Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and perhaps that needs to be addressed. I myself am not gay but can understand that gay people can fall in love just as straight people do.
The gay sponsor should be required to follow the same protocols/ procedures as a straight couple might for a fiancee visa
I bet they punt. The Supreme court is often a coward in that way.
I think on Prop 8. The country simply isn't ready for compelling states to offer gay marriage. The court will leave it to the states for now with a narrow ruling only affecting California - which will get SSM. But DOMA is dead, IMO.
Yes, if their demands cause the bill to fail, because then the 99% who are not in a gay marriage will pay the price for the damage caused by the small minority. Also, you still do not seem to understand that such law would contradict the current laws of the US, and therefore it would be an illegal law.
How so? If the bill says that same sex partners can sponsor their partner, then no current law is contradicted.
How so? If the bill says that same sex partners can sponsor their partner, then no current law is contradicted.
Such bill would mean the federal government recognizes gay marriage, while the government does not.
Maybe it is better to just bag the whole bill. It's going to be a waste of time when all special interests and pork is piled on top of it, and no one will be able to agree on anything.
I think on Prop 8. The country simply isn't ready for compelling states to offer gay marriage. The court will leave it to the states for now with a narrow ruling only affecting California - which will get SSM. But DOMA is dead, IMO.
Maybe but to me that is a punt. Leaving it up to the states does not address the issue.
Such bill would mean the federal government recognizes gay marriage, while the government does not.
Maybe it is better to just bag the whole bill. It's going to be a waste of time when all special interests and pork is piled on top of it, and no one will be able to agree on anything.
Such bill would mean the federal government recognizes gay marriage, while the government does not.
Maybe it is better to just bag the whole bill. It's going to be a waste of time when all special interests and pork is piled on top of it, and no one will be able to agree on anything.
Not if it didn't use the word spouse, or marriage.
Personally I am against any bill that gives the illegals a head of line pass, free pass or any path that rewards their crimes.
Reform is needed as the system is slow redundant and clumsy. It also denies equal rights to all citizens.
Not if it didn't use the word spouse, or marriage.
A "friend" maybe? Or "the guy I have sex with"? If it is not spouse, then you are actually creating special treatment for people just because they say they are gay.
A "friend" maybe? Or "the guy I have sex with"? If it is not spouse, then you are actually creating special treatment for people just because they say they are gay.
There is a fiancee VISA program. So no it would not be special treatment. K-1 VISa if I am not mistaken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
