Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act in win for gays

[Harsh_77 718]

Divorce Court would be good, but nuthins better than Judge Judy! I hope that woman lives forever!

Teddy .. good one future judge judy could be funny.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is how I understand the logistics would play out in a post-DOMA world:

1) If you are a resident of a state that permits SSM and recognises SSM, you may petition for a K1 or CR1 (if the parties married in a US state that permits SSM, or in a country that permits SSM);

2) If you are a resident of a state that does not permit SSM and does not recognise SSM, you may not petition for either a K1 or a CR1.

3) If you are a resident of a state that does not permit SSM but DOES recognise SSM conducted in another state or foreign jurisdiction, you may petition for a CR1. (This goes along with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution -- unsurprisingly this has been suspended by those states who find SSM yucky.)

I don't get the rationale or logic behind that at all. That makes no sense to me. My wife and I, for example, married overseas. Only overseas. We do not have a marriage license or certificate from any state of this Union. None. we have never declared our being married to any state or local authority. ever. And yet, we are a legally married couple and enjoy all the federal benefits that are afforded to a married couple - including immigration benefits. And we enjoy these benefits regardless of what state we reside in - we have lived in three different states throughout our visa journey.

Are you suggesting that a couple that marries in San Francisco will be afforded fewer federal benefits than a couple that married in Addis Ababa? I find that hard to believe.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I think this dulling turned a old things upside down and no one yet knows exactly what and many diffrent thins wiill be affected including immigration. Immigration is federal law and they can restrict or allow things independently from the states and could have allowed same sex immigration a long time ago

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I be honest with you. I feel much gayer already.. I had no idea the supreme court could have that much affect on my sexuality

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't get the rationale or logic behind that at all. That makes no sense to me. My wife and I, for example, married overseas. Only overseas. We do not have a marriage license or certificate from any state of this Union. None. we have never declared our being married to any state or local authority. ever. And yet, we are a legally married couple and enjoy all the federal benefits that are afforded to a married couple - including immigration benefits. And we enjoy these benefits regardless of what state we reside in - we have lived in three different states throughout our visa journey.

Are you suggesting that a couple that marries in San Francisco will be afforded fewer federal benefits than a couple that married in Addis Ababa? I find that hard to believe.

With DOMA, the USCIS only required your marriage be recognized as a heterosexual marriage in the jurisdiction where the marriage was performed. Now that SCOTUS has objected to the word heterosexual as a qualifier, I don't see how any lawfully performed marriage could be objected to by the USCIS.

As far as a fiancee visa, I imagine the same rules would apply, that both the bride and groom must be permitted to marry in the jurisdictions in which they reside.

As far as each state, the state can determine which benefits they give to whom, but for any benefits given to married people, that would be for any lawfully married person. Full faith and credit apply, and only Congress can make any laws regarding that, and SCOTUS just struck down the last attempt.

Bring on the lawsuits!

Edited June 26, 2013 by The Patriot

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I don't get the rationale or logic behind that at all. That makes no sense to me. My wife and I, for example, married overseas. Only overseas. We do not have a marriage license or certificate from any state of this Union. None. we have never declared our being married to any state or local authority. ever. And yet, we are a legally married couple and enjoy all the federal benefits that are afforded to a married couple - including immigration benefits. And we enjoy these benefits regardless of what state we reside in - we have lived in three different states throughout our visa journey.

Are you suggesting that a couple that marries in San Francisco will be afforded fewer federal benefits than a couple that married in Addis Ababa? I find that hard to believe.

I dug around a bit more about the CR1 aspects and I retract what I said earlier about that. If your marriage is legal in the jurisdiction where it was performed, you should be eligible for a CR1. (Theoretically speaking, of course.)

For K1 applicants, the crucial question is, does your state recognise any SSM? If your state does not, you are not eligible to file for a K1 to marry and reside in the state (since marriage is within the purview of the states). It's along the same lines as the cousin engagements that we see people on VJ posting about. If, say, you're a resident of Texas and you petitioned for your 1st cousin, you cannot marry in Texas, nor marry elsewhere in the US and then return to Texas as a resident.

I guess for people who live in one of those states the only option would be to marry outside of the US in a SSM jurisdiction, since marrying a non-USC in a SSM-friendly state and returning to the home state that lacks SSM results in the same outcome as petitioning for a K1.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I think this dulling turned a old things upside down and no one yet knows exactly what and many diffrent thins wiill be affected including immigration. Immigration is federal law and they can restrict or allow things independently from the states and could have allowed same sex immigration a long time ago

Not with DOMA standing in the way, they couldn't.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I dug around a bit more about the CR1 aspects and I retract what I said earlier about that. If your marriage is legal in the jurisdiction where it was performed, you should be eligible for a CR1. (Theoretically speaking, of course.)

For K1 applicants, the crucial question is, does your state recognise any SSM? If your state does not, you are not eligible to file for a K1 to marry and reside in the state (since marriage is within the purview of the states). It's along the same lines as the cousin engagements that we see people on VJ posting about. If, say, you're a resident of Texas and you petitioned for your 1st cousin, you cannot marry in Texas, nor marry elsewhere in the US and then return to Texas as a resident.

I guess for people who live in one of those states the only option would be to marry outside of the US in a SSM jurisdiction, since marrying a non-USC in a SSM-friendly state and returning to the home state that lacks SSM results in the same outcome as petitioning for a K1.

I wonder.

I don't see why a K1 couple couldn't just travel to another state that recognizes SSM, marry there, and return to their home state to live.

I mean - all the Service cares about is a marriage license. It doesn't care about the rights granted to a couple within a state. As we all know, different states have plenty of different ways they handle hetero marriages - particularly in the areas of taxation and dissolution of those marriages. The Service has never cared about that..........

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I wonder.

I don't see why a K1 couple couldn't just travel to another state that recognizes SSM, marry there, and return to their home state to live.

I mean - all the Service cares about is a marriage license. It doesn't care about the rights granted to a couple within a state. As we all know, different states have plenty of different ways they handle hetero marriages - particularly in the areas of taxation and dissolution of those marriages. The Service has never cared about that..........

Opposite sex 1st cousin couples cannot do that in certain states, if my reading of the great sage pushbrk ( ) is correct. And apparently Texas does recognise 1st cousin marriages entered into outside of Texas. Are there any states that still don't allow recognition of 1st cousin couples married in other jurisdictions (when the cousins are residents of a state that forbids such marriage, and the marriage took place in another state to avoid the restriction)?

To clarify, I am only talking about the granting of K1 visas, not the other Federal benefits that accrue.

Edited June 26, 2013 by the maven

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Now I'm waiting for the first same-sex first cousin marriage to pop up on VJ!

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Can gay marriage visas be far behind? Will we see an influx of hot RUB men by the CABA chicks?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

now you can marry your pet goat.

And I hope you live happily ever after.

It is about time ALL Americans have the same rights, not just the popular kids.

Now if we can just get government out of marriage entirely we all win.

As for how it affects family immigration, it would seem it would permit CR-1s for married gays/lesbians but maybe not K-1s. I think such would be an executive order kind of thing since nothing in the K-1 qualifications mention a man and woman. There could be a complication since intending to marry in one state and not living in a state that recognizes gay marriage could be another issue.

But like the 2nd amendment issues, where Heller was just the start, I think this is also a start.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Can gay marriage visas be far behind? Will we see an influx of hot RUB men by the CABA chicks?

RUB men are not hot or the hot RUB chicks would not marry fat, bald American men. Get a clue spooky. I would have no chance of even dating a superficial American woman who looks like Alla. The majority of RUB men are diametrically opposed from the women...when there are 16% more women than men, they can do that. If you do not know what a 1.16:1 ratio of women to men looks like...go to Krashatik St in the summer.

At any rate, I commented above on that issue. I think the visas will not be far behind but there will be some details to address, especially since as it stands a gay marriage is not valid in all states. What if Gay men get married in MA, then move to TN. Are they still married? Under current law...NO, so how can they get a green card or ROC based on a marriage that is invalid? Are we going to say they CAN get a visa but cannot move to another state until the beneficiary is a citizen....but women beneficiaries CAN move?

The ruling itself opens a can of worms and I am sure it will be worked out, but it does give basis, and that is very important

Now I'm waiting for the first same-sex first cousin marriage to pop up on VJ!

Go for it Maven! We are all accepting here. At least I am. Good luck to you!

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Gay marriage will probably have to be legal in all states before the immigration laws change. Otherwise it gets too complicated.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I dug around a bit more about the CR1 aspects and I retract what I said earlier about that. If your marriage is legal in the jurisdiction where it was performed, you should be eligible for a CR1. (Theoretically speaking, of course.)

For K1 applicants, the crucial question is, does your state recognise any SSM? If your state does not, you are not eligible to file for a K1 to marry and reside in the state (since marriage is within the purview of the states). It's along the same lines as the cousin engagements that we see people on VJ posting about. If, say, you're a resident of Texas and you petitioned for your 1st cousin, you cannot marry in Texas, nor marry elsewhere in the US and then return to Texas as a resident.

I guess for people who live in one of those states the only option would be to marry outside of the US in a SSM jurisdiction, since marrying a non-USC in a SSM-friendly state and returning to the home state that lacks SSM results in the same outcome as petitioning for a K1.

For a K1 visa, you must be eligible to marry your fiance(e) within 90 days of entry. As a resident of Texas, you can marry your fiance(e) within 90 days of entry. Not in Texas but you can do that i n California or elsewhere. As far as the federal government and thus immigration law is concerned, that marriage is as valid as the marriage that took place in California for California residents. The fact that Texas won't recognize the marriage performed in California - for no reason other than the couple being of the same sex - cannot be part of the consideration for the federal government as that consideration would again be unconstitutional. There is no case to be made for immigration benefits not extending to any legally married couple - that is legally married from a from a federal point of view. It's done.

I don't see why a K1 couple couldn't just travel to another state that recognizes SSM, marry there, and return to their home state to live.

I mean - all the Service cares about is a marriage license. It doesn't care about the rights granted to a couple within a state. As we all know, different states have plenty of different ways they handle hetero marriages - particularly in the areas of taxation and dissolution of those marriages. The Service has never cared about that..........

Exactly.