New US visa rules

[Jingthing]

"... 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.

THIS is the kind of thing I meant, OBVIOUSLY, which I reckon you knew but I am posting for others:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-married-couples-must-get-their-rightful-benefits/2013/07/21/893b1ef0-e99f-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html

A republican president would be acting differently in the wake of the supreme court pro gay marriage rights decisions. She would not be supportive. She would be BLOCKING fair implementation of marriage equality in ANY WAY she possibly could and yes there is lots of stuff she would have the POWER to do to that effect (just as there is stuff OBAMA has the power to do to be supportive towards implementation of marriage equality and that he IS doing). Anyone who doesn't realize this POLITICAL reality simply lacks the most elementary understanding of the current political situation in the USA.

THE SUPREME Court’s decision to overturn a key aspect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a watershed moment in the struggle for gay and lesbian equality in this country. Now the federal government faces the complex task of implementing the court’s ruling as quickly as possible.

...

To that end, the federal government has moved quickly and commendably to ensure that benefits extend to all married same-sex couples. Each agency has its regulations, and some define marriage based on where a couple resides rather than where the spouses were married — obviously inhospitable to same-sex couples living in the states that don’t recognize their marriages. The Justice Department has followed the president’s direction and updated rules at several agencies already. The Office of Personnel Management will now offer benefits to any employee or annuitant regardless of where he or she lives.

Sadly for pro gay marriage rights supporters, we need CONGRESS to do part of the job. But they won't because they are controlled by far right wing anti-gay republicans.

Yes, Virginia, in the USA anyway, almost everything comes down to POLITICS, even PARTISAN politics. Not saying that is good but as we say:

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

The immigration statutes are pretty specific about who is eligible for what type of visa:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American opposite-sex spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

I don't have a strong opinion about what type of relationship people have or what it is called, but when you get into the area of immigration, and a whole lot of other issues, in the USA, marriage is the gold standard.

For people living overseas, this is an important issue.

[callao]

I wonder how the US state department will deal with US guys wanting to bring their Thai ladyboy or gay friend to the USA to get married

[Jingthing]

I wonder how the US state department will deal with US guys wanting to bring their Thai ladyboy or gay friend to the USA to get married

Thanks to the supreme court and President Barack Obama, based on my understanding of news reports, exactly the same consideration as a U.S. guy planning to marry a Thai woman. A difference however is the same sex marriages can currently only happen in limited number of U.S. states. Not sure how they would rule on that as far as the residency requirements of the American in those states, etc.

So many details to be worked out, and the confusing mess is going to get much worse until it gets better, on the day when the PATCHWORK is fixed and full marriage equality happens in ALL 50 states.

These are the legal states, representing about 30 percent of the total U.S. population

1. Massachusetts

2. California

3. Connecticut

4. Iowa

5. Vermont

6. New Hampshire

7. New York

8. Washington

9. Maine

10. Maryland

11. Rhode Island

12. Delaware

13. Minnesota

Also, Washington, D.C. which is not a state.

I will add that my impression is that not all such marriage intention visas are granted to heterosexuals so same sex couples should expect similar treatment.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

I wonder how the US state department will deal with US guys wanting to bring their Thai ladyboy or gay friend to the USA to get married

Bringing a fiance/fiancee with the intention of marriage to the US is tricky. Some years ago it was known as a K-1 visa (Consul officers use to joke that for gays it would be called a K-Y visa). As a very general rule, the person is allowed to go to the US if the officer is convinced that the relationship is genuine and that the person would very generally meet the criteria to travel to the states under a different visa.

Officers do not like K-1 visas. Years ago, they were routinely denied and people were advised to get married in the fiance's home country.

[Jingthing]

That's real interesting Scott, and I did know these visas are not always granted. The case of the same sex couple INTENDING to marry when they CANNOT marry in the foreigner's country (like Thailand) certainly adds another twist! I did assume they have to BELIEVE the relationship is for real. Oh well!

Equality can be a b----h sometimes! If they usually deny these visas to straights, equal treatment means they will usually deny them to gays.

This could be merciful. Some gay men might think it's a good idea to marry that barboy they met on vacation and take back to the farm in Minnesota, but good old Uncle Sam might just save them from an expensive nightmare!

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

The general attitude of the Department of State and to a lesser extent the Executive Branch has a big influence on how these cases will be handled. Consul officers are given guidelines and those guidelines can be very restrictive or quite lenient. There is also a HUGE amount of discretion on the part of the Consul officer. There is also no appeal process for a rejection.

I would tend not to apply for this type of visa unless it was the only way of getting your potential partner to the USA. I would tend to advise people to get a tourist visa and then get married, if possible -- not sure of this is feasible.

There is also the option of going to a country that does permit marriage and then traveling to the US, with full rights as a married couple.

Do keep in mind that marriage for the purpose of immigration is considered to be fraudulent.

[Jingthing]

There are same-sex legal countries where two people who are BOTH not nationals of that country can get married? Which?

[Scott]

I don't know. I also don't know about the residency requirements for different states.

[onthemoon]

The last I want to say in this thread is that it is a sad state of affairs that the US does not recognize civil unions. It is even sadder that many posters here think this is OK.

I said that accepting gay marriage is a first step, not the gold standard. The gold standard is equal rights.

I have said everything I wanted to say. Nothing what is said in this thread influences the US government anyway, nor will it change the opinions of the US-American posters.

[ToddWeston]

The last I want to say in this thread is that it is a sad state of affairs that the US does not recognize civil unions. It is even sadder that many posters here think this is OK.

I said that accepting gay marriage is a first step, not the gold standard. The gold standard is equal rights.

I have said everything I wanted to say. Nothing what is said in this thread influences the US government anyway, nor will it change the opinions of the US-American posters.

+ 1 very sad indeed, I do feel sorry for them that everything is based on Judges and not lawmakers who could change things. Edited August 6, 2013 by ToddWeston

[LeCharivari]

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.

"SERIOUSLY" yes, I did think you were talking about "the CURRENT term of Obama" - you said "right now".

[ToddWeston]

There are same-sex legal countries where two people who are BOTH not nationals of that country can get married? Which?

Define nationals ? I was not a Canadian citizen nor was my husband when we got married, we were both landed immigrants (Canadian term) but yes we were residents. I have always been entitled to Canadian citizenship because of my Mother but never bothered to apply until just recently in order to avail two passports.

[Jingthing]

"SERIOUSLY" yes, I did think you were talking about "the CURRENT term of Obama" - you said "right now".

Another case of taking pedantic LITERALNESS and treating these forum discussion as if they were courts of law to bizarre levels.

Now you know I meant the OBAMA PRESIDENCY. In all its fullness of YEARS.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

There are same-sex legal countries where two people who are BOTH not nationals of that country can get married? Which?

Define nationals ? I was not a Canadian citizen nor was my husband when we got married, we were both landed immigrants (Canadian term) but yes we were residents. I have always been entitled to Canadian citizenship because of my Mother but never bothered to apply until just recently in order to avail two passports.

I just meant two people taking a special trip to a country JUST to get married. That wasn't you and I have read that such marriage tourists CANNOT marry in Canada now.

[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.

*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.

I 'm sorry, I don't follow you.

My point was that under the new US visa rules US Immigration, following guidance from the Obama administration, could have chosen to make "marriage" visas also available to those with civil unions - a status that is legally recognised in some parts of the US (five States). That option was available to them following the SCotUS ruling.

All other countries that recognise civil unions, whether they also have same sex marriage legislation or only opposite sex marriage legislation and same sex civil unions, or same and opposite sex civil unions, or that legislation only applies in part of the country as in the USA, have chosen to recognise civil unions for the purpose of immigration.

All other countries that only recognise same sex marriage (and have never had civil unions at any level) also recognise same sex civil unions performed abroad for immigration and all other purposes as marriages.

Civil partners (or the equivalents) in all those other countries DO have the same legal rights as spouses, including immigration. They cannot go the the US (or any other country) to get married because they already have a "spouse" so their only option under the new US visa rules is to get divorced and re-marry in the US.

The USA (as far as I am aware) is the only exception to this.

Edited August 6, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

The last I want to say in this thread is that it is a sad state of affairs that the US does not recognize civil unions. It is even sadder that many posters here think this is OK.

I said that accepting gay marriage is a first step, not the gold standard. The gold standard is equal rights.

I have said everything I wanted to say. Nothing what is said in this thread influences the US government anyway, nor will it change the opinions of the US-American posters.

+ 1 very sad indeed, I do feel sorry for them that everything is based on Judges and not lawmakers who could change things.

We don't want or need your PITY, dude. Thanks but no thanks. I should also add you obviously don't really understand the U.S. system. There are multiple ways of effecting legal change in the U.S. and the change that has happened so far on marriage equality has included a mix of those methods and and a MIX of methods (state and federal) will continue to move the issue forward (and sometimes backwards but we will win this for sure).

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

The USA (as far as I am aware) is the only exception to this.

Translation: you don't have the foggiest idea if that is really true.

[ToddWeston]

There are same-sex legal countries where two people who are BOTH not nationals of that country can get married? Which?

Define nationals ? I was not a Canadian citizen nor was my husband when we got married, we were both landed immigrants (Canadian term) but yes we were residents. I have always been entitled to Canadian citizenship because of my Mother but never bothered to apply until just recently in order to avail two passports.

I just meant two people taking a special trip to a country JUST to get married. That wasn't you and I have read that such marriage tourists CANNOT marry in Canada now.

Okay got it and for the record I would hope that country's do not allow such tourism it's not a souvenir. Indeed Canada made the residency an issue because of the backlash from within the community as well as the mainstream. I do believe Vietnam is one such country but not up on current events, had a mate who registered with his Indonesian partner there at the UK embassy other areas I don't honestly know.

[sustento]

There are same-sex legal countries where two people who are BOTH not nationals of that country can get married? Which?

Define nationals ? I was not a Canadian citizen nor was my husband when we got married, we were both landed immigrants (Canadian term) but yes we were residents. I have always been entitled to Canadian citizenship because of my Mother but never bothered to apply until just recently in order to avail two passports.

I just meant two people taking a special trip to a country JUST to get married. That wasn't you and I have read that such marriage tourists CANNOT marry in Canada now.

Okay got it and for the record I would hope that country's do not allow such tourism it's not a souvenir. Indeed Canada made the residency an issue because of the backlash from within the community as well as the mainstream. I do believe Vietnam is one such country but not up on current events, had a mate who registered with his Indonesian partner there at the UK embassy other areas I don't honestly know.

If they registered at the UK Embassy then they were getting a UK civil partnership not a Vietnamese one. The UK Embassy is British soil.

[LeCharivari]

The USA (as far as I am aware) is the only exception to this.

Translation: you don't have the foggiest idea if that is really true.

You really are unnecessarily personal at times. What I meant was that I haven't checked the regulations in all 36 countries concerned, but in those I am already aware of and those I have checked this is the case.

If you think I am wrong, please feel free to say where - or carry on with the personal abuse if you prefer, which you appear to also be free to do.

[Jingthing]

What I meant was that I haven't checked the regulations in all 36 countries concerned, but in those I am already aware of and those I have checked this is the case.

Oh, I see.

You've checked some. How many exactly?

Someone I doubt you've scratched the surface in that kind of research.

There are 36 total.

So then you made a grand conclusion that of the 36, America is PROBABLY the only one.

Maybe it is. But you basically have NO evidence. I'd appreciate more honesty.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

There are same-sex legal countries where two people who are BOTH not nationals of that country can get married? Which?

Define nationals ? I was not a Canadian citizen nor was my husband when we got married, we were both landed immigrants (Canadian term) but yes we were residents. I have always been entitled to Canadian citizenship because of my Mother but never bothered to apply until just recently in order to avail two passports.

The position in Spain and Holland is similar - there may be others I am not aware of.

[ToddWeston]

The last I want to say in this thread is that it is a sad state of affairs that the US does not recognize civil unions. It is even sadder that many posters here think this is OK.

I said that accepting gay marriage is a first step, not the gold standard. The gold standard is equal rights.

I have said everything I wanted to say. Nothing what is said in this thread influences the US government anyway, nor will it change the opinions of the US-American posters.

+ 1 very sad indeed, I do feel sorry for them that everything is based on Judges and not lawmakers who could change things.

We don't want or need your PITY, dude. Thanks but no thanks. I should also add you obviously don't really understand the U.S. system. There are multiple ways of effecting legal change in the U.S. and the change that has happened so far on marriage equality has included a mix of those methods and and a MIX of methods (state and federal) will continue to move the issue forward (and sometimes backwards sometimes but we will win this for sure).

[/quote

Dude I think I like that title, anyway you have my sympathy take it or leave it, clearly things aren't as happy as you make them out to be in terms of equality, and yes I don't understand your system never have never will, but in the spirit of educating myself i was open to your explantion POV why things are what they are but you've yet to convince me.

[LeCharivari]

What I meant was that I haven't checked the regulations in all 36 countries concerned, but in those I am already aware of and those I have checked this is the case.

Oh, I see.

You've checked a few, what is that two?

There are 36 total.

You made a grand conclusion with a diss America bias that of the 36, America is PROBABLY the only one.

Maybe it is. But you basically have NO evidence. I'd appreciate more honesty.

CAN SOMETHING PLEASE BE DONE ABOUT THESE REPEATED PETTY AND PERSONAL ATTACKS.

I said that this was the position AS FAR AS I AM AWARE - I can't really be much more honest than that.

[Jingthing]

That's fine. My opinion remains -- you can keep your civil unions. The USA movement is about first class marriage equality and not propping up any separate but equal or separate but unequal so called "alternative". Those were always promoted by people, almost never gay, who don't think gays are good enough for the first class equality. The attitude that the USA has to "catch up" to promoting separate treatment is not going to EVER be meaningful in the USA. It will be laughed at. So pity all you want. It's meaningless to people who think promoting a separate thing is any kind of progress when you can have the actual SAME thing.

I have nothing against civil unions in countries where they can't do any better. That's it.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

What I meant was that I haven't checked the regulations in all 36 countries concerned, but in those I am already aware of and those I have checked this is the case.

Oh, I see.

You've checked a few, what is that two?

There are 36 total.

You made a grand conclusion with a diss America bias that of the 36, America is PROBABLY the only one.

Maybe it is. But you basically have NO evidence. I'd appreciate more honesty.

CAN SOMETHING PLEASE BE DONE ABOUT THESE REPEATED PETTY AND PERSONAL ATTACKS.

I said that this was the position AS FAR AS I AM AWARE - I can't really be much more honest than that.

Here here I agree you're spot on with your research I click on every link you supply and learn a lot more day by day.

[Jingthing]

What research? I see no research about the 36 countries. None has been presented. Only negative conclusions about America based on almost no evidence.

You know this is a Thailand forum.

I assume y'all are culturally sensitive that things are different in Thailand, there are Thai ways that aren't your ways.

So what's the disconnect about the USA? Any chance you can be culturally sensitive that Americans for cultural, historical, and political reasons see things like CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY movements differently than Europeans do? I get it the other way. I don't assume Europeans will be the same as Americans. Get my point?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

It's meaningless to people who think promoting a separate thing is any kind of progress when you can have the actual SAME thing.

I have nothing against civil unions in countries where they can't do any better. That's it.

Isn't the problem that for most gay Americans they currently CAN'T have the actual SAME thing, and the majority aren't likely to get it for some time?

A civil union is better than nothing, for ALL gays, and even those (OK, the one) promoting only gay marriage have conceded that civil unions would be passed in some States long before any same sex marriage legislation - result: they've got nothing, and it's hard to do much worse than that..

[onthemoon]

That's fine. My opinion remains -- you can keep your civil unions. The USA movement is about first class marriage equality and not propping up any separate but equal or separate but unequal so called "alternative". Those were always promoted by people, almost never gay, who don't think gays are good enough for the first class equality. The attitude that the USA has to "catch up" to promoting separate treatment is not going to EVER be meaningful in the USA. It will be laughed at. So pity all you want. It's meaningless to people who think promoting a separate thing is any kind of progress when you can have the actual SAME thing.

I have nothing against civil unions in countries where they can't do any better. That's it.

I have nothing against marriage for those who want it. Civil union is better, as it is about equal rights. I hope the US will catch up in the near future and not laugh at first class legal equality without religious connotation.

I do not expect you to understand this, regardless of how many times you repeat your opinion. I suggest you let it go.

<duck & run to go back hiding under my comfortable stone>