Integrity Legal

In a recent episode of Bill Maher’s popular television program Mr. Maher noted the fact that the debate on same sex marriage is being stubbornly maintained despite the continued damage it does to honest American Citizens and their families. He also noted the somewhat hypocritical stature of the current position held by the administration and the Congress regarding the issue of same sex marriage. After watching this program this blogger felt as though Maher had failed to take into consideration the endeavors of some steadfast legislators on behalf of the LGBT community and those same sex bi-national couples who continue to hope for legal change either in the form of judicial or legislative action.

A fascinating article on this issue was posted on an interesting website known as the Business Insider.  To quote directly from the Business Insider website BusinessInsider.com:

In his New Rules segment last night, Bill Maher took Obama and the Democratic party to task for not being able to pass gay marriage in America, even though more than a majority of people support it for the first time.

The administration of this web log highly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above to read the Business Insider’s take on these issues as the piece written by the author Steven Loeb is quite enlightening and insightful.The issue of same sex marriage is increasingly in the news as developments on the issue seem to be occurring quite quickly at the time of this writing. One of the reasons for this may stem from a sincere hope that the notion of Equal Protection under the Federal law will be extended to all American Citizens regardless of their sexual orientation and/or preference. Concurrently, there are those who also hope that Federal authorities recognize the Several States’ Right to regulate the marriage of those within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, there are others who hope that some of these issues could be resolved by the United States Supreme Court as there are likely legal implications pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Putting these issues aside, Mr. Maher went on to note, humorously if somewhat crudely, quoting further from the Business Insider:

…that only 53% of people support it, which means that “47% of Americans are assholes.”

“But still, this is remarkable progress considering that it wasn’t that long ago that just saying the words gay marriage made most Americans throw up in their Cornflakes. So, tonight, I’d like to congratulate the leadership of the Democratic party who really stood up for what was right. I’d like to, but I can’t. Because other than Gavin Newsom, Dennis Kucinich and that Governor of New Jersey… no Democrat would touch this issue with a ten inch pole.”

Although this blogger has often noted the exploits of Representative Dennis Kucinich this monologue by Maher should be noted first for the fact that for all of the hyperbole and some might say profanity: the man is right. Same sex marriage is apparently becoming increasingly popular to a broader sector of the population, even though the cause has seen relatively little support at times from so-called “main stream” sections of either political party. Meanwhile, there are strong legal arguments which can be made against the Federal government’s enforcement of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) as it applies in sovereign US States which recognize, legalize, and/or solemnize same sex marriages. That stated, the Constitutionality of DOMA is questionable in terms understandable by broad sectors of the population as DOMA’s continued withholding of Federal recognition of unions  solemnized and legalized by 6 States and the District of Columbia infringes upon sovereign rights long reserved to the States, most notable among these rights is the right to solemnize and/or legalize marriages within the State’s jurisdiction (as well as annulment and/or divorce) as noted in a recent Massachusetts Federal Court decision.

Putting all of this aside, why no mention of Representative Jerrold Nadler? Why no mention of the other legislators who have championed this cause such as Representative Zoe Lofgren or Senator Kirsten Gillibrand? In the case of Representative Nadler, whom this blogger has followed with keen interest as he appears, at least to this blogger, to be the Federal legislator most active on this issue: here is a Democrat from New York who has continued to be an advocate for same sex bi-national couples as well as the entire LGBT community by actively supporting legislation such as the Respect for Marriage Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and; perhaps, Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation which would include relevant language allowing same sex bi-national couples to receive United States immigration benefits to the same degree as their different-sex counterparts. This blogger is not disagreeing with Mr. Maher’s opinion on the issue of some Democrats apparently refusing to support legislation which would modify or repeal DOMA, but in an attempt to see that some credit is given where due it has been repeatedly noted on this blog that Representative Nadler has remained a champion of legislation which would reform what many feel is a flagrant violation of the civil rights of many Americans as well as the States’ right to make policies regarding the legalization and solemnization of marriages.

It should be noted that this blogger is in no way affiliated with Representative Nadler having never personally dealt with his office nor his staff and this mention is in no way an endorsement of anything other than his position on respecting the civil liberties of all Americans to marry whomever they choose and the State institution of marriage.

Tags: Bill Maher, LGBT Equal Rights, LGBT Immigration rights, lgbt visa, New Rules, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Representative Zoe Lofgren, Respect for Marriage Act, same sex marriage visa, samse sex marriage, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued instructions to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to dispense with the hold on deportations of same sex spouses of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents which was announced approximately 2 days ago. To quote directly from an article posted on the Advocate.com entitled Official: No Hold On Gay Immigration Cases:

Wednesday morning USCIS press secretary Christopher S. Bentley told The Advocate that the agency had received legal guidance to lift the hold it had issued Monday. The guidance was issued in the form of written communications from the Office of the General Counsel at Department of Homeland Security (USCIS is a component of DHS).

Those interested in reading more about this information are highly encouraged to click on the hyperlinks immediately preceding the quotation to learn more.

Clearly, officials at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) were attempting to provide some relief to those in the LGBT community in the USA with their same sex bi-national partners who are stuck in the currently limbo-like immigration system, as it pertains to same sex marriages. The question this blogger has is: why all of this bureaucratic runaround? There is a clear venue for resolving this issue: the United States Supreme Court, but it would seem as though the administration would like solve this issue through internal bureaucratic rule making and unilateral executive actions, but this is not the way law is made and this is not the legal way of effecting change in situations such as the one currently facing the LGBT community. Even a Supreme Court decision on this issue is unlikely to be straightforward as there are many aspects of the Full Faith and Credit Clause which come up in the context of interstate recognition of same sex marriage. However, the decision of the Supreme Court, in this blogger’s opinion, on the issue of FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized in the sovereign States is likely to produce an outcome whereby an avenue would be created to allow same sex bi-national couples to receive immigration benefits of the same quality as those granted to different sex bi-national couples.

The announcement from USCIS on Monday about placing a “hold” on deportations of same sex partners of US Citizens and Permanent Residents came as a relief to many in the United States who may only be subject to deportation due to the onerous (and possibly UnConstitutional) provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) since some same sex bi-national couples have legalized and solemnized a valid same sex marriage in one of the 6 States (along with the District of Columbia) that allows same sex marriage. The only thing precluding Federal recognition of same sex marriages performed within the jurisdiction of the sovereign States which recognize such unions is the questionably Constitutional so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which was promulgated and enacted under the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

In a recent memorandum from the Attorney General (Eric Holder) to the Speaker of the House of Representatives it was noted that the President’s administration has taken the position that same sex married couples ought to be granted the benefit of so-called “strict scrutiny” review from the Supreme Court and that the administration would discontinue in prosecuting DOMA cases against LGBT couples. This blogger has noted that such a position may not be beneficial to the overall cause of equal immigration rights as failure to get a “case or controversy” before the United States Supreme Court could lead to a situation in which this complex legal issue is not adjudicated by the Highest Court in the USA and therefore remains in the “limbo” in which this issue currently continues to languish. The Department of Homeland Security’s announcement further shows that until the provisions of DOMA, which preclude Federal recognition of same sex marriage, are overturned the position of the married LGBT community (at least in the eyes of the law and the immigration authorities) will remain precarious.

One point in the above cited article was of particular interest to this blogger. The following passage was quoted from the aforementioned article:

Bentley declined to release any of the written documents at this time, saying it was privileged communication. He emphasized that the official policy itself within DHS had never changed.

What PRIVILEGE!!!! So now the United States government, in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, invokes privilege (a legal principle generally reserved for individual natural persons when dealing with the US government) to keep their own policy memorandum regarding this issue secret? Why the secrecy? Why all of the pomp and circumstance about how important the administration’s memo was to the LGBT community when in reality it would appear to have done nothing substantive for the cause of LGBT equal rights and might have even placed the LGBT community in a less favorable position compared to their position prior to the administration’s memo to the Speaker of the House? So the Department of Homeland Security is claiming privilege when communicating with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), an American agency under DHS jurisdiction. Does anyone find it strange that the United States government now claims that civilian inter-agency memos regarding official policy which pertains to Americans and their families are privileged? It was this blogger’s belief that the United States governmental authorities are servants of the people and therefore required to provide transparency in their policy making endeavors especially when such policy making can impact a wide spectrum of the United States Citizenry and their families.

Clearly, the struggle to secure equal immigration rights for the LGBT community has yet to be won, but for those interested in this issue it is clear that there may be a long campaign to see equal treatment of same sex bi-national couples under the law of the United States of America. This blogger and this blog will continue to monitor this important and interesting issue.

Another method to gain equal immigration rights for same sex bi-national couples is through passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would grant same sex bi-national couples the benefit of applying for an immigrant visa for a “permanent partner” thereby circumventing the immigration restrictions imposed by DOMA. Federal legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced such legislation repeatedly in an effort to provide some kind of relief to those same sex bi-national couples who continue to be denied equal access to family immigration benefits. As of the time of this writing, Mr. Nadler has gone so far as to openly call for a repeal of DOMA and the promulgation of the Respect for Marriage Act a piece of legislation which would restore Federal recognition of State licensed marriage and restore, at least in part, the rights of same sex married couples who merely seek equal protection under the law.

For related information please see: same sex immigration.

Tags: Christopher S. Bentley, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, DOMA, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Respect for Marriage Act, RFMA, Same Sex Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, The Advocate, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act, USCIS
Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion, same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that it would appear as though the Department of Homeland Security‘s United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is placing certain deportations on hold if such a proceeding pertains to the same sex spouse of a United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident. To quote directly from the website dailynews-update.net:

The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service confirmed Monday that it has temporarily put some deportations of partners in same-sex marriages on hold if they could be affected by the recent Department of Justice decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Chris Bentley, Press Secretary for the USCIS said in a statement: “USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues.”

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click on the above links to view this story in its entirety.

There are many “distinct legal issues” at play when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage and governmental recognition thereof. Those who read this web log with any frequency may have noticed that this blogger has dedicated a great deal of time to commenting and following this issue as it is truly a struggle for both the civil rights of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents as well as a struggle for Federal recognition of sovereign State prerogatives on the issue of marriage.

Throughout the struggle for equal marriage rights for the LGBT community there have been many legislators who have supported the cause of same sex bi-national couples. Most notably, Representative Jerrold Nadler has repeatedly introduced legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in an effort to make headway in securing immigration benefits for same sex bi-national couples in the same manner accorded to their different-sex counterparts. Meanwhile, as noted on this blog, groups such as Immigration Equality and their Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog have recently announced a position regarding DHS issuance of Green Cards for foreign same sex partners of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Announcements such as these are important because they illuminate the extent to which the political and immigration systems are evolving in an effort to deal with this issue. Clearly, the LGBT equal rights movement has an organic base committed to seeing real change in the immigration system.

It was recently noted on this blog that the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder issued a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives noting that the administration no longer felt that pursuing so-called “Defense of Marriage Act“  (DOMA) cases was Constitutional. There are some who would argue that this action is contrary to the administration’s duty pursuant to United States law. Some members of Congress, as well as apparent presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, have even made noises about impeachment regarding this issue. As of the time of this writing, such an action has not taken place.

This blogger personally disagrees with the American administration’s decision not to pursue DOMA cases because doing so could preclude Supreme Court adjudication due to lack of a “case or controversy” before that body. This blogger would also argue that the Supreme Court is the best adjudicator of this issue as there are many ramifications of same sex marriage recognition pursuant to the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

How the whole issue of same sex marriage, and American government recognition thereof; will ultimately be decided remains to be seen, but for advocates of equal LGBT immigration rights this recent USCIS decision is definitely a positive one.

For related information please see: LGBT visa.

Tags: Chris Bentley, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, deportation, DOMA, expedited removal, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog, Jerrold Nadler, LGBT marriage, lgbt visa, removal, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

The administration of this blog has been monitoring the evolving situation in the United States of intrastate legislation among some of the sovereign 50 States to reform legal tender laws. There are some recent developments regarding this interesting and legally complex issue that could have ramifications for the global commodities markets, global business community, APEC, ASEAN, Thailand, and China. To quote directly from Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, in a post on the TruthAlliance.net website entitled “Utah Senate Passes Gold/Silver Legal Tender Law; Awaits Governor Signature“:

The Utah Legislature on Thursday passed a bill allowing gold and silver coins to be used as legal tender in the state — and for the value of their precious metal, not just the face value of the coins.

In a previous posting on this blog it was noted that the lower chamber of Utah’s government, the Utah House of Representatives, had passed the legislation referred to above, but at that time there seemed to be little information pertaining to the reasoning behind the passage of such legislation. The article cited above is quite informative in its coverage of this unfolding situation. To quote further from the aforementioned article:

The legislation directs a state committee to look at whether Utah should recognize an official alternate form of legal tender which could become a path for creating a formal state gold standard.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, said he has not yet taken a public stance on the bill.

State Rep. Brad J. Galvez, the chief sponsor of the measure, said he views it as a preliminary step on the path toward securing Utah’s business climate.

“If the dollar continues to fall, what this will do will help stabilize the value of the dollar in Utah, so it helps stabilize the economy,” Mr. Galvez, a Republican, said.

While similar legislation has been proposed in nearly a dozen states, Mr. Galvez said that if Mr. Herbert signs his bill, Utah will be just the second state to official recognize the coins as legal tender. Colorado has recognized gold and silver for decades, he said.[sic]

Those reading this posting are encouraged to click on the hyperlinks above to read the text of this article in full.

Clearly, Utah is not the only American State that is taking monetary measures with an eye toward maintaining a comparative advantage in the national and international business markets along with a healthy State economy. It will be interesting to see what position will ultimately be taken by the Governor of Utah as his stance on the issue has yet to be discerned as of the time of the writing cited above. Issues involving the currency within States can have tremendous ramifications and it would appear that due consideration is being taken.

The article was also notable for this blogger as it elucidated a thought from a legislator in Virgina who is advocating for similar legislation in that State. To quote further from the article by Stephen Dinan:

In Virginia, Delegate Robert G. Marshall, a Republican, successfully pushed through a bill — not yet signed by the governor — that authorizes the state to mint gold, silver and platinum coins. He said that there is probably a good market for collectors who would prefer not to have to buy federally minted coins and said state-minted ones would create a backstop against inflation.

“I’m looking at Congress, and I’m looking at what the Chinese are doing, and I don’t have a lot of confidence in what’s going on there,” Mr. Marshall said. “This is one way where Virginia can help our citizens as a security hedge against the inflationary action of Congress.”

This was an interesting insight for this blogger because it provides hope that more legislators on the State level are looking abroad when formulating policies which are designed to have a direct impact upon the lives of State Citizens. Although the United States Federal government’s enumerated powers provide wide latitude in matters of an international character, some international trends can have a significant economic impact upon the economics of a purely intrastate nature. Therefore, in the world in which we now live even legislators at the State level must have an eye on the evolving business and economic dynamics of countries as far geographically afield as Thailand, China, or any of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member states in order to make fully informed decisions regarding the enactment of legislation which could impact those within that legislature’s jurisdiction.

As noted in the quotation above, the Governor of Virginia has yet to sign the legislation pending in that State. Therefore, the ultimate outcome remains to be seen, but one thing remains clear: few lawmakers are taking this legislation lightly as evidenced by the alacrity of these legislatures’ votes and the taciturn position of these States’ respective Governors.

This issue is coming to the foreground of the national political spectrum at a time when the legal issues surrounding the issue of same sex marriage and interstate Full Faith and Credit Clause interpretation versus the Federal-State sovereign relationship in the context of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized pursuant to the laws of sovereign American States is coming to the attention of the United States Federal Appellate Courts in the form of cases which have the potential to directly contravene the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). In an American Immigration context, Federal legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York have continued to push legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would allow the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to adjudicate petitions for same sex “permanent partners” of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents in the same manner as different sex couples.  How the issues associated with legal tender reform and the issues associated with Full Faith and Credit for State recognized same sex marriages will be resolved remains to be seen, but clearly such issues will remain noteworthy as time goes on.

For information related to these issues please see: US Visa Thailand or Same Sex Visa.

Tags: Governor Gary R. Herbert, Governor of Utah, Governor of Virginia, Legal Tender Reform, Same Sex Marriage, The Utah Specie Tender Act of 2011, Uniting American Families Act, Utah House Bill 317, Utah House of Representatives, Utah Legislature, Utah Senate, Utah State Representative Brad J. Galvez, Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall
Posted in American Business, American Institute Taiwan, ASEAN Business, Cambodia Business, China Business, Fiance Visa Thailand, Myanmar (Burma) Business, News, Online Gaming, States' Rights, Thailand Business, Upcoming Legislation, US Constitution, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog is reporting that Americans are calling upon the Department of Homeland Security to change its policy regarding Lawful Permanent Resident status for LGBT spouses of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. To quote directly from the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog:

In an interview published last night, Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven calls on the Department of Homeland Security to stop denying green card applications filed by spouses of LGBT Americans.

Those who are unaware of the issues surrounding the debate for equal immigration benefits for the LGBT community should note that pursuant to the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) the United States Federal government is prohibited from granting immigration benefits to same sex bi-national couples even though such benefits are routinely granted to different-sex couples. Meanwhile, a number of sovereign American States have heeded the call of their citizenry and taken measures which would allow legal recognition for marriages between individuals of the same sex. Notwithstanding that a marriage may be legalized and solemnized by a sovereign US State, such as Massachusetts, for example; the Federal government still will not recognize said marriage pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. To quote further from the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog:

“It is imperative that the administration stop breaking up families based on a law that it says is unconstitutional,” Tiven told reporter Andrew Harmon. “We’re calling on the Department of Homeland Security to stop denying green card applications for the spouses of American citizens.”

As noted above, the result of continued enforcement of DOMA in an immigration context is the constant and continued partition of bi-national families. It would appear as though proponents of equal LGBT rights are hoping that DHS can take some steps to alleviate what is, for some, an increasingly untenable situation. To quote further from the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog:

Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) – both important leaders on LGBT and immigration issues in Congress – joined Immigration Equality’s call for a halt to deportations involving legally married spouses. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand also weighed in, telling reporters that, ““The recent news of deportations involving legally married gay and lesbian binational couples is heartbreaking.”

This blogger highly encourages readers to click on the above links to learn more about the Immigration Equality Action Fund and the struggle for equal rights in the LGBT community. It should be noted that Representative Jerrold Nadler has been a strong proponent of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), legislation designed to provide immigration benefits to same sex bi-national couples.

There have been many sovereign US States that have shown “true grit” in the struggle for equal LGBT rights, privileges, immunities, and protections. States such as Massachusetts, Iowa, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut as well as the District of Columbia have shown support for the struggle of equal rights for LGBT families. Meanwhile, continued enforcement of the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) keep bi-national same sex couples from attaining equal immigration benefits when compared to their different-sex counterparts.

The issue of same sex marriage and equal rights for same sex couples is something that some have suggested is a divisive issue, but in this blogger’s opinion it need not be. For example, this blogger comes from a State (the State of Kansas) that explicitly forbids same sex marriage (yes, notwithstanding the State of Kansas’s position on same sex marriage this blogger feels that the right to marry whom one chooses is a civil right guaranteed to individuals under the U.S. Constitution that should be granted to those in Kansas as well as everywhere else in the USA, but the following analysis is primarily concerned with the same sex marriage issue in an interstate context). There are some who argue that this means that the State Courts are barred from recognizing same sex marriages legalized in other States. This blogger would argue that a different interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would allow a State such as Kansas to acknowledge that a legal marriage between two people of the same sex exists in fact in another American jurisdiction (say, Massachusetts, for example). Concurrently, the provisions of a State Constitution may prohibit any further State recognition or execution of a same sex divorce, but such a scenario is certainly better than the current state of affairs where no same sex couples are granted any type of Federal or interstate marital recognition at all. That said, none of these issues has yet to be fully resolved so any analysis remains speculation.

For related information please see: same sex visas.

Tags: Bisexual Visa, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Federalism, Full Faith and Credit Clause, gay visa, Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog, Jerrolf Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand, Lesbian Visa, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Rachel B. Tiven, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, same sex visa, transgender visa, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Transgender Visa, Zoe Lofgren
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

อาจจะเป็นเรื่องประเด็นทางการเมืองและทางกฎหมายที่ซับซ้อนเรื่องหนึ่งในหมู่ชาวอเมริกันที่มีแนวคิดตามสมัยซึ่งมีรายงานจากหลายแหล่งว่า ประธานาธิบดีบารัก โอบามา อยู่ภายใต้แรงกดดันจากคนหลายๆกลุ่มๆที่อยู่บนพื้นฐานของการพิจารณาว่า ไม่บังคับตามบทบัญญัติหลักที่เรียกว่า “พระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน” (DOMA) อ้างโดยตรงจากบทความที่เขียนใน AfricaOnline.com:

โฆษกคนก่อนของบ้านจิงริช แนะนำว่า ประธานาธิบดีโอบามาก้าวล้ำข้อผูกพันที่เกี่ยวกํฐณํบะรรฒฯยเมื่อเขาไม่อาจจะปกป้องพระราชบัญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงานในศาล

ในการที่จะปฏิบัติตามรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกานั้น ขอบเขตระหว่างประเด็นทางการเมืองและทางกฎหมายเริ่มต้นที่จะไม่ชัดเจนและสำหรับเหตุผลของประเด็นแวดล้อมไปด้วยสถานการณ์ทางกฎหมายที่น่าสนใจในประวัติศาสตร์เมื่อไม่นานมานี้ซึ่งยากที่จะเข้าใจสำหรับผู้ที่ไม่ได้ติดตามในประเด็นนี้ กล่าวโดยย่อ รัฐบาลกลางสหรัฐอเมริกาเพิ่งจะขัดขวางเรื่องการแต่งงานระหว่างคู่เพศเดียวกันในบทบัญญัติของพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มตรองการแต่งงาน (DOMA) ในขณะเดียวกัน 7 เขตอำนาจศาลในสหรัฐอเมริกา ประกอบด้วย 6 รัฐเอกราช ได้มีการอนุญาตแก่คู่แต่งงานเพศเดียวกัน ในขณะที่ หลายรัฐมหาอำนาจในสหรัฐอเมริกามีการประกาศใช้การแก้ไขรัฐธรรมนูญของรัฐในการห้ามการแต่งงานระหว่างคู่เพศฌดียวกัน ปัจจุบันนี้ มีหลายกรณีที่ตัดสินโดยศาลแห่งรัฐแมสซาชูเซสซึ่งรัฐมีสิทธิพื้นฐานที่จะแต่งงานภายในเขตอำนาจ สิทธิของทนายความแต่ละรัฐ ประเด็นที่สำคัญใน กรณีของ DOMA คือ การยอมรับของส่วนกลางของการแต่งงานคู่เพศเดียวกันตามกฎหมายและการบังคับตามเขตอำนาจศาล อ้างนายจิงริชต่อใน  AfricaOnline.com:

“นึกภาพว่า รัฐมนตรีเพลินกลายเป็นประธานาธิบดี” จิงริชกล่าว “นึกภาพว่า เธอเพิ่งประกาศว่า (Roe versus Wade )โรล เวอซํส เวดด์ในมุมมองของเธอไม่เป็นไปตามรัฐธรรมนูญและรัฐบาลสหรัฐอเมริกาไม่ได้ปกป้องสิทธิของใครในการที่จะทำแท้ง เพราะโดยส่วนตัวแล้วเธอตัดสินใจที่จะเปลี่ยน สื่อมวลชนกำลังบ้าคลั่ง นิวยอร์ก ไทม์กำลังจะกล่าวโทษเธอ”

หรับผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับคำตัดสิน Roe versus Wade คดีนี้เกิดในศาลสูงสุดซึ่งอนุญาตให้ผู้หญิงทำแท้งได้โดยเป็นไปตามการตีความตามรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกา เป็นเรื่องที่น่าสนใจว่า นายจิงริชอ้างว่า ขาดแคลนความสนใจกระแสของสื่อซึ่งมีผู้ที่ถกเถียงเกี่ยวกับสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของกลุ่มคนเลสเบี้ยน เกย์ ไบเซ็กชวล คนแปลงเพศในประเด็นที่ตรวจสอบโดยสื่อมวลชน เพื่อความเข้าใจ ประเด็นของคู่เพศเดียวกันแต่งงานในการที่จะทำให้มีปฏิกิริยาที่แข็งแกร่งจากส่วนต่างๆของมุมมองอเมริกัน อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์ThinkProgress.org:

ขณะนี้สิทธิของฝ่ายปกครองที่จะประกาศว่า จะไม่มีการปกป้องการบังคับตามมาตรา 3 พระราชบัญญํติคุ้มครองครอบครัว (DOMA) สมาชิกสภาเทนท์ แฟรงก์ (R-AZ)เรียกร้องที่จะให้มีการกล่าวโทษโอบามา

หลังจากที่ริพลับลิกันในอริโซนามีการเรียกร้องต่อกระทรวงยุติธรรมหากมีการปกป้องมาตรา 3 พระราชบัญญัติ DOMA “ผมอยากที่จะสนับสนุนในเวลานี้” แฟรงค์กล่าว –เขากล่าวต่อไปว่า ถ้ามีการรวบรวมการสนับสนุน ต้องมีการกล่าวโทษโอบามาอย่างแน่นอนและอัยการอีริคโฮล์เดอร์

สิ่งที่ปรากฏว่า ประเด็นนี้เป็นเหตุให้เกิดความวุ่นวายทางการเมืองสำหรับโอบามา แต่สิ่งที่น่าสนใจมากกว่านั้นในประเด็นนี้ทั้งในหมู่ของเพศที่สาม LGBT และรัฐที่มีเอกราชซึ่งเป็นสหรัฐอเมริกา

เพื่อความเข้าใจ ผู้เขียนบทความเชื่อว่าสิทธิในการแต่งงานของผู้ที่เลือกแต่งงานตามสิทธิพื้นฐานที่ไม่สามารถโอนแก่กันได้และการได้รับการปกป้องอย่างเท่าเทียมกันของสิทธิที่ควรจะเป็นของเลสเบี้ยน เกย์ ไบเซ็กชวล และกลุ่มที่แปลงเพศ (LGBT) ความเห็นส่วนตัวของผู้เขียน ถ้าคนสองคนประสงค์ที่จะแต่งงานด้วยความเต็มใจ  แล้วเรื่อง เพศ ไม่ควรจะเป็นวัตถุประสงค์ของการยอมรับของรัฐบาล อย่างไรก็ตาม มีการโต้แย้งที่มีน้ำหนักในการที่ต้องการการยอมรับของคู่แต่งงานเพศเดียวกัน และการโต้แย้งนี้ได้รับข้อมูลมาจากรัฐทั้งหกที่อนุญาตให้รูปแบบของคู่เพศเดียวกัน (ประเพณีทางสังคม หรือการแต่งงาน) โดยปรากฏอย่างชัดเจนรัฐโดยประเพณีที่จะทำให้การแต่งงานถูกต้องตามกฎหมายในเขตอำนาจนั้นและรัฐบาลกลางคววรต้องให้การยอมรับกลุ่มคนประเภทนี้ แต่บทบัญญัติของ DOMA ไม่ได้อ้างถึงเรื่องการยอมรับ ตัวอย่างเช่น คู่เพศเดียวกันที่มีการสมรสอย่างถูกต้องตามกฎหมาย แมสซาชูเซสไม่สามารถที่จะให้สิทธิประโยชน์เหมือนที่คู่ต่างเพศได้รับตามบทบัญญัติในพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA มีประเด็นบางเรื่องเกี่ยวกับการบัญญํติกฎหมาย เช่น พระราชบัญญัติการรวมกลุ่มของครอบครัวอเมริกัน(UAFA)ซึ่งเป็นการแก้ปัญหานี้ในบริบทของคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกา แต่ยังละทิ้งคำถามพื้นฐานที่ยังหาคำตอบไม่ได้ เมื่อไหร่รัฐบาลกลางให้อำนาจแก่รัฐ ควรจะมีการก่อตั้งสิทธิแต่งงาน

ตามที่คำตัดสินของโอบามาที่ไม่ดำเนินคดีนี้ตามพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน ทัศนคตินี้เป็นเรื่องที่น่ายกย่อง แต่การกระทำโดยรวมแล้วไม่อาจที่จะก่อให้เกิดประโยชน์แก่กลุ่มLGBT ในผลลัพธ์ของแต่ละกรณี หากกรณีใด หรือข้อขัดแย้งใดเกิดก่อนชั้นศาลสูงสุด เป็นการเปลี่ยนแปลงสำหรับศาลสูงสุดที่จะขยายข้อผูกพันของคำตัดสินศาลสูงสุดตามพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน (และมีแนวโน้มที่ทั้งหมดจะพูดถึงประเด็นเรื่องคู่เพศเดียวกัน)  บทของความน่าเชื่อถือและศรัทธา และประเด็นทางกฎฎหมายอื่นๆ เช่นความแตกต่างของคู่สองสัญชาติเพศเดียวกันซึ่งจะเป็นส่วนส่วนของการบังคับใช้พพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองการแต่งงาน

ความเห็นส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนบทความนี้ ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาจะยอมรับการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกัน แต่สิ่งที่จะสามารถพิสูจน์สิทธิของรัฐที่จะกำหนดนโยบายสำหรับผู้ที่จะแต่งงานในเขตอำนาจในขณะที่ ความเป็นเสรีนิยม หรือ สังคมนิยม ของศาลให้คู่เพศเดียวกันได้รับการยอมรับในการแต่งงานในรัฐซึ่งเป็นประเด็นที่เป็นสิทธิของงพลเมือง

To see this information in the English language please see: Defense of Marriage Act.

Tags: Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, LGBT, President Obama, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, กฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองอเมริกา, กฎหมายคู่เพศเดียวกัน, การเข้าเมืองเพศเดียวกัน, บารัค โอบามา, วีซ่าคู่เกย์, วีซ่าคู่เพศเดียวกัน, สภาของอเมริกา, สภาคองเกรส
Posted in สถานทูตสหรัฐอเมริกาประจำประเทศไทย, ้วีซ่าอเมริกาจากประเทศไทย | No Comments »

In what could possibly be one of the most convoluted political and legal issues currently in the American zeitgeist it has been reported by various sources that President Barack Obama is under pressure from many different groups regarding his recent decision not to enforce key provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To quote directly from an article posted on AfricaOnline.com:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested last week that President Obama overstepped his constitutional bounds when he announced he would no longer defend Defense of Marriage Act in court.

In matters pertaining to United States Constitutional law the lines between the political and legal spheres begin to blur and for this reason the issues surrounding what may be the most interesting legal situation in recent history are difficult to sort out for those who have not kept up with the evolving posture of this issue. To provide a brief summation: the United States Federal government is currently barred from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples pursuant to the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Meanwhile, 7 jurisdictions in the United States, including 6 sovereign States, currently license same sex unions. Meanwhile, many sovereign American States have promulgated State Constitutional amendments forbidding recognition of marriage between same sex couples. Currently, there is a case that has been adjudicated by the Massachusetts Federal District Court which found that States have a fundamental right to marry those within their jurisdiction. Amongst advocates of States’ Rights, the significant issue in the DOMA cases is: FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized within the States’ jurisdiction. To continue quoting Mr. Gingrich according to AfricaOnline.com:

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president,” Gingrich said. “Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

For those unfamiliar with the Roe versus Wade decision, this was the Supreme Court case which allowed women to receive abortions based upon an interpretation of the US Constitution. It is interesting that Mr. Gingrich noted the lack of “Mainstream Media” attention to this issue as there are those who could argue that the issue of equal rights for the LGBT community is an issue often overlooked by major media outlets. Clearly, the issue of same sex marriage is provoking strong reaction from various sectors of the American political spectrum, to quote directly from the website ThinkProgress.org:

Now, in the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.

After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support”…

It would appear as though this issue is causing a great deal of political turmoil for Mr. Obama, but what is even more interesting are the underlying issues at stake for both the LGBT community and the sovereign States which comprise the United States of America.

To be clear, this blogger fully believes that the right to marry whomever one chooses to marry is a fundamental inalienable right and equal protection of that right should be accorded to members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. In this blogger’s personal opinion, if two people wish to consensually enter into a marital union, then their respective genders should not be relevant for purposes of government recognition of that union. However, there is an even stronger argument in favor of requiring Federal recognition of same sex marriage and this argument stems from the fact that 6 states have allowed some form of same sex union (civil union or marriage). Clearly, States have traditionally been vested with the power to solemnize and legalize marriages within their respective jurisdictions and the Federal government should be required to recognize such unions, but the provisions of DOMA preclude such recognition. For example, same sex bi-national couples who have legalized a marriage in, say, Massachusetts cannot be accorded the same immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. There has been some discussion of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would rectify this problem in the context of United States immigration, but this still leaves a fundamental question unanswered: when did the Federal government get the right to dictate to the States what shall constitute a marriage?

As to the Obama Administration’s decision to not pursue cases in support of the Defense of Marriage Act: the sentiment is laudable, but ultimately this action may not be in the best interests of the LGBT community as such inaction results in fewer, if any, cases or controversies coming before the Supreme Court thereby removing the platform for the Supreme Court to make a broad binding decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act itself (and possibly the overall issue of same sex marriage in general), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the other legal issues, such as discrimination against same sex bi-national couples, which come “part and parcel” with continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act.

It is this blogger’s personal opinion that the United States Supreme Court will find in favor of recognition of same sex marriage, but in what could prove to be a sort of convoluted decision wherein Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts find in favor of the right of the States to set policy regarding who can get married within their jurisdiction while the more “liberal” or “civil libertarian” wing of the Court finds in favor of granting same sex couples the right to Federal recognition of a legally solemnized State marriage based more upon a finding that the issue is one of civil rights.

For related information please see: LGBT Visa.

Tags: Add new tag, Attorney General Eric Holder, Barack Obama, civil rights, Constituional Law, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit Clause, LGBT Rights, Newt Gingrich, Obama Administration, Representative Trent Franks, same sex civil union, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, States' Rights, Supreme Court, Trent Franks, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Consitution
Posted in Editorial, lgbt immigration, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | 1 Comment »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Attorney General of the United States, apparently at the request of the President, has opted to discontinue pursuing cases that would enforce the provisions of section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To quote directly from a letter written from United States Attorney General Eric Holder to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives the Attorney General noted:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor and Pedersen, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.

The administration of this blog highly recommends that those reading this posting click on the links above to read the Attorney General’s actual letter to Congress regarding this matter. That said, the administration of President Barack Obama should be guardedly commended for their position on this controversial and important matter. This announcement could be a boon to the LGBT community and the unfortunate same sex bi-national couples who are separated due to the fact that there has yet to be passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would circumvent DOMA and thereby allow those persons married to someone of the same sex to petition for immigration benefits in the same manner as their different sex counterparts. Bearing that in mind, there are some who could argue that the administration’s position on the issue could cause some unanticipated problems for those who wish to see swift equalization of rights for the LGBT Community, at least in the short term. Such an argument could be based upon the fact that failure to pursue these cases could lead to a situation where the public is unable to get the issue before the Supreme Court (more analysis on this below). To continue quoting from the Attorney General’s letter to Congress:

Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

As noted in the first sentence of this above cited paragraph, the administration’s decision not to pursue Federal cases to block recognition of same sex marriages could theoretically stall efforts at ultimate recognition of same sex marriage in the Courts. The reason for this is based upon the fact that Courts can only “make new law” when there is a “case or controversy” pending before them. The President’s failure to pursue such cases could effectively blunts efforts to get same sex marriages recognized in the Courts. To put it simply: a case involving the issue of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can only get before an Appellate Court (including the Supreme Court) if the party that lost in the lower court brings an appeal. Where the Obama administration has stated that they have changed their position on the issue of judicial scrutiny of same sex couples the fact still remains that in order for the Courts to render a final decision on the issue, a case must be properly brought before them. The Holder letter went on to note:

We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Interpretation of this line of the letter is critical for the future of same sex marriage cases pending before the Courts because the Obama administration (or a later administration, for that matter) may be placed in a position in which they are forced to appeal against a ruling in favor of same sex couples in order for the issue to be brought to the official attention of the higher Courts (most especially the United States Supreme Court). Failure on the part of the Obama administration to pursue the government’s current position in favor of DOMA all the way to the Supreme Court could lead to a situation, not unlike that once seen in the cases involving the old Widow’s Penalty in an immigration context, where same sex marriage is ruled legal in, say, the Second Circuit, but might not be legalized across the United States if the Attorney General’s office refuses to request certiorari from the United States Supreme Court and simply opts to accept the 2nd Circuit’s ruling.

At the same time, the administration is not actively involved in efforts to discourage recognition of same sex marriages. From a political standpoint, the President’s apparent decision to discontinue pursuit of such cases is rather shrewd in that, as noted in the last sentence of the paragraph cited above, it allows the administration to avoid something of a “political hot potato” without actually doing anything that might offend those arrayed against the recognition of same sex marriage. Meanwhile, as a practical matter, the administration’s decision changes nothing about the current state of affairs with regard to same sex marriage. In fact, if the administration refuses to appeal such cases to the Supreme Court, they would effectively close off one of the two avenues by which DOMA could be overturned (the other being outright repeal by the US Congress). The Defense of Marriage Act remains “on the books” and therefore continues to be an impediment to Federal recognition of same sex marriage (even those solemnized and legalized by the States).

From this blogger’s perspective, the administration appears to be attempting to make efforts in support of the LGBT community on the issue of same sex marriage, but in reality the two branches of government that can truly make a change to the current Federal policy on same sex marriage are the legislative branch of government and the judiciary. At present, two significant cases are pending in the judicial system. One case in California attacks DOMA from more of a civil right’s perspective while the Massachusetts Federal District Court found DOMA unconstitutional based upon, among other things, an analysis of that State’s (or more accurately: Commonwealth’s) inherent right to solemnize and legalize marriages within their jurisdiction. To quote directly from the opinion in the Massachusetts case:

State control over marital status determinations predates the Constitution. Prior to the American Revolution, colonial legislatures, rather than Parliament, established the rules and regulations regarding marriage in the colonies. And, when the United States first declared its independence from England, the founding legislation of each state included regulations regarding marital status determinations.

Many analyze this issue from the perspective of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. There is a very valid argument that discriminating against same sex couples due to their gender/sexual orientation is a violation of Equal Protection. However, the argument in favor of the States’ inherent rights to make rules and regulations regarding marriages within their jurisdiction is a potent argument which should not be overlooked. Equal Rights for the LGBT community is a Civil Rights matter, but where 6 Sovereign States and the District of Columbia have taken the initiative and allowed same sex unions it begs the question: why is the Federal government contravening clear State policy on matters that have traditionally been within the exclusive bailiwick of the States?

This blogger has repeatedly written postings analyzing the issue of same sex marriage from the perspective of States’ Rights as well as Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. What is the most interesting aspect of this issue from the blogger’s perspective is the fact that the more socially conservative wing of the Supreme Sourt could end up voting in favor a same sex marriage based upon a States’ Rights line of thought. To quote directly from the dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case (which both the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Justice Thomas joined):

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

All of the Justices noted above dissented in the Lawrence opinion based upon the reasoning that the States’ retain the right to regulate homosexual conduct within their jurisdiction. The Court itself went the other way in that decision, but the above citation from the dissent is important because it shows that those Justices might rule favorably upon an issue involving Federal recognition of same sex marriage if the underlying facts were to show that the State sovereign had duly recognized such unions pursuant to their aforementioned “police powers” noted in the Massachusetts case cited above.

As of yet, these issues remain to be resolved, but one thing is clear: the political winds are changing with regard to LGBT rights. However, said rights have yet to be fully secured and until such time as they are advocates for equal marriage rights should continue to monitor this issue.

Tags: Barack Obama, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Eric Holder, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in lgbt immigration, News, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a State Judge in a Nebraska Court appears to have been unwilling to grant a divorce to a same-sex married couple on the grounds that the State of Nebraska does not recognize the existence of the underlying marriage. It would appear as though the parties in question were originally married in Vermont (a State which recognizes and solemnizes marriages between individuals of the same gender), but wished to have their marriage dissolved in Nebraska (a State which does not solemnize nor recognize same sex marriage). To quote directly from a posting on WCAX.com, a website dedicated to providing news pertaining to Vermont:

According to Judge Randall Rehmeier, the state can’t dissolve their marriage because gay marriage isn’t recognized by the Nebraska Constitution. That means their marriage doesn’t exist in the state’s eyes.

The administration of this blog highly recommends readers go to the website noted above to read the full posting. The Judge’s reasoning may go to the heart of the overall conundrum that arises from what some would consider to be the uncertain nature of the current legal status of same sex marriages in the United States. As noted previously on this blog, within the USA there are currently 5 sovereign American  States that recognize and perform same sex marriages. Meanwhile, there are many other States and jurisdictions which do not recognize such marital relationships. Furthermore, there are even some American States which have State constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage or defining marriage as exclusively to mean a marital union between two people of differing gender. Concurrently, the United States Federal Government does not recognize same sex marriages pursuant to the language of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). Under the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act the Federal government is legally barred from recognizing marriages between two people of the same gender. This is a significant issue in the area of United States Immigration law as same sex bi-national couples are unable to obtain the same family based visa benefits as different-sex bi-national couples, regardless of the fact that the couple may have been lawfully married in one of the American States which recognizes same sex marriage.

In the midst of all of these conflicting policies and laws there are currently cases pending in the United States Federal Courts which address the issues associated with same sex marriage and government recognition thereof. At the time of this writing, Federal District Courts in Massachusetts and California have ruled that Federal failure to recognize State sanctioned same sex marriage is unconstitutional. However, those decisions have been stayed pending appeal. Those appeals could very possibly go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

At the time of this writing, the issue of same sex marriage is far from settled, but one thing is clear: it is unlikely that a solution will be easy to find. It is this blogger’s opinion that the issues associated with same sex marriage touch most particularly upon legal notions inherent in the Constitutional doctrine of Full Faith and Credit pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, analysis under the Full Faith and Credit Clause may not lead to uniform State acceptance of same sex marriage. In this blogger’s opinion, the Defense of Marriage Act was rendered unconstitutional the moment that a sovereign American State began recognizing and performing marriages for people of the same sex. This opinion is based upon the belief that the right to solemnize marriages between parties within the jurisdiction of a given State is a right reserved to said State under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under certain circumstances, States have cited their power to promote “public health and safety” as a basis for issuing marriage licenses.

In this blogger’s opinion, if a State has duly legalized a same sex marriage within their jurisdiction pursuant to the laws and procedures of said State, then the Federal government must recognize that marriage pursuant to what this blogger would describe as Vertical Full Faith and Credit (i.e. Federal recognition of certain State prerogatives regarding intrastate matters pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause). However, the law dealing with what this blogger would describe as Horizontal Full Faith and Credit (State to State recognition of State adjudicated matters) can be opaque especially with regard to issues which one state has deemed to be in violation of State public policy. If a sovereign American State has a Constitutional Amendment which specifically defines marriage as a marital union between a man and a woman, then there is a strong argument in favor of denying divorces to same sex couples within that State since it would violate State public policy to recognize the existence of the marriage in order to dissolve it.

As more and more same sex couples legalize marriages in the United States, it stands to reason that more such couples may one day seek divorce. The issues associated with Full Faith and Credit and LGBT rights have yet to be fully resolved, but it seems likely that this issue will remain controversial both from a political perspective as well as a legal perspective.

Those reading this posting should take note of the fact that there are myriad legal and political opinions on this subject and until such time as a binding decision is made in the US Courts or Federal legislature this issue will probably continue to remain unresolved.

For information about legislation designed to deal with the immigration restrictions placed upon same sex bi-national couples please see: Uniting American Families Act or UAFA.

Tags: Constitutional Law, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gay Rights, Gay Rights News, Horizontal Full Faith and Credit, LGBT Rights, LGBT Rights News, Same Sex Divorce, Same Sex Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, States' Rights, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Constitution, US Courts, Vertical Full Faith and Credit
Posted in Editorial, lgbt immigration, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | No Comments »

While online this blogger came across an interesting article regarding same sex marriage in the United States of America and the campaign to equalize marital rights for same sex couples. It would appear that Ms. Barbara Bush (no, not the former First Lady, but her granddaughter) has come out in favor of marriage equality. To quote directly from an article written by Candace Chellew-Hodge posted on the website religiondispatches.org:

First, it was Arizona Senator John McCain’s daughter Meghan who came out as a young Republican in full support of marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Now, the youngest daughter of former President George W. Bush is—like her mother Laura before her—publicly proclaiming her support for marriage equality. In a video released this week by the Human Rights Campaign, Barbara Bush, proclaims herself “a New Yorker for marriage equality.”

It is interesting to note that the issue of marriage equality does not seem to conjure up the same sort of reaction from members of different generations. Where at one time, the issue of same sex marriage and LGBT rights were once quite controversial, especially within the Republican Party, now it would appear that more cooler heads are prevailing on the subject as even religious people who have personal issues with the practice understand that personal liberty and the right to be with people that one loves are fundamental to both the human experience and the American Dream. However, not everyone feels the same way as a further quote from the aforementioned website points out:

Over at Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link, blogger Jenny Tyree isn’t surprised at Ms. Bush and Ms. McCain’s support for marriage equality. “It’s rather easy for 20-somethings—or millennials—to jump on the very tidy-looking ‘rights’ bandwagon that proponents of same-sex marriage have made marriage to be,’ she writes, rightly observing that the majority of people aged 18-29 support marriage equality.

Those reading this posting are well advised to go to religiondispatches.org to read the story in its entirety. That said, first, it should be noted that this blogger, a twenty-something, albeit a late twenty-something, himself, hates the use of the term “Millennials” when describing the generation of Americans coming of age in the new millennium. The reason for the dislike of this label stems more from the fact that it makes such people sound like flowers which bloom on a yearly basis rather than a smart savvy generation who can clearly articulate their opinions on a wide array of issues, but this is a digression.

Of interest to those seeking information regarding United States Immigration law is the fact that under the current legal framework of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) the Federal government refuses to recognize the validity of same sex marriage notwithstanding the fact that 5 Sovereign US States currently recognize and solemnize such unions. There are many who would argue that this legislation is unconstitutional on its face as it completely abrogates the States’ prerogatives with regard to marriages conducted within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is this blogger’s opinion that this current practice violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution as well as depriving individuals of their right to equal protection under the US Constitution and the rights conferred under the theory of “substantive due process.” In an immigration context, there have been moves in the US Congress to deal with the issue of same sex bi-national couples. Most notable have been Representative Jerrold Nadler’s attempts to gain passage of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would create a US Visa category for “permanent partners” of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. As of the time of this writing, this legislation has yet to be passed.

Under the government’s view of the law, bi-national same sex couples are not allowed to obtain US family visa benefits equal to those of their different-sex counterparts as doing so would be a violation of DOMA. Hopefully, with the support of a new generation of Americans these issues will be rectified and same sex couples will be afforded the same Constitutional liberties and immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts.

Fore related information please see: Permanent Partner Visas.

Tags: Barbara Bush, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, gay marriage, Gay Rights News, Laura Bush, LGBT Rights, Meghan McCain, permanent partner, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, UAFA News, Uniting American Families Act, US Immigration Rights Same Sex Bi-national Couples
Posted in lgbt immigration, same sex visa | No Comments »