Ryan

Hello,

Yesterday, I read about a new bill in California to allow gay and
lesbian couples to marry. I was curious about the meaning of this
paragraph from the story:


"The bill, introduced by Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat, would
prohibit the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in
California and allow gay couples to file joint tax returns and to
claim immigration privileges for spouses among other rights."


What "immigration privileges" would they be referring to since US
Immigration is normally handed by the Federal Government?

MarDae

Originally posted by Ryan
    > Hello,
    >
    > Yesterday, I read
about a new bill in California to allow gay and
    > lesbian couples to
marry. I was curious about the meaning of this
    > paragraph from the
story:
    >
    >
    > "The bill, introduced by Mark Leno, a San Francisco
Democrat, would
    > prohibit the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples in
    > California and allow gay couples to file joint tax returns
and to
    > claim immigration privileges for spouses among other rights."

    >
    > What "immigration privileges" would they be referring to since US

    > Immigration is normally handed by the Federal Government?



I wonder if the federal language is vague enough to just refer to
spouse or fiance and make no assertion that the spouse/fiance be of the
opposite sex. Therefore if a marriage is recognized on the state level
which I believe is still the current procedure then the spousal status
for immigration purposes will be fulfilled (or fiance status in the case
that the intended immigrant will be moving to a state where same sex
marriage is legal and recognized). Just a thought...I could be totally
off base.

MarDae

Mrtravelkay

MarDae wrote:
n
    > I wonder if the federal language is vague enough to just refer to
    > spouse or fiance and make no assertion that the spouse/fiance be of the
    > opposite sex. Therefore if a marriage is recognized on the state level
    > which I believe is still the current procedure then the spousal status
    > for immigration purposes will be fulfilled (or fiance status in the case
    > that the intended immigrant will be moving to a state where same sex
    > marriage is legal and recognized). Just a thought...I could be totally
    > off base.

Federal law is quite clear on what the federal govenment recognizes as a
valid marriage.

Sunflwrgrl13

Originally posted by Mrtravelkay
    > MarDae wrote:
    > n
    > I wonder if the federal language is vague enough to just refer
to
    > > spouse or fiance and make no assertion that the
spouse/fiance be of the
    > > opposite sex. Therefore if a
marriage is recognized on the state level
    > > which I believe
is still the current procedure then the spousal status
    > > for
immigration purposes will be fulfilled (or fiance status in the
case
    > > that the intended immigrant will be moving to a state
where same sex
    > > marriage is legal and recognized). Just a
thought...I could be totally
    > > off base.
    >
    > Federal
law is quite clear on what the federal govenment recognizes as a
valid marriage.

Oh? Is that why they are trying to pass the
bill specifically banning same sex marriage? If the law was already
clear, then how/why did San Francisco get around it? By outright
ignoring it?

I feel quite badly for those same sex couples that find
themselves in our type of situation (living in diff countries) with no
way to rectify it. Wish there was something that could be done about it.

Andrew DeFaria

sunflwrgrl13 wrote:

    > Oh? Is that why they are trying to pass the bill specifically banning
    > same sex marriage?

Federally, I suspect.

    > If the law was already clear, then how/why did San Francisco get
    > around it? By outright ignoring it?

Because currently marriage is in the domain of states not the feds.