What scares me more is that people like country are not idiots, they are smart folks who really do think that way.
I’m sorry, Thylacine, because that just sucks.
Thylacine, my friend. I am truly sorry. I believe that you’ve tried everything. I’m not surprised that this is the way it is, but I am disgusted. It’s 2003, for crying out loud, and this sort of shit still happens ?!?
Survivor put it into lovely perspective. Here you are, both of you committed over a long distance for over 4 years, yet someone else could waltz in after meeting the day before and getting a quicky wedding. Just doesn’t make sense.
There’s nothing I can do or say (though if I win the lottery, I wanna hear about the tons of cash option) but you have my sympathy and anger at the current situation.
I don’t know if its going to help or get us all shot down by lighting but I’ll be sending up prayers for you both.
clarification - prayers that something can be worked out so Thylacine and her partner can be together somehow.
I don’t see how praying for peace, love, unity and equality can get us struck down by lightning. I’ll be praying, too.
And please, on a side note, don’t paint all conservatives with the same brush. I am a conservative (and stand firmly along party lines on many issues, but not all of them), but I find this sort of situation to be ridiculous! Thylacine and her partner deserve the right to be together, as do other couples who find themselves in the same situation!
IMHO, it’s time to put the Power of the Teeming Millions to work.
I’ve been the beneficiary of the compassion and generosity of a lot of folks here. And I know, better than almost anyone else, what miracles the combined efforts of this board can accomplish.
We have an immigration professional here. I hesitate to invoke her services on a volunteer basis, because this one sounds like a MF of a problem.
We have businessmen and other professionals, with loads of resources.
We have trained counselors and other people with skills needed. We have people without training but with the ability to be compassionate and confidential.
Put all this together.
Are there people who feel strongly enough about this injustice to subsidize the services of our professional immigration lawyer for the time needed to solve this problem?
Is there someone who can volunteer to hear, on a confidential basis, the details of what Thylacine and partner have looked into that she may not be willing to share on open board?
Are there people who are willing to provide whatever circumstance would make it possible for one partner to immigrate legally to the other’s country? This might be a firm job offer, after reviewing a résumé. It might be opening one’s home to a gay couple who would be officially one’s dependents until something more permanent can be arranged. It might be arranging for a “diversity” admission to a institute of higher education one is affiliated with. And there are no doubt other possibilities.
We don’t know the circumstances of Thylacine and partner, to answer all these questions, yet. But we do know that we’ve overcome problems for people in the past.
Can we look into how we might do this again?
Cool idea, Polycarp. Unless Ms. Thylacine has objections, please count me in. Don’t know if I have any useful skills or resources to offer, but maybe I do.
Me too. Poly, check your mail.
Polycarp, I’d be willing to help in any way I can. Please check your mail.
Sorry to hear that. As you can read, I am against the ‘term’ marriage for M-M or F-F couples, but support full legal rights for such unions.
You are not the 1st to have to decide if to leave your country (or state) for love, and will not be the last.
Just for the record, U.S. immigration laws are not written with the specific purpose of screwing homosexuals. They’re written with the express purpose of screwing everybody, including the existing U.S. citizens who have to pay for such madness.
My wife and I know, all too well.
But my sympathies for Thylacine, anyway.
Not having the financial resources to assist or the knowledge or connections to help, **Thylacine, ** all I can say is…fuck. Fuck, fuck, fuck. That sucks such major ass. And if there’s a petition I can sign somewhere stating that the law sucks ass and desperately NEEDS to be changed, please point me to it.
I know that immigration laws have to be strict, and I know that they weren’t written to specifically exclude homosexuals. But dammit…as someone else already said, this is 2003. It’s time to change the damn law.
The immigration law, not necessarily; the marriage law, on the other hand, upon which the immigration law depends, is.
Write your congresscritturs and senators asking them to support the Permanent Partner Immigration Act.
Time to withdraw your comments, county, and while you are at it, apologize for your tone and apologize for not first reviewing the law before making your assertions and demands.
The Marriage Act 1961 (Australia), as amended, governs which non-Australian marriages are recognized in Australia. Let’s have a closer look at what it says about non-Australian marriages.
Part V, s. 88(a), specifically gives effect to Chapter II of the Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages Article 9 of the Convention requires that all contracting states accept as valid the marriages of all other contracting states. The convention does not define marriage, but rather leaves that to the countries in which marriages are made (see Article 2). There are exceptions (e.g. Articles 8 and 11), but there is no exception concerning gay marriages. Articles 5 and 14 permit a contracting state to refuse to accept a marriage from another contracting state if such an acceptance would be “manifestly incompatible with its public policy.”
Accordingly, non-Australian marriages are recognized (see The Marriage Act 1961, as amended, s. 88D(1)), but there are a number of exclusions as permitted by the Convention. None of these exclusions deal with gay marriages.
In short, if a couple were to marry in a contracting state, and there is no specific exemption, then their marriage must be recognized in Australia.
However, with regard to migration, Migration Regulations 1994, as amended, r. 1.15A (1A)(b)(i), limits marriage for the purpose of the migration regulations to only marriage as between husband and wife.
Thus the Migaration Act 1994, as amended, specifically excludes gay marriages for the purpose of migration that otherwise must be recognized in Australia.
The question then is in which countries that are party to the Convention can gays marry. Gays can marry in Netherlands (where there are residency requirements that make it difficult but not impossible for gays from other countries to marry), Belgium (where there are nationality requirements) and parts of Canada (Ontario and British Columbia). Of these, only Netherlands is party to the Convention.
In conclusion, since Netherlands marriages that are not otherwise excluded be either the Convention or by Part V of the Marriage Act (Australia) must be recognized in Australia as per Part V of the Marriage Act (Australia), and since such Netherlands gay marriages are in fact not excluded by either the Hague Convention on Marriage or by Part V of the Marriage Act (Australia), then such Netherlands gay marriages must be recognized in Australia, but the Migration Act (Australia) then specifically limits marriage for the purposes of the Migration Act (Australia) to hetrosexual marriage.
Marriage Act 1961 (Australia):
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/44/top.htm
Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages (as entered into force in Australia):
Migration Regulations 1994 (Australia):
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/1/575/top.htm
Wet openstelling huwelijk (Netherlands):
http://overheid-op.sdu.nl/cgi-bin/showdoc/pos=0/session=anonymous@3A3711004568/query=2/action=pdf/STB5962.pdf
Loi ouvrant le mariage à des personnes de même sexe et modifiant certaines dispositions du Code civil (Belgium):
http://www.juridat.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?imgcn.x=38&imgcn.y=7&DETAIL=2003021336%2FF&caller=list&row_id=1&numero=2&rech=21&cn=2003021336&la=F&chercher=c&language=fr&trier=promulgation&choix1=ET&choix2=ET&tri=dd+AS+RANK+&text1=mariage&fr=f&set1=SET+TERM_GENERATOR+'word!ftelp%2Flang%3Dfrench%2Fbase%2Froot%2Fderive%2Finflect'&set3=set+character_variant+'french.ftl'&fromtab=loi&sql=(+tit+contains+(+'mariage')+++)
Halpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., June 10, 2003 (Ont. C.A.):
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/June/halpernC39172.htm
Barbeau v. British Columbia, July 8, 2003 (B.C. C.A.):
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/03/04/2003bcca0406.htm
Listen up, shithead. I warned you once before about your stupid “Nelson Laugh” schtick. And now, I have to warn you again.
This time, it’s your last fucking chance - you’re on thin ice. One more post like that, and you’re out.
Thanks, **Gorsnak. ** Much appreciated.
First of all,** GO COLDFIRE!** Now, maybe you could take a moment to consider county’s fine :rolleyes: contribution to this thread?
Thylacine, I am so sorry. I pray that you will have a miracle allowing you to be with the one you love. If I had any expertise that would help, you’d be VERY welcome to it…unfortunately, I don’t. So I will just keep praying.
I suppose you have considered this, but just in case you haven’t, try getting either one of you into Canada as an immigrant, and then bring in the other by marriage: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.html
I really appreciate all the support folks. However, I would prefer if all the energy, anger resources and caring that has been expressed here was used to try to change the situation for all, not just for us. We have had some mighty fine help but we are beaten.
So many couples have had to resort to loopholes, get arounds and lies. I understand and do not blame them, however whenever we do that we take away our voice in the issue for fear of losing our own circumstance. Someone needs to be talking.