blog-hdr.gif

Integrity Legal

Posts Tagged ‘uafa’

25th June 2011

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the sovereign State of New York has recently passed legislation which would permit same sex marriage in that jurisdiction. To provide further insight into these developments it may be prudent to quote directly from an Associated Press article written by Michael Gormley and posted to the Yahoo News section of Yahoo.com:

ALBANY, N.Y. – Same-sex marriage is now legal in New York after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that was narrowly passed by state lawmakers Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the gay rights movement was born. New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed and the biggest by far. “We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states,” said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat. Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the country and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island…

The administration of this web log asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read this story in detail.

Frequent readers of this blog may recall that Governor Andrew Cuomo has also been on the vanguard of initiatives designed to provide some protection for America’s immigrant communities. As the former Attorney-General of New York he has executed policies to counter immigration scams perpetrated against immigrants in the State of New York. To provide further insight into these developments this blogger felt it prudent to quote another source regarding these events. To quote directly from an article written by Marcia Kramer and posted on the website of CBS New York at CBSLocal.com:

ALBANY (CBSNewYork/AP) — Gay marriage will soon become legal in New York state after the Republican-controlled Senate narrowly voted in favor of the controversial bill on Friday night. Advocates are calling it a historic step as New York is now set to become the sixth but by far the largest state to legalize same-sex marriage. Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign the bill. Gay weddings could begin 30 days after that…

This blogger encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to read this insightful article in detail.

There is little doubt that these developments are very significant for the LGBT community, but the struggle for full equality is far from finished as these developments may be cold comfort to those same sex bi-national couples who currently cannot be reunited in the United States due to the American federal government’s continued enforcement of the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) a piece of legislation which forbids the United States federal government from granting any form of recognition to same sex marriages even when those marriages are duly solemnized and/or legalized in one of the sovereign American States which recognizes such marital unions. Currently, proposed legislation such as Representative Jerrold Nadler‘s Respect for Marriage Act and the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, a proposed piece of legislation which would rectify the current application of DOMA in an immigration context); or Representative Mike Honda‘s Reuniting Families Act would attempt to rectify, to one degree or another, the current discrimination borne by the LGBT community.

More American States seem to be heeding the call of their citizenry and taking legislative action to provide support for America’s LGBT families. Hopefully all of these developments eventually lead to a broad based recognition of the individual natural rights of all Americans.

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

For information related to legal services in Southeast Asia please see: Legal.

more Comments: 04

21st June 2011

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the highly informative website of the American Immigration Lawyers Association has noted the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) in a recent posting. Perhaps it is best to quote directly from the official website of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

Uniting American Families Act of 2011 (H.R. 1537)
Introduced by Rep. Nadler (D-NY) on 4/14/11
Summary: Includes a “permanent partner” within the scope of INA. Defines a “permanent partner” as an individual 18 or older who: (1) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment; (2) is financially interdependent with the other individual; (3) is not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, anyone other than the individual; (4) is unable to contract with the other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act; and (5) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of the other individual. Defines: (1) “permanent partnership” as the relationship existing between two permanent partners, and (2) “alien permanent partner” as the individual in a permanent partnership who is being sponsored for a visa…

Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 1796)
Introduced by Rep. Honda (D-CA) on 5/6/11
Summary: Amends the INA to establish the fiscal year worldwide level of employment-based immigrants at 140,000 plus: (1) the previous year’s unused visas, and (2) the number of unused visas from FY1992-FY2011. Establishes the fiscal year worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants at 480,000 plus: (1) the previous year’s unused visas, and (2) the number of unused visas from FY1992-FY2011.

Revises the definition of “immediate relative” to: (1) mean a child, spouse, or parent of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (and for each family member of a citizen or resident, such individual’s accompanying spouse or child), except that in the case of parents such citizens shall be at least 21 years old; (2) permit a widow or widower of a U.S. citizen or resident to seek permanent resident status if married at least two years at the time of the citizen’s or resident’s death or, if married less than two years, by showing through a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was entered into in good faith and not solely to obtain an immigration benefit; and (3) include an alien who was the child or parent of a U.S. citizen or resident at the time of the citizen’s or resident’s death if the alien files a petition within two years after such date or prior to reaching 21 years old…

This blogger encourages readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read further into the details of all of the proposed pieces of legislation noted in the aforementioned quotation. Frequent readers of this blog may recall the initial introduction of these bills by Representative Jerrold Nadler and Representative Mike Honda, respectively. It could easily be inferred that many in the LGBT community and same-sex bi-national couples from around the globe are anxiously awaiting positive news on any of these legislative proposals.

Readers are reminded that Representative Nadler is the legislator who also proposed the Respect for Marriage Act which would provide federal recognition of the State licensure of same sex marriage. It should be noted that several sovereign American States currently legalize and/or solemnize such marital unions and jurisdictions such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of California have seen cases in the federal judicial branch which may result in an end to the current discrimination felt by many couples as a result of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA).

This news comes upon the heels of interesting possible political developments in Texas which may result in State legislation pertaining to TSA activities in airports. To quote directly from the official website of 1200 WOAI News Radio out of San Antonio, Texas:

Texas lawmakers will reconsider a bill that would criminalize ‘enhanced pat downs’ by Transportation Security Administration agents at the state’s airports, after Gov. Rick Perry placed the item on the agenda for the current special session of the legislature following intense pressure from conservatives and tea party groups, 1200 WOAI news has learned. “I am grateful that the governor heard the calls of the people demanding that lawmakers stand up for the liberties of Texans,” Wesley Strackbein, a conservative activist and founder of’ TSA Tyranny.com’ told 1200 WOAI news.  Strackbein Saturday traveled to New Orleans to confront Perry at a book signing event and demand that the item be placed on the legislative  agenda…

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

TSA‘s (Transportation Security Administration) usage of so-called “enhanced patdowns” upon children and physically/mentally challenged individuals, not to mention the public-at-large, has apparently caused intense political pressure at the grassroots level calling for restriction of these activities. It would appear as though tangible results of such pressures could be forthcoming, but until such time as a bill has actually been enacted it is difficult to say if, or when, offensive policies and procedures will actually change.

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

more Comments: 04

18th June 2011

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Governor of the sovereign State of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has proposed a bill which would provide same sex marriage benefits to those within that jurisdiction. To provide further insight on this issue it may be best to quote directly from a posting by Jay Kernis in which lawyer Evan Wolfson of the organization Freedom To Marry was interviewed on the official website of CNN, CNN.com:

On Tuesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo submitted a bill to bring marriage equality to New York State. What does the The Marriage Equality Act permit to happen? If passed by the Republican-controlled Senate and Democrat-controlled Assembly and signed into law by the Governor, the marriage bill will secure for committed same-sex couples the freedom to marry – with the same rules, same responsibilities, and same respect. It will more than double the number of Americans living in a state where gay couples can marry – from 16 million to 35 million.  And it will permit more families to strengthen their love and commitment and ability to care for one another, while taking nothing away from anyone else…

Readers are encouraged to click upon the appropriate hyperlinks noted above to learn more details about these issues.

As frequent readers of this blog may be aware, the issue of same sex marriage is of concern for the LGBT community, especially those same sex bi-national couples who are currently separated pursuant to application of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which effectively precludes same sex bi-national couples from receiving the same visa benefits as their different sex counterparts. Meanwhile, efforts have been made on behalf of the LGBT community by legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler and Representative Mike Honda who have introduced federal legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), the Respect for Marriage Act, and the Reuniting Families Act. As of the time of this writing none of this legislation has seen passage in the United States Congress.

The issue of same sex marriage may also be important in an intraState context as there are many benefits for couples who are married. To quote further from the aforementioned posting:

[M]arriage is a system – it brings clarity, security, and tangible and intangible protections as couples move from state to state, interact with employers or businesses, or deal with the federal government…

Truer words have never been written. The institution of marriage is important as it provides concrete evidence of a given couple’s relationship and also may lead to other types of benefits. This blogger would argue that one of the main benefits of a State licensed same sex marriage is the fact that such a union should be accorded Full Faith and Credit pursuant to the United States Constitution provided that such a union occurs within a State which legalizes and solemnizes such unions. At present, the federal government, through enforcement of DOMA, does not recognize same sex marriages for purposes of according legal benefits, but there are currently two pending lawsuits which arose in the sovereign Commonwealth of Massachusetts and sovereign State of California that could overturn this policy. However, as of the time of this writing, such developments remain to be seen.

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

more Comments: 04

13th June 2011

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that issues surrounding same sex marriage have recently been analyzed by mainstream media outlets. To shed light upon this development further it may be best to quote directly from an insightful article written by Tara Siegel Bernard on the official website of the New York Times, NYTimes.com:

“There is the possibility that, even without DOMA on the books at all, that a married same-sex couple might not be treated as married by the federal government as to some particular program, benefit or obligation because of simply how the particular federal program determines eligibility in looking to state law to see if a person is married or not,” said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders…But legislators have come up with a fix. The Respect for Marriage Act, which was introduced in both the House and Senate in March, repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and  also includes a provision — known as “certainty” — that says marriages that are valid in the state where the couple got married will be recognized in other states for the “purposes of any federal law in which marital status is a factor…”

The administration of this blog strongly recommends that readers click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to learn more.

In previous postings on this web log it has been pointed out that the ramifications of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) are such that discrimination results for same sex bi-national couples as well as the LGBT community at large. In recent years, legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler and Representative Mike Honda have introduced legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), the Reuniting Families Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act would seem to have been designed in order to deal with some of the more glaring separate sovereignty issues that arise in the context of intraState, interState, and State-Federal recognition of same sex marriage. To expound upon this more it may be best to quote further from the aforementioned article:

Technically speaking, he said, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on its own should be enough for couples to receive federal recognition. But the certainty provision would also protect couples if a less gay-friendly administration interpreted the repeal more narrowly, and only recognized same-sex marriage for couples who lived in states that recognized their marriage. Mr. Moulton said that his organization was still working with members of Congress to build support for the bill, and educating them about “the concrete harms that DOMA has done to same-sex couples…”

For those who read this blog with any frequency it has, no doubt, been noticed that the administration is in opposition to the very existence of DOMA as that legislation infringes upon the sovereign rights of the States and the people to make decisions regarding the licensure of marriage and the maintenance of consensual relationships, respectively. That stated, since DOMA is still “on the books” it currently results in the separation of same sex bi-national couples in an immigration context and discrimination against the LGBT community in a broader sense. This certainty provision noted above is interesting as it pertains primarily to Federal rights and privileges in an interState context. Therefore, if a same sex couple marries in a State which legalizes and/or solemnizes same sex marriage, then the Federal benefits derived therefrom would likely travel with that couple no matter what State they travel to and no matter what Federal benefit they seek. This blogger would argue that perhaps this scenario would already occur pursuant to the privileges and/or immunities clauses, but in this situation it may be best to have some legislative guidance in order to streamline possible future policies pertaining to same sex marriages. As of the time of this writing UAFA, the Respect for Marriage, and the Reuniting Families Act have yet to be adopted, but hopefully, for the LGBT community’s sake, that will change sooner rather than later.

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

more Comments: 04

1st June 2011

เมื่อเร็วๆนี้มีสิ่งที่เป็นที่น่าสนใจคือ ตำแหน่งรีพลับลิกันที่เกี่ยวกับการแต่งงานเพศเดียวกันในเมืองโคลัมเบีย (วอชิงตัน ดี.ซี.) เป็นที่น่าจับตามองของทั้งสื่อและผู้สังเกตการณ์ทางการเมือง อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่เขียนโดยเบน เพิร์ซชิ่งและเขียนในเว็บไซต์ของวอชิงตันโพสต์ ในวอชิงตัน ดอทคอม

ความพยายามที่ผ่านมา รีพลับลิกันอาจไม่ได้รับข้อแก้ตัวในปีนี้ในกฎหมายแต่งงานเพศเดียวกันของรัฐ ไม่มีพระราชบัญญัติที่ถูกยก และผู้ร่างกฎหมายที่ได้รับการสนับสนุนจากเพื่อนร่วมงานสำหรับมาตรการบางอย่าง

สำหรับผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกา พึงระลึกถึงข้อเท็จจริงว่า สภาคองเกรสสหรัฐอเมริกานั้นรับผิดชอบในการบริหารเมืองหลักของสหรัฐอเมริกา ขอบเขตของอำนาจนั้นขยายไปในบริบทของรัฐเอกราชที่จะมีมุมมองในประเด็นระหว่างรัฐ แต่อย่างไรก็ตามรัฐของโคลัมเบียนั้นโดยลักษณะธรรมชาติแล้วแตกต่างจากรัฐเอกราชที่มีกฎเกณฑ์ทางกฎหมายและการวิเคราะห์ที่นำมาใช้ระหว่างรัฐที่แตกต่างกันอาจจะใช้กับรัฐที่แตกต่างกัน อ้างเพิ่มเติมจากบทความที่กล่าวถึง

ประธานการปฏิรูปรัฐบาลและสภา  แดร์แรล อิสซา (อาร์-แคลิฟ) กล่าวว่า เขารู้ว่าไม่มีการรณรงค์การยกเลิกกฎหมาย “กรรมการไม่มีความตั้งใจในการที่จะพลิกการแต่งงานของคู่เกย์” อิสซ่ากล่าวในเดือนนี้ แม้ว่าต่อมาเขาจะชี้แจงเพื่อตัวเองและไม่ได้เพื่อผู้ร่างกฎหมายแต่ละคน ผู้แทน เทรย์ โกว์ดี้ (อาร์-เอส.ซี.) ขณะนี้ดำรงตำแหน่งประธานของคณะกรรมการย่อย ตอบคล้ายๆกันเมื่อวันอังคารที่ผ่านมา เขากล่าวในการสนับสนุนพระราชบัญญัติที่จะกลับกฎหมายการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันถ้ามีการเสนอกฎหมาย แต่ไม่มีผลประโยชน์ใดๆกับความพยายามดังกล่าว “ข้าพเจ้าไม่ได้รับเลือกเป็นผู้ว่าการรัฐดี.ซี. และไม่ได้ปรารถนาที่จะเป็น” กาวด์ดี้กล่าว ซึ่งสะท้อนเสียงวิจารณ์ในประเด็นท้องถิ่น ข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่า ไม่มมีรีพลับบลิกันที่จะนำเสนอพระราชบัญญัติในปีนี้ที่จะส่งสัญญาณว่าใช้แผนที่จะใช้เทคนิคที่แตกต่าง

ผู้เขียนบล็อกแนะนำเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า ผู้อ่านควรคลิกไปยังลิงค์ที่เกี่ยวข้องเพื่อที่จะดูบทความทั้งหมด

ผู้สังเกตการณ์กล่าวข้างต้นว่า หลักสำคัญของการวิเคราะห์ใดๆในประเด็นที่โจมตีกลุ่มเพศที่สามด้วยความหวังที่จะผ่านร่างกฎหมาย  เช่นพระราชบัญญัติการรวมครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA) พระราชบัญญัติการคุ้มครองสิทธิการแต่งงาน หรือพระราชบัญญัติการรวมตัวกันใหม่ของครอบครัว จากการสนับสนุนของสองฝ่ายนั้นเป็นเรื่องที่สำคัญ อ้างต่อว่า สิ่งที่ปรากฏว่า ยังคงมีนโยบายที่คงอยู่และสอดคล้องต่อกลุ่มของเพศที่สาม ปัจจุบันนี้มีสัญญาณที่บอกว่า “เป็นมิตร” กับสิทธิโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งสิทธิของรัฐที่จะยกการประเด็นตามรัฐธรรมนูญในการยื่นพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน (DOMA)

ในปัจจุบันนี้ รัฐอิสระในสหรัฐอเมริกา เช่น คอมมอนเวลท์ของแมสซาชูเสสมีการเรียกร้องของประชาชนให้มีการวางมาตรการให้เป็นไปตามกฎหมายและปฏิบัติตามกฎหมายและ หรือ รับรองการแต่งงานหรือสถานะของเพศเดียวกัน ไม่ว่าอย่างไรก็ตาม ข้อเท็จจริง รัฐบาลกลางของสหรัฐอเมริกาจะไม่ได้ให้สิทธิส่วนกลาง  (เช่น สิทธิประโยชน์การเข้าเมือง) แม้ว่ผู้ที่แต่งงานในเขตรัฐอิสระในสหรัฐอเมริกา

ในความเห็นของผู้เขียน ประเด็นเรื่องการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันในสหรัฐอเมริกาอาจจะได้รับการคลี่คลายโดยศาลสหรัฐ โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งหากเป็นคดีที่ตัดสินโดยศาลสูงสุดของสหรัฐอเมริกา บทความนี้ให้ข้อคิดเห็นหลังจากประเด็นที่เกี่ยวข้องกับความเชื่อถือและความสุจริต และหลักพื้นฐานความเชื่อถือและความสุจริตของรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกา สิ่งที่พึงระลึกถึงคือ ผู้อ่านพึงเข้าใจว่า ประเด็นเหล่านี้ได้รับผลลัพธ์เต็มรูปแบบแล้ว

ในขณะเดียวกันเป็นสิ่งที่ปรากฏว่า นักเคลื่อนไหวในกลุ่มของเพศที่สามนานาชาติได้ดำเนินการที่จะให้สิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันในส่วนอื่นๆของโลกในฐานะของหนังสือพิมพ์เดอะเนชั่นที่ตีพิมพ์ในประเทศไทยรายงานว่า นักเคลื่อนไหวเพศที่สาม กำลังหาเสียงสนับสนุนทางการเมืองในประเด็นที่เกี่ยวกับการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันในการจัดการเลือกตั้งในประเทศไทย อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์ที่เป็นทางการของเนชั่น เนชั่นมัลติมีเดีย ดอทคอม:

นักเคลื่อนไหวที่เรียกว่า “เพศที่สาม” เช่น เกย์ เลสเบี้ยน และการแปลงเพศ ได้มีการเคลื่อนไหวทางการเมืองเพื่อที่จะผ่านกฎหมายการแต่งงานเพศเดียวกัน นที ธีระโรจนพงศ์ ประธานของกลุ่มความหลากหลายทางเพศ และกลุ่มการเมืองเกย์ของประเทศไทย และนักร้องที่แปลงเพศแล้วที่เป็นที่รู้จักคือ จิม ซาร่าห์ (สุจินรัตน์ ประชาไทย)กล่าวเมื่อวานนี้ว่า เขาไปยังพรรคประชาธิปัตย์และเพื่อไทยวันนี้เพื่อที่จะถามถึงงสิทธิของเพศที่สามหากพรรคจะเป็นผู้นำในรัฐบาลต่อไป กลุ่มของพวกเขากำลังหาพันธะสัญญาจากหลายๆฝ่ายและเขาควรจะได้รับการสัญญาตามที่เขาสนับสนุนหลายๆฝ่าย

ผู้เขียนเว็บบล็อกนี้ขอแนะนำให้ผู้อ่านคลิกในลิงค์ข้างบนเพื่อหาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมจากมุมมองและบความที่กล่าวถึงข้างต้น

ผู้อ่านควรตระหนักถึงข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่า ประเทศไทยเป็นประเทศหนึ่งที่มีการกล่าวถึงประเด็นเรื่องกลุ่มเพศที่สาม (LGBT) วัตถุประสงค์เพื่อการท่องเที่ยวและการพักผ่อน ประเทศไทยเป็นจุดหมายของนักเดินทางที่ทั้งกลุ่มเพศที่สามและคู่ของพวกเขา ตามที่อ้างถึง ภายใต้กฎหมายไทยยังไม่มีกการรอรับการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกัน ดังนั้นเป็นไปไม่ได้ที่คู่เพศเดียวกันจะจดทะเบียนสมรสที่อำเภอ (สำนักงานเขต)ในแบบเดียวกับที่คู่ต่างเพศมีสิทธิ ตามที่กล่าวมาแล้ว สส.ของประเทศไทยอาจจะนำเอาประเด็นนี้ทำให้เกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงในประเด็นดังกล่าว ประเด็นนี้จะมีการนำไปเสนอในการเลือกตั้งอย่างไร เป็นสิ่งที่แสดงถึงความน่าสนใจของมัน

ในการวิเคราะห์ประเด็นการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาในบริบทของไทยพึงระลึกถึงว่า ถ้าประเทศไทยเริ่มที่จะอนุญาตให้มีการจดทะเบียนสมรสของคู่เพศเดียวกันและสหรัฐอเมริกาผ่านการร่างกฎหมายตามที่กล่าวมาข้างต้น UAFA ซึ่งในอนาคตข้างหน้า คู่เพศเดียวกันท่เป็นชาวไทย อเมริกันสามารถที่จะจดทะเบียนสมรสในประเทศไทยและใช้สิทธิประโยชน์ในเรื่องการเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาเช่น วีซ่า เค-3, วีซ่าซีอาร์-1, หรือวีซ่าไออาร์1 ตามที่กล่าวมาแล้วนั้นต้องงอาศัยกระบวนการตามกฎหมายและนโยบายในปัจจุบัน

To view this post in English please see: legal.

more Comments: 04

31st May 2011

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.

more Comments: 04

27th May 2011

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.

more Comments: 04

23rd May 2011

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.

more Comments: 04

13th May 2011

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a Congressman from the sovereign State of California has recently introduced legislation which is designed to improve the current American immigration system. It would appear that one of the proposed improvements would also provide immigration benefits to same sex bi-national couples. To quote directly from the Washington Blade at WashingtonBlade.com:

A U.S. House member from California on Thursday introduced family immigration legislation that includes language allowing gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) introduced the Reuniting Families Act, which has a provision that would protect bi-national same-sex couples as one of its six prongs to keep families together in the country.

Readers of this web log are strongly encouraged to click upon the hyperlinks above to find out further details on this unfolding story.

This blogger personally found it interesting that this bill would also address grievances held by Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) and their families. To quote further from the aforementioned article:

In addition to including UAFA-like language, Honda’s legislation would help shorten the wait times that can keep legal immigrants and their overseas loved ones separated for years. The bill would classify spouses and children of permanent U.S. residents as “immediate relatives” and exempt them from numerical caps on immigration.

It is genuinely unfortunate that some find themselves caught up in the immigration process for substantial periods of time awaiting adjudication of their immigration and visa matters.

Those unfamiliar with the provisions of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), as recently re-introduced in the Federal legislature by Representative Jerrold Nadler, should note that this legislation would circumvent the current provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which currently separates a large number of bi-national couples since the federal government will not recognize same sex unions for purposes of distributing federal benefits. Upon enactment of legislation similar to that noted above, same sex bi-national couples could be eligible to receive American immigration benefits in the form of travel documents such as the K-1 visa (US fiance visa) or the CR-1 visa (US Marriage Visa). Currently same-sex couples cannot obtain these immigration benefits in the same manner as their different-sex counter parts. This is true in spite of the fact that multiple sovereign American States currently solemnize, legalize, and/or recognize same sex marriage or marital unions. As can be gathered from previous postings on this blog, this state of affairs is questionably Constitutional and for that reason there are currently cases arising in the State of California and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which would overturn at least portions of DOMA.

It is heartening to see more legislators joining the struggle for further equality in America. Readers and proponents of this legislation can, at this time, only hope that further action will be taken in Washington D.C. to see that the current valid grievances of the LGBT community are redressed.

For those interested in learning more about this legislation please check out the official website of Representative Mike Honda.

more Comments: 04

10th May 2011

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.

more Comments: 04

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.