Scotthenshaw

Sort of a dumb question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and
heard about the Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at
the same time, I thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly
married can the file their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as
Mass. my allow them to do their state taxes together, but the union may
not be recognized by the federal government. Just a random musing, but
what about if Bob lives in Mass. and John in say, France and they want
to do a K1? I have no plans myself, but it does raise at the very least
an intersting set of questions.

The purpose of my question is not
asked to spark humor about the topic, but a serious conversation about
the subject. I feel that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question
of, "Equal Rights" is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob
going to have the same immigration rights being a US citizen if he were
to be engaged to John or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would
be interested to hear some feedback from some of the group

Scott

Folinskyinla

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw
    > Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions.
    >
    > The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group
    >
    > Scott

Hi:

The
idea that a marriage is valid if valid under the law of the jurisdiction
where it is performed is one of long legal standing. Under the
Constitution, this venerable idea is even stronger given the "full faith
& credit" clause.

So, from a "conservative" viewpoint of "State's
Rights" such a marriage should be recognized.

However, the Bush
administration has been quite radical in attacking this conservative
concept. Also, there is the "Defense of Marriage Act" which explicitly
attacks certain marriages which may be valid under state law.


Interesting topic.

Dcmark

This is a great question. Clearly as Mr. F states the marriage must be
recognized in all 50 states (assuming there is no constitutional
amendment). But what about immigration rights?

Scotthenshaw

I really do not know if the immigration system allows us to be with our
fiancees or spouses as a right or a priveledge, but they do allow for it
with the Visa's in place, (K1 in this situation). I believe that
advocates of same sex marriages are asking for equality and I am quite
confident that in the near future such advocates will feel it only fair
or equal that they be able to utilize forms such as the I-129f for their
same sex fiancees. (Unless, they do a K3 and got married in Mass. on
another Visa while already in the US). Perahaps for such equality they
would have to come up with another K series visa? I suppose that this
issue can be looked at in both a legal and moral format.

Scott

Marjeta

Interesting...
Let's say a guy from abroad has a boyfriend or even
fiance in the US and decides to visit. If he says at the POE that he is
visiting his 'boyfriend' or fiance, can they deny him entry for
suspected immigration as they could do in the case of a heterosexual
relationship? Assuming that the immigrant in such relationship cannot
file for adjustment of status based on marriage, this type of suspicion
has no substance.
So from the standpoint of visitation gay couples may
be better off. But what if they want to start a life together??

Dcmark

Contrary to what some people may think its not a right. However, if its
available to man/woman couples AND (big AND) gay marriage is
legalized...then I assume one could sue for equal rights (to a spousal
visa).


Originally posted by ScottHenshaw
    > I really do
not know if the immigration system allows us to be with our fiancees or
spouses as a right or a priveledge, but they do allow for it with the
Visa's in place, (K1 in this situation). I believe that advocates of
same sex marriages are asking for equality and I am quite confident that
in the near future such advocates will feel it only fair or equal that
they be able to utilize forms such as the I-129f for their same sex
fiancees. (Unless, they do a K3 and got married in Mass. on another Visa
while already in the US). Perahaps for such equality they would have to
come up with another K series visa? I suppose that this issue can be
looked at in both a legal and moral format.
    >
Scott

Hypertweeky

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw
    > Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions.
    >
    > The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group
    >
    > Scott

This is
such an interesting topic!
I heard about the gay marriage this
morning. Bush´s administration already said they are going to "appeal"
the decission made by The Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Hypertweeky

Originally posted by Marjeta
    > So from the standpoint of
visitation gay couples may be better off. But what if they want to
start a life together??

Sad.. but I dont see that happening
anytime soon

Dcmark

The Bush adminstartion cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme
court. Marriage is a state law and the federal government cannot touch
it.

What the Bushies can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not
state) which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In
the meantime, the Mass. state legislature may consider a (state)
constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule
what the Mass. Supreme Ct. ruled.

Confused yet?


Originally
posted by Hypertweeky
    > This is such an interesting topic!
I
heard about the gay marriage this morning. Bush´s administration already
said they are going to "appeal" the decission made by The Massachusetts
Supreme Court.

Folinskyinla

Originally posted by DCMark
    > The Bush adminstartion
cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme court. Marriage is a state
law and the federal government cannot touch it.
    >
    > What the Bushies
can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not state) which defines
marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the meantime, the Mass.
state legislature may consider a (state) constitutional amendment
outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule what the Mass. Supreme Ct.
ruled.
    >
    > Confused yet?

Hi:

The scope and applicablity of
the "Defense of Marriage Act" in its attack on certain marriages has yet
to be determined.

I have not experienced this in my practice, but the
rumor mill has it that CIS will NOT recognize a marriage between a man
and a woman if the woman had been born a man -- and they actually RELY
on the DOMA definiton of a marriage being between a man and woman. This
was started by the former INS at the intructions of John Ashcroft.

Many
lawyers [both conservative and "liberal"-- and some within the
government] scratch their heads at the extremely radical positions taken
by Mr. Ashcroft. I know some quite conservative lawyers [long time
Republicans] who don't like Dubya because of Ashcroft.