California Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Guest zipperzone]

>The people of California ratified a constitution. In times

>past, there may have been votes enough to amend the

>constitution but the last numbers I saw said they can't raise

>the 3/4 support, and the simple majority is questionable.

 

Didn't I hear Arnie say today that he would not sign it even if it did pass?

[Kevin Slater]

>>there may have been votes enough to amend the

>>constitution but the last numbers I saw said they can't

>raise

>>the 3/4 support, and the simple majority is questionable.

>

>Didn't I hear Arnie say today that he would not sign it even

>if it did pass?

 

I'm not sure of the process to amend the Constitution in California, but I doubt if, after getting 75% of the popular vote it would require the governor's signature. I believe Arnold simply said he does not support the effort to amend the Constitution, meaning he would not lobby for it.

 

Kevin Slater

[Epigonos]

Kevin you are correct. In California to pass a constitutional amendment initiative requires a two thirds (66 2/3%) vote NOT three fourths (75%) and once passed it becomes law immediately WITHOUT the signature of the governor.

[Epigonos]

In an earlier post on the thread I made an incorrect statement. I stated that in 2000 the California electorate passed the anti same sex initiative (Proposition 22) by more than 66 2/3%. The TRUTH is that it passed by "only" 61% which is NOT enough to pass a constitutional amendment here in California. The religious-right will most definitely quality a constitutional amendment initiative to ban same sex marriage for the November 2008 California ballot. It will take TENS of MILLIONS of dollars to defeat that initiative.

 

I strongly encourage those favoring the California Supreme Court decision to open their check book and start writing checks for serious amounts and send it to: https://secure.ga3.org/03/caequalpac. I personally have some serious reservations about same sex marriage BUT I see this as an incredible opportunity to defeat the forces of the religious right and strike a major blow for separation of church and state. Guys it is time to stop talking about this issue and to start shelling out the money.

 

Gentlemen, believe it or not, this post has been written by a died in the wool Barry Goldwater Republican

[Luv2play]

>I have never heard one lawyer or scholar argue that the

>California Supreme Court is a "conservative" one.

>Where do people get this stuff?

 

Well, actually from the journalists reporting on this issue. The appointees to this court are considered "moderate" Republicans. What would you call them, "liberals"? Get real! John McCain is considered to be a "moderate" Republican. No liberal, him. You can't have it both ways, calling all Democrats liberal, some worse than the others, and then denying Republicans are conservative. x(

[Guest]

Well, I would eventually like to see gay marriage recognized by the federal government. I hope this decision doesn't help put the Republicans in control of the White House for another 4 years (or worse yet, the U.S. Congress as well). I don't personally see much of a point to a "state-only" marriage. It seems to me that most of the benefits of marriage come from the federal government: joint federal tax returns, immigration benefits, and inheritance tax avoidance. The state benefits, at least in California, can be accomplished by domestic partnership, i.e. joint state taxes (big deal). I suppose this is a good step towards eventually getting the country used to the idea that the country won't collapse just because two guys get married. I wish the timing were a little better.

[+ deej]

The Federal Government does not recognize "heterosexual marriage", either. It recognizes "marriage", as defined and regulated by each state.

 

It is now legal in CA for gays to enter into a marriage.

 

I suspect your recognition is here.

[Guest]

>The Federal Government does not recognize "heterosexual

>marriage", either. It recognizes "marriage", as

>defined and regulated by each state.

>

I hate to say it, but you're unfortunately wrong on this point. Federal law explicitly prohibits gay marriages from being recognized by the federal government, even if they take place in jurisdictions where they are legal, such as California, Massachusetts, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, or Spain. This is a problem for gay couples, since a gay marriage can be taken as evidence that the foreign gay husband intends to overstay his visa, which can mean being denied entry into the country. For further information (and the opportunity to donate to address this injustice), visit http://www.immigrationequality.org

Of course, a GLBT can apply for asylum, but only if he comes from a country where gays are persecuted (i.e. not Canada, Mexico, or the E.U.). There are plenty of stories of Americans who are forced to leave this country if they want to stay with their loved one. My love would have to be pretty deep to exile myself to our icy neighbor to the North (though gay marriages are recognized in Canada, of course). Well, maybe living in Vancouver would be fine....

[Guest]

Or, for the long story...

 

My partner is foreign born and we want to marry in Massachusetts. Will doing so enable me to sponsor him or her for a “green card”?

 

Unfortunately, the marriages which are taking place in Massachusetts will not give any immigration rights in the short term. In the United States, immigration law is governed entirely by federal law, and in 1996 the federal government passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. Thus marriages between same sex partners, whether they take place in Massachusetts, Canada, or other countries which allow for such marriages will not provide any immigration benefits in the U.S.

 

That sounds unfair, can I bring a law suit?

 

We are urging people in binational couples not to bring law suits challenging DOMA. In the long term, we are very excited by the possibility of same sex marriages in Massachusetts and other states and very hopeful that in the long run, they will eventually lead to DOMA being overturned. We do feel very strongly, however, that people should not try to challenge DOMA in the immigration context. The Supreme Court has held many, many times that Congress has the power to regulate immigration however it sees fit, and we believe that a challenge to DOMA in an immigration case would most likely be unsuccessful and could actually strengthen DOMA.

 

Is it okay for me to marry my partner if I don’t apply for immigration status for him or her?

 

It depends on the immigration status of the foreign national. Before getting married, he or she should consult with an immigration attorney. It is important to understand that any time a non-citizen seeks to enter the U.S. on a temporary visa he or she must prove to Immigration that his or her intent is to return permanently to his or her own country. If a non-citizen marries an American and discloses this fact when asked about marital status by an Immigration official, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain a visa or gain entrance into the U.S. because the Immigration official may conclude that if the non-citizen is married to an American, it is likely that he or she intends to remain in the U.S. permanently. There is therefore a danger for foreign nationals in entering into a same sex marriage at this point.

 

If your partner is undocumented and you attempt to file a "green card" application for her based on a Massachusetts marriage, the application will be denied and your partner will be placed in removal proceedings.

 

Again, in the long term, the Massachusetts marriage movement is a significant step toward equality for same sex couples, but we still have to wait for immigration benefits.

[Rick Munroe]

The above comes from http://www.immigrationequality.org/template.php?pageid=27

 

Unicorn, could you please provide a link when quoting other's words, or at least let us know the original source? Thanks.

[Guest zipperzone]

>My love would have to be pretty

>deep to exile myself to our icy neighbor to the North

 

The bulk of the Canadian population lives no more than 50 miles north of the US/Canada border, so the "icy" part of the equasion means that there would be very little difference (temperature wise)between living in Seattle/Vancouver, Minneapolis/Winnipeg, Buffalo/Toronto, Burlington, Vermont/Montreal.

 

But if you are referring to our "icy" demeanor - well that's a whole different ballgame :-)

[+ deej]

Damn. I forgot all about DOMA. (Blocked it?)

[Guest]

The link was in the post just before the one with the quote, for anyone who was interested (#32). Jeez. I thought it was pretty obvious.

[Guest]

You wouldn't catch me frozen stiff living in Buffalo NY or Burlington VT! Yes, I would much rather live in Vancouver than either of those two places (20X rather), but even Vancouver is too cold and damp for my tastes. One of the great things about the U.S. is that you can pick any climate you want to live in from the barren desert, to the tropics, to the temperate rain forests of northern Washington, or to the icy tundra.

[Guest zipperzone]

>You wouldn't catch me frozen stiff living in Buffalo NY or

>Burlington VT! Yes, I would much rather live in Vancouver

>than either of those two places (20X rather), but even

>Vancouver is too cold and damp for my tastes. One of the

>great things about the U.S. is that you can pick any climate

>you want to live in from the barren desert, to the tropics, to

>the temperate rain forests of northern Washington, or to the

>icy tundra.

 

I agree that Buffalo is the shits, in more ways than one, but I would live in Burlington Vermont in a heart beat.(And it's only 75 miles from Montreal's strip clubs)

 

As for Vancouver, the damp part can be refreshing and it is not nearly as damp as some would have you believe. It was 90 degrees this past weekend. In the winter you can get by with nothing heavier than a windbreaker. One plus is it's harder to get skin cancer here. Another plus is that you can ski in the morning and surf in the afternoon (should you be so inclined).

[Guest]

I will grant you that if I were given the choice of keeping my U.S. citizenship but having to live in Buffalo or Burlington, versus becoming Canadian, but living in Vancouver, I would take Vancouver in a heartbeat. I could definitely envision a happy life in Vancouver. But my life here in California is probably quite a bit happier...

[Guest zipperzone]

>I will grant you that if I were given the choice of keeping

>my U.S. citizenship but having to live in Buffalo or

>Burlington, versus becoming Canadian, but living in Vancouver,

>I would take Vancouver in a heartbeat. I could definitely

>envision a happy life in Vancouver. But my life here in

>California is probably quite a bit happier...

 

Happy is what and where you make it. I'm sure life in California is great - could get used to it in a heartbeat. What I would have trouble with is your political choices....... but that's for a different forum, right?