the discrepency in the laws referred to by London Calling refer to actions one can legally take in various areas, right? as one cannot legally smoke a joint in the US, but can elsewhere. However, of course, should the pot smoking person arrive at the US borders, we do not arrest them for having committed an illegal act (ie something we do not allow) elsewhere, correct?
Two men cannot legally marry each other in the US. HOwever, two men can legally marry each other in Canada. Generally speaking, the US does indeed recognize marriages performed elsewhere, so that, for example, the man and woman who married in Canada would not only be allowed, but encouraged, and perhaps even required to use the ‘family’ form to enter the US.
what seems to be the dilemma here, is that since the US does not allow two males to marry, they are in a quandry of how to deal w/a legally recognized marriage elsewhere that would not be permissable under the US laws. The issue/difference is that wrt to the laws London refers to, the issue is an action is considered legal or illegal based on jurisdictional concerns, whereas in this case, it is the status of the people involved that is at odds.
Are there historic examples of cases where the US refused to recognize someone’s status conferred upon by another country? adoptions? marriages? wasn’t there a period of time and places in this country where people were forbidden to marry others of another race? how were those marriages considered then? would those arguing for (even if they disagree with the US’s position wrt gay marriages) the US upholding the usage of different forms for the gay marrieds, would you have had the same position wrt racially mixed marriages traveling from state to state or from another country to the US in the past??
It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of law. My opinion is I should be allowed to have a radar detector in Virginia. Can I? No. My opinion is I should be able to buy booze after 2 AM in Pennsylvania. Can I? No. This is a question of fact. Our opinions are the same. The law is stupid and should be changed. The facts are not subject to our opinions, however. The fact is that the form in question was for families only, and their LEGAL STATUS here in the US is two single men. Period. If they had filled out that form they would have been waving it to the press just as soon as it was approved as “Look, the US recognized us as married”. And, once again, you know it, so quit playing dumb.
Can one of our legal guys come in here and comment on my assertion, please? To reiterate:
This seems to be the sticking point for Otto and me, so some guidance here would be most welcome.
Airman as I pointed out in the post above - the issue does indeed seem to be what is the law relative to the issue of status?
Some jurisdictions have a status for ‘common law marriage’ and consider those persons ‘married’ and ‘family’ (IIRC) the same way as some one who has gone through a ceremony.
What is their status when they move to another jurisdiction that doesn’t recognize ‘common law marriage’. would they, in this situation, be required to use seperate forms?
that should actually answer it. I don’t believe that the US has a statutary recognition of ‘common law marriage’. how would they handle that sort of case in immigration?
I do not think it would grant them any rights. It’s not like the entire US government has to abide by the same rules. Ketchup can be a vegetable for certain effects and not be a vegetable for others. A person may be a resident for certain effects and not for others. If they had been admitted it would have had no effect whatsoever on anything else. Saying the entire Federal Government has to abide by the decision of some low level employee makes no sense. If the Federal Government had to have that level of consistency it would be unworkable.
The US does not recognize common law marriage for immigration purposes, except in a very limited way. If one common-law spouse is coming to the US for an extended period, as in for a work assignment (which can be several years long), there is a provision to grant a common-law spouse (and a same-sex partner, for that matter) repeated B-2 visitor visa extensions which would not be granted in any other situation. But as soon as the primary visa applicant applies for a green card or otherwise evidences his/her permanent intent to remain in the U.S., the “trailing” common law spouse or partner no longer qualifies for B-2 extensions, and either has to go home or immigrate under some category independently.
I can’t tell you how many times my boss or I have had to explain that just because you have been with someone for 10 years and have three kids, that doesn’t mean the US government considers you married. (This probably happens with Dutch nationals more than anyone else, for some reason; one client even crossed out the word “spouse” on our standard questionnaire and wrote in “non-spouse.”) If you want all the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails, you have to go down to City Hall or whatever and get the piece of paper. I’m not moralizing on anyone’s life decisions by any means, but them’s the rules, at least for now.
I am sorry I did not reply to the earlier questions about my dissing the USA, but I see things like this and cringe to think that the land of the free and home of the brave is now basically beating down another section of it’s people, as it has in the past, over someone’s interpretation of a couple of quotes from a historical book that is stories and fables. I see other countries advancing in the area of public respect of everyone, and see ours sliding back into the dark ages of a previous century. it kinda makes me unhappy to be an american, and I did serve my country in time of war, put my life on the line, and if it had come out that I was gay back then, I would have been summarily discharged, and treated like a parihha, if not killed by one of my former buddies, as did several gay military members.
yes, there are quiete a few countries in the world that treat gays much worse than the US does, but there are also several who treat them better, and that number is growing. but that does note really speak to what the OP was about.
correct me if I am wrong here, but weren’t these guys just coming here basically as tourists? they were not coming here as possible immigrants, so how would this have forced the US government to recognize gay marriage? I mean, I could see the whole bruhaha if they had been trying to emmigrate here as a couple, but as a tourist? come on. and maybe they did make a big stink over it, but this is also somethign that, as I said before, the US needs to really think about now.