Do we need to worry about our overseas gay marriage because Amy Coney Barett?

[HKS 169]

Some people have legitimate fears. There are some countries that have to worry more about immigration changes/policy over others (Muslim ban for example). I realize there isn’t a total immigration ban, but the current administration has impacted my husband’s and my life dramatically (the media never covers what is really going on in the Middle East. And yes I know first hand as I lived there for several years.)
 
I’m sure the same sex couple above has gone through and continues to go through a lot of difficult roadblocks. You pretty much have to walk in someone else’s shoes to understand their fears/concerns (not just media). 

 

However, as the law stands today and how long it takes to change things, unless it’s another executive order you are probably ok on the issue of same sex marriage since you are already in process. But, hell who knows. My case was estimated to take 8 months and we are on a year and ten months and still waiting. 

[Nat&Amy 623]

1 hour ago, green_rabbit said:

t's not a crazy fear to have and it is difficult for me to watch when straight people on this site and elsewhere completely disregard the concerns LGBT people have about our rights.

Thanks for saying it. It appals me to see people here making fun of legitimate concerns. To all the experts that are tired of "sensationalism": it might be worth it to take a look at what is happening on November 4 and educate yourselves a bit.

[Kai G. Llewellyn 837]

Yeah, as an LGBT person I'm pretty peeved by the straight people saying 'Yeeeah, nothing to fear here'

 

OP's case is likely to complete before SCOTUS would rule on this, that's pretty obvious. So OP should be okay.

 

BUT! In the wider consideration on things, yes there is absolutely reason to be concerned about the conservative SCOTUS majority. If a case comes to SCOTUS and they do overturn marriage equality, we don't know what that would look like if they did. Would it be just that states that don't want to recognize same-sex marriage be free to do that? What about the federal government? Will they no longer recognize same-sex marriage? Would that end immigration benefits for same-sex spouses?

 

There *are* reasons to be concerned and people who are glossing over this are going to make this situation worse. We need to be prepared to push back against this, especially if it could result in rescission.

[SalishSea 17,828]

46 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

To OP

the only thing you need to care about is the embassy of your interview

the culture and norms of that country

The CO who does your interview must be convinced the relationship is real and see documentation to support your marriage with as much time together as you can have

the US accepts gay marriage and is supported here by each office you have to deal with like Social Security,  insurances,  etc

we have several gay couples on VJ that have successfully completed their visa requests

 

True, although I'd like to point out that couples in same sex marriages, where the interview occurs in a country that shuns or prohibits the rights of its gay citizens, cannot be denied on that basis.  Even if the 'culture and norms' of that country are anti LGBTQ.  

[SalishSea 17,828]

37 minutes ago, Mike E said:

People have moved on from same gender marriage. Even if SCOTUS reversed its ruling (and this would take years, and note that abortion -- at least 3rd trimester abortion -- is a much higher priority for conservatives to reverse, and it's been nearly 50 years and no substantial action)  that there is no constitutional right to same gender marriage, given it is the law in multiple states, including part of the Constitutions of some states, the https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text says:

 

The courts have interpreted this to mean that a marriage in one state has to be recognized in another. 

Hence well before same gender marriage became a major issue in the 1990s, some states allowed first cousins to marry and some didn't. You could get married in the state that allowed first cousins to marry and then move to a state that didn't allow first cousins to marry, and your marriage had to be recognized. 

 

So all it takes is one state to recognize same gender marriage, and all other states, plus DC have to recognize same gender marriage (I don't know about territories, especially American Samoa which is a defacto separate country). And there will always be at least one such state; you can't unring a bell.

 

Never say never though. Still if your time frame is 5 years or less, I'm certain your same gender marriage will be accepted by USCIS and the Department of State, and if not, there will be a federal injunction within days to re-instate.

Except that states don't oversee or dispense federal marriage-based benefits, such as social security and veteran's benefits.  Recall the issues pre-2015, where same sex marriage was legal in some states, but not federally.  It resulted in partial rights for some.

[laylalex 7,284]

1 hour ago, Bob in Boston said:

We are talking about the new girl, not the old dude. Yes those opposing her will say anything to sway the vote. Abortion is another issue that they are afraid will be overturned but hasn't. 

As much as I do not support how the new justice's appointment was rammed through in the middle of an election, Justice Barrett is a woman, not a girl. 

[Boiler 45,486]

Just now, laylalex said:

As much as I do not support how the new justice's appointment was rammed through in the middle of an election, Justice Barrett is a woman, not a girl. 

Rammed? Not sure that is appropriate and this was one thing I do not understand why there is an issue, she was nominated and voted on so what is the problem.

[Kai G. Llewellyn 837]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Rammed? Not sure that is appropriate and this was one thing I do not understand why there is an issue, she was nominated and voted on so what is the problem.

Just because something is following the letter of the law, does not mean it is following the spirit of the law, and also what should be acceptable by an electorate. This was likely one of the fastest confirmations of a SCOTUS judge in recent times, which is foolish on its own as it's a lifetime appointment, but also so close to an election that so crassly flies in the face of democracy that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

Boiler, being from the UK, you may be aware of a period called purdah, which means that the Government is prohibited from making major policy changes immediately before the election, now the US doesn't have such a process, but it is evidently clear that making substantial changes immediately before an election is totally inappropriate.

[Nat&Amy 623]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Rammed? Not sure that is appropriate and this was one thing I do not understand why there is an issue, she was nominated and voted on so what is the problem.

Mitch McConnel in 2016 when a new Justice was supposed to be chosen months before an election:

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be,"

 

Look at what happened in 2020 and tell me again you see nothing wrong.

 

[Kai G. Llewellyn 837]

4 minutes ago, Nat&Amy said:

Mitch McConnel in 2016 when a new Justice was supposed to be chosen months before an election:

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be,"

 

Look at what happened in 2020 and tell me again you see nothing wrong.

 

Merrick Garland was nominated 8 months before the 2016 election as well, which makes McConnell's argument age horribly bad seeing that they confirmed a justice a WEEK before the election in 2020. But of course it wasn't about the principle in 2016. They wanted to make sure that they got their conservative justice after Scalia died, and now they have the opportunity again they sure as hell weren't gonna cede it to the Dems. McConnell has no principles.

 

Even further insult to injury is added when Garland was considered a centrist judge by both sides, that multiple republicans explicitly said before 2016 that they would be okay with Garland filling a vacancy should one come up. Of course, they return that favour by ramming through ACB who is by no measure a centrist.

Edited October 27, 2020 by CanadaDude

[Carpe Vinum 2,327]

I didn't vote for Trump. But, like it or not our system is set up in a way that favors the party that WINS elections. In 2016 the Republicans controlled the Senate and could block a vote on Obama's appointment to the Supreme Court. In 2020 the Democrats have no way to block this appointment. If you want things to go your way win elections. By all means vote in November.

Edited October 27, 2020 by boris64

[Kai G. Llewellyn 837]

Just now, boris64 said:

I didn't vote for Trump. But, like it or not our system is set up in a way that favors the party that WINS elections. In 2016 the Republicans controlled the Senate and could block a vote on Obama's appointment to the Supreme Court. In 2020 the Democrats have no way to block this appointment. If you want things to go your way win elections. By all means vote in November.

Cool...so the Dems are totally free to expand the court after January and the GOP can put up with it.

[Carpe Vinum 2,327]

Just now, CanadaDude said:

Cool...so the Dems are totally free to expand the court after January and the GOP can put up with it.

If they can find consensus and get it through then sure try it. It backfired politically for FDR when he tried it. Doesn't mean it will backfire now.

[Nat&Amy 623]

3 minutes ago, boris64 said:

I didn't vote for Trump. But, like it or not our system is set up in a way that favors the party that WINS elections. In 2016 the Republicans controlled the Senate and could block a vote on Obama's appointment to the Supreme Court. In 2020 the Democrats have no way to block this appointment. If you want things to go your way win elections. By all means vote in November.

I agree that Trump is what we got as a result of - among many other things - people thinking their vote didn't matter. Now I can only hope people will show up. In the meantime, we might as well acknowledge that we are living difficult times and that, therefore, LGBTQ fears and concerns should not be disregarded as frivolous. They simply aren't. Same goes to other religious and ethnic groups that are constantly reminded by the current administration there are places where they belong, and America might not be one of them.

[laylalex 7,284]

20 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Rammed? Not sure that is appropriate and this was one thing I do not understand why there is an issue, she was nominated and voted on so what is the problem.

It is appropriate, I think. There are multiple facts about Barrett which she did not disclose, which should have been disclosed, and which didn't come to light until after her nomination was voted out of committee. Things like a Supreme Court nomination should be approached with deliberation by what is supposed to be the deliberative body of the legislative branch. But instead we have the artificial deadline of the election here. By all means nominate her, I do not oppose that. I suppose McConnell can play by the rules when he wants to, especially when he essentially has made up the rules. The whole "well, we control the Senate this time so it's different from Garland" was a made up rule. 

 

Elections have consequences and here they are.