New US visa rules

[Jingthing]

Actually, the USA marriage equality movement at the moment doesn't have a problem.
This discussion is bizarre.

We've recently won a MASSIVE victory and the general public consensus is that we are on our way to a total nationwide victory.

If you actually believe there is interest in historical relics now, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[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.

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>

That's humorous but as I reckon you know there is no state church in the USA and marriages can be performed in all states with no religious involvement whatsoever. YES, I realize the culture is different in different countries. Enjoy!

[Jingthing]

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..

I've explained multiple times why how promoting even ONE further state civil union legalization would retard winning full MARRIAGE equality which is the goal, and the goal is in sight. Indeed, as I've already explained multiple times, there is organization now to CONVERT the FEW existing civil union states to first class MARRIAGE equality, and of course the drive to convert as many new states as possible as quickly as possible from nothing to marriage states. It's well understood the supreme court will be the final decider for a national mandate for state marriages. That could happen a lot sooner than you might imagine.

You think it's a good idea to promote something that won't help marriage equality in the long run, something that will indeed SLOW IT DOWN or even stop it from ever happening fully. I don't, Obama doesn't, and I'm sure the vast majority of gay Americans don't because frankly and naturally I have a much better idea of how they see this civil rights movement.

BTW, I am confident I am right about this, knowing what Americans want. If there is even ONE new U.S. state push for civil unions I will eat my hat. That is over. We've moved on. Please save your energy and consider comprehending that.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

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

The following countries permit immigration based on same sex relationships (same sex marriage or civil unions - either, depending on the country of registration, not the country of application, or even proven unregistered same sex relationships as in Australia):

Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Lichenstien, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Uruguay.

The position in Nepal is unclear.

(note: I have not included 35 separate links in the interests of space and patience - the list in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_equality is extensive, but it is neither complete nor fully correct as it wrongly includes the USA)

[Jingthing]

Actually that wiki link says something quite different:

This may occur through the recognition of same-sex marriage, through some other form of registered relationship, or through specific provisions made in immigration law. These countries are:

May occur. You would need DETAILED info about each of those countries specific policies to know the facts. The IMPLICATION just made was that all of those countries honored same sex marriage AND other alternative unions. I don't see anything in that link saying anything of that kind. If I've got that wrong, please let me know.

What's the point of this exercise anyway? To imply the USA is unusually unjust because it's an exception to the 36? OK, fine, if that's your trip, go for it, but first I'd like to see something more definitive that the assertion is actually true. That link didn't do it for me unless I'm just not getting it. If I'm not, someone explain to me how that link shows all those countries accept BOTH gay marriage AND other legal unions? It's possible I missed something so here's the chance to correct me.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

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..

U.S. states currently with civil unions: 4 out of 50, no new ones expected, political conversion efforts to MARRIAGE underway in all 4

U.S. states previously with civil unions which have already converted to marriage: 5 out of 50, expect the final total will be 9, see above

U.S. states previously with marriage which have converted to civil unions: Zero, Bupkis, Nada, Getouttahere!

U.S. states with gay marriage: 13 out of 50 and set to grow rapidly, already amazing growth is the last few years

Again: USA civil unions = historical relic ... NO FUTURE. (Yes, and we LIKE that.)

In USA culture separate but equal is not considered equal EVER, and separate but unequal definitely isn't.

Believe it or not, we REALLY don't want SEPARATE civil unions and pity about that is both unwelcome and misguided.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Actually that wiki link says something quite different:

This may occur through the recognition of same-sex marriage, through some other form of registered relationship, or through specific provisions made in immigration law. These countries are:

May occur. You would need DETAILED info about each of those countries specific policies to know the facts. The IMPLICATION just made was that all of those countries honored same sex marriage AND other alternative unions. I don't see anything in that link saying anything of that kind. If I've got that wrong, please let me know.

What's the point of this exercise anyway? To imply the USA is unusually unjust because it's an exception to the 36? OK, fine, if that's your trip, go for it, but first I'd like to see something more definitive that the assertion is actually true. That link didn't do it for me unless I'm just not getting it. If I'm not, someone explain to me how that link shows all those countries accept BOTH gay marriage AND other legal unions? It's possible I missed something so here's the chance to correct me.

"If I've got that wrong, please let me know."

YOU HAVE.

I didn't make an "IMPLICATION" - I made a STATEMENT having first checked "DETAILED info about each of these countries specific policies to know the facts" on their individual immigration sites - something you are free to do.

As I also explained, the Wiki link is both incomplete and incorrect.

I don't want to criticise your use or understanding of English, but in this case "may occur" means that it occurs in different ways in different countries - it has nothing to do with "we may be wrong".

[sustento]

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?

In order to be 'culturally sensitive' are we expected to agree with everything you say?

[Jingthing]

Actually that wiki link says something quite different:

This may occur through the recognition of same-sex marriage, through some other form of registered relationship, or through specific provisions made in immigration law. These countries are:

May occur. You would need DETAILED info about each of those countries specific policies to know the facts. The IMPLICATION just made was that all of those countries honored same sex marriage AND other alternative unions. I don't see anything in that link saying anything of that kind. If I've got that wrong, please let me know.

What's the point of this exercise anyway? To imply the USA is unusually unjust because it's an exception to the 36? OK, fine, if that's your trip, go for it, but first I'd like to see something more definitive that the assertion is actually true. That link didn't do it for me unless I'm just not getting it. If I'm not, someone explain to me how that link shows all those countries accept BOTH gay marriage AND other legal unions? It's possible I missed something so here's the chance to correct me.

"If I've got that wrong, please let me know."

YOU HAVE.

I didn't make an "IMPLICATION" - I made a STATEMENT having first checked "DETAILED info about each of these countries specific policies to know the facts" on their individual immigration sites - something you are free to do.

As I also explained, the Wiki link is both incomplete and incorrect.

I don't want to criticise your use or understanding of English, but in this case "may occur" means that it occurs in different ways in different countries - it has nothing to do with "we may be wrong".

I have no idea what you just said.

Let me try an American direct question because this is getting ridiculous:

Are you asserting that all of those countries excepting Nepal accept same sex marriages and same sex alternative unions equally in their immigration policies? YES OR NO.

It seemed to me you were asserting YES.

Please clarify so that we're on the same page. Cheers.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[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?

In order to be 'culturally sensitive' are we expected to agree with everything you say?

Not at all!

But please spare the pity. It's insulting and yes culturally insensitive.

Expressing pity to gay Americans who have just enjoyed our biggest civil rights victory in history, much faster than most anyone felt was even possible, is actually really rude and condescending.

Expressing pity about something that in American culture is SUPERIOR (first class MARRIAGE equality) just shows a lack of being open to even trying to understand a different culture.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

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?

In order to be 'culturally sensitive' are we expected to agree with everything you say?

Not at all!

But please spare the pity. It's insulting and yes culturally insensitive.

Expressing pity to gay Americans who have just enjoyed our biggest civil rights victory in history, much faster than most anyone felt was even possible, is actually really rude.

Expressing pity about something that in American culture is SUPERIOR (first class MARRIAGE equality) just shows a lack of being open to trying to understand a different culture. Disagreeing with the U.S. values and culture is different. Have a ball with that.

I've never expressed pity about American culture although I admit I often don't understand it. As far as the marriage equality thing goes we already have it in the UK. We've had civil partnerships for 9 years. I realise that the US is more of a 'winners and losers' place than the UK but personally I'd rather a slice of the cake today and the rest of the cake in 10 years time than have to wait 10 years for a single bite.

[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?

In order to be 'culturally sensitive' are we expected to agree with everything you say?

Not at all!

But please spare the pity. It's insulting and yes culturally insensitive.

Expressing pity to gay Americans who have just enjoyed our biggest civil rights victory in history, much faster than most anyone felt was even possible, is actually really rude.

Expressing pity about something that in American culture is SUPERIOR (first class MARRIAGE equality) just shows a lack of being open to trying to understand a different culture. Disagreeing with the U.S. values and culture is different. Have a ball with that.

I've never expressed pity about American culture although I admit I often don't understand it. As far as the marriage equality thing goes we already have it in the UK. We've had civil partnerships for 9 years. I realise that the US is more of a 'winners and losers' place than the UK but personally I'd rather a slice of the cake today and the rest of the cake in 10 years time than have to wait 10 years for a single bite.

I am aware of the UK history. The USA path has been very different for 1000 reasons not nearly as clear cut and simple as your post just implied. Its like you think we really had that same choice as you. We never did! Reading up on the movement's history and US politics and government structure would be a good start. I wouldn't blame you for not bothering, but trust me, this civil rights movement is doing great. American civil rights movements ALWAYS take decades anyway.

Another point about this, I wouldn't ever presume to PROJECT the USA situation onto the UK. What's this thing with projecting UK history onto the USA? This we did it this way in the UK, you should have/COULD have done in the SAME way in the USA? Is this some kind of residue of colonial attitudes? It's quite queer for me to observe. Do y'all deep down think you're our Daddy's?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Actually that wiki link says something quite different:

This may occur through the recognition of same-sex marriage, through some other form of registered relationship, or through specific provisions made in immigration law. These countries are:

May occur. You would need DETAILED info about each of those countries specific policies to know the facts. The IMPLICATION just made was that all of those countries honored same sex marriage AND other alternative unions. I don't see anything in that link saying anything of that kind. If I've got that wrong, please let me know.

What's the point of this exercise anyway? To imply the USA is unusually unjust because it's an exception to the 36? OK, fine, if that's your trip, go for it, but first I'd like to see something more definitive that the assertion is actually true. That link didn't do it for me unless I'm just not getting it. If I'm not, someone explain to me how that link shows all those countries accept BOTH gay marriage AND other legal unions? It's possible I missed something so here's the chance to correct me.

"If I've got that wrong, please let me know."

YOU HAVE.

I didn't make an "IMPLICATION" - I made a STATEMENT having first checked "DETAILED info about each of these countries specific policies to know the facts" on their individual immigration sites - something you are free to do.

As I also explained, the Wiki link is both incomplete and incorrect.

I don't want to criticise your use or understanding of English, but in this case "may occur" means that it occurs in different ways in different countries - it has nothing to do with "we may be wrong".

I have no idea what you just said.

Let me try an American direct question because this is getting ridiculous:

Are you asserting that all of those countries excepting Nepal accept same sex marriages and same sex alternative unions equally in their immigration policies? YES OR NO.

It seemed to me you were asserting YES.

Please clarify so that we're on the same page. Cheers.

YES in very broad terms, but it isn't a yes or no question.

What they accept generally depends on how the country where the civil union, same sex marriage, etc was registered defines the partnership - not on their own definition. In France, for example, se-pacser is more basic than a marriage so some other countries do not accept same sex (or any) couples that are now "only" pacsed but not married, while some will; the UK has same sex marriage in addition to civil partnerships, but they still accept civil unions from countries which only have that option; Australia accepts a "proven" relationship (any sex) of over 12 months duration; Ecuador gives their Immigration Department more discretion, as does Andorra.

Try this link (admittedly out of date) http://www.hrc.org/files/images/blog/2009/06/uafa_talking_points.pdf from the Human Rights Campaign which states:

Other Countries Have Embraced Immigration Equality

•

The United States lags behind 19 countries that recognize same-sex couples for immigration

purposes: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland,Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

•

No country that has embraced immigration equality for same-sex couples has reported problems with fraud

Edited August 6, 2013 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

What I find particularly "bizarre", having researched this rather more fully, is this oft repeated claim that "The USA movement is about first class marriage equality and not propping up any separate but equal or separate but unequal so called "alternative" and that "You think it's a good idea to promote something that won't help marriage equality ..... I don't, Obama doesn't, and I'm sure the vast majority of gay Americans don't because frankly and naturally I have a much better idea of how they see this civil rights movement" and that the author represents the Democrat and the "gay American" view, which the rest of us do not understand.

Judging by the Democrats' ACTIONS (not one person's opinions here of what the Democrats, the vast majority of gay Americans or anyone else thinks) they are POSITIVELY INTERESTED IN CIVIL UNIONS.

In September 2012 (admittedly before the DOMA ruling) the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Politano, ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify its field offices "that the interpretation of the phrase ‘family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners."

NOW (as in at the moment, post DOMA, in the 113th Congress, currently sponsored and referred to the US House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law and actively supported by the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, Out4Immigration and the ACLU) the Uniting American Families Act refers to "permanent partners" as anyone over 18 who:

(A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment; ( is financially interdependent with that other individual; © is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone other than that other individual; (D) is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act; and (E) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual.

The Bill is specifically for same sex couples (LGBT) who are not legally "married" and extends immigration rights to them as "permanent partners" on the same basis as those who are legally and technically married.

This whole debate appears to be pointless because despite what we have been told repeatedly, at least as far as immigration is concerned which is what this thread is about, the USA is NOT following a different "DIRECTION" to everyone else but it is actively following the SAME DIRECTION but the appropriate legislation is still being debated.

I am open to correction, of course, but it appears that the USA is being criticised unfairly in this case so unless anyone can provide anything other than opinion to support this "DIRECTION" allegation I have no interest in doing that.

[LeCharivari]

I've never expressed pity about American culture although I admit I often don't understand it. As far as the marriage equality thing goes we already have it in the UK. We've had civil partnerships for 9 years. I realise that the US is more of a 'winners and losers' place than the UK but personally I'd rather a slice of the cake today and the rest of the cake in 10 years time than have to wait 10 years for a single bite.

I've got to correct you there, sustento, as technically we don't quite "already have it in the UK" just yet as its a devolved issue so although "we" have it in England and Wales its still to be passed in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Executive have said they're not going to introduce any same sex marriage legislation (any same sex marriages will be recognised as civil partnerships in NI).

As for other areas, although Jersey has them Guernsey doesn't even have Civil Partnerships yet, nor do Alderney, Herm or Sark.

[Jingthing]

Immigration/visa issues and INTERNAL issues about further gay MARRIAGE equality for all 50 states are not exactly the same issues.

The internal thing is a massively more important goal. I think the visa details are a technicality in comparison.

Again, look at my chart about the trend.

NOW a TINY number of U.S. civil union states with even a larger number which have already upgraded.

Again, there is no way there is going to be any NEW U.S. state going for civil unions. They will be going for marriage and likely a majority of U.S. states with marriage within 5 or 10 years, although a supreme court national mandate could easily happen before then.

Again, any gay American couple who really really really needs to get married can likely do so NOW, and yes, in 37 states they would have to move to another state. No, that's not good enough. That's why the movement goes on towards the 50 state goal.

As far as the Uniting American Families Act,-- forget about it. It won't pass. Duh!

Why? Because the U.S. Congress is dominated by right wing republicans who are massively hostile to gay civil rights. You see, you can't even begin to understand this issue without understanding the POLITICS of it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s296

Prognosis

46% chance of getting past committee.
6% chance of being enacted.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I wasn't talking about POLITICS. This is a GAY Forum, not a political one, and I am only interested in GAY issues here not your personal political views.

I was talking about FACTS and whether the picture you paint of gay issues and who supports what is supported by those facts. It isn't.

[Jingthing]

I wasn't talking about POLITICS. This is a GAY Forum, not a political one, and I am only interested in GAY issues here not your personal political views.

I was talking about FACTS and whether the picture you paint of gay issues and who supports what is supported by those facts. It isn't.

Chill out, please kind sir.

The FACTS are quite clear the chances of that bill you posted about (Uniting American Families Act) almost definitely will NOT pass in the House. Oh sorry, lots of politicians there. Getting ANY bill passed in the current house that is remotely pro gay rights is not in the cards. Could that change? Yes, over time, if the democratic party wins a majority again ... uh oh, politics again.

This was also mentioned before in the Washington Post article I posted. There are parts of implementing the supreme court pro equality decisions that will require action from the legislature. Obama can't do everything himself. In the current House, that's also not in the cards.

American civil rights movements never get instant complete results AND partisan politics is ALWAYS deeply involved. This one is no different. Not saying that is the best of all possible worlds, it ain't, but that's the REAL situation.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

...

YES in very broad terms, but it isn't a yes or no question.

...

In broad terms, is it?

Then it doesn't seem very useful as debating point if it's so VAGUE.

BTW, this link seems pretty definitive about the recent Kerry announcement on visa rules saying it is about MARRIED couples only:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/us-visa-applications-same-sex-couples

A bill legalising same-sex marriage in England and Wales received royal assent in July and comes into effect early next year. A similar measure has been proposed for Scotland. Without these measures, the new rules announced by Kerry in London on Friday would not have benefited British citizens, as they do not cover people in civil unions.

I will also add that IF the U.S. visa rules were fully accepting of FOREIGN civil unions/domestic partnerships, I don't think that would really be particularly damaging to the DOMESTIC civil rights movement for gay MARRIAGE equality.

However, I do think if the measures taken by Obama to implement the supreme court decisions about acceptance of state gay marriages FEDERALLY were also afforded to the tiny number of U.S. states with civil unions, that would be damaging to the speed that that the actual final goal is achieved (50 state legal gay MARRIAGE). I do not believe that just because gays love Obama, and they do, that if this policy of not elevating U.S. state civil unions (only four states now) that they wouldn't object to this if they didn't agree with it. I think gay Americans really do massively support focusing on gay MARRIAGE equality as the goal.

To keep the MARRIAGE equality movement going at FULL STEAM, I think it is VITAL that not even ONE more state goes for a new civil unions law. We don't want to promote that as a real alternative. If they are not recognized as MARRIAGES are at the federal level, the civil union option will just DIE as totally undesirable, and that is certainly what I want and what I believe represents the mainstream desires of American gay people.

Keep in mind, folks, it is only FOUR states now with the undesirable historical relic. One of those states is a large state, ILLINOIS, and there is quite a fair chance they will upgrade to marriage next year. It was SUPPOSED to happen this year and yes that was a POLITICAL setback. There will be more setbacks in future, but the endgame result is close to inevitable.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

I've never expressed pity about American culture although I admit I often don't understand it. As far as the marriage equality thing goes we already have it in the UK. We've had civil partnerships for 9 years. I realise that the US is more of a 'winners and losers' place than the UK but personally I'd rather a slice of the cake today and the rest of the cake in 10 years time than have to wait 10 years for a single bite.

I've got to correct you there, sustento, as technically we don't quite "already have it in the UK" just yet as its a devolved issue so although "we" have it in England and Wales its still to be passed in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Executive have said they're not going to introduce any same sex marriage legislation (any same sex marriages will be recognised as civil partnerships in NI).

As for other areas, although Jersey has them Guernsey doesn't even have Civil Partnerships yet, nor do Alderney, Herm or Sark.

Sorry - I'm getting my geography wrong

[Scott]

There is a lot of nasty sniping on this thread, sad, since the majority of people posting here probably have no intention of moving to the US to live, so the visa regulations make little difference. If you and your civil partner wish to visit the US, you can both apply for a tourist visa, you will be treated like any other applicant, including married people -- one of you might get refused (although usually they refuse both).

Does a civil union/domestic partnership make a difference on a tourist visa? Yes, it does. It establishes a relationship and it probably helps to overcome the presumption that the applicant from a poorer country will remain in the US.

If you are moving to the US to live or work for an extended period of time, your civil partnership will be more problematic. This is where marriage is the preferred option. If you are married, your spouse will get full consideration to reside with you (but it is still an immigration issue and your spouse does not have the RIGHT to reside with you). If you are planning on living in the US, then a civil partnership will be of little value and each applicant will be judged on their own merits.

The legal situation has to do with how the laws are written and marriage is simple the federally recognized gold standard of relationships, from a legal perspective. If you encounter an anti-gay consul officer, you will have certain protections if you are married. You will not be accorded much in a civil union. If the consul officer is sympathetic to gays (and a lot of consul officers are gay), they will accord credence to your civil partnership in entering the US. However, you cannot file a spousal petition for a civil union.

There are huge numbers of people who attempt to enter the US illegally. There are plenty of people who use marriage as a way of gaining entry to the US, civil partnerships would be an even easier route due to the various regulations in each state concerning the legality of civil partnerships.

The issue of gay marriage/civil unions is a debate for internal consumption of the citizens of a country. There is little if any consideration for how it will affect immigration.

[LeCharivari]

There is a lot of nasty sniping on this thread, sad, since the majority of people posting here probably have no intention of moving to the US to live, so the visa regulations make little difference. If you and your civil partner wish to visit the US, you can both apply for a tourist visa, you will be treated like any other applicant, including married people -- one of you might get refused (although usually they refuse both).

Does a civil union/domestic partnership make a difference on a tourist visa? Yes, it does. It establishes a relationship and it probably helps to overcome the presumption that the applicant from a poorer country will remain in the US.

If you are moving to the US to live or work for an extended period of time, your civil partnership will be more problematic. This is where marriage is the preferred option. If you are married, your spouse will get full consideration to reside with you (but it is still an immigration issue and your spouse does not have the RIGHT to reside with you). If you are planning on living in the US, then a civil partnership will be of little value and each applicant will be judged on their own merits.

The legal situation has to do with how the laws are written and marriage is simple the federally recognized gold standard of relationships, from a legal perspective. If you encounter an anti-gay consul officer, you will have certain protections if you are married. You will not be accorded much in a civil union. If the consul officer is sympathetic to gays (and a lot of consul officers are gay), they will accord credence to your civil partnership in entering the US. However, you cannot file a spousal petition for a civil union.

There are huge numbers of people who attempt to enter the US illegally. There are plenty of people who use marriage as a way of gaining entry to the US, civil partnerships would be an even easier route due to the various regulations in each state concerning the legality of civil partnerships.

The issue of gay marriage/civil unions is a debate for internal consumption of the citizens of a country. There is little if any consideration for how it will affect immigration.

If things that made "little difference" to us personally were not discussed here this forum would be a much quieter place!

"There are plenty of people who use marriage as a way of gaining entry to the US, civil partnerships would be an even easier route due to the various regulations in each state concerning the legality of civil partnerships."

The HRC, at least by inference, don't appear to see it as a likely problem, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts:

... http://www.hrc.org/f...king_points.pdf from the Human Rights Campaign which states:

Other Countries Have Embraced Immigration Equality .... No country that has embraced immigration equality for same-sex couples has reported problems with fraud

"The issue of gay marriage/civil unions is a debate for internal consumption of the citizens of a country. There is little if any consideration for how it will affect immigration."

Well, as I have already explained in post #74, the US Senate are currently considering how it will affect immigration and the bi-partisan (but largely Democrat supported) Uniting American Families Act, supported by all the major Civil Rights groups (HRC, ACLU, etc), addresses that debate.

[LeCharivari]

...

YES in very broad terms, but it isn't a yes or no question.

...

In broad terms, is it?

Then it doesn't seem very useful as debating point if it's so VAGUE.

It's not "VAGUE" at all - I simply don't understand what you can't understand.

To put it at its simplest:

The USA is the ONLY country with same sex marriage or same sex civil unions which does not accept same sex civil unions from countries that do not have same sex marriage on an equal basis to marriage for immigration purposes.

To be more specific:

ALL "of those countries ... accept same sex marriages and same sex alternative unions equally in their immigration policies" except for SOME countries whose rules recognise a difference in status based on the registering countries' regulations - for example France's, where PACs (for opposite or same sex couples) are not the same status as marriages (of opposite or same sex couples).

Or to put it another way:

ALL of those countries ... accept same sex marriages from countries which have them equally in their immigration policies to opposite sex marriages and they ALL also accept same sex alternative unions from countries which only have them equally in their immigration policies to opposite sex marriages and SOME accept same sex marriages and same sex alternative unions from countries which have both.

[Jingthing]

Put it another way.

Right now, the vast majority of under 30 Americans supports same sex marriage equality.

They see it as a civil rights issues, they have have openly gay friends and family, etc.

That's the core of the issue now.

Immigration and visa policy details relating to gay civil rights do matter but they are not the prominent focus of the overall American gay civil rights movement, and they never will be.

Right now, there remains LOTS of work to do on the core issues, mainly 37 states NOT offering marriage equality.

Yes multiple things can be done at the same time, but there are priorities and the basic DOMESTIC marriage equality thing will remain the priority until it is fully achieved.

BTW, the bill in question is not going to pass. Could make it through the senate. Won't make it through the house. Drats! Politics again.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

I am done trying to explain to people who are unable to comprehend.

Civil Unions are not recognized throughout the 50 states and the territories. The states cannot be forced to recognize them at this point in time without legislation.

If the Immigrations rules were to allow people a Civil Union couple, you still would not be recognized by some states. So, if your partner is seriously injured in an accident, you can sign the consent forms for medical treatment. It will be recognized in all states if you are married. It will be recognized in states that have a Civil Union. In other states, you may not be allowed to visit, let alone have any say in the medical treatment. That, by the way is just an example.

The reason the US is the ONLY one that doesn't recognize all/both is because the states cannot be forced to recognize a civil union. They are, however, forced to recognize a marriage from elsewhere.

The gov't is simply trying to bring the immigration regulations in line with the recent Supreme Court Ruling. Under a different administration, they might decide to leave them as such and there is nothing the SC can do. They can make a ruling, but they cannot enforce a ruling.

[LeCharivari]

However, I do think if the measures taken by Obama to implement the supreme court decisions about acceptance of state gay marriages FEDERALLY were also afforded to the tiny number of U.S. states with civil unions, that would be damaging to the speed that that the actual final goal is achieved (50 state legal gay MARRIAGE). I do not believe that just because gays love Obama, and they do, that if this policy of not elevating U.S. state civil unions (only four states now) that they wouldn't object to this if they didn't agree with it. I think gay Americans really do massively support focusing on gay MARRIAGE equality as the goal.

To keep the MARRIAGE equality movement going at FULL STEAM, I think it is VITAL that not even ONE more state goes for a new civil unions law. We don't want to promote that as a real alternative. If they are not recognized as MARRIAGES are at the federal level, the civil union option will just DIE as totally undesirable, and that is certainly what I want and what I believe represents the mainstream desires of American gay people.

Keep in mind, folks, it is only FOUR states now with the undesirable historical relic. One of those states is a large state, ILLINOIS, and there is quite a fair chance they will upgrade to marriage next year. It was SUPPOSED to happen this year and yes that was a POLITICAL setback. There will be more setbacks in future, but the endgame result is close to inevitable.

Previously you said that "Obama ... the Democrats ... the majority of American gay rights activists ... mainstream Gay Americans ... the vast majority of gay Americans " etc, etc were all supporting the same "DIRECTION" and that THEY considered civil unions "HISTORY ... a historical relic ... " etc, etc, and that THEY had no interest in them.

It is now very clear from the Democrat, ACLU and HRC support for the Uniting American Families Act that they not only have considerable interest in civil unions, particularly for immigration purposes which is what this thread is about, but that they are actively supporting them. Regardless of which "direction" will succeed or work best, "Obama ... the Democrats ... the majority of American gay rights activists ... mainstream Gay Americans ... the vast majority of gay Americans " are clearly NOT all concentrating on only one "DIRECTION" as you have been adamant, but they are keeping their options open and at least trying to progress in the same way that other countries have.

You are now talking about what YOU "think", what YOU "do not believe", what YOU "want" and what YOU "believe".

Keep it that way and there'll probably be a lot less "nasty sniping", particularly from me, and I may give your PERSONAL views rather more respect.

[Scott]

Oh, and fraud in the visa application process as well as immigration is a big problem.

[Jingthing]

Oh, and fraud in the visa application process as well as immigration is a big problem.

Indeed it is!

Before MANY fake opposite sex marriages to help gay foreigners get legal for either friends or compensation.

[Jingthing]

...

Keep it that way and there'll probably be a lot less "nasty sniping", particularly from me, and I may give your PERSONAL views rather more respect.

This is an opinion forum, not a court of law. Please refrain from barking orders at me. You don't have that authority.

On the civil union thing, if there is even ONE U.S. state in future that pushes for a NEW civil union law and it gains significant gay political support, I will take back my assertions about how propping up domestic civil unions in the U.S. is NOT supported by the vast majority of gay Americans.

You know this is really getting bizarre. Why would gay Americans want new second class "other thing" civil union states when they now have FEDERALLY recognized marriage rights? They will ONLY want marriage rights.

The option made sense as a compromise BEFORE the supreme court rulings. Now it makes no sense at all as something AMERICAN gay people would want.

It won't happen. You can bank on that. There will not EVER be a new U.S. state civil union law. Only eventually the four that exist upgrading to marriage. Of those four, three out of four can probably be upgraded within a few years. Colorado will probably take longer.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I am done trying to explain to people who are unable to comprehend.

Civil Unions are not recognized throughout the 50 states and the territories. The states cannot be forced to recognize them at this point in time without legislation.

If the Immigrations rules were to allow people a Civil Union couple, you still would not be recognized by some states. So, if your partner is seriously injured in an accident, you can sign the consent forms for medical treatment. It will be recognized in all states if you are married. It will be recognized in states that have a Civil Union. In other states, you may not be allowed to visit, let alone have any say in the medical treatment. That, by the way is just an example.

The reason the US is the ONLY one that doesn't recognize all/both is because the states cannot be forced to recognize a civil union. They are, however, forced to recognize a marriage from another elsewhere.

The gov't is simply trying to bring the immigration regulations in line with the recent Supreme Court Ruling. Under a different administration, they might decide to leave them as such and there is nothing the SC can do. They can make a ruling, but they cannot enforce a ruling.

You misunderstand me.

I was NOT suggesting that the individual States can be forced to recognize civil unions.

I was suggesting that US Immigration had the OPTION to recognise civil unions for immigration purposes, as Nancy Pelosi said should be the case a year ago, prior to the SCotUS ruling.

The SCotUS decision left the option open for civil unions to be recognised for immigration and other purposes, but it was not a "ruling" so it was not obligatory. The Obama administration chose not to go down that path, possibly because they were hoping to address it through the Uniting American Families Act which covers this specific area.

For IMMIGRATION PURPOSES it doesn't matter if States recognise civil unions or not - it is completely irrelevant as they only have to recognise an individual's IMMIGRATION status, not their MARITAL status.

The issue of what follows an accident, etc, is a totally separate issue and one that would have to be addressed by the US courts if a US citizen was involved - if it was a foreign national their Embassy would be asked to identify their next of kin and that, whether the State in question liked it or not, would be their civil partner.

Edited August 7, 2013 by LeCharivari