Register for civil union = get deported?

[Miss Anthrope]

Same sex couples are being warned about registering their civil unions in the cases where immigration is an issue.

Despite these partnerships offering some limited levels of "recognition", a gay marriage is not recognized as reason to be allowed to stay in the country as far as federal immigration status.

While I certainly think folks should clear up their immigration status, I also wish that the feds would recognize a union in a locality as "valid" for immigration status. And the whole violation of "Don't ask-don't tell" bothers me to the core.

Because immigration law does not recognize same-sex couples, an American citizen would not be able to sponsor his or her partner if her or she is on a temporary visa, and in some cases registering for a domestic partnership could jeopardize a foreign national's status. And in the case of military couples, it could violate the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and jeopardize their careers.

Link

 

[Solus]

Reading this just makes me shake my head. I don't know what can be done to help other then to vote against politicians who are anti-gay.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Reading this just makes me shake my head. I don't know what can be done to help other then to vote against politicians who are anti-gay.

I'm not sure what to do beyond that either. While I'm 100% aboard for full equal rights, I'm not sure what will actually have to occur on the Federal level to sort this out. But whatever that is, I want to see it happen.

 

[Terry]

Problem is, DOMA was signed into law by Clinton, who was one of the ostensibly less anti-gay presidents. So even politicians who actively court the gay vote do this kind of stuff.

 

[NeoRicen]

People (such as Clinton) are probably seeing this as an immigration issue as opposed to a Gay issue and are just voting to reduce the number of immigrants, which this achieves.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Howsa bout this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070723...artnerships;_ylt=At1cFhccoBsW08eecllD8LFvzwcF

A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife — even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.

...


The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Gerber plans to appeal.

Looks like the states are making a mess of it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Interestingly, the Monkey's example shows that keeping gay's from getting married gives them special rights and punishes heterosexuals.

 

[GodMark2]

Gee, who woulda really thought that "Separate but Equal" wouldn't work this time.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think that despite marriage supposedly being one of those things regulated by the states (then what the heck was the DOMA?), this is one of those times the federal government needs to step in. We need to have the same rules for all the states, and they need to be pretty damn clear.

I think the only truly viable options come down to a blanket ban on any recognized gay union, or a complete legalization of gay marriage so it's the same as straight marriage. Anything in the middle is just going to be a headache of legal problems for everyone concerned.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I think that despite marriage supposedly being one of those things regulated by the states (then what the heck was the DOMA?), this is one of those times the federal government needs to step in. We need to have the same rules for all the states, and they need to be pretty damn clear.

I think the only truly viable options come down to a blanket ban on any recognized gay union, or a complete legalization of gay marriage so it's the same as straight marriage. Anything in the middle is just going to be a headache of legal problems for everyone concerned.

Yes, as your example of alimony shows quite clearly. I agree with you, and can only hope that it's not a blanket ban in the outcome.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, as your example of alimony shows quite clearly. I agree with you, and can only hope that it's not a blanket ban in the outcome.

On the plus side, a blanket ban now would result in complete acceptance in another ten years. Because a) civilization gets more liberal as time goes by, and b) the waffling middle would find it a lesser evil to extend undeserved benefits than to deny deserved rights.

 

[WildCat]

Despite these partnerships offering some limited levels of "recognition", a gay marriage is not recognized as reason to be allowed to stay in the country as far as federal immigration status.

Straight marriage also does not guarantee your right to stay in the US. I have an English friend who had to wait years to finally be given permanent resident status, despite being legally married to an American. And he was very close to deportation several times.

 

[EvilSmurf]

Straight marriage also does not guarantee your right to stay in the US. I have an English friend who had to wait years to finally be given permanent resident status, despite being legally married to an American. And he was very close to deportation several times.

True that Wildcat. However, a gay couple can not even APPLY for Perm. Res. on the grounds of their marriage, which makes a big difference.