Integrity Legal

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

–Thomas Jefferson (3rd President of the United States of America, First Secretary of State [Washington Administration])

Gay rights are human rights.

– Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (Former First Lady of the United States)

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

– 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution, quoted from Wikipedia

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– 10 Amendment of the United States Constitution, quoted from Wikipedia

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond located in the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia has taken political criticism for flying a rainbow flag (traditionally viewed as a flag denoting support for the LGBT community and, for some, their struggle for equal protection under United States law and/or equal recognition of same sex marriage solemnized and/or legalized in one of the sovereign American States, the District of Columbia, or the Federal territories, if applicable). To quote directly from an article by Olympia Meola posted on the official website of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, TimesDispatch.com:

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, is asking the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank to remove the rainbow flag flying below the American flag outside of the building, calling its presence “a serious deficiency of judgment by your organization, one not limited to social issues.” In a letter to Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, Marshall says the homosexual behavior “celebrated” by the bank “undermines the American economy…”

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this story in detail in order to gain further insight into this developing situation.

This blogger must pause this analysis for a moment of personal observation. It is intriguing that Delegate Marshall would seem to be trying to scapegoat some of the blame for recent economic events upon the LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (transsexual, or “third sex“), community. This blogger must retort: how could the LGBT community “undermine” America’s economy? Explain this? Especially since a great deal of economic activity that produces revenue in America comes from married couples trying to make a living, build a home, and start a family. Is it in dispute that marriage and family generate economic benefits for America? If it is not, then the only way the LGBT community could be at fault for some hypothetical economic downturn would seem to arise from the fact that they have not started families (and therefore not generated the concomitant economic activity derived therefrom) due to the fact that they cannot gain the same legal recognition of their relationships in the same way that those in different-sex relationships are able to. This is especially true in the context of same sex bi-national couples as some of these relationships are separated by thousands of miles and jurisdictional boundaries due to the fact that federal enforcement of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) does not allow a same sex bi-national couple to petition for the same US visa benefits (such as the CR1 visa or the IR1 Visa, not to mention the K1 visa which is a US fiance visa) in the same manner as a different sex couple. There are currently American federal legislators such as Representative Mike Honda and Representative Jerrold Nadler who have introduced legislation, such as the Reuniting Families Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act; which would, to one degree or another, at least end the current discrimination that the bi-national LGBT community faces when trying to reunite with family in the United States of America. Apparently this Federal Reserve Bank was flying this flag pursuant to a request from another organization which appears dedicated to the cause of LGBT equality:

The flag is being flown at the request of PRISM, a Richmond Fed group representing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and allies.

This PRISM organization should be commended for their efforts on behalf of the LGBT community, but this blogger must say that he would like to see legislation passed which provides tangible benefits to the LGBT community rather than a gesture from a private corporation which, at least ostensibly, has no role in deciding American policy toward legal recognition of LGBT relationships. Others echoed some of these sentiments, but for what are, in this blogger’s personal opinion, the wrong reasons:

Its presence also prompted mention from Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation in an email release on Wednesday. Although the Federal Reserve is a private entity, it is disappointing to see it participate in this celebration,” she said.

This blogger is always a bit skeptical when a group uses the term “family” when describing themselves as it is usually an indicator that such an organization has its own idea about what the definition of “family” actually is. Concurrently, such organizations are sometimes known to attempt to foist their own paradigm or definition of family upon others who may not necessarily share the same view. Therefore, readers are asked to always conduct their own research on all aspects of such issues in order to form their own well informed opinions.

This blogger must confess that this recent display of support for LGBT equality by the Fed seems a bit disingenuous considering the timing and circumstances. It has recently been reported on some mainstream and alternative media outlets that there are currently worries growing about the state of the American economy. Meanwhile it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the government of China is reported to have diminished their position in United States Treasuries. To quote directly from an article written by Terence P. Jeffrey and posted to the website CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) – China has dropped 97 percent of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bills, decreasing its ownership of the short-term U.S. government securities from a peak of $210.4 billion in May 2009 to $5.69 billion in March 2011, the most recent month reported by the U.S. Treasury. Treasury bills are securities that mature in one year or less that are sold by the U.S. Treasury Department to fund the nation’s debt. Mainland Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury bills are reported in column 9 of the Treasury report linked here…

Readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in full and learn more. This situation is only brought up in the context of this posting to elucidate the fact that the Fed is currently in something of a “pickle”. This news comes upon the heels of recent announcements (noted in a previous posting on this blog) that the USA and China are set to be engaging in cooperative efforts in the context of relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Clearly, current American relations with China and countries in Southeast Asia are multi-facted and complex so those interested in such topics are encouraged to conduct thorough research before forming opinions on issues associated with American, Chinese, and ASEAN economic policies and relations.

It was recently reported on the website Law.com that the Federal Reserve has come under intense scrutiny from legislators such as Representative Ron Paul for current policies supposedly being maintained by the Fed. To quote directly from an insightful article written by Shannon Green and posted on the website Law.com:

The Congressman criticized the Fed for its reluctance to disclose to the public when banks are unhealthy. Paul said the Fed’s practices of protecting banks’ privacy appears to be at odds with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is pushing companies to reveal more information.

Readers are strongly encouraged to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in full to gain more context.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with positions held by the various members of House of Representatives is not really relevant to the issue of the Fed’s decision to hoist this particular flag at this particular time. Although it is certainly a commendable gesture, this blogger’s response, with all due respect, must be: why so late, and why now? If the Fed is raising the Rainbow flag because they genuinely support LGBT Equality, then great; but if this institution is simply raising this flag because of political expediency or to score some sort of “political points”, then one must ask: why? Hopefully the LGBT community will see their equal rights fully vested soon and this valid grievance will be redressed. In the meantime, this blogger hopes that the American economy will rebound from any relative downturn to find itself more vibrant and dynamic than ever, but some developments take time. For those personally impacted by the current state of affairs: it is hoped that change will come sooner rather than later.

Readers should note that in the context of same sex marriage this blogger feels that fundamentally the issue of LGBT equality is an individual rights issue as the right to enter into a consensual relationship with whomever one wishes is an inalienable natural right reserved to the People notwithstanding the Constitution, but nevertheless enshrined within the provisions of the 9th and 10th Amendments noted above. The implied right of “free association” has also long been held to provide Constitutional protection for Americans wishing to form intimate associations with others. Concurrently, this blogger feels that where sovereign States have heeded the call of their citizenry to provide government licensure of same sex marriages or marital unions, then that licensure acts as an imprimatur of sovereign recognition which, in this blogger’s opinion, cannot be negated by the federal government and must be accorded Full Faith and Credit by sister States within the Union. Those unfamiliar with the Full Faith and Credit Clause should note that Congress can make rules regarding the effect of State law upon other States, but, in this blogger’s opinion, such law cannot be made to render the States’ laws ineffective, which is the current result of the federal government’s application of some, or all, depending upon circumstance; of the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act“. This blogger must point out that although same sex couples ought to be able to get Full Faith and Credit for those marriages solemnized and/or legalized in one of the sovereign States of the United States of America, they may not necessarily see States which do not permit same sex marriage in an intrastate context engaging in the legal procedure of divorcing same sex couples as this blogger believes that one must utilize a “horizontal vs. vertical” analysis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the context of same sex marriage since there is both an intrastate and interstate component to such an analysis. Such an analysis could, at times, result in a situation where a State Court permits recognition of the fact that a same sex marriage exists in another State jurisdiction, but the Full Faith and Credit Clause’s provisions may not necessarily be interpreted to mean that States should be compelled to grant same sex divorces if the public policy of the State in question does not permit State sanctioned legalization or solemnization of such unions in the first place.

On a side note, this blogger just thought of an interesting hypothetical: could a federal Court with concurrent federal jurisdiction over State territory grant divorces for same sex couples who were married in another State jurisdiction (which allows same sex marriage) if the underlying State’s public policy runs counter to the notion of granting recognition for such unions? It would currently seem that pursuant to the Erie Doctrine the US Courts under such circumstances may be prohibited from undertaking certain functions pertaining to same sex marriages if the underlying State’s law does not recognize such unions. That stated, as of the time of this writing any such analysis remains mere speculation as a broadly binding legal opinion on these issue has yet to be handed down.

Readers interested in learning more about the struggle for LGBT Equality are encouraged to check out UnitingAmericanFamilies.Net, Lez Get Real, and/or the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog.

For further related information please see: Rainbow Flag or US Company Registration.

Tags: ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Bisexual, Commonwealth of Virginia, companies, CR1 Visa, Defense of Marriage Act, Del. Robert G. Marshall, DOMA, equal protection, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Gay, House of Representatives, IR1 Visa, K1 Visa, Lesbian, LGBT, LGBT community, Mainland Chinese, PRISM, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Representative Mike Honda, Representative Ron Paul, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, Same Sex Marriage, States' Rights, third sex, Transgender, transsexual, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury Department, Uniting American Families Act, US Fiance Visa
Posted in American Business, China Business, Editorial, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Business, US Company Registration, US Constitution, US LLC | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Republican position regarding same sex marriage in the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) is being analyzed by both media and political observers. To quote directly from a recent article written by Ben Pershing and posted on the website of the Washington Post, WashingtonPost.com:

[D]espite past efforts, Republicans have not mounted an assault this year on the District’s same-sex marriage law: No bill has been introduced to overturn it, nor has any lawmaker publicly sought support from colleagues for such a measure.

Those unfamiliar with the United States Constitution are wise to take note of the fact that the United States Congress is responsible for administering the American capitol city. The scope of such jurisdiction extends to matters which in the context of a sovereign State could be viewed as intrastate issues. However, as the District of Columbia is substantially different in nature from sovereign States the same legal rules and analysis that applies to States may not apply to the District. To quote further from the aforementioned article:

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he knew of no campaign to repeal the law. “My committee has no intention at this time of overturning gay marriage,” Issa said this month, although he later clarified that he was speaking for himself as chairman and not for individual lawmakers. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), now chairman of the D.C. oversight subcommittee, responded similarly Tuesday. He said that he would support a bill to overturn the same-sex marriage law if one were introduced but that he had no interest in spearheading such an effort. “I was not elected to be D.C. mayor, and I don’t aspire to be,” Gowdy said, echoing a previous comment by him on local issues. The fact that no Republican has introduced a bill this year could be a sign that the majority plans to use a different tactic…

The administration of this weblog strongly encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to view this article in its entirety.

The observations noted above go to the heart of any analysis of the current struggle for the LGBT community to gain at least some modicum of equal protection pursuant to United States law. In a previous posting on this blog it was noted that in order for the LGBT community to hope to see passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), the Respect for Marriage Act, or the Reuniting Families Act broad based bipartisan support may prove crucial. That stated, it would appear that where once there was stiff resistance toward a compassionate or tolerant policy towards the LGBT community, now there are signs of something of a “thaw” on the right especially as States’ Rights issues have been raised regarding the Constitutionality of the current application of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA).

Currently, sovereign American States such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have heeded the call of their Citizenry and taken measures to legalize, solemnize, and/or recognize same sex marriages or marital unions. Notwithstanding this fact, the United States federal government still will not accord federal benefits (including immigration benefits) even to those legally married in a sovereign American jurisdiction.

It is this blogger’s opinion that the issue of same sex marriage in the United States may ultimately be resolved by activity emanating from US Courts, especially if a case on point is heard by the United States Supreme Court. This blogger forms this opinion after contemplating the issues associated with Full Faith and Credit and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Bearing this in mind, the reader is urged to remember that these issues have yet to see full resolution.

Meanwhile, it would appear that activists in the international LGBT community are taking steps to secure further equality in other parts of the world as The Nation newspaper’s print edition in Thailand reports that LGBT activists are seeking political support for the cause of same-sex marriage in the lead up to Thai elections. To quote directly from the Nation’s official website, NationMultimedia.com:

Rights activists for the so-called “third sex” – gays, lesbians and transsexuals – have urged political parties to allow a same-sex marriage law. Natee Teerarojjanapongs, president of the Sexual Diversity Group and the Gay Political Group of Thailand, and transsexual singer known as Jim Sarah (Sujinrat Prachathai) said yesterday they would visit the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties today to submit a letter asking them to issue such a law for the “third gender” if they lead the next government…Their groups will seek commitments from the parties and say they will reward promises of action by campaigning for votes among their supporters…

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to learn more from this insightful and well written article.

Readers should be aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Thailand is one of the most tolerant jurisdictions on the face of the Earth when it comes to matters pertaining to LGBT issues. As a tourist and recreational destination, Thailand ranks among the top tier of destinations frequented by the LGBT individuals and couples as Thailand boasts a vibrant LGBT community. That stated, under Thai law in its current form same sex marriage is not recognized. Therefore, it is not possible for a same sex couple to register a Thai marriage at, say, an Amphur Office (Civil Registrar Office), in the same manner as a different-sex couple. As noted above, Thai advocates may be taking measures in the near term to change this state of affairs. How this issue will play out in the run up to a Thai election remains to be seen, but it may prove interesting.

In analyzing United States immigration in a Thai context the reader should note that if Thailand began allowing registration of same sex marriage and the United States passed legislation such as the aforementioned UAFA it is conceivable in the future that a same sex bi-national Thai-American couple could register their marriage in Thailand and thereby use that marriage as a basis for seeking American immigration benefits such as a K3 visa, CR1 visa, or an IR1 visa. That stated, such a scenario would require a departure from current law and policy.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand or K1 Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Constitution, Bisexual, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, D.C., D.C. oversight subcommittee, Defense of Marriage Act, Democrat Party, District of Columbia, DOMA, Gay, Gay Political Group of Thailand, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, Jim Sarah, Lesbian, LGBT community, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Natee Teerarojjanapongs, Pheu Thai Party, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican Party, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, Same Sex Marriage, Sexual Diversity Group, Sujinrat Prachathai, third gender, third sex, Transgender, transsexual, uafa, United States Constitution, Uniting American Families Act, Washington D.C.
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has called for the nomination of a candidate for the post of IMF Managing Director who hails from Asia or a developing nation. To quote directly from a very interesting article apparently written by Umesh Pandey and posted on the official website of the Bangkok Post, BangkokPost.com:

TOKYO : Asean secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan has called on Asian countries to jointly nominate a candidate for the post of managing director of the International Monetary Fund. As the leading engine of global economic growth, Asia needs to assert itself in the way international institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF operate, Mr Surin said yesterday. “The time is for Asia to field a candidate and it doesn’t have to be an Asian. They could be a member of a Third World country but not the European Union and they surely must not be a North American,” said the Asean chief.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to gain further insight into this developing story.

Clearly, the economies which comprise the ASEAN community are becoming increasingly important in a global context. This fact coupled with the fact that there seems to be little tangible reason why the IMF directorship should continue to be exclusively held by a European leaves one to wonder what the nationality of future IMF directors will be. It seems both likely and logical that an Asian will eventually take the helm of the International Monetary Fund, but the question remains: when? Hopefully this question will one day be answered to the satisfaction of all concerned.

On a somewhat unrelated note, it also came to this blogger’s attention that a United States Senator has recently introduced legislation to provide immigration benefits to families of America’s brave servicemen and women. To quote directly from an article written by Elise Foley and posted on the Huffington Post website, HuffingtonPost.com:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Robert Menendez introduced a bill on Thursday that would allow the immigrant parents, spouses and children of active duty military service members to gain legal status, part of a push by Democrats to allow small sectors of the undocumented population to avoid deportation. “I just can’t believe that you can risk your life for America, and America can’t let you stay united with your family,” the New Jersey Democrat said at a press conference. “It seems to me that’s more than a fair trade-off.” The Military Families Act, which so far has zero Republican supporters, would grant legal permanent residence to the immediate family members of military men and women in active duty…

Readers are urged to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to learn more from this insightful and interesting article.

This blogger was relieved to hear that Senator Robert Menendez has taken up the cause of America’s military families as it is unfortunate that current law and regulation can sometimes result in adverse consequences for alien family members of those serving in the United States Armed Forces. Hopefully the proposed legislation will create a more compassionate immigration environment for the families of American Armed Forces personnel. It should be noted that those non-US Citizens serving in the American military are often eligible for expedited immigration benefits including, but not necessarily limited, expedited naturalization to United States Citizenship.

Those who read this blog with any frequency may also be aware that there is currently legislation being proposed in the American federal legislature which would go far in uniting American same-sex bi-national families. The passage of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), the Reuniting Families Act, and/or the Respect for Marriage Act would likely result in changes to relevant American law thereby allowing those who have entered into a same sex marriage, or similar marital union, to obtain federal benefits (including immigration benefits) in the same manner as their different-sex counterparts. How this legislation will fare in the current legislature remains to be seen, but hopefully passage of such legislation, along with the Military Families Act, will result in a tangible benefit to all American families.

For related information please see: Certificate of Naturalization.

Tags: American Citizenship, ASEAN, Asean secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Certificate of Naturalization, European Union, IMF, IMF Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Military Families Act, Naturalization, North America, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, same sex marital union, Same Sex Marriage, Senator Robert Menendez, Third World, uafa, United States Citizenship, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in ASEAN Business, US Visa and Immigration | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that one of the American Senators from the sovereign State of New York has been interviewed regarding United States Immigration and the ramifications of current policies upon the LGBT community.  To quote directly from the website of the Immigration Equality Action Fund:

In a wide-ranging new interview with reporter Andrew Harmon at The Advocate, United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) talks about the future of LGBT-inclusive immigration reform, as well as her own experiences as the American half of a binational marriage. Gillibrand – who has been a staunch supporter of LGBT equality – recently joined eleven other Senate colleagues in calling on the Obama Administration to halt the deportation of LGBT spouses…

The administration of this web log strongly recommend that readers click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more about this interesting interview. It is truly fortunate that Senator Gillibrand and her eleven colleagues have taken this position in support of bi-national LGBT spouses.

For those who are unfamiliar with the current plight of the LGBT community in America it should be noted that multiple sovereign States as well as the District of Columbia allow same sex marriage or same sex marital union. That stated, the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) prohibit the United States Federal government from recognizing such unions. Therefore, same sex couples are not permitted to obtain the same federal benefits as their different-sex counterparts. As a result, many same sex bi-national couples are separated from one another because they cannot obtain the same federal immigration benefits as their different sex counterparts. At present, there is currently legislation pending before the federal legislature which would alleviate some or all of these legal problems. Such legislation includes, but may not be limited to: the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), the Reuniting Families Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act. It is notable that the State of New York has more than one member of its delegation in support of LGBT-friendly legislation as Representative Jerrold Nadler has recently supported and introduced legislation to ameliorate the discrimination currently imposed upon same sex couples by relevant federal American law.

Meanwhile, it would appear as though issues associated with same sex marriage visas are not the only things on the minds of Americans concerned about U.S. Immigration policy as it recently came to this blogger’s attention that a well regarded attorney from the United States recently commented upon the Diversity Visa Lottery. To quote directly from Greg Siskind on the website ILW.com:

I’ve always had mixed feelings about the annual green card lottery. On the one hand, shouldn’t our green card numbers be going to high priority family and employment categories that are backlogged as opposed to people who randomly are selected and may have few skills to offer and aren’t reuniting with family here? Political scientist Yascha Mounk makes the case for keeping the lottery, however, in an opinion piece in today’s New York Times.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more.

It has always been this blogger’s opinion that the Diversity Visa Lottery Program is a positive aspect of the current American immigration system. That stated, it would certainly be nice to see the reunification of both different-sex and same-sex families in the future. Hopefully, one day we will see both.

For related information please see: US Visa Thailand or Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Tags: Andrew Harmon, binational marriage, Defense of Marriage Act, Diversity Visa Lottery Program, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Immigration Equality Action Fund, LGBT community, lgbt visa, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, Same Sex Marriage, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, The Advocate, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Visa Thailand
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Navy, that indomitable symbol of America’s prowess on the high seas, has taken steps to begin solemnizing marital unions between those of the same gender. To quote directly from the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — Navy chaplains will be trained about their ability to perform same-sex civil marriage ceremonies under new guidance that would take effect if the Defense Department moves to recognize openly gay military service. Navy officials said Monday that they updated the training after questions came up about civil ceremonies for gay couples. Military training to apply the new law allowing gays to serve openly began earlier this year, and is expected to be complete by mid-summer.

For those who are unfamiliar with this topic it should be noted that the relatively recent repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has resulted in the need for measures to integrate members of the LGBT community into the American armed forces. One component of such an integration is that same sex couples be permitted to marry, especially in State jurisdictions which explicitly allow such unions. However, this issue is not exactly “cut and dried,” to quote further from the aforementioned article:

The Navy ceremonies would be allowed at military facilities such as chapel and catering centers, but only in states that already recognize same-sex unions. And, even if a marriage is performed, same-sex partners would not get any health, housing or other benefits that are provided to married couples involving a man and woman.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks noted above to read this story in detail and learn more about these issues.

Clearly, there exists a States’ Rights component to the analysis of same sex marriage especially in light of the fact that 6 sovereign States and the District of Columbia have begun legalizing and solemnizing same sex marital unions within their respective jurisdictions. However, the final sentence of the above quotation should be concerning to same sex bi-national couples and the LGBT community as a whole. Although it is certainly positive that the American Navy is taking steps to begin solemnizing same sex unions while the overall legal stature of such unions is being determined, same sex couples are likely to continue to find themselves the victim of discrimination and double standards within the current American legal system.

Presently, there are cases in the judicial system which address these issues, but they have yet to take legal effect. Meanwhile, legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler have supported legislation such as the Respect for Marriage Act and the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would deal with the American government’s current discrimination against the LGBT community. Until such time as federal legislation is passed to repeal the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), or judicial action is taken to overturn this legislation, it would appear likely that same sex couples will continue to be the object of discrimination notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination (regardless of whether it is being carried out under the “color of law”) violates Americans’ natural rights pursuant to ancient notions such as Magna Carta and the specific provisions protecting free association within the language of the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, there is a strong argument that the federal government’s current failure to recognize same sex marriages solemnized and/or legalized within the jurisdiction of a sovereign American State violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution since the provisions thereof reserve certain rights to the American States and People, respectively.  Licensure of marriage in an intrastate context has long been viewed by many Constitutional scholars as an exclusively State prerogative.

For related information please see: LGBT Immigration.

Tags: American Constitution, American Navy, civil ceremonies for gay couples, DADT, Defense Department, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, LGBT Equality, lgbt immigration, openly gay military service, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Respect for Marriage Act, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, same sex civil union, Same Sex Marriage, State prerogative, States' Rights, U.S. Constitution, uafa, United States Navy, Uniting American Families Act, US Navy
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention, via the website MetroWeekly.com, that the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has vacated a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which applied controversial section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in a recent case. To quote directly from a PDF copy of AG Holder’s order as posted to the aforementioned website:

Pursuant to my authority set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I order that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) in this case applying Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, be vacated, and that this matter be referred to me for review.

In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a “spouse” under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a “spouse” under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 3) what, if any, impact the timing of respondent’s civil union should have on his request for that discretionary relief; and 4) whether, if he had a “qualifying relative,” the respondent would be able to satisfy the exceptional and unusual hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.

Those reading this posting are encouraged to read the article on Metroweekly.com posted by Chris Geidner regarding these issues as this blogger found that posting to be very insightful.

For those who are not familiar with this issue it should be noted that the current provisions of DOMA preclude accordance of federal benefits to those who have entered into a same sex relationship. This preclusion even overrides State prerogatives regarding marriage as, in an immigration context, the language of DOMA precludes recognition of even a same sex marriage solemnized and/or legalized in a sovereign American State. Currently, there is some legislation, such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) or the Respect for Marriage Act, pending before the American Federal legislature which would seek to remove the current restrictions being imposed upon the LGBT community.

It remains to be seen whether same sex visa benefits will be accorded the same sex partners engaged in a bi-national relationship, but one thing is clear: there is momentum gathering behind the cause of LGBT equal rights as American authorities would seem to be taking notice of the legitimate grievances of those who have, for too long, been denied their rights to equal protection under the law. Meanwhile, this blogger finds it likely that there will eventually be some sort of decision regarding the accordance of Full Faith and Credit to those legal marriages solemnized and/or legalized by those States which currently license such unions. As of the time of this writing, however, such remedies remain to be seen and the assurances that they will manifest themselves sometime in the future is likely cold comfort to those who are separated from their loved ones now.

For related information please see: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Tags: 1 U.S.C. § 7, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), AG Holder, Attorney General Eric Holder, BIA, Board of Immigration Appeals, Civil Union, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Immigration and Nationality Act, LGBT civil union, lgbt immigration, LGBT marriage, LGBT partner, lgbt visa, qualifying relative, removal, Respect for Marriage Act, Same Sex Marriage, same-sex partnership, Section 3 DOMA, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the recently announced Presidential candidate Representative Ron Paul noted his reaction to hearing the news of the demise of terrorist Osama bin Laden. To quote directly from an interesting article posted on the official website of The State Column, thestatecolumn.com:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday that he was delighted to hear of the death of Osama bin Laden.

The Texas Republican, and potential Republican presidential candidate, discussed the killing of bin Laden on The Diane Rehm Show, saying he is “still looking for more information” concerning the details of the killing.

Mr. Paul said he supported the killing of bin Laden, adding that he voted for the authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The administration of this blog recommends readers click upon the hyperlinks above to learn more from this insightful story.

On a somewhat related matter (related as both stories pertain to U.S. politics), but certainly of likely interest to readers of this blog, it would appear as though the Immigration Equality Action Fund has taken steps to build a coalition of businesses in favor of enactment of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). To quote directly from the official website of the Immigration Equality Action Fund, ImmigrationEqualityActionFund.org:

Immigration Equality Action Fund created the Business Coalition for the Uniting American Families Act to engage global companies who are fed up with the loss of talented LGBT employees due to immigration restrictions. The Coalition is a group of global businesses calling on Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act, S. 424/H.R. 1024.

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read about this information in detail. Furthermore, readers are encouraged to take note of those companies which have shown their support for the rights of the American LGBT community.

For those unfamiliar with this issue, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), recently reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative Jerrold Nadler, would provide immigration benefits for the “permanent partners” of United States Citizens and/or Lawful Permanent Residents thereby circumventing the current (questionably Constitutional) legal restrictions barring the granting of federal benefits to those who are in a same sex marriage or intending to enter into a same sex marriage upon lawful admission to the United States of America. Such discrimination currently exists pursuant to the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). The reader is encouraged to note that these current restrictions exist notwithstanding the fact that a number of sovereign American States have voiced their support for same sex marital unions. Most notable for those interested in the legal ramifications of this issue: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of California have seen cases pertaining to these issues, but as of yet, the issue remains in a sort of stasis as the wheels of justice slowly turn.

As the 2012 election approaches it is noteworthy how varied the issues are likely to be even as they comprise the spectrum of presidential debate topics.

For related information please see: Respect for Marriage Act or Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Tags: American LGBT community, Campaign 2012, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Election 2012, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Representative Ron Paul, Respect for Marriage Act, Ron Paul, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, Same Sex Marriage, State of California, uafa, UAFA Coalition, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in Election 2012, lgbt immigration, News, same sex visa | No Comments »

As the issue of equal rights for the LGBT community continues to evolve the political facets as well as the legal aspects of this issue continue to develop in real time. It recently came to this blogger’s attention that some groups are questioning the decision by the California Judge in the Proposition 8 case to act as adjudicator in that case which found that depriving same sex couples the right to marry in the same manner as their different-sex counterparts is a violation of same sex couples’ civil rights. In order to shed more light upon this issue it may be best to quote directly from an article recently posted on the official website of the Associated Press written by Lisa Leff:

At the center of the dispute is Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who issued the ruling last August declaring Proposition 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians’ civil rights.

“We are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” attorneys for the backers of Proposition 8 wrote in their motion filed Monday to overturn the landmark ruling. “Simply stated, under governing California law, Chief Judge Walker currently cannot marry his partner, but his decision in this case … would give him a right to do so.”

They claim Walker should have disclosed the relationship while presiding over the case and said if he had any interest in marrying his partner.

The administration of this blog strongly recommends that readers click upon the hyperlinks above to read further from this insightful article.

In the article cited above it was noted that some have argued that the Judge in this case should have recused rather than adjudicating the case. However, not everyone agrees that recusal was called for. Meanwhile, the issue of recusal simultaneously raises the issue of whether one’s sexual orientation is relevant to fulfilling public functions such as acting as an adjudicator. To quote further from the article noted above:

Experts in judicial ethics said Tuesday that carefully parsed line of reasoning is unlikely to prevail.

They pointed out that while courts have not yet had to wrestle with sexual orientation as grounds for judicial recusal, judges typically have rejected efforts to remove jurists based on personal characteristics such as race, gender, religion or even the contents of their investment portfolios.

“I don’t think this judge had any more duty to disclose his sexual orientation than a Christian or Jewish or Muslim judge has a duty to discuss their religion or a heterosexual judge has his duty to discuss their sexual orientation,” retired Illinois state Judge Raymond McKoski said.

The issue of sexual orientation and legal scrutiny thereof is one which will likely need to be adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court. Recently, the Obama administration clarified its position on this issue through the promulgation of the recent memorandum between Attorney General Eric Holder and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The administration seems to believe that the issue should be accorded “heightened scrutiny” by the United States Supreme Court. To be clear, this blogger believes that same sex couples’ rights are inalienable natural rights (reserved to the American People pursuant to the 10th Amendment) which cannot be infringed upon by mere governments. That stated, under the current system in the United States, the best method for gaining equal protection under the law for the LGBT community in a practical sense would be through legislative and/or judicial action. However, this blogger truly believes that the best argument in favor of recognition of same sex marriage stems from States’ Rights since multiple sovereign States have either allowed for legal recognition of such unions or actively legalize and/or solemnize same sex marriages. Another argument in favor of full recognition of same sex marriage stems from an Equal Protection analysis. As implied by the Holder memo, some believe that heightened scrutiny should be applied to these cases. This blogger does not disagree with that argument per se, as it does seem as though so-called “heightened scrutiny” or “intermediate scrutiny” might be more appropriate under the circumstances than, say, strict scrutiny. In any case, whatever level of scrutiny is utilized it is this blogger’s opinion that Federal lack of recognition of same sex marriage as well as the current ban in California pursuant to Proposition 8 are both in violation of the Constitution based upon either an analysis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Equal Protection Clause.

In this blogger’s personal opinion, the Judge noted above should not have had to recuse under the circumstances for many of the reasons noted above. That said, this blogger remains convinced that the currently pending appeal of a similar decision in Massachusetts Federal Court is more likely to result in gains for the LGBT community as that case rests upon more sound Constitutional footing (namely, States Rights: the reader is asked to bear in mind that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that the most sovereign power under the U.S. Constitution resides with the American States). Whatever the outcome in either case, the struggle for equal protection of the LGBT community under the law of the United States must continue until the current grievances are redressed.

On the legislative front, it was recently announced that Representative Jerrold Nadler as well as other Federal legislators are currently supporting legislation such as the Respect for Marriage Act and the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would overcome the current legal hurdles placed in the way of LGBT couples by the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). At the time of this writing it remains to be seen whether these bills will be enacted.

For related information please see: US Visa For Same Sex Bi-National Couples.

Tags: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit Clause, heightened scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, Judge Raymond McKoski, LGBT Equal Rights, Proposition 8, recusal, recuse, Respect for Marriage Act, Same Sex Marriage Same Sex Visa, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

Much to her credit Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once declared:

“Gay rights are human rights.”

Although this blogger may not have personally agreed with every one of the opinions espoused by Mrs. Clinton over the years, he can at least state that she has been a zealous and effective advocate, where possible, for the rights of the LGBT community. However, this blogger might add that the statement quoted above could be construed as incomplete.  In order to elucidate why this statement may be incomplete this blogger would need to quote directly from a recent posting on the website Lez Get Real:

Sen. Al Franken is the newest co-sponsor of legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate late last week that would give binational same-sex couples the same rights as married couples for immigration purposes. The Uniting American Families Act is authored by Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont and is sponsored by 18 other Democrats. Even though same-sex marriage is legal in seven jurisdictions in the United States, couples in which one partner is not a citizen do not have any right under current federal law.

Frequent readers of this blog may recall that Representative Jerrold Nadler recently introduced similar legislation in the United States House of Representatives. To continue by quoting an interesting question raised in the previously cited posting on Lez Get Real:

DOMA’s repeal will enable gays and lesbians – same-sex spouses – to sponsor foreign spouses for green cards so why do we need both bills before an unfriendly house at the same time?

The administration of this web log strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read the full story on the website cited above in order to gain further insight and perspective into this posting.

The question above raises a great many issues that are both complex and, at times, controversial; but go to the heart of the current struggle to secure equal rights for all Americans under the law of the United States of America.  Getting back to Mrs. Clinton’s remark: it is perhaps incomplete because it fails to take into consideration the rights of the Several States. The United States Constitution is composed of 50 co-equal sovereign States as well as a Federal government which has enumerated powers to perform certain functions while reserving the residual inalienable rights to the States and the People respectively. One of the rights which the States have always reserved unto themselves is the right to legalize and/or solemnize a marriage within their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding this fact, the United States Federal government decided to pass legislation referred to colloquially as The “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). By doing so, they rode roughshod over the rights of the States to make decisions regarding the intra-State definition of marriage and how State sanctioned marriages between two people of the same sex would be treated by other States (including the Federal government which is a separate sovereign from the 50 States), but at that time this was not readily apparent due to the fact that States had yet to change the law regarding what constitutes a marriage.

To shed more light upon these issues it may be best to quote directly from an extremely insightful article on the subject of Full Faith and Credit by Justice Robert H. Jackson and posted on the website, RobertHJackson.org:

By other articles of the Constitution our forefathers created a political union among otherwise independent and sovereign states. By other provisions, too, they sought to integrate the economic life of the country. By the full faith and credit clause they sought to federalize the separate and independent state legal systems by the overriding principle of reciprocal recognition of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. It was placed foremost among those measures(n69) which would guard the new political and economic union against the disintegrating influence of provincialism in jurisprudence, but without aggrandizement of federal power at the expense of the states.

To quote the Full Faith and Credit Clause directly:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Some have discussed the issue of Full Faith and Credit at length with this blogger and cite the quotation above noting that Congress does have the power to prescribe laws regarding the “Effect” of State legislation. This blogger would concur with such an assessment, but the current provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) do not merely regulate the Effect of duly solemnized and legalized same sex marriage in the States which allow such unions, but instead DOMA makes such legislation wholly INEFFECTIVE because that law simply refuses to recognize the validity of same sex unions. In this blogger’s opinion this is clearly violative of the U.S. Constitution as true Full Faith and Credit has not been accorded to same sex marriages legalized within those sovereign States.

In Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in the case of Youngstown Steel & Tube Co. v. Sawyer the following framework was created for analyzing executive action:

In determining whether the executive has authority, there are three general circumstances:

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, the President’s authority is at its greatest.
2. When the President acts in the absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority. When this is the case, the test depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, the authority of the President is at its lowest.

This blogger asks that readers click on the hyperlinks above to understand this case further.

To continue analyzing this issue: it is this blogger’s opinion that States’ Rights issues in connection with Full Faith and Credit could be analyzed in a similar manner to the first prong of the analysis used by Justice Jackson to adjudicate Presidential authority. When the Sovereign States act pursuant to an express or implied authorization of their legislatures or pursuant to the will of the People (ex. a State referendum), then shouldn’t the greatest amount of Full Faith and Credit be accorded to the laws created therefrom? Why does the Federal government get to override sovereign prerogatives clearly reserved to the States and the People, respectively? Clearly, from the plain language of the Full Faith and Credit Clause Congress can make rules regarding the regulation of the Effect of such legislation on other States which do not have similar prerogatives, but, in this blogger’s opinion, the Federal government simply cannot unilaterally overrule, either preemptively or after the fact, State prerogatives simply by citing their power to regulate the Effect of such prerogatives.

To get back to the issue of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) vs. repeal of DOMA (either outright or through a statute similar to the Respect for Marriage Act). In this blogger’s opinion the reason that both of these bills are on the floor stems from the inherent tensions which arise as a result of the fact that the USA uses a federal system within her Constitution providing concurrent jurisdiction for 1 Federal government as well as 50 State sovereigns. Institutions within government, especially the US Federal government, are often loathe to give up power. By recognizing that refutation of marriages solemnized and legalized within sovereign State jurisdiction is outside of their bailiwick the Federal government could be construed to have conceded to a practical loss of authority on such issues (which this blogger believes that they do not have to begin with).

Concurrently, there are sound political reasons for having both bills out there on the floor of the Federal legislature. One, it provides a better chance of seeing at least some progress on this issue. If a DOMA repeal is not possible within this session, but passage of UAFA can occur, why not take it? At the very least passage of UAFA could lead to reunification of same sex bi-national couples who are geographically separated due to the provisions of DOMA. Therefore, this blogger would argue that such a strategy is sound, but those within the LGBT should not lose sight of the ultimate goal: full equality under the law. IF UAFA can be secured along the way, all the better, but mere passage of that legislation should not be viewed as the end of the struggle.

To sum up, the issues associated with accordance of Full Faith and Credit to same sex marriages solemnized and legalized by a sovereign State with appropriate jurisdiction are myriad and few, if any, have been resolved, but they continue to be some of the most interesting issues to be currently debated in the realm of U.S. Constitutional law. In conclusion, although it is not debatable in this blogger’s mind that Gay Rights are Human Rights. Perhaps Gay Rights are States’ Rights as well?

For related information please see: Same Sex Visa.

Tags: Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gay Rights, Gay Rights News, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Respect for Marriage Act, RFMA, Senator Al Franken, Senator Patrick Leahy, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa, States' Rights | No Comments »

Those who read this blog with any degree of frequency may have noticed that the administration of this resource considers the issue of same sex marriage; and Federal recognition thereof, to be one of, if not the, foremost pending political and legal issues of the age. This opinion is based upon the fact that currently discriminatory Federal policies regarding recognition of properly solemnized and legalized State marriages between same sex couples are clearly operating in violation of long held Constitutional notions regarding State Sovereignty, Federalism, Separation of Powers, Full Faith and Credit, and Equal Protection.

Bearing the above in mind, it should be noted that there are legislators in Washington D.C. who seem committed to the cause of Equal Rights for the LGBT Community. To quote directly from a post on the website ImmigrationEqualityActionFund.org, apparently authored by Steve Ralls (Contact Details: 202-347-7007, [email protected]):

Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, and Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Honda (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Jackie Speier (D-CA) announced the re-introduction of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). This overdue legislation would allow gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their permanent partners for legal residency in the United States, a right currently enjoyed only by married heterosexuals under immigration law. Because the U.S. does not legally recognize gay and lesbian couples and their children as families, many same-sex binational couples are torn apart. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also introduced UAFA today in the Senate.

In previous postings on this blog, the efforts of Representative Jerrold Nadler in support of the LGBT Community and same sex bi-national couples have been noted and Representative Nadler’s current reintroduction of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is simply one more example of this legislator’s continuing dedication to the cause of Equal Rights for the LGBT community. On a related note, it was recently pointed out that Representative Nadler is also a proponent of the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) which would provide Federal recognition for same sex marriages solemnized and legalized in a sovereign State.

At the time of this momentous event this blogger would ask all interested parties in matters pertaining to Liberty, States Rights, Civil Liberties, and Personal Freedom to take heed of the current events involved in the struggle to obtain equal protection under the law for the LGBT community as a whole as well as same sex bi-national couples who are currently separated due to the current state of American Immigration law. On that point, it should be noted that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) recently attempted to put policies in place to halt deportations of foreign same sex partners of American Citizens. It would appear as though USCIS’s policy was aimed at providing some relief, akin to that once accorded to individuals impacted by the so-called “Widow’s Penalty,” to those who are currently subjected to Federal non-recognition of same sex marriages, even those lawfully solemnized and legalized in a sovereign US State,  pursuant to what are clearly Unconstitutional provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). That said, as of the time of this writing it is this blogger’s understanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rescinded USCIS’s hold on such deportations thereby allowing the same sex bi-national spouse, even if the underlying marriage was solemnized and legalized in one of the Several States, to be deported.

The current discriminatory practices, pertaining to the LGBT community, on the part of the United States government are so pervasive that even first-year law students are aware of the issue. The current legal discrimination faced by a same sex bi-national couple seeking immigration benefits in much the same manner as their different-sex counterparts is so noticeable that even those with only an elemental grasp of the dynamics of United States law can discern many of the issues. To quote directly from a blog post titled Why Denying Homosexuals the Right to Marry is Completely Unconstitutional, authored by Sarah McCarthy on the site My Dog Ate My Blog:

Our country (as I’ve learned over the past week) essentially works like this: states are presumed to have all the power. Our founding fathers were most worried about tyrannical government, and hence wanted to give individual states the power to govern themselves and make their own laws in almost every situation. Hence, in the U.S., we really do have 50 different sets of law governing 50 different states.

Some of these 50 States have opted to use their lawmaking powers to provide marital benefits to same sex couples wishing to marry within their jurisdiction. The administration of this blog would strongly suggest that readers click on the hyperlinks noted above to read more from the above cited posting.  As noted by Ms. McCarty above, pursuant to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, those powers not specifically enumerated to accrue to the Federal government are to be reserved to the States and the People respectively. Therefore, pursuant to the explicit language of the 10th Amendment and the implications present throughout the Constitution as a whole inherent State rights, such as the right to marry those within the jurisdiction of a given State, are generally considered to be beyond the bailiwick of the Federal government.

Even though legislative initiatives may ultimately prove to be effective for the LGBT community in securing some of the rights, privileges, and immunities associated with marriage it is this blogger’s opinion that only through full repeal of DOMA by the US Congress or the overturning of that legislation on Constitutional grounds by the US Supreme Court can the issue be laid to rest. In this blogger’s opinion, it is especially desirable that a “case or controversy,” such as that which recently arose in Massachusetts Federal Court, be brought before the United States Supreme Court as only that body has the authority, and possibly expertise, to delineate the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause with regard to interstate vs. State-Federal recognition of same sex marriages.

There are some who have raised the argument that the same sex marriages which are legal in certain jurisdiction are only legal as a result of judicial fiat. However, this blogger would argue that, especially in the case of Massachusetts, there are strong indications that there is a political will manifesting itself in favor of same sex marriages, at least within that jurisdiction. To support this claim it may be best to quote directly from an article written by Pam Belluck and published by the New York Times on June 14, 2007:

Same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Massachusetts, after proponents in both houses won a pitched months-long battle on Thursday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” Governor Deval Patrick said after the legislature voted 151 to 45 against the amendment, which needed 50 favorable votes to come before voters in a referendum in November 2008.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click upon the hyperlinks above to read this story in detail. Clearly, there are those within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who support equal marital rights for same sex couples. However, Federal recognition of same sex unions remains to be seen. Hopefully, through continued action on the part of legislators such as those mentioned above the notions of Equal Protection under the law and State sovereignty will be upheld to the benefit of all American families.

For more information please see: Same Sex Visa or same sex marriage.

Tags: Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Representative Jackie Speier, Representative Jared Polis, Representative John Conyers, Representative Luis Gutierrez, Representative Mike Honda, Representative Tammy Baldwin, Respect for Marriage Act, RFMA, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, US Department of Homeland Security, USCIS
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »