New US visa rules

[LeCharivari]

... Why would gay Americans want new second class "other thing" civil union states when they now have FEDERALLY recognized marriage rights?

Because however "second class" it may be it's better than nothing, and that's what 70% of the country have got - Nothing.

[Jingthing]

... Why would gay Americans want new second class "other thing" civil union states when they now have FEDERALLY recognized marriage rights?

Because however "second class" it may be it's better than nothing, and that's what 70% of the country have got - Nothing.

Believe me, your argument does not wash with gay Americans. We're going for first class and we're winning. Actually, the 70 percent don't have nothing. Obama is working on this right now. To make sure residency becomes much less important. Got this? The marriages may not be recognized in their residency states but will be recognized at the federal level for as many things as are possible POLITICALLY based on the reality that the president can't do everything, and the congress won't cooperate. The federal stuff is often much more substantive. You can argue your case till the cows come home. You are not arguing something that is meaningful anymore to gay Americans, whether you like or not. I get it, you don't like it, you seem to have some kind of obsession with civil unions, perhaps related to your "conservative" politics (and caring more about religion/marriage connection which is of MUCH LESS relevance in the American culture) but this is not a problem shared with the majority of gay Americans.

The issue I am talking about it basically is recognition of marriages based on place of CELEBRATION vs. place of RESIDENCY.

So yes people who wanted the whole possible package would need to live in or move to the legal states.

But with recognition based on place of celebration, federal rights can be recognized for the other state residents.

Yes it's a messy pathwork and the focus is FIXING that in the coming years. The LAST thing we need is yet another crazy complication/retardation and that would be elevating civil unions. Gay Americans are not that stupid or self defeating.

The example to follow which we ARE following is when it was illegal in SOME states to have mixed race MARRIAGES. That was eventually fixed. Nobody in their right mind, certainly not the actual people in mixed race relationships, suggested back then to have a new separate thing, "mixed race civil unions" or some other messy silliness.

Another way to look at this. The supreme court decisions were a SEA CHANGE for American marriage equality. The fact that some foreigners burdened by their own cultural baggage missed feeling the big wet is of no consequence to actual gay Americans.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

The fact that some foreigners burdened by their own cultural baggage missed feeling the big wet is of no consequence to actual gay Americans........

That was a actually funny JT in reality me thinks our baggage has already arrived at the destination and we're enjoying the sun at the beach waiting for you guys to arrive.

[Jingthing]

The fact that some foreigners burdened by their own cultural baggage missed feeling the big wet is of no consequence to actual gay Americans........

That was a actually funny JT in reality me thinks our baggage has already arrived at the destination and we're enjoying the sun at the beach waiting for you guys to arrive.

So you're GLOATING? Is that your trip?

Different countries. Different systems. Different politics. Different timetables. If you're going to suggest this is some kind of speed race, well OK, then in that case the USA is still a world leader on this issue compared to the vast majority of nations that offer NO legalization of gay relationships or even criminalization. 30 percent of a massively populous country like the USA is still a heck of a lot of people who have already achieved marriage equality as well. Couldn't help myself ... did the MATH. More Americans with FULL marriage equality (state and federal) than the entire population of the UK.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

I'm not obnoxious at all, since this is my opinion and the forum welcomes opinions I will stay with my assertion the USA is behind, you said here or in another post you dont want our pity - fine. Take what you have and build on that. But heck you're the only American I believe spouting this agenda so I'll wait for others to chime in - I don't like being bullied into changing my opinion, and again I certainly wasn't being obnoxious just stating the facts as we on the beach see it.

[Jingthing]

It is not a speed race. But if you get enjoyment out of gloating, perhaps there is some kind of rivalry in your mind with your old colony that has massively outdone you in global power, the first to rebel and start the end of your empire, I wouldn't presume to deny you such a cheap pleasure.

Yes please tell me about all these gay Americans you know that wish new states to enact new civil unions laws instead of marriage laws. I've love to hear from them. Have you really talked to so many gay Americans SINCE the supreme court victories about this?

Anyway, who got more gold medals in the Olympics?

Neener neener neener!

BTW, there is a difference between welcoming diverse opinions and AGREEING with them. You don't need to agree with my opinions, and vice versa.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

See you in Russia ? and we'll see hehehhehe

You're right it's not a race but when I leave this world I hope and pray I will have just celebrated a milestone anniversary of say - don't know married 5 current age 48 do the math.

If you're happy with Bama and things will change wonderful I'm happy for you and your country, until we're equal as nations not province by province, county by county, or state by state we are not same same. My opinion no need to be nasty or try to bully me into thinking I'm wrong and you're right.

[Jingthing]

Best wishes in your marriage.

I will never marry.

I am not really a fan of marriage, per se. It's not my cup of tea.

It's certainly not for everyone, gay or straight.

My interest is for young Americans and the future, so gay Americans grow up knowing they are 100 percent FIRST class citizens. Knowing they have same marriage choices as everyone else is the gold standard goal, and yes, it needs to be 50 states, and it will be.

I don't want any more Americans to grow up and realize later they are actually second class citizens.

Yes it is very ideological and political from my POV. It's the same type of movement as the American black civil rights movement.

American civil rights movements results are NEVER instant. That's the way it is.

Yes, 100 marriage equality WILL flow down to be meaningful to every aspect of life for gay Americans, whether there are explicit anti-discrimination laws on the books or not.

That HAS been the tactic for decades now and I fully support it. Win total gay marriage equality and in effect you've made all gay Americans first class citizens. No goal short of that is acceptable.

If you mock this goal, consider the MASSIVE pro gay public opinion support we have already won, in just a few short years.

Think about it, if 70 percent of American young people support gay marriage, almost definitely that same group is pro gay rights in EVERY aspect of life.

Hearts and minds. In many ways, we've already won, but of course the job needs finishing on paper.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I get it, you don't like it, you seem to have some kind of obsession with civil unions, perhaps related to your "conservative" politics (and caring more about religion/marriage connection which is of MUCH LESS relevance in the American culture) but this is not a problem shared with the majority of gay Americans.

You don't "get it" at all.

I don't have an "obsession with civil unions" - they are simply a means to an end, that end being equal gay rights.

I don't have "conservative" politics, certainly by your standards - compared to some I am right of Kenghis Khan, but compared to others I am left of Mao.

I don't care about the "religion/marriage connection" - there is none for me personally, although I understand and respect that it is important for others even if I disagree with them.

I don't "not like it" - I have already said that I will be converting my own Civil Partnership to a marriage next year, and explained why.

What I don't like is anyone putting their own "obsession" with same sex marriage above the opportunity for others to have gay rights NOW or as soon as possible. Believing what was alleged here I previously thought that Obama, the Democrats, the majority of American gay rights activists, mainstream Gay Americans and the vast majority of gay Americans supported this narrow view. Now that it is clear that they do not, and that they are pursuing all available directions, I have far less interest in the issue.

[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.

I thought about this over dinner, and unless I've misunderstood the "rights" accorded to those with a same sex marriage in States that don't recognise them the next-of-kin rights don't apply, so any same sex couple (even one where both partners/spouses are US citizens) would face exactly the same problem.

Namely, if you have a same sex marriage OR a civil union and your partner/spouse is seriously injured in an accident your next of kin rights are recognised in States that recognise same sex marriages and same sex civil unions, but not in States that don't - regardless of where the civil union or marriage was made.

In fact you're actually better off if one of you is a foreign national in either a same sex civil union or a same sex marriage (wherever they were made) than if you're both US citizens, as at least if its the foreigner whose injured the American partner is registered as his next of kin!

This, as far as I am aware, is one of the many issues still to be resolved in the US courts. If I am wrong, of course, I will stand corrected.

[Scott]

I am going to bow out of this discussion because my input is to try and clarify some of the regulations regarding immigration, but again, not working in the system at this point in time, I am not up on all the ins-and-outs.

You could be right with regard to the accident scenario, however, it's a pretty sure bet that the courts will rule that a same sex spouse is going to have that right. I am reluctant to have examples taken apart, piece by piece because there are so many scenarios.

I have never known of a hospital asking for a marriage certificate.

By the way, I don't have any thing whatsoever against Civil Unions. With regard to immigration, the structure of the state laws and the federal laws and the relationship between them makes marriage the gold standard in that particular area at this point in time.

In the realm of immigration, a marriage can be the formal, legal registered type of marriage or it can be a traditional or religious marriage only. If it is recognized by the larger community as a marriage, it is considered one for immigration purposes. Gay marriage is simply too new to have any of these historical precedence to be built into the regulations. I would have no doubt that once the whole hup-la over gay rights, someone will decide that a civil union, domestic partnership and other situations will be considered as good as a marriage.

It's slightly off-topic, but some states recognize common-law marriages. The fact that defacto same sex spouses have been given palimony are indicators of the direction that these things will eventually go, IMO.

[ToddWeston]

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.

I thought about this over dinner, and unless I've misunderstood the "rights" accorded to those with a same sex marriage in States that don't recognise them the next-of-kin rights don't apply, so any same sex couple (even one where both partners/spouses are US citizens) would face exactly the same problem.

Namely, if you have a same sex marriage OR a civil union and your partner/spouse is seriously injured in an accident your next of kin rights are recognised in States that recognise same sex marriages and same sex civil unions, but not in States that don't - regardless of where the civil union or marriage was made.

In fact you're actually better off if one of you is a foreign national in either a same sex civil union or a same sex marriage (wherever they were made) than if you're both US citizens, as at least if its the foreigner whose injured the American partner is registered as his next of kin!

This, as far as I am aware, is one of the many issues still to be resolved in the US courts. If I am wrong, of course, I will stand corrected.

Having been in an accident (non life threatening) in the USA in Buffalo of all places we had to involve the consulate - i could see Canada from the ER ward .....a long and complicated story but the hospital wouldn't even allow my husband who is a Pharm. D to look at my chart and see what meds I was being given, they wanted my 73 year old father who was in the UK at the time to be consulted. It was a complete cluster and had more to do with my diabetes and metric calculations but the point was stress all around. our consulate was flawless and cleared the matter up within minutes.

Even if we were carrying the licence I do t think it would have mattered.

Edited August 7, 2013 by ToddWeston

[Jingthing]

New York state now has marriage equality.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

...

What I don't like is anyone putting their own "obsession" with same sex marriage above the opportunity for others to have gay rights NOW or as soon as possible. Believing what was alleged here I previously thought that Obama, the Democrats, the majority of American gay rights activists, mainstream Gay Americans and the vast majority of gay Americans supported this narrow view. Now that it is clear that they do not, and that they are pursuing all available directions, I have far less interest in the issue.

You're getting DIFFERENT issues mixed up.

There's the immigration issues around non-marriage recognition part, etc. It's just not that important to most Americans, gay or straight. However the details are worked out, it will likely not have impact on the continued great progress of the DOMESTIC gay marriage equality movement.

Then there is the DOMESTIC part and the future of USA civil unions.

This part is much more important to most gay Americans, and you can think what you like, but there is NO interest among American gay people in creating NEW civil union states, only an interest in upgrading the remaining four to marriage (five upgraded already), and of course the other states as well (beyond the existing 13 marriage equality states) from nothing to marriage equality states. No, Virginia, there will NOT be any NEW civil union states in the USA.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I am going to bow out of this discussion because my input is to try and clarify some of the regulations regarding immigration, but again, not working in the system at this point in time, I am not up on all the ins-and-outs.

You could be right with regard to the accident scenario, however, it's a pretty sure bet that the courts will rule that a same sex spouse is going to have that right. I am reluctant to have examples taken apart, piece by piece because there are so many scenarios.

I have never known of a hospital asking for a marriage certificate.

By the way, I don't have any thing whatsoever against Civil Unions. With regard to immigration, the structure of the state laws and the federal laws and the relationship between them makes marriage the gold standard in that particular area at this point in time.

In the realm of immigration, a marriage can be the formal, legal registered type of marriage or it can be a traditional or religious marriage only. If it is recognized by the larger community as a marriage, it is considered one for immigration purposes. Gay marriage is simply too new to have any of these historical precedence to be built into the regulations. I would have no doubt that once the whole hup-la over gay rights, someone will decide that a civil union, domestic partnership and other situations will be considered as good as a marriage.

It's slightly off-topic, but some states recognize common-law marriages. The fact that defacto same sex spouses have been given palimony are indicators of the direction that these things will eventually go, IMO.

One thing your post did make me think about, Scott, was that while the USA recognises same sex marriage at a national/federal level some States recognise same sex marriage, some only recognise same sex civil unions, and some recognise neither - what I hadn't even thought about before, so thanks for that, is that the UK is actually in EXACTLY that position too!

... and thanks for the info about some defacto/common law partners getting palimony - that shows that the USA actually IS on the right track, and that other options are not only being followed but are actually being effective. As Mao said, it doesn't matter what colour the cat is as long as it catches the mouse.

[Jingthing]

The ideal color of the cat in the USA's case is one with 50 state marriage equality. Then pretty much ALL the complications just vanish. People don't want to have to legislate every little detail of their personal life. The solution is already there -- MARRIAGE.

[LeCharivari]

The ideal color of the cat in the USA's case is one with 50 state marriage equality. Then pretty much ALL the complications just vanish. People don't want to have to legislate every little detail of their personal life. The solution is already there -- MARRIAGE.

The solution might well be "there", but that doesn't mean its going to happen smoothly or easily. In the UK, for example, despite the mutual back-slapping and cries of "victory" we aren't "there" yet, and it may well take a long time to get "there".

One example Scott made me think of was Guernsey and the Isle of Man - well known as offshore tax havens. If you happen to be gay with money there (as many expats do) and you die intestate you can forget about your Civil Partner or same sex Married spouse getting any of it as your next of kin.

[Jingthing]

Honestly, a few years ago I thought it would take 50 years to get where we got the day of the supreme court decisions.

I don't think my view was unusual. It wasn't even unusually pessimistic.

12 years ago my Mom told me her opinion, gay marriage would NEVER happen in the USA ... EVER.

I honestly had to say you might be right.

So when you look at it that way, and I do, we're already way ahead of the game.

My focus is civil rights and EQUALITY under the law, and the future, for the children of the future ... doing it right and doing it completely.

Could easily be done within 10 years now.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

(edited) ...

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.....

Just noticed an interesting take from Andy Thayer, co-founder of the Gay Liberation Network on why there are no "protests" by gays during Democrat governments:

There is a smugness among many Americans, including LGBTs, that our country is the most advanced in every area of human freedom, and that thus there is no need to get up off of the couch and organize for your rights. This attitude is ironic when you consider that the United States recently had a president who openly condoned torture and launched an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands, and we have a current president who fails to support our equal right to marry and is rapidly retreating from his previously stated support for equal employment rights in America's leading employer, the military. When you take off the nationalistic blinders, you see that there are many areas of the world that are frankly quite in advance of the United States in some areas of human rights.

....There has been entirely too much compromise in the American movement since the days of ACT-UP, and as a result we have won virtually no national legislative victories since the first President Bush. Under the first President Bush we were uncompromising in our demands, and as a result we won the Ryan White AIDS Care Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. But when a Democrat (Bill Clinton) got into office, most of our leaders ceased making demands of the President, and as a result we got stuck with horrible pieces of legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act and the anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy.

Now with a Democrat in the White House again, many have again ceased making demands of the president, or have muted those demands. If persisted in, this is a disastrous repetition of the Clinton history.

The interview was in 2009 (pre repeal of "don't don't tell" and SCotUS) but is probably still relevant in other respects.

http://www.gayliberation.net/gaypride/2009/0516interview.html

[Jingthing]

That interview is MASSIVELY dated. Obama has delivered BIG TIME.

Clinton, yes, not great on gay issues.

The joke if you don't get it, is that when Clinton was president he was called the first black president, by blacks ... affectionately.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Credo]

The difference between the Democratic and Republican administrations is that during the Republican administrations, gays are generally left out on the street. During a Democratic administration, the doors are opened and gays are a part of the gov't.

When you are out on the street, you protest. When you are inside, you go about the business of getting things done.

Oh, and yes, the US is behind a number of countries, usually European, on a large number of human rights issues. People in the US are quite well aware of this and it is often brought up in the media.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Credo

[Jingthing]

...

Oh, and yes, the US is behind a number of countries, usually European, on a large number of human rights issues. People in the US are quite well aware of this and it is often brought up in the media.

Totally true. Certainly gay activists are. American Gay activists, like it or not, are generally LEFT of center, and LEFT of center Americans are quite savvy about a number of political issues and have no qualms at all at being critical of many aspects of life in the USA.

I get the gist of the criticism before though. In the USA you have really only two parties. So if one party openly hates your guts, and the other party just doesn't hate your guts but doesn't do very much for you, what's your choice? Only ONE choice.

Having powerful and organized LOBBIES helps. Gay Americans have gotten better at that and also lucky to have Obama, who there is no doubt is the best American president in history for gay civil rights issues by a long shot.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

The difference between the Democratic and Republican administrations is that during the Republican administrations, gays are generally left out on the street. During a Democratic administration, the doors are opened and gays are a part of the gov't.

When you are out on the street, you protest. When you are inside, you go about the business of getting things done.

Oh, and yes, the US is behind a number of countries, usually European, on a large number of human rights issues. People in the US are quite well aware of this and it is often brought up in the media.

What many gays outside the US don't appreciate (and I mean that in all senses of the word) is having someone forced on them as the world's great gay hero (or heroine) not because they have always supported or even had any particular interest in gay issues but because although they have previously opposed gay issues and equality they have done nothing more than follow the polls and chosen which issues give them the best chance of getting elected - and in the US the gay vote, even if it is as little as 3 or 4% of the popular vote, can mean the difference between winning and losing.

We don't respect that in our own politicians - David Cameron shot himself in the foot in a big way by trying to undeservedly win gay support with the gay marriage Bill in the UK - so why should we respect that in others who see themselves as "global" figures in the field of human rights?

I'm not saying that we hold our own politicians to a higher moral standard, just that I don't think gays elsewhere are quite so polarised politically that we would support hypocrites quite so fanatically just because they are the best of a bad bunch. If they're the best you've got - fine ... just don't try to paint them as great supporters of gay rights when their record shows that they aren't.