tavalla - Thank you, our situation has resolved itself. We had concerns, not that she would not be able to get in the country, she already was. Rather, that she could be deported due to a mistake by a former attorney handling her immigration work. This was prior to our marriage and things were very scary for a period of time.
Anyone having to deal with INS has my complete sympathy. It is a sterling example of governmental ineffectiveness.
I am pleased you got there in the end MeanJoe. I understand your frustration and I never meant to imply that it was easy for straight couples, I know it isn’t easy for anyone but the difference lies in the possibility.
May it all be smooth for you and yours from here on in.
I’m afraid I’m still not following.
The law expressly excludes same-sex unions. It effectively says,
If you’re married to a partner of the opposite sex, Yes, proceed.
If you’re married to a partner of the opposite sex, No, do not pass Go; do not collect $200.
This isn’t “good” in your opinion, but it’s still not bigoted?
Just imagine if a similar law expressly excluded unions involving people of Caucasian appearance. Imagine a law excluding marriages between two people of disabilities.
Would this be bigoted, in your opinion?
If your answer is yes, then why is discrimination on the grounds of race or disability bigotry (under to your criteria) while discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is not bigotry?
If your answer is no… well, I really have nothing more to say to you.
Crap.
Make that second one, “If you’re partnered to a person of the same sex”.
(Also there’s an “of” which should read “with”, and a superfluous “to”… :rolleyes: )
Immigration laws really suck. They suck mightly for straight couples, and they go beyond suckage into the realm of sheer torture for queer couples, as Thylacine’s situation so unfortunately demonstrates.
I have nothing of any real substance to say, except that I’m truly sorry for you both and that Polycarp’s again proves what a sweetheart he is for trying to help out. I also vow to write even more letters and emails about the stupid immigration laws.
Utter nonsense. You are unable to provide a determinative cite, so you had best retract your allegation.
Narrad
That presumes that the policy in question is discriminating on the basis of sexuality. Were the INS to allow immigration to a straight person in a situation in which they would have denied immigration for a homosexual, there would be a strong case for bigotry.
Muffin
What, you don’t like it when people lie about you? Now you know how I feel.
Right. They’re allowing straight people to immigrate because their S.O. is a citizen. They are not allowing gay people to immigrate although their S.O. is a citizen.
Lemme put it this way, The Ryan. My SO is a US citizen. Married or engaged to me, he can emigrate here or I can emigrate there. All that would be required would be an engagement ring or a wedding certificate, time, money and paperwork, plus proof that it’s a genuine relationship. Time consuming, expensive, a royal pain in the arse, yes, but do-able in the long run.
Thylacine and her partner don’t even get to get that far simply because - follow me here, I’m going to say this as simply as I can - simply because they are a same sex couple. It’s got jack shit to do with the genuineness of their relationship, it’s because they’re a same sex couple and thus, by law, are not given the same opportunities as het couples. Solely because they are a same sex couple. Got it yet?
You have now admitted to deliberately lying about me.
Your admission either implies that I had previously lied about you, or else you simply chose me at random for your attack. Either way, that is uncceptable. Retract your allegation and apologize forthwith.
Homer J. said (re: marrying someone to get into the country), “Isn’t it against the rules here to advise people to break the law?”
Shit. People marry for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with love. It’s not against the law. Really. If you’re not totally forthcoming, so what? Who’d know?
So if I find a man, fall in love, and decide that I want to spend the rest of my life with him, he’ll be allowed to immigrate because I’m straight? If a homosexual marries someone of the opposite sex, their spouse won’t be allowed to immigrate?
Muffin
No, I haven’t.
No, it implies that you displayed a lack of empathy regarding having people post lies about you. Perhaps you think that lying about someone is wrong, but posting links to lies about them is perfectly fine? If I found another thread in which a bunch of other people posted lies about you, you’d have no problem with me linking to it?
So what definition of “heterosexual” do people with same-sex spouses fall under?
It’s really an absurd argument. It’s like … It’s like saying that a law requiring everyone to speak English wouldn’t be discriminatory to Spanish speakers, because it’s possible for a Spanish speaker to speak English, and because English speakers would be equally prohibited from speaking Spanish. It’s perfectly obvious that the restriction falls much more heavily upon one group than the other.
It’s a piece of sophistry, which is really pretty disgusting when it’s people’s lives and futures we’re talking about. Do you think we’re trying to get our S.O.s to be able to immigrate for the hell of it? Do you think we’re doing it for fun, or playing at a game?
This one: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterosexual
If having sex with someone of the same sex doesn’t make you homosexual, then why would marrying one?
As I understand it, this board prohibits people from conducting conversations in other languages. So is it discrimnatory?
That’s exactly what people opposed to same-sex marriage think. Here’s a law that on its face treats everyone equally, and you call it discriminatory because you’ve found a way to word it so it sounds discriminatory.
Outrage in the place of reasoned discourse is not going to bring anyone to your side; it’s just going to make people that already agree with you say “Yeah! You tell 'em!”, and people that don’t agree with you say “Shut up, you whiny cry baby”. The above quote basically comes down to “but we really, really want it!” There are people that support these laws without any animus towards homosexuals, and calling this “bigotry” is simply demonizing the opposition. There is a segment of this society which, when terrorists kill thousands of people, says “well, we should think about why they are doing this”, but when someone supports a law they don’t like, says “there’s no point trying to see where they’re coming from, they’re just bigots”. You may not be a member, but it doesn’t help to be associated with them.
Don’t you understand how incredibly hypocritical that is? You are perfectly willing to believe that they are opposing same-sex marriage for “fun”, but you find it absurd that they might think you are seeking it for that reason. If you insist that the opposition must recognize that you have valid reasons for your position, it is only fair that you recognize that they do as well.
No one is homosexual unless they choose that label for themselves. There is homosexual behaviour and then there is homosexual identity. They are not the same.
As for your last paragraph, I think you are confusing the word “valid” with the word “logical”. Again, not the same thing.
If I don’t like the rules on this board, it is no effort whatever to find an extra board. It’s somewhat more complex to immigrate to another country if the laws in one country discriminate against you, and it’s not something that should be expected of someone.
Listen, I’m sure how many tens or hundreds of years ago when these laws were written, nobody had it in mind to screw us over. But that is their current effect.
Oh, I’m sure they can think of more interesting ways to have fun than wading through committees and issuing briefs. Having done it, I can say it’s no fun at all.
The difference is that if we have same-sex marriage, those who are opposed to it do not have to have a same-sex marriage. They can still marry their spouses. But if we do not have same-sex marriage, I can’t have one. I can’t marry my spouse.
People talk about imposing our values on them. But they don’t have to anything they don’t want to do. What they want is the ability to impose their values on me in a much more concrete way, since it restricts the path of my life.
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about people who think we’re playing a game. When you have to live with the discriminatory effect of the law every day, when you have to track down whatever scrap of an option might be available for you, when you have to probe the possibilities in a way that would not be expected of you if you had a different set of genitals, when what you have before you is the prospect of justifying your relationship to any little bureaucrat who could control the path of your life when all you would have to do if you were straight would be to wave a piece of paper, when you are told that it is quite impossible for you to be together, you can’t even go to the starting line to be with the person you love for no better reason than your genders, while in the meantime you know that if you were heterosexual you could get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker in the Elvis chapel if you wanted to -
The point is, we’re not trying to invent something when we say it’s discriminatory. We already know the effects that it has. They come down on us constantly. It’s not a language game. We’re trying to articulate the effects it has on us and express the nature of that injustice.
I understand it sounds strange to those who haven’t thought about it from the angle we have, haven’t seen it through our eyes and suffered what it does to us. But it is not sophistry. It’s real.
To The Ryan it is just a game. He has jigged us along, blatently denying the obvious, ingoring the logical, and out and out lying.
I’m not going to waste any more time trying to discuss the matter with him, for it would only serve to feed him in his game.
It is a tad against the law :rolleyes:
In the USA entering into a marriage for immigration purposes carries penalties of up to $250,000 in fines, five years in federal prison, deportation of the alien and permanent barring.
Obviously I am just stubborn in preferring to stay within the law of the country I wish to live in.
The slightest whiff that all is not quite right and forget it. I know of a case here where a fellow was deported to India after 6 years in this country, his 2 year old marriage was deemed to be fake and he was gone from the life he had made here to nothing in India. His story is not uncommon. His problem? She slipped up on what side of the bed he slept on during a very long and complex questioning period designed to trip her up.
Immigration tend to work from a position of assuming guilt and you have to prove validity, they can ask some surprising questions so yes, they do know. They are trained to know.