracts for every little thing, why should gay people? Not to mention that you appear to have come over via a fiance visa (or brought a fiance over). You don't exactly have room to talk. Straight people can wax poetic about marriage just being a piece of paper and the government intruding on your relationships - it's easy to speak that way when you have the right to get married. I could not have lived in the U.S. with my partner had we not been able to legally get married and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. Try writing a contract that covers that.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Contracts don't provide for everything. And straight people don't have to write contracts for every little thing, why should gay people? Not to mention that you appear to have come over via a fiance visa (or brought a fiance over). You don't exactly have room to talk. Straight people can wax poetic about marriage just being a piece of paper and the government intruding on your relationships - it's easy to speak that way when you have the right to get married. I could not have lived in the U.S. with my partner had we not been able to legally get married and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. Try writing a contract that covers that.

Your marriage isn't recognized by the Federal government. It's recognized by the state you live in. The government requires proof from the state to process your application. They don't vaidate anything unless they suspect it's a sham. All they really are looking for is proof that a serious relationship exists. The Feds aren't in the marriage business, nor do they want to be.

Contracts do provide for everything. They provide for as much or as little as you want them to. I do have plenty of room to talk because I have been a proponent for years of getting marriage away from government entirely. Your sexual orientation doesn't matter. Marriage is none of the government's damn business and it sure as hell isn't the business of the Feds.

Also you say you could not have lived HERE, but what about there? Ever think about that. On top of that there are plenty of other visas out there to get into this country with. You don't need a K1 or CR1 to do it with.

[Danno 1,228]

Contracts don't provide for everything. And straight people don't have to write contracts for every little thing, why should gay people? Not to mention that you appear to have come over via a fiance visa (or brought a fiance over). You don't exactly have room to talk. Straight people can wax poetic about marriage just being a piece of paper and the government intruding on your relationships - it's easy to speak that way when you have the right to get married. I could not have lived in the U.S. with my partner had we not been able to legally get married and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. Try writing a contract that covers that.

What should we do about those who come from countries where a man has several wives, is it right the Gov't makes him claim only one to immigrate here?

[luckytxn 2,264]

What should we do about those who come from countries where a man has several wives, is it right the Gov't makes him claim only one to immigrate here?

Forbidding Polygamy is an intrusion of religious beliefs. Same as gay marriage.

[sciencenerd 56]

Your marriage isn't recognized by the Federal government. It's recognized by the state you live in. The government requires proof from the state to process your application. They don't vaidate anything unless they suspect it's a sham. All they really are looking for is proof that a serious relationship exists. The Feds aren't in the marriage business, nor do they want to be.

Contracts do provide for everything. They provide for as much or as little as you want them to. I do have plenty of room to talk because I have been a proponent for years of getting marriage away from government entirely. Your sexual orientation doesn't matter. Marriage is none of the government's damn business and it sure as hell isn't the business of the Feds.

Also you say you could not have lived HERE, but what about there? Ever think about that. On top of that there are plenty of other visas out there to get into this country with. You don't need a K1 or CR1 to do it with.

The federal government does recognize my marriage. Immigration discrimination wouldn't occur if the feds weren't in the business of marriage - they don't recognize many legal marriages that are recognized by the state a person resides in (ie: marriages between two people of the same sex). I also get tax benefits from the IRS recognizing my marriage - also benefits that the federal government chooses to deny some married couples. Validation and recognition are two different things. The federal government sees a same-sex married couple legally as complete strangers while they see my wife and I as a family - you can't tell me that the federal government treats us the same or just follows state law when that's not the case.

You don't have room to talk because you are benefiting from the government recognizing your marriage. Regardless of your personal belief that government should stay out of marriage completely (which I actually agree with 100% in an ideal world), you are gaining a benefit from the federal government acknowledging a familial relationship between you and your spouse. I would not have thought twice about moving to Canada to be with my spouse. We chose the U.S. because it made more sense for us, not because our relationship depended upon it.

Regardless, gay people should not be held to a different standard than straight people. Even if there is some ideal of getting rid of the concept of civil marriage completely, that is not the world we live in. Even if you could get contracts to give you all the benefits of marriage (which you can't - immigration and taxes being 2 of those) or move to another country to be with your spouse, gay people should not face that burden when straight people do not. It's all kind of irrelevant when it comes down to that - the government should not force gay people to jump through a million hoops that straight people don't have to jump through. It's that simple. You're arguing against civil marriage in general, but since you can't accomplish that, you're arguing that some people should not have the right to access marriage at all.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The federal government does recognize my marriage. Immigration discrimination wouldn't occur if the feds weren't in the business of marriage - they don't recognize many legal marriages that are recognized by the state a person resides in (ie: marriages between two people of the same sex). I also get tax benefits from the IRS recognizing my marriage - also benefits that the federal government chooses to deny some married couples. Validation and recognition are two different things. The federal government sees a same-sex married couple legally as complete strangers while they see my wife and I as a family - you can't tell me that the federal government treats us the same or just follows state law when that's not the case.

You don't have room to talk because you are benefiting from the government recognizing your marriage. Regardless of your personal belief that government should stay out of marriage completely (which I actually agree with 100% in an ideal world), you are gaining a benefit from the federal government acknowledging a familial relationship between you and your spouse. I would not have thought twice about moving to Canada to be with my spouse. We chose the U.S. because it made more sense for us, not because our relationship depended upon it.

Regardless, gay people should not be held to a different standard than straight people. Even if there is some ideal of getting rid of the concept of civil marriage completely, that is not the world we live in. Even if you could get contracts to give you all the benefits of marriage (which you can't - immigration and taxes being 2 of those) or move to another country to be with your spouse, gay people should not face that burden when straight people do not. It's all kind of irrelevant when it comes down to that - the government should not force gay people to jump through a million hoops that straight people don't have to jump through. It's that simple. You're arguing against civil marriage in general, but since you can't accomplish that, you're arguing that some people should not have the right to access marriage at all.

*sigh*

Again, the Feds don't "recognize" anything. If you have proof in your state that you're married they'll accept that, but the Feds don't tie you and your spouse together in any way, shape, or form except for proof that you have proper paperwork filed with your state. It's also well know that when it comes to taxes, filing jointly isn't going to do you much benefit unless you fall into the categories that you might be able to use a deduction. Even then it's not a discriminatory factor of being married or not married, it's a discriminatory factor against individuals who file. If you file seperately you do not receive the same benefits. Married couples should not be treated more "special" in the tax code than anyone else.

As far as immigration goes, let me put this quite frankly: Married, not married, etc. you DO NOT have a right to immigrate to this country. Your "odds" might be better if you're married/intending, but there are plenty of legit cases that get denied each and every day. There are plenty of visas that some qualify for and others don't that you can argue are discriminatory, but when it comes to immigration there is no inherent right there to begin with, so there is no argument.

Next, your bullshit argument about me not having room to talk is a critics way of saying shut up and let me have my way. It's proof that you have no damn argument and you merely feel that just because someone has something, doesn't mean that they should have an opinion on it. Guess what, I do have a say in the matter just as anyone else does who has a legal right to vote. You need to get that through your head real quick if you're going to come into a political forum, especially this one.

Lastly, who says it can't be accomplished to end civil marriages? Marriage is a state function with licenses given by local county clerks. There is nothing that forces a state to allow marriages, disallow marriages, etc. The only thing that's even an argument when it comes to ANY marriage be it straight or gay, is the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. By that argument if someone moves from a state that allows any type of marriage and it's a matter of legal public record, then the state they move to must recognize that contract.

As I argue and many argue, the problem with marriage is the fact that government is involved in it at all. They shouldn't be and they should have no interest in it in this day and age. We're not trying to build a population, we aren't trying to do anything special with our numbers, etc. There is no reason for the government to dictate anything in that regard, period.

[Kajikit 65]

If they have the right to marry, they have the right to decide to divorce. Since close to half of 'conventional' marriages in the US end up in the divorce court, why should gay people be any different? Going through hell to be together doesn't necessarily bring you closer together forever - just look at how many marriages fail right here in this group.

[Dakine10 5,452]

#1 - you need to spend a little more time around here before calling me a homophobe. Calling me a homophobe makes you look like an idiot.

That's true. Anyone who knows Paul knows he's an everythingphobe, not a homophobe.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Dakine10

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's true. Anyone who knows Paul knows he's an everythingphobe, not a homophobe.

to help with your literacy, I will help you out here as "everythingphobe" is not appropriate.

The word you are looking for is: pantophobia

However is not my case, but just thought I'd assist you for your future personalized attacks.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The word you are looking for is: pantophobia

Well thank you Paul. I truly didn't know the term, but I suspected you might be familiar with it.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well thank you Paul. I truly didn't know the term, but I suspected you might be familiar with it.

Also familiar with the fact that many in the homosexual "community" have kolpophobia or ithyphallophobia depending on which way they swing....

[slim 1,525]

Forbidding Polygamy is an intrusion of religious beliefs. Same as gay marriage.

We have a winner!!!