Then there were two

[cheerful_deviant]

First California gay couples wed
BBC News

Homosexual couples in California are being granted marriage licences for the first time.

The move follows a decision last month by the state Supreme Court to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage.

One of the first couples to exchange vows is veteran gay-rights campaigner Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83, who have been together for 56 years.

Article

~~~~~~~~~~~

I only hope it lasts.

It's been legal for several years here in Massachusetts adn looks as if it may be here to stay. The latest challange (the 3rd...4th?) was voted down by the legislature and hardly even regitered a blip on the screens of most residents. Everyone seems to have accepted it and realized that society didn't come to and end. As of now the only ones who still keep fighting are a few of the hardcore bible thumpers.

Hopefully Cali voters will do the same.

 

[NoJo]

Serious question: Does this mean anything legally? Like, could my lesbian cousin who's been on a visitors visa for years and living with one woman all this time, if she got married, have some kind of security against being expelled?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Serious question: Does this mean anything legally? Like, could my lesbian cousin who's been on a visitors visa for years and living with one woman all this time, if she got married, have some kind of security against being expelled?

That would be my bet. She'd need to consult a lawyer on this one.

 

[DesertPirate]

Serious question: Does this mean anything legally? Like, could my lesbian cousin who's been on a visitors visa for years and living with one woman all this time, if she got married, have some kind of security against being expelled?

In a word, no! The Feds decide all immigration/visa questions and if theyu don't recognize it, it will have no bearing.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

In a word, no! The Feds decide all immigration/visa questions and if theyu don't recognize it, it will have no bearing.

On the other hand, the current administration has been saying all along that it should be up to the states to decide. If they say yes then why not?

 

[DesertPirate]

On the other hand, the current administration has been saying all along that it should be up to the states to decide. If they say yes then why not?

The states have no say on immigration, that is a Federal issue only. Until Congress says different it won't matter.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

The states have no say on immigration, that is a Federal issue only. Until Congress says different it won't matter.

Not knowing all the ins and outs of immigration law, I suppose my point would be this: As of now (to my knowledge) there is a way out of being deported by marrying a citizen, not really that simple, but you get the idea. Also as of now, the feds have no ifficial stance on marriage because they want to leave it up to the states. So if the state the couple is in recognizes the marrige, how can the Feds say no? They have no official direction by their own (or the administrations) choice. If they say no then they are forcing the feds into defining what a marriage is, aren't they?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Not knowing all the ins and outs of immigration law, I suppose my point would be this: As of now (to my knowledge) there is a way out of being deported by marrying a citizen, not really that simple, but you get the idea. Also as of now, the feds have no ifficial stance on marriage because they want to leave it up to the states. So if the state the couple is in recognizes the marrige, how can the Feds say no? They have no official direction by their own (or the administrations) choice. If they say no then they are forcing the feds into defining what a marriage is, aren't they?

Excellent, ducky. That's why I said she needs to consult a lawyer.

 

[DesertPirate]

Not knowing all the ins and outs of immigration law, I suppose my point would be this: As of now (to my knowledge) there is a way out of being deported by marrying a citizen, not really that simple, but you get the idea. Also as of now, the feds have no ifficial stance on marriage because they want to leave it up to the states. So if the state the couple is in recognizes the marrige, how can the Feds say no? They have no official direction by their own (or the administrations) choice. If they say no then they are forcing the feds into defining what a marriage is, aren't they?

The courts could always fall back on "commonly accepted".

I think this will force a deffinition at the Federal level, the result will not be what occured in CA and MA. It will be man/woman only.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

The courts could always fall back on "commonly accepted".

I think this will force a deffinition at the Federal level, the result will not be what occured in CA and MA. It will be man/woman only.

Probablly true. But with several states beginning to at least recognize 'Domestic Unions' or whatever, where will that all lead?

Sadly, I think your final statement will probablly be true in the end however. At least for now. I still believe in years to come, maybe 40-50 years from now we will look back on this time much as we now look back on segrigation and say ,"We actually did that? What was wrong with us?" Time will tell I suppose.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Happiness to all the new married couples in California!

 

[3113]

Serious question: Does this mean anything legally? Like, could my lesbian cousin who's been on a visitors visa for years and living with one woman all this time, if she got married, have some kind of security against being expelled?

Yes, she could. It's like any other marriage license and it applies to all 50 states. Get married in CA and you're married. BUT....

BIG BUT!...in November there will be an amendment voted on to make sex a man-woman only thing, and if this passes it might make all the marriages done in CA illegal. Annulled.

So your cousin may still be out of luck. It all depends on how CA voters vote in November.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Yes, she could. It's like any other marriage license and it applies to all 50 states. Get married in CA and you're married. BUT....

BIG BUT!...in November there will be an amendment voted on to make sex a man-woman only thing, and if this passes it might make all the marriages done in CA illegal. Annulled.

So your cousin may still be out of luck. It all depends on how CA voters vote in November.

Well, actually...because of DOMA...no other state has to recognize the marriage. But, with time...this federalized form of discrimination will be illegal.

It will happen...

 

[keeblercrumb]

Serious question: Does this mean anything legally? Like, could my lesbian cousin who's been on a visitors visa for years and living with one woman all this time, if she got married, have some kind of security against being expelled?

Being married in any sense or locale does not guarantee a green card. The process is always long, bureaucratic and beset with numerous obstacles which may or may not be overcome. Working overseas, I have many friends who have had to go through it or are still going through it, all with legitimate marriages. The jury is still out on several.

At the end of the day, it is typically a capricious decision. They do not need much of a reason to deny residency. But ANY evidence pertaining to the legitimacy of the relationship is relevant, in theory anyway. A marriage certificate in Mass. or California is certainly evidence of legitimacy. Just depends on that deciding bureaucrat... and how he/she are feeling that day.

I was going to say tell your cousin to do it, it can't hurt. But actually, if the bureaucrat is homophobic, it may!

Reason #879 for our enormous illegal alien problem.

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MISTY

I dont think so.

In the history of the world homosexual unions have never won the esteem of any society. What we have now is closet liberals and closet libertines in the government over-reaching. I'm expecting a social correction to occur, because most Americans are very conservative and traditional.

 

[SemiColon]

My mother got married in Canada and had a union in VT, both meaningless in the state she lives, although she is going to try and file a joint tax return this year as a move of protest (but as married filing seperately, so she doesn't incur a tax penalty when they deny it)

I think that society is turning around on this and that in our lifetime it will be accepted. People say that it would complicate social security etc but I think that is just an excuse. We are ready for this move as a whole and its day will come.

I loved the headline on the 80 year old couple getting married in CA this morning!

 

[fieryjen]

Being married in any sense or locale does not guarantee a green card. The process is always long, bureaucratic and beset with numerous obstacles which may or may not be overcome. Working overseas, I have many friends who have had to go through it or are still going through it, all with legitimate marriages. The jury is still out on several.

At the end of the day, it is typically a capricious decision. They do not need much of a reason to deny residency. But ANY evidence pertaining to the legitimacy of the relationship is relevant, in theory anyway. A marriage certificate in Mass. or California is certainly evidence of legitimacy. Just depends on that deciding bureaucrat... and how he/she are feeling that day.

I was going to say tell your cousin to do it, it can't hurt. But actually, if the bureaucrat is homophobic, it may!

Reason #879 for our enormous illegal alien problem.

-KC

That's exactly the problem. Marriage doesn't guarantee a green card, it only gives you eligibility to apply for one. If she has no other way to apply, then marriage may be the way to go for them.

 

[NoJo]

Being married in any sense or locale does not guarantee a green card. The process is always long, bureaucratic and beset with numerous obstacles which may or may not be overcome. Working overseas, I have many friends who have had to go through it or are still going through it, all with legitimate marriages. The jury is still out on several.

At the end of the day, it is typically a capricious decision. They do not need much of a reason to deny residency. But ANY evidence pertaining to the legitimacy of the relationship is relevant, in theory anyway. A marriage certificate in Mass. or California is certainly evidence of legitimacy. Just depends on that deciding bureaucrat... and how he/she are feeling that day.

I was going to say tell your cousin to do it, it can't hurt. But actually, if the bureaucrat is homophobic, it may!

Reason #879 for our enormous illegal alien problem.

-KC

Are you calling my cousin an enormous alien?

My brother got married to an American woman back in '74, and by '79 he was a permanent resident. Now he's a citizen. It all seemed pretty simple for him.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Are you calling my cousin an enormous alien?

My brother got married to an American woman back in '74, and by '79 he was a permanent resident. Now he's a citizen. It all seemed pretty simple for him.

Well.... actually... the enormous aliens are easy to find..... it all the illegal aliens that look like everyone else that are the problem....

As for your brother.... well... good on 'em, as they say. Just reporting what my friend's experiences have been... Perhaps a post 9/11 thing? When we stopped offering airplane pilot scholarships to itiinerant militants?

Or maybe it was the resistance to Russian/Ukranian women.... I have no idea.. just reporting the facts as I know them!


-KC

 

[fieryjen]

Are you calling my cousin an enormous alien?

My brother got married to an American woman back in '74, and by '79 he was a permanent resident. Now he's a citizen. It all seemed pretty simple for him.

It has gotten more difficult, the forms are more complicated, and it's all much easier if you have money to hire an immigration lawyer to do the paperwork for you.

I'm in the middle of it right now. "Pretty simple" is just about the opposite of what I feel about this process.

 

[DesertPirate]

It has gotten more difficult, the forms are more complicated, and it's all much easier if you have money to hire an immigration lawyer to do the paperwork for you.

I'm in the middle of it right now. "Pretty simple" is just about the opposite of what I feel about this process.

Shame you aren't in NC. I know a pretty good Immigration Lawyer

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I'm probably stupid, but I get confused.

The religious mafia hijacked marriage to protect inheritance issues.

Couldn't we just demand a secular contract - stuff the religions - that allows couples in love/commitment to make a legally enforcable vow of partnership.

 

[3113]

Couldn't we just demand a secular contract - stuff the religions - that allows couples in love/commitment to make a legally enforcable vow of partnership.

"Marriage" is what we call a secular contract, as all a couple need is a license and a certified witness, no need to get married in a church or other religious place. This secular contract is important as it indicates who has the right to make medical decisions on a person's behalf if they can't, as well as inheritance and property issues.

Unfortunately, just because marriage licenses are secular contracts doesn't mean that restrictions can't be imposed on them (like couples must be one male and one female only). And these restrictions, as so many in our society, might be based on a religion bias rather than secular logic.

Ideally, we should get rid of any laws based on superstition and fallacies rather than valid reasons and solid facts. We should, but it's unlikely that'll happen.