Thread: US back to denying same sex couple visas

US back to denying same sex couple visas

ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press
Updated 01:07 p.m., Wednesday, March 30, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — After a brief reprieve, immigration authorities are once again denying applications for immigration benefits for same sex couples following a legal review.

Chris Bentley, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Services agency, said Wednesday that a review by lawyers from the Department of Homeland Security, it was concluded that a law prohibiting the government from recognizing same sex marriages must be followed, despite the Obama administration's decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the law in court.

The law, the Defense of Marriage Act, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Earlier this week, USCIS announced that applications from foreigners married to a U.S. citizen of the same sex would be held in "abeyance" while the legal review proceeded. Bentley said Tuesday that the temporary hold on application decisions was not a change in policy.

In February, Attorney General Eric Holder announcement that the government would no longer defend the law, which gay rights activists have said is discriminatory.

Bob Deasy, of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the latest ruling is a "disappointment."

"The administration has the authority to put these cases on hold" while the fate of the marriage law is decided in court, he said.

Holder's announcement appears to have already had an impact on at least one immigration case.

Earlier this month a New York-based immigration judge decided to postpone a deportation order against an Argentine lesbian married to a U.S. citizen.

Following the ruling to adjourn the case until December, Monica Alcota's lawyer, Noemi Masliah, praised the judge's decision.

"The right thing to do, and this judge did do the right thing, is to adjourn this case and see what happens down the road," Masliah said. "Given that the law is so up in the air ... it's hard to enforce at this point in a negative way."

Wednesday's announcement did not have any immediate impact on Alcota's case.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/articl ... 314694.php

Same sex or not illegal is illegal.To reckonize same sex is kinda an insult.If theycould reckonize illegals id be happier.even if they of the oppisite sex and spouse is illegal nether one should be aloud visas.Send them both out of the country.

I'm one who's all for gay rights having many gay friends. For me kinda goes with the territory as many Pagans like myself are also gay (which I'm not).

But one must also ask what is marriage and its purpose? Marriage by western standards is between 2 people where love is generally involved at least at the start. However its further purpose is to create a family unit for progressing the Human Species. So I see marriage as a tool to creating a family unit for having offspring. This is also the purpose of numerous benefits granted to married couples not for their sake but for the sake of having and raising children.

Hence I support Civil Unions with NO benefits such as sharing healthcare, or other married benefits given by government agencies. This would also happen to include immigration as its a benefit granted to marriage and from a government agency.

Makes sense to me though as gay couples can't ever naturally have children between just themselves.... ever. There hence doesn't need to be any benefit afforded to what is meant to be for a starting family unit. I even have multiple gay friends who agree with such.

However there is the movement many gays who think they should be able to get extra benefits w/o being able to have a proper family unit which those benefits are built on supporting. Just like an Adam Sandler movie which I forget the title they were 2 firemen NOT gay who got a civil union to cheat the system for extra benefits granted to married firefighters. But these people are NOT about getting married or having a civil union, its about furthering a deeper agenda and also collecting from the government. If we had NO benefits granted to married couples at all many I've known think the issue would die down rather quick along with civil unions being allowed.

But these same people are also pushing for rights for gay couples to be able to adopt children which I again am firmly against. Some say gay is a genetic thing so wouldn't effect adopted children but look again and again and many didn't just happen to be born gay but learned it from experiences and those around them. Women often because of being sexually abused as children learned not to trust men and turned to women as a prime example. But if you allow gay marriage the next agenda will be gay adoptions being front row.