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

[Boiler 45,525]

46 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Only 3 of the justices are 70 or older. 

 

Viewpoints as a whole are as varied as the topics on which they're based, so I won't be drawn into that discussion.  I want to be clear I'm not calling for mob rule here, but think about where popular sentiment did not match the law of the land. Obergefell is one of those cases, and Roberts did what he needed to do to make it work. Roe was another one. Same sex marriage and abortion are generally "popular" in this country and that they exist as the law in every state are, I think, a mark of us as a first world country led not by certain religions but by equality of outcomes for us all. Or what should be equality of outcomes (abortion definitely doesn't come out that way, in the way that same sex marriage does).

Well Abortion the issue seems to be if it should be a State matter, and nothing would change where you are or where I am. Abortion being popular, well not the best phrasing. Struck me as a red herring.

 

So what do we want to happen, what do we expect a Biden administration to propose? Seems quite possible they will have all 3.

[Kai G. Llewellyn 838]

1 hour ago, Tacos said:

Stop listening to the fear mongering, many of my gay friends are Trump supporters and they’re not concerned about ACB. 

If you're gay and a Trump supporter you haven't been paying attention, either that or you don't give two craps about your rights or anyone else's in the LGBT community.

[retheem 566]

3 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Your definition of "far" is different from mine.

And your yardstick of measure is by??

[laylalex 7,285]

 

21 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Well Abortion the issue seems to be if it should be a State matter, and nothing would change where you are or where I am. Abortion being popular, well not the best phrasing. Struck me as a red herring.

 

So what do we want to happen, what do we expect a Biden administration to propose? Seems quite possible they will have all 3.

Yeah, that's why I put "popular" in quotes. I think it's safer to say access to abortion (even with restrictions) is "popular." 

 

And I guess what it comes down to is this -- as someone who just got married three days ago, I have some Big Feelings about all the legal aspects of marriage. We love each other and got married because it made our lives infinitely easier on a state and national and international basis. We could have gone on (at least in my opinion, not sure about him) not ever being married. Even if we were both USCs, being married makes life easier in terms of things like estate planning and property transfers. And it's safe to say my fellow Californians and your fellow Coloradans will be able to marry no matter what their sexual orientation in the years to come (subject to all the usual restrictions on age/family relationship/etc). But why should we be more equal than, say, people in Kentucky? Why should same sex married people be able to receive the benefit of a greater state tax deduction (potentially) in California, just as opposite sex couples do, but if they move to Kentucky, they wouldn't? What's the rationale for taking rights away from people who have enjoyed them? What is the point of incentivizing marriage between unrelated consenting adults if there is a sizeable population of those people who can never avail themselves of marriage in a state, even if they want to? 

 

Marriage is a bedrock of our society, for better or worse. It needs to be available to as many people as possible in order for us all to be free. 

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

2 hours ago, CanadaDude said:

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.

 

But we are not in UK. We are in United States of America (USA)  and its not a British Colony any more. ACB is qualified as any other Judge and Trump has every right to appoint her and the Senate has the right to confirm her. 

 

 

 

[Boiler 45,525]

5 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 

Yeah, that's why I put "popular" in quotes. I think it's safer to say access to abortion (even with restrictions) is "popular." 

 

And I guess what it comes down to is this -- as someone who just got married three days ago, I have some Big Feelings about all the legal aspects of marriage. We love each other and got married because it made our lives infinitely easier on a state and national and international basis. We could have gone on (at least in my opinion, not sure about him) not ever being married. Even if we were both USCs, being married makes life easier in terms of things like estate planning and property transfers. And it's safe to say my fellow Californians and your fellow Coloradans will be able to marry no matter what their sexual orientation in the years to come (subject to all the usual restrictions on age/family relationship/etc). But why should we be more equal than, say, people in Kentucky? Why should same sex married people be able to receive the benefit of a greater state tax deduction (potentially) in California, just as opposite sex couples do, but if they move to Kentucky, they wouldn't? What's the rationale for taking rights away from people who have enjoyed them? What is the point of incentivizing marriage between unrelated consenting adults if there is a sizeable population of those people who can never avail themselves of marriage in a state, even if they want to? 

 

Marriage is a bedrock of our society, for better or worse. It needs to be available to as many people as possible in order for us all to be free. 

Why should someone have their 2nd Amendment right restricted when moving to California?

[Kai G. Llewellyn 838]

3 minutes ago, James120383 said:

 

But we are not in UK. We are in United States of America (USA)  and its not a British Colony any more. ACB is qualified as any other Judge and Trump has every right to appoint her and the Senate has the right to confirm her. 

 

 

 

Good god, yes...I gather that. I at *no* point suggested what Trump and the GOP did was illegal. I am arguing it is unethical, and that they should be punished at the ballot box.

[laylalex 7,285]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Why should someone have their 2nd Amendment right restricted when moving to California?

That I do not know enough about to actually give any opinion on. Marriage equality and abortion access are important to me, and I have read about the underlying principles, so I feel more confident giving something of an informed opinion here. But gun control is way outside my comfort zone. I have my feelings, but that's not enough, in my opinion.

[Boiler 45,525]

31 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That I do not know enough about to actually give any opinion on. Marriage equality and abortion access are important to me, and I have read about the underlying principles, so I feel more confident giving something of an informed opinion here. But gun control is way outside my comfort zone. I have my feelings, but that's not enough, in my opinion.

Well you mist know CA is more restrictive, details do not really matter.

[wangsit 2]

okay..... OP here, just wake up and having breakfast.
I dont expect that my question will have 6 pages of debate.

 

I read the news about ACB entirely from reddit and by simple google news search.

I think regardless of what happened, our case is relatively safe as we have reached NVC stage.
What I must worry is whether I can convince CO whether our relationship is genuine.
(We met in December 2016, We live together between July 2017- December 2018, marriage in  August 2018, and the last time we meet eat other was November 2019)
(So, we are optimism that our case is a genuine case)

 

I have read all the comments.
Thanks for all people that said that our worry is valid, because it may affect the minority couple in the future.

I know a gay american that vote for Trump, he is my husband close friend.

We dont know what he will vote, but he knows that Trump make it harder for us to live together in USA.

 

Well, I think I will focus on my job and prepare for the interview in January 2021

 

 

[African Zealot 1,455]

It’s just alarmist nonsense. The choice to worry is yours, not worth it.

[carmel34 3,633]

1 hour ago, wangsit said:

We live together between July 2017- December 2018

You will be fine with that amount of time together in person if you submitted documentation to prove it.  No worries so press on and hopefully your visa will be approved in the coming months!

 

If the conservative justices overturn Obergefell in future years, which could happen even if a Democratic congress and president pass a new law recognizing same-sex marriage (on the basis that the new law could be seen as unconstitutional, that marriage law is only the domain of the states), you should be safely in the US by then and well on your way to citizenship if that's what you want.  I have read and studied the Obergefell decision and the strong dissenting opinions, and if SCOTUS overturns it, we would be back to pre-2015 with the chaos of some states recognizing the marriages as valid and others not.  So it could get messy if that happens but let's hope it doesn't.  Public opinion is on our side and improving every year, even in conservative states.  Good luck with your visa interview!

[PWB 213]

Yes it is all true.  I am so alarmed that I just booked a flight to Mars on Virgin Airlines.  Goodbye cruel world.

[Kai G. Llewellyn 838]

2 hours ago, wangsit said:

okay..... OP here, just wake up and having breakfast.
I dont expect that my question will have 6 pages of debate.

 

I read the news about ACB entirely from reddit and by simple google news search.

I think regardless of what happened, our case is relatively safe as we have reached NVC stage.
What I must worry is whether I can convince CO whether our relationship is genuine.
(We met in December 2016, We live together between July 2017- December 2018, marriage in  August 2018, and the last time we meet eat other was November 2019)
(So, we are optimism that our case is a genuine case)

 

I have read all the comments.
Thanks for all people that said that our worry is valid, because it may affect the minority couple in the future.

I know a gay american that vote for Trump, he is my husband close friend.

We dont know what he will vote, but he knows that Trump make it harder for us to live together in USA.

 

Well, I think I will focus on my job and prepare for the interview in January 2021

 

 

I'm wishing you the very best with your interview and that you have a smooth process to being reunited with your husband in 2021! I'm gay and in the same boat as you, currently DQ and waiting for my interview date, although our consulate is horribly backed up. Dx

[HRQX 4,145]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

details do not really matter.

Details do matter. While Democrats have further expanded the restrictions by a (very) wide margin, the first major piece of legislation toward gun control in CA was the Mulford Act. The bill was written by a Republican legislator, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, and was passed with the full backing of Republican governor Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association.