New US visa rules

[sustento]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-usa-gays-visas-idUSBRE9710NT20130802

[Jingthing]

Yes, I had thought this news fit better in a visa focused forum:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/658130-usa-visas-for-same-sex-couples-now-treated-equally-says-kerry/

[LeCharivari]

Good news .... unless, of course, you're already in a civil union with an American.

In that case, whether the civil union is from one of the US States or from one of the many countries with civil unions which haven't "converted" them to marriages, you're totally screwed.

Those countries (and those States in the US) recognise them as the legal equivalents of marriage, even if the Obama administration has chosen not to, so those couples can't just go to the US and marry ( they can't get a Certificate of No Impediment to marry as legally they already are married) and the only way they can get their visa as a married couple is to get divorced.

Gay friendly ......

.

Edited August 4, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

I support the Obama administration's focus on marriage equality at the state, national, and international levels completely. That includes policies of non-recognition at the federal level of state civil unions and also these immigration/visa matters. Gay activists familiar with the continuing U.S. movement towards marriage equality understand the PRO GAY RIGHTS politics and TACTICS of this precisely. We've been over all of this before (AD NAUSEUM) and why this is important to not prop up any kind of LESSER option in the U.S. to full MARRIAGE equality. Foreigners can diss the USA all they want. Chances are they are ignorant of the U.S. political aspects of this and why this is REALLY the more pro gay rights tactic in the American context. I can assure non-Americans the majority of USA gay rights activists are completely on board with the focus JUST on marriage equality and treatment of anything LESSER as a historical relic. In the few USA states with civil unions there is a push to convert to marriage laws which will have full equality at the FEDERAL LEVEL. It will take time but the victory is in sight and inevitable given the massive popular support for MARRIAGE equality among U.S. under 30s. Separate but equal and/or separate but less than equal does not play for Americans. We're going for FIRST CLASS EQUALITY and nothing less or nothing with a different name will EVER do.

By having USA visa rules not reflect these American ideals of real equality would be both not pro gay EQUALITY rights and not very American.

There is another important reason why American gay rights activists would NOT be in favor of visa rules recognizing civil unions. It has been a huge attack line of right wing anti-gay American forces to falsely accuse gays of demanding SPECIAL RIGHTS. That was a lie. The goal was only EQUAL rights. To grant special rights to foreigners not in marriages, when the reality is MOST international civil unions are people of the SAME SEX, would be giving the right wing ammunition that gays have won SPECIAL rights. That would be a SPECIAL right. No thank you. Full 100 percent EQUALITY. Nothing special. I don't expect non-Americans to understand.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I support the Obama administration's focus on marriage equality at the state, national, and international levels completely. That includes policies of non-recognition at the federal level of state civil unions and also these immigration/visa matters. Gay activists familiar with the continuing U.S. movement towards marriage equality understand the PRO GAY RIGHTS politics and TACTICS of this precisely. We've been over all of this before (AD NAUSEUM) and why this is important to not prop up any kind of LESSER option in the U.S. to full MARRIAGE equality. Foreigners can diss the USA all they want. Chances are they are ignorant of the U.S. political aspects of this and why this is REALLY the more pro gay rights tactic in the American context. I can assure non-Americans the majority of USA gay rights activists are completely on board with the focus JUST on marriage equality and treatment of anything LESSER as a historical relic. In the few USA states with civil unions there is a push to convert to marriage laws which will have full equality at the FEDERAL LEVEL. It will take time but the victory is in sight and inevitable given the massive popular support for MARRIAGE equality among U.S. under 30s. Separate but equal and/or separate but less than equal does not play for Americans. We're going for FIRST CLASS EQUALITY and nothing less or nothing with a different name will EVER do.

By having USA visa rules not reflect these American ideals of real equality would be both not pro gay EQUALITY rights and not very American.

There is another important reason why American gay rights activists would NOT be in favor of visa rules recognizing civil unions. It has been a huge attack line of right wing anti-gay American forces to falsely accuse gays of demanding SPECIAL RIGHTS. That was a lie. The goal was only EQUAL rights. To grant special rights to foreigners not in marriages, when the reality is MOST international civil unions are people of the SAME SEX, would be giving the right wing ammunition. That would be a SPECIAL right. No thank you. Full 100 percent EQUALITY. Nothing special.

"I can assure non-Americans the majority of USA gay rights activists are completely on board with the focus JUST on marriage equality and treatment of anything LESSER as a historical relic."

How? Based on what information?

As far as I am aware there has never been ANY sort of polling of "USA gay rights activists" or of American gays in general over this question, and as the policy is likely to delay gay rights for the majority of American gays there would appear to be a more than reasonable chance that the vast majority of American gays would prefer to have equal rights NOW with an equal "name" to follow later rather than wait years if not decades until those who are currently under 30 make up the majority of the electorate.

It appears increasingly likely that the Obama administration have been hijacked by the more extreme "gay activists" and they are quite happy to use the situation to what seems to be their political advantage - regardless of the practical rights of the majority of the gay population which are being unnecessarily put on hold.

[LeCharivari]

...(edited)

There is another important reason why American gay rights activists would NOT be in favor of visa rules recognizing civil unions. It has been a huge attack line of right wing anti-gay American forces to falsely accuse gays of demanding SPECIAL RIGHTS. That was a lie. The goal was only EQUAL rights. To grant special rights to foreigners not in marriages, when the reality is MOST international civil unions are people of the SAME SEX, would be giving the right wing ammunition that gays have won SPECIAL rights. That would be a SPECIAL right. No thank you. Full 100 percent EQUALITY. Nothing special. I don't expect non-Americans to understand.

Oh please ... its difficult to have it both ways, and this is incredibly contrived.

Either the "right wing anti-gay American forces" see civil unions as a preferable "LESSER OPTION" to marriages or they see them as "SPECIAL RIGHTS" - they can't be "SPECIAL" and "LESSER"!

[Jingthing]

Think what you want. The USA won't be waiting decades anymore. Like I said, ANY gay American can have a real federally EQUAL marriage RIGHT NOW. Yes, some would have to move. The tactics are clear, focus on MARRIAGE, go for MANY more states gay MARRIAGE ( and NO more states civil unions, convert those few that are), let the patchwork MESS show its horns, then on to the supreme court for the final DEFINITIVE case. Again, non-Americans might not get it. So what? Where the U.S. is at now is INCREDIBLE, has been worked on for DECADES, the results are much quicker than anyone imagined, and there is no reason to think the total win won't be quicker than most people think as well. It's a fantasy to think many gay people in the USA are interested in propping up civil unions. I've explained why multiple times ... not again, search if you want.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

...

It appears increasingly likely that the Obama administration have been hijacked by the more extreme "gay activists" and they are quite happy to use the situation to what seems to be their political advantage - regardless of the practical rights of the majority of the gay population which are being unnecessarily put on hold.

Extreme to you perhaps with your obsession with promoting a lesser thing for gay people.

Totally MAINSTREAM for gay Americans, indeed for Americans under 30 as well.

Dude, if there were many gay Americans who thought like you, there would be protests. There are none. There will be none. Polls aren't needed. Gay activist leaders don't shape public opinion. If they were totally out of line with the mainstream of gay American thought, there would be a big backlash. There isn't and there won't be. Gay Americans support Obama MASSIVELY on gay rights tactics -- he's on the same page as mainstream gay Americans who massively support MARRIAGE equality.

Propping up the lesser thing, the other thing, the non-marriage thing for U.S. gays is PRIORITY ZERO.

Too bad if that offends some foreigners.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

...(edited)

There is another important reason why American gay rights activists would NOT be in favor of visa rules recognizing civil unions. It has been a huge attack line of right wing anti-gay American forces to falsely accuse gays of demanding SPECIAL RIGHTS. That was a lie. The goal was only EQUAL rights. To grant special rights to foreigners not in marriages, when the reality is MOST international civil unions are people of the SAME SEX, would be giving the right wing ammunition that gays have won SPECIAL rights. That would be a SPECIAL right. No thank you. Full 100 percent EQUALITY. Nothing special. I don't expect non-Americans to understand.

Oh please ... its difficult to have it both ways, and this is incredibly contrived.

Either the "right wing anti-gay American forces" see civil unions as a preferable "LESSER OPTION" to marriages or they see them as "SPECIAL RIGHTS" - they can't be "SPECIAL" and "LESSER"!

Yes, I knew you wouldn't understand.

Anyone like me who has been involved in this struggle for decades understands perfectly.

[Scott]

Years ago, I worked in the area of immigration (and refugees). The laws, rules and regulations with regard to relationships are rather rigid. If you are not married, you do not have a partner and any other relationship is of little or no value.

[LeCharivari]

Years ago, I worked in the area of immigration (and refugees). The laws, rules and regulations with regard to relationships are rather rigid. If you are not married, you do not have a partner and any other relationship is of little or no value.

"Years ago" that was the case.

It no longer is in those countries with civil union legislation or in some countries without civil union legislation such as Australia which recognises de facto same-sex relationships with a twelve month plus committed relationship on EXACTLY the same basis as marriage (and its been that way since 1985, so that's quite a few "years ago").

America has chosen to exclude civil unions; the SCotUS ruling gave them the option to include them, but they chose not to. Their choice.

[Jingthing]

Australia doesn't have legal gay marriage, does it?

The USA now does at the federal level.

The USA still has a civil rights struggle on its hand ... MARRIAGE equality ... and trumping up anything else as an alternative to real MARRIAGE retards the effort.

You'll see. History awaits.

[LeCharivari]

Think what you want. The USA won't be waiting decades anymore. Like I said, ANY gay American can have a real federally EQUAL marriage RIGHT NOW. Yes, some would have to move. The tactics are clear, focus on MARRIAGE, go for MANY more states gay MARRIAGE ( and NO more states civil unions, convert those few that are), let the patchwork MESS show its horns, then on to the supreme court for the final DEFINITIVE case. Again, non-Americans might not get it. So what? Where the U.S. is at now is INCREDIBLE, has been worked on for DECADES, the results are much quicker than anyone imagined, and there is no reason to think the total win won't be quicker than most people think as well. It's a fantasy to think many gay people in the USA are interested in propping up civil unions. I've explained why multiple times ... not again, search if you want.

"Yes, some would have to move"

Around 70 %

[LeCharivari]

Australia doesn't have legal gay marriage, does it?

The USA now does at the federal level.

The USA still has a civil rights struggle on its hand ... MARRIAGE equality ... and trumping up anything else as an alternative to real MARRIAGE retards the effort.

You'll see. History awaits.

No, but Australia does have federal legislation about same-sex relationships which are recognised country-wide, including tax, health, super-annuation, health care, adoption (on a case by case basis, including LGBT parents) and immigration rights - and nobody has to move to somewhere else in the country to get them.

They haven't been "retarted" by an obsession about what to CALL those rights so they've already got them, and any debate over the niceties and formalities of "marriage" can be done in the fullness of time without anyone having to suffer financially or objectively and without anyone being unnecessarily separated from their gay partner while those formalities are being resolved.

[LeCharivari]

Extreme to you perhaps with your obsession with promoting a lesser thing for gay people.

Any "obsession" I have is with GAY RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS:

The right to live together in my own country (or my partner's) with the partner of my choice.

The right to be recognised as my partner's next-of-kin.

The right to have the same health and pension benefits as a couple as any other couple.

The right to pay the same taxes as anyone else, both when I am alive and on my death (or my partner's).

Comparing those rights with the right to have a piece of paper showing that I am "married", and choosing which I want first isn't really much of a comparison or much of a choice.

[LeCharivari]

....

Dude, if there were many gay Americans who thought like you, there would be protests. There are none. There will be none. Polls aren't needed. Gay activist leaders don't shape public opinion. If they were totally out of line with the mainstream of gay American thought, there would be a big backlash. There isn't and there won't be. Gay Americans support Obama MASSIVELY on gay rights tactics -- he's on the same page as mainstream gay Americans who massively support MARRIAGE equality.

Propping up the lesser thing, the other thing, the non-marriage thing for U.S. gays is PRIORITY ZERO.

"Gay Americans support Obama MASSIVELY on gay rights ..." - agreed. No doubt about that, and I wouldn't argue with you there at all.

"Gay Americans support Obama MASSIVELY on gay rights tactics" - who knows? Nobody's asked them, and given that the choice is Obama or "the other guy" there isn't really much of a choice.

You've put your finger on the problem for American gays - they can be pro-Obama and support him or they can "protest" and be against him and end up even worse off. Not much of a choice.

Try to look at it objectively, without the Democrat/left-wing glasses: what would the reaction have been by "gay activist leaders" or "gay Americans" if SCotUS had come up with the same ruling during a Republican/right-wing administration and that administration had come up with the same discriminatory policy, denying equal rights and benefits and immigration rights to those with civil unions? "Protests" in a big way that the administration was doing the minimum it possibly could without breaking the SCotUS ruling.

The problem in the US is that it isn't about "GAY RIGHTS" at all - its all about POLITICS, and judging by their actions rather than their words the "gay activist leaders" are all on one side of the political divide and are more interested in politics than they are in gay rights.

[Jingthing]

That's rich.

Look, folks.

The USA is not the UK. Not Australia. Not Thailand.

It is has its own peculiar system and yes POLITICS.

If there was right wing republican president right now (that's redundant) not only would we not have the supreme court victories we just won, but even if we did (we wouldn't because his picks would be different) such an anti-gay president would do all he can to NOT implement the federal recognition of the newly won federal MARRIAGE rights.

They are NOT automatic.

Obama and now Kerry are really doing ALL they can to implement federal recognition of the legal state gay marriages in the USA.

Seriously, please let this sink in.

Without Obama (or another democrat) as president now we wouldn't be having this conversation.

IF those landmark cases had even been judged at the supreme court, we would have LOST.

I think many foreigners do not understand the details of the U.S. system and why should they, but if you don't understand, how CREDIBLE can your opinion about tactics really be?

I've already explained AD NAUSEUM why it is a totally stupid move to prop up civil unions now, so no need to state yet another time.

Not only is it key to have Obama in now for the future of marriage equality it is also key to not have a republican elected president anytime soon. Hopefully we'll get Hillary for 8 years after Obama and by that time there's a good chance the patchwork mess will be totally fixed by the SUPREME COURT.

Look I am quite aware in the UK world of politics you've got powerful conservative politicians who are strongly pro gay rights.

So maybe it is confusing and/or disturbing to some to consider the USA that is so harshly and massively POLARIZED on that issue.

But it is.

There is hope for change over the decades, but for now and the immediate future, gay people hoping to expand civil rights quite CORRECTLY are placing all their bets on the ONLY party that is friendly, the party of Obama. With no apologies.

Now there is a small minority of gay Americans who support the anti-gay party for OTHER ideological reasons.

That's their decision, but indeed they are a SMALL minority.

The truth is most gay Americans are more LIBERAL anyway, so the democratic party is the best fit in most ways already, gay rights or not.

It's also funny to read UK-centric arguments about American specific gay rights controversies. So sorry, the situations are VERY different.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Look I am quite aware in the UK world of politics you've got powerful conservative politicians who are strongly pro gay rights.

No we haven't!

What we've got are a bunch of hypocrites!

What we've got is a Conservative (big "C", please) Prime Minister who's desperately trying to appear to be liberal (small "l") and modern to win some votes when he's neither, who's totally clueless about "gay rights" .... amongst other things he not only voted against the repeal of Section 28 but he personally spoke out to support it.

... and like the US, the UK is also "massively POLARIZED on that issue", particularly politically - the PM had to beg the opposition Labour party to help him to get the legislation passed as more than half the Conservative MPs voted against the Bill. As the PM conceded after the vote "On the gay marriage issue, this is an issue clearly that divides the country. It certainly divides the Conservative Party,"

[LeCharivari]

It's also funny to read UK-centric arguments about American specific gay rights controversies. So sorry, the situations are VERY different.

I like reading things that are "funny" - maybe you could show me some of those "UK-centric arguments" ....

[Jingthing]

You still don't get it.

American republicans are so FAR right wing they are almost fascists.

Our "liberals" are generally not liberal by European standards.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

It's also funny to read UK-centric arguments about American specific gay rights controversies. So sorry, the situations are VERY different.

I like reading things that are "funny" - maybe you could show me some of those "UK-centric arguments" ....

Watch the Daily Show.

[onthemoon]

Think what you want. The USA won't be waiting decades anymore. Like I said, ANY gay American can have a real federally EQUAL marriage RIGHT NOW. Yes, some would have to move. The tactics are clear, focus on MARRIAGE, go for MANY more states gay MARRIAGE ( and NO more states civil unions, convert those few that are), let the patchwork MESS show its horns, then on to the supreme court for the final DEFINITIVE case. Again, non-Americans might not get it. So what? Where the U.S. is at now is INCREDIBLE, has been worked on for DECADES, the results are much quicker than anyone imagined, and there is no reason to think the total win won't be quicker than most people think as well. It's a fantasy to think many gay people in the USA are interested in propping up civil unions. I've explained why multiple times ... not again, search if you want.

You are right (and I am talking about myself when saying this): non-Americans don't get it.

Why are you so obsessed with the word "marriage"? Europeans want the same rights, and civil unions provide that. As I mentioned earlier, the word "marriage" has a religious connotations for Europeans, and even straight couples now fight for the right to have civil union instead of a marriage.

It's about equal rights, no more and no less. A civil union is not "lesser" than a marriage, what makes you think that?

But then, I agree with you that where the US now is incredible and the results are much faster than expected.

[onthemoon]

...(edited)

There is another important reason why American gay rights activists would NOT be in favor of visa rules recognizing civil unions. It has been a huge attack line of right wing anti-gay American forces to falsely accuse gays of demanding SPECIAL RIGHTS. That was a lie. The goal was only EQUAL rights. To grant special rights to foreigners not in marriages, when the reality is MOST international civil unions are people of the SAME SEX, would be giving the right wing ammunition that gays have won SPECIAL rights. That would be a SPECIAL right. No thank you. Full 100 percent EQUALITY. Nothing special. I don't expect non-Americans to understand.

Oh please ... its difficult to have it both ways, and this is incredibly contrived.

Either the "right wing anti-gay American forces" see civil unions as a preferable "LESSER OPTION" to marriages or they see them as "SPECIAL RIGHTS" - they can't be "SPECIAL" and "LESSER"!

Yes, I knew you wouldn't understand.

Anyone like me who has been involved in this struggle for decades understands perfectly.

I've been involved - no, that's wrong: I was involved in this struggle for decades. And then suddenly everything fell into place, and the current situation in Europe surpassed what I'd thought would be possible in my lifetime.

I understand. And for me it's still about equal rights, and of course societal acceptance. I no longer live in Europe, though.

[Jingthing]

It's a vast and complicated subject but I can tell you with full authority and confidence: civil unions in the USA are PASSE and there isn't a significant constituency that has a problem with that.

The small number of gay Americans IN civil unions I can guarantee you almost all of them either want to:

get married

or

end their civil unions and split (hey, we're human).

There is absolutely no significant movement among non-gay Americans for non-gay civil unions and there NEVER WILL BE. The USA isn't Europe. Please cope.

Yes there is still a strong anti-gay faction. But even their focus is fighting gay MARRIAGE! That is where the debate is and will continue to be until the patchwork is fully resolved, which again could happen next year, or in 20 years, but it won't be 50 years, that's for certain.

The fight is now how fast TOTAL marriage equality happens. Not if. WHEN. Yes, all about marriage.

So again, this civil union fetish when talking about the CURRENT U.S. situation is a totally irrelevant time warp. What's the point of wasting time debating an irrelevancy? A question I should ask myself I guess too.

BTW, in my view one of the major reasons we are at where we are at (about MARRIAGE EQUALITY) is related to the parallels between the American gay civil rights movement and the American black civil rights movement, including their fight to end illegal interracial marriages. Separate but equal is not a concept civil rights advocates in the USA can EVER stomach. Only equal is equal and fully equal is the EXACT same institutions with the EXACT same WORD. Sorry, we're different. Please cope.

I will also add in my political view, there are some major aspects of USA culture that are quite shameful ... so many Americans in prison, the death penalty, gun crazy culture, obesity epidemic caused by corporate pushed fake food diets, too many stupid wars, our airports what a horror show, very poor health care access mixed with absurdly high costs, etc.

But on our CIVIL RIGHTS culture and principles, I think the USA has something to be proud of. Proud of our black civil rights movement with Martin Luther King and proud of our gay civil rights movement, which never had a leader like King, but you can't have everything.

Fast results are not the only measure of success!

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

Dear JT,

I understand the US situation. What you are saying, and what the lady in the video said.

So, in the US, it is about the word.

But let me assure you, in Europe it is about equal rights. Legal rights, that is.

One day in the future, I hope that US citizens, including you, will understand the importance of the difference: We do not want marriage, we want equal rights. Until then, I might just back out of this discussion.

[Jingthing]

USA people want BOTH. I don't think we're too greedy.

I am not criticizing OTHER countries who take other paths.

However, I do think the path the USA took was brilliant ... for the USA.

Not all countries have the same cultures or political systems.

To expand a little relating to the Mexico thread. IF I believed Mexico was on a civil union path nationally, and that's all they wanted, I would have no problem with that. BUT, I know for a fact Mexico is clearly on a path towards being another MARRIAGE equality nation but they are actually almost there. (See the thread.) Yes, I totally admit my opinion bias, that MARRIAGE equality is superior to settling for a separate institution but it's not going to happen everywhere.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

You didn't say (until now) that you want both. You said you want "gay marriage".

And I, on the other hand, want equal rights. The new US policy about visa rules does not supply that. You might find it brilliant, I find it good as a first step.

About the Mexico thread: Post your opinion there, and I'll reply there.

[LeCharivari]

That's rich.

Look, folks.

The USA is not the UK. Not Australia. Not Thailand.

It is has its own peculiar system and yes POLITICS.

If there was right wing republican president right now (that's redundant) not only would we not have the supreme court victories we just won, but even if we did (we wouldn't because his picks would be different) such an anti-gay president would do all he can to NOT implement the federal recognition of the newly won federal MARRIAGE rights.

They are NOT automatic.

Obama and now Kerry are really doing ALL they can to implement federal recognition of the legal state gay marriages in the USA.

Seriously, please let this sink in.

Without Obama (or another democrat) as president now we wouldn't be having this conversation.

IF those landmark cases had even been judged at the supreme court, we would have LOST.

I think many foreigners do not understand the details of the U.S. system and why should they, but if you don't understand, how CREDIBLE can your opinion about tactics really be?

....

So much mis-information ... so little time ... and so many Americans appear not to understand the details of their own system!

"If there was right wing republican president right now (that's redundant) not only would we not have the supreme court victories we just won, but even if we did (we wouldn't because his picks would be different)" ..... "IF those landmark cases had even been judged at the supreme court, we would have LOST."

IF there was a right wing republican president right now the Supreme Court judges would be THE SAME - there have been no "picks" since 2010, and the last election was in 2012.

Unless you are saying that Obama had some influence on the Supreme Court judges their judgement would have been THE SAME.

"... such an anti-gay president would do all he can to NOT implement the federal recognition of the newly won federal MARRIAGE rights.

They are NOT automatic."

Incorrect. Decisions of the Supreme Court ARE binding (unless the court divides evenly) and any government has NO OPTION but to enforce that decision - read Section Two of Article Three of the US Constitution. They ARE automatic.

"Obama and now Kerry are really doing ALL they can to implement federal recognition of the legal state gay marriages in the USA."

Agreed - I have never denied that. Nobody's denying that. But GAY RIGHTS ARE NOT JUST ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE and that is all they are looking at, and they are penalising those with civil unions unnecessarily and unjustly. They COULD have given the same rights to those in civil unions as have been given to those in same-sex marriages, but they CHOSE not to. SCotUS didn't make this a ruling, but they made it an option - the Obama administration CHOSE not to give those rights to those in civil unions.

When this point was first raised here you made the point that US governments have never back-tracked on civil rights decisions, so any future civil unions were not a threat per se to same-sex marriage. Now that it is clear that those in civil unions (American and foreign) ARE being discriminated against and that that discrimination is unnecessary and is a result of Democratic (capital "D") policy you are justifying it on the grounds that civil unions are "HISTORY" etc, and nothing more than a distraction on the way to the "FUTURE".

Well, what about the PRESENT?

What about the gay couples who already have State registered civil unions who are not eligible for the same benefits and rights as those with same-sex marriages?

What about the gay couples who will have no option, unless they move, but to have State registered civil unions who won't even be eligible for those benefits?

What about the gay couples who have foreign registered civil unions but one of them can't live with his partner in the States?

What about all the gay couples who would like to have their GAY RIGHTS now or at least as soon as possible but who can't because no matter how quickly progress is made its going to take longer in many States for same sex marriages to be approved than it would take for civil unions?

Don't those gay couples deserve anything?

No-one is saying don't go for gay marriage. No-one is saying there's anything wrong with that as an end game. No-one is saying that the "gay activists" are wrong to put all their energy into working towards that aim. No-one is saying that they should be spending their time "propping up" civil unions in any way or even supporting them.

But why DELIBERATELY side-line them? Why MAKE them worthless when its all that some gay couples can have? They COULD easily have been included in the new visa rules, but they were deliberately EXcluded. The arguments for same sex marriage vs civil unions, in this context, are the same as the worst arguments in the same sex marriage vs marriage debate - that they somehow "detract" and "devalue" marriage. They were baseless there and they are baseless here.

[Jingthing]

IF there was a right wing republican president right now the Supreme Court judges would be THE SAME - there have been no "picks" since 2010, and the last election was in 2012.

SERIOUSLY, did you actually think I was ONLY talking about the CURRENT term of Obama? That would be a totally absurd assumption. OF COURSE I was referring to his ENTIRE presidential history.

OY VEY!

President Obama was elected in 2008.

He was reelected in 2012.

President Obama's supreme court picks:

SONIA SOTOMAYOR

ELENA KAGAN

That folks is TWO picks for OBAMA.

CRITICAL picks it turned out for the history of gay MARRIAGE rights in the USA.

If President Obama had lost in 2008, those would have been two picks for the right wing anti-gay rights republican president.

The two recent landmark gay marriage decisions were both decided by ONE vote.

5 votes against 4 votes.

Do the math.

CASE CLOSED.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Years ago, I worked in the area of immigration (and refugees). The laws, rules and regulations with regard to relationships are rather rigid. If you are not married, you do not have a partner and any other relationship is of little or no value.

"Years ago" that was the case.

It no longer is in those countries with civil union legislation or in some countries without civil union legislation such as Australia which recognises de facto same-sex relationships with a twelve month plus committed relationship on EXACTLY the same basis as marriage (and its been that way since 1985, so that's quite a few "years ago").

America has chosen to exclude civil unions; the SCotUS ruling gave them the option to include them, but they chose not to. Their choice.

*Deleted* This topic is about the New US visa rules.

My comment was not an indication of what should or should not be, but an observation of how the laws, rules and regulations are/were enforced. If you are married, then your spouse has certain rights. If you are not married, then your civil partner, partner, boy/girl friend/neighbor or whatever does not have the same legal rights in regard to immigration. There is also no way that you can extend those rights to someone other than your legal spouse.

I have not kept up with some of the intricacies of how the regulations are enforced over the years. I also know the many, many devious methods that were used to try to get people into the US.

This rule is not new. It is exactly how any married couple would be treated from an immigration point of view. It is, I would guess, one of the reasons why many of the marriage advocates are less compromising on anything which is legally not recognized as a full marriage.