Title s/b changed to:

USA visas for married same sex couples now treated equally says Kerry

OK, here is the news.

The USA will now treat visa applications of people same sex married exactly the same as all married couples.

I’m very pleased to be able to announce that effective immediately, when same-sex spouses apply for a visa, the Department of State will consider that application in the same manner that it will consider the application of opposite-sex spouses. And here is exactly what this rule means: If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/02/john_kerry_kerry_gay_married_couples_will_be_treated_equally_for_u_s_visas.html

Of course Thailand does not recognize same sex marriages OR offer them.

However there are people in Thailand who are same sex married from other countries that do perform them.

How about civil partnerships?

I think not only because it is not mentioned. Only MARRIAGE is mentioned.

The happy news from the esteemed Mr. Kerry is regarding:

two people of the same sex entering in marriage, the exact same legal entity as two people of the opposite sex entering in marriage.

Nothing is mentioned about civil unions, domestic partnerships etc.

These separate legal entities of course are NOT the exact same legal entity as two people of the opposite sex entering in marriage.

OK, I was looking for some kind of clarification/confirmation that the Kerry visa announcement does not include persons with different than MARRIAGE legal entities of civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.

This appears to be that confirmation:

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.

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

It was certainly a good question to be asked as Kerry did not explicitly say the changes did not include civil unions and domestic partnerships. But they don't. This news is only about those who are:

two people of the same sex entering in marriage, the exact same legal entity as two people of the opposite sex entering in marriage.

It's also worth noting that the issue of same sex civil unions (NOT marriage) is being discussed in Thailand in the form of a potential bill to be voted on. So even in the unlikely event this Thai civil union bill passes, these unions will not have any relevance in relation to USA visa applications.

So for the sake of a word the Americans appease their religious Right and deny recognition of a legally registered Union performed in another country............. Separation of Church and State?

So for the sake of a word the Americans appease their religious Right and deny recognition of a legally registered Union performed in another country.............

I don't think that's what this is about at all.

The issue in the USA is about MARRIAGE equality. Specifically -- MARRIAGE.

So the USA is treating ALL international MARRIAGES equally for visa purposes. The USA right wing is against any legal recognition of any and all kinds of legal unions for gay people, foreign and domestic. Different issue really.

If the USA offered recognition for visas of people with same sex civil unions and domestic partnerships to be seen the same as MARRIAGES they would indeed be granting SPECIAL rights to homosexuals. This is about EQUAL rights, not SPECIAL rights.

I think not only because it is not mentioned. Only MARRIAGE is mentioned.

The happy news from the esteemed Mr. Kerry is regarding:

two people of the same sex entering in marriage, the exact same legal entity as two people of the opposite sex entering in marriage.

Nothing is mentioned about civil unions, domestic partnerships etc.

These separate legal entities of course are NOT the exact same legal entity as two people of the opposite sex entering in marriage.

Bummer that they insist on the religious terminology. But then, at least it's a first step.

What religious terminology?????

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

What religious terminology?????

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

"Marriage". If it is about legal rights, a civil union is the same.

As an American you maybe wont understand but to Europeans Marriage is a religious thing, hence all the hassle in UK Parliament recently, people already had the rights under civil partnerships but as ever someone had to push for the exact same word "Marriage". Some "activists" just don't know when enough is enough

USA visa rules USA civil rights standards apply. The only legal entity that is exactly marriage is marriage.

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

USA visa rules USA civil rights standards apply. The only legal entity that is exactly marriage is marriage.

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

Too bad. But as I said, it's a first step.

Meanwhile in Europe, straight couples are now demanding the same rights for a "civil union" as gay couples, which incorporates the same legal rights without the religious annotation of the word "marriage".

There is hope that the US will catch up at some time.

USA visa rules USA civil rights standards apply. The only legal entity that is exactly marriage is marriage.

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

Too bad. But as I said, it's a first step.

Meanwhile in Europe, straight couples are now demanding the same rights for a "civil union" as gay couples, which incorporates the same legal rights without the religious annotation of the word "marriage".

There is hope that the US will catch up at some time.

Marriage is the legal, not necessarily religious, term used in the U.S. for federal purposes. Civil Unions and domestic partnerships are viewed as something less... i.e. not recognized as marriage as they were something offered in some states but not recognized by the federal government. Equal rights means just that, equal. Not civil unions for some and marriages for other. If European governments choose to allow one form for those adhering to a particular religion or sexual orientation and not allow the same to a different group I suppose that is up to them. Maybe there is hope the Europeans will catch up at some time.

I can't imagine the term marriage having any particular religious connotation simply because of the great diversity of people and cultures who engage in what we call marriage. In the U.S. Christians marry, Buddhists marry, Atheists marry and nobody complains about the terminology. Maybe such religious connotations exist in historically less diverse societies...

As an American you maybe wont understand but to Europeans Marriage is a religious thing, hence all the hassle in UK Parliament recently, people already had the rights under civil partnerships but as ever someone had to push for the exact same word "Marriage". Some "activists" just don't know when enough is enough

In the UK marriage isn't a 'religious thing'. Many marriages are conducted in registry offices all over the country and marriage in a church isn't legal until the bridge and groom sign the registry which again isn't a 'religious thing' - it's a civil law thing.

USA visa rules USA civil rights standards apply. The only legal entity that is exactly marriage is marriage.

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

Too bad. But as I said, it's a first step.

Meanwhile in Europe, straight couples are now demanding the same rights for a "civil union" as gay couples, which incorporates the same legal rights without the religious annotation of the word "marriage".

There is hope that the US will catch up at some time.

Marriage is the legal, not necessarily religious, term used in the U.S. for federal purposes. Civil Unions and domestic partnerships are viewed as something less... i.e. not recognized as marriage as they were something offered in some states but not recognized by the federal government. Equal rights means just that, equal. Not civil unions for some and marriages for other. If European governments choose to allow one form for those adhering to a particular religion or sexual orientation and not allow the same to a different group I suppose that is up to them. Maybe there is hope the Europeans will catch up at some time.

Same sex marriage is recognised in 10 countries in Europe. It's been legal in the Netherlands since 2001. It seems that the Europeans have already caught up...

As an American you maybe wont understand but to Europeans Marriage is a religious thing, hence all the hassle in UK Parliament recently, people already had the rights under civil partnerships but as ever someone had to push for the exact same word "Marriage". Some "activists" just don't know when enough is enough

In the UK marriage isn't a 'religious thing'. Many marriages are conducted in registry offices all over the country and marriage in a church isn't legal until the bridge and groom sign the registry which again isn't a 'religious thing' - it's a civil law thing.

Deleted as I realise its thread drift and should be discussed elsewhere.

I don't think this is the proper forum to get into yet another civil unions vs. marriage debate. It's CERTAINLY not the place to discuss British specific issues -- the USA visa rules apply to the WORLD. If you're game for such specialized discussions, try the GAY FORUM.

I posted this about the USA VISA rules which have changed for the BETTER for those people in the world who are MARRIED to a person of the same sex.

This class of people AS OF NOW are going to be treated equally with others who are also married to an opposite sex person.

In my view, this is something to be celebrated.

Cheers.

As an American you maybe wont understand but to Europeans Marriage is a religious thing, hence all the hassle in UK Parliament recently, people already had the rights under civil partnerships but as ever someone had to push for the exact same word "Marriage". Some "activists" just don't know when enough is enough

In the UK marriage isn't a 'religious thing'. Many marriages are conducted in registry offices all over the country and marriage in a church isn't legal until the bridge and groom sign the registry which again isn't a 'religious thing' - it's a civil law thing.

So pray tell what was all the noise about the recent act passed in parliament then, it was the right of "Marriage" for same sex couples and that Marriage was related to religious places of worship. Same sex couples already had a law pertaining to civil partnership that allowed them exactly the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Guess your "opinion" differs from the UK law.

As you said in your post above 'all the noise' was the right of same sex unions to be called "marriages" rather than "civil partnerships". It had nothing to do with religious places of worship other than that the CofE is now not allowed to conduct same sex weddings whether they want to or not. Same sex civil partnership ceremonies have been able to be held on the religious premises of those religions who want to since the Equality Act of 2010.

As an American you maybe wont understand but to Europeans Marriage is a religious thing, hence all the hassle in UK Parliament recently, people already had the rights under civil partnerships but as ever someone had to push for the exact same word "Marriage". Some "activists" just don't know when enough is enough

In the UK marriage isn't a 'religious thing'. Many marriages are conducted in registry offices all over the country and marriage in a church isn't legal until the bridge and groom sign the registry which again isn't a 'religious thing' - it's a civil law thing.

So pray tell what was all the noise about the recent act passed in parliament then, it was the right of "Marriage" for same sex couples and that Marriage was related to religious places of worship. Same sex couples already had a law pertaining to civil partnership that allowed them exactly the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Guess your "opinion" differs from the UK law, read the link for a Law Lords decision prior to the new act:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-push-for-lgb-and-t-equality-will-allow-civil-partnerships-in-religious-buildings

In my opinion, this thread has fully served its purpose in announcing this news and confirming it is only about marriages.

I don't think this is the proper forum to get into yet another civil unions vs. marriage debate. It's CERTAINLY not the place to discuss British specific issues -- the USA visa rules apply to the WORLD. If you're game for such specialized discussions, try the GAY FORUM.

I posted this about the USA VISA rules which have changed for the BETTER for those people in the world who are MARRIED to a person of the same sex.

This class of people AS OF NOW are going to be treated equally with others who are also married to an opposite sex person.

In my view, this is something to be celebrated.

Cheers.

Yes, the US visa rules have changed for the better. This is indeed to be celebrated as a first step.

The word "married" causes some concern though, and there are second steps to be taken.

In my opinion, this thread has fully served its purpose in announcing this news and confirming it is only about marriages.

Thank you for posting your opinion. The rest of us will continue discussing, if you don't mind.

USA visa rules USA civil rights standards apply. The only legal entity that is exactly marriage is marriage.

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

Too bad. But as I said, it's a first step.

Meanwhile in Europe, straight couples are now demanding the same rights for a "civil union" as gay couples, which incorporates the same legal rights without the religious annotation of the word "marriage".

There is hope that the US will catch up at some time.

Marriage is the legal, not necessarily religious, term used in the U.S. for federal purposes. Civil Unions and domestic partnerships are viewed as something less... i.e. not recognized as marriage as they were something offered in some states but not recognized by the federal government. Equal rights means just that, equal. Not civil unions for some and marriages for other. If European governments choose to allow one form for those adhering to a particular religion or sexual orientation and not allow the same to a different group I suppose that is up to them. Maybe there is hope the Europeans will catch up at some time.

Same sex marriage is recognised in 10 countries in Europe. It's been legal in the Netherlands since 2001. It seems that the Europeans have already caught up...

Same sex marriage is recognized in 13 U.S. states and civil unions are offered in many more. There is still a long way to go but the federal government does now recognize same sex marriage. It is important to remember that the U.S. is more comparable to the E.U. both in size and structure than to individual European states. I suspect you would find that the percentage of the U.S. population with access to same sex marriage is about the same as in the E.U.

My point behind the comment that the E.U. still needs to catch up is onthemoon's assertion that the U.S. needs to make civil unions more widely available as he claims Europeans are demanding them when we are trying to do exactly the opposite, eliminate civil unions in favor of equal access to marriage. I don't pretend to know the intricacies of E.U. politics and to be familiar with the differences in laws between individual states. I often wish European posters would do the same.

Yes, the US visa rules have changed for the better. This is indeed to be celebrated as a first step.

The word "married" causes some concern though, and there are second steps to be taken.

If you are American, perhaps contact your elected representatives with your views and suggestions about future changes to USA visa rules.

If you're not American, sorry, no politician in the USA would be the slightest bit interested.

Same sex marriage is recognized in 13 U.S. states and civil unions are offered in many more. There is still a long way to go but the federal government does now recognize same sex marriage. It is important to remember that the U.S. is more comparable to the E.U. both in size and structure than to individual European states. I suspect you would find that the percentage of the U.S. population with access to same sex marriage is about the same as in the E.U.

My point behind the comment that the E.U. still needs to catch up is onthemoon's assertion that the U.S. needs to make civil unions more widely available as he claims Europeans are demanding them when we are trying to do exactly the opposite, eliminate civil unions in favor of equal access to marriage. I don't pretend to know the intricacies of E.U. politics and to be familiar with the differences in laws between individual states. I often wish European posters would do the same.

To correct a misapprehension that seems common in the US the EU does not have any 'states'. It's primarily an economic union of 28 sovereign nations all of which have their own lay making bodies.

Same sex marriage is recognized in 13 U.S. states and civil unions are offered in many more. There is still a long way to go but the federal government does now recognize same sex marriage. It is important to remember that the U.S. is more comparable to the E.U. both in size and structure than to individual European states. I suspect you would find that the percentage of the U.S. population with access to same sex marriage is about the same as in the E.U.

My point behind the comment that the E.U. still needs to catch up is onthemoon's assertion that the U.S. needs to make civil unions more widely available as he claims Europeans are demanding them when we are trying to do exactly the opposite, eliminate civil unions in favor of equal access to marriage. I don't pretend to know the intricacies of E.U. politics and to be familiar with the differences in laws between individual states. I often wish European posters would do the same.

To correct a misapprehension that seems common in the US the EU does not have any 'states'. It's primarily an economic union of 28 sovereign nations all of which have their own lay making bodies.

Perhaps the various versions of the English language have diverged more than I realized. In American usage 'state' means a sovereign political entity while a 'country' is a territorial region and a 'nation' is a demographic construct. Consider the title 'Head of State,' a monarch in most English speaking countries though not the U.S. Am I to understand that you do not believe the constituent states of the European Union maintain their own sovereignty or am I using the term state incorrectly? Do Europeans not use the terms 'nation state' or 'city state' in English?

Edit: I should make clear, I don't intend to be purely argumentative but rather to make a point. Each U.S. state has it's own law making body, it's own constitution. Decisions regarding issues such as marriage are not as centralized as some seem to believe. The E.U. does not dictate to member states what constitutes marriage, neither does the U.S. federal government dictate such issues to the states. There is a reason that we call the political subdivision of the United States 'states' (or, in the case of my home, a commonwealth), because they generally have a far greater degree of sovereignty than political divisions such as provinces in the rest of the world.

Sorry - I'm not being argumentative either but when you talk to many Americans about states they seem to think you're talking about states as they exist in the USA. They also seem to think that Europe is some sort of unified political entity whereas it's actually 28 different countries with their own different sorts of government which range from constitutional monarchies like the UK and the Netherlands to republics like Germany.

Well, I'm not aware of any EDUCATED American who doesn't know the difference between a U.S. state like Alabama and a nation like the Netherlands.

Well, I'm not aware of any EDUCATED American who doesn't know the difference between a U.S. state like Alabama and a nation like the Netherlands.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to an American who I'm trying to clear up a genuine misunderstanding with. If you want to imply that CPT isn't an EDUCATED American then go at it. Don't expect any support from me nor I suspect from CPT.

Well, I'm not aware of any EDUCATED American who doesn't know the difference between a U.S. state like Alabama and a nation like the Netherlands.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to an American who I'm trying to clear up a genuine misunderstanding with. If you want to imply that CPT isn't an EDUCATED American then go at it. Don't expect any support from me nor I suspect from CPT.

This is a public forum. PMs are good for private chat. Posts here are talking to the WORLD.