That's a list of things they consider. Sex is not the determining factor and not listed in the law as a necessary factor the marriage to be considered valid.
Is being gay a choice?
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
That's a list of things they consider. Sex is not the determining factor and not listed in the law as a necessary factor the marriage to be considered valid.
Steelplate
New member
Once again.....if Gay marriage becomes the law of the land, the INS is not going to make sure they are having sex. There cam be no way to enforce it.
dixon76710
New member
Well you certainly kicked the shit out of that strawman but that not a failure on my part.
dixon76710
New member
. I was married to a Canadian citizen. Questions about our sexual relationship were a part of the interrogation.
And had nothing to do with the recognition of your marriages validity under state law. It's a separate interest. If they find your marriage fraudulent it does not end your marriage.
The fact that you had sex does not prove your marriage is valid for the purposes of the INS, either. Sex is just one factor used by INS as a matter of policy and is not part of the law.
Same sex marriage is not relevant to it. You are grasping at straws.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01948.htm
I can't believe that this thread is still going so strongly... The question is, IMO, irrelevant to policy. In a land where we are supposedly free to make choices that others may find "repugnant" how could it possibly matter if it is a choice?
I'm not chiming in on the subject other than to ask why it would matter? What difference would it make if it was solely a "choice"?
What if it was for some but not others, would we have to test for those it was a "choice" for and only give rights to people who couldn't make a "choice"?
Choices are the bedrock of freedom, even if you don't like the choices others make.
I'm not chiming in on the subject other than to ask why it would matter? What difference would it make if it was solely a "choice"?
What if it was for some but not others, would we have to test for those it was a "choice" for and only give rights to people who couldn't make a "choice"?
Choices are the bedrock of freedom, even if you don't like the choices others make.
You failed in you assertion that I made a strawman argument. I made a statement following two questions intended to encourage you to elaborate and the statement was not a claim about the content of your argument.
dixon76710
New member
Constitutional guarantees of Equal protection apply to all laws, federal and state.
They sure do. Is that a strawman?
dixon76710
New member
Revealing. I gave two examples so you focus like a lazer beam on the one you claim is irrelevant.
The mother and grandmother are of the "same sex". They just arent homosexual.
If you want to make an exception for only homosexuals, you need some justification for doing so.
dixon76710
New member
Nope. You were the one making a point that it didnt effect the validity under state law. Whether its the local county clerk who is denying two gay guys a marriage license, or the federal government that is deporting your foreign citizen spouse from the US, guaranties of equal protection under the constitution apply.
No, you are wrong again. I commented on both of them. You focused on the immigration issue. Now that that turned up empty for you we can go back to the other if you like.
Who is making an exception for homosexuals? You keep making this dishonest claim. Same sex marriage only removes the discrimination against them. It does not create laws concerning marriage between the closely related. That matter is not before the court and will not be decided until it is.
You want to employ a thin entering wedge argument when it suits you but fail to acknowledge the impacts on Loving v Virginia which the courts referenced in Perry. If the state can exclude homosexuals then it can exclude interracial couples. If you want to use such an argument then you need to stop evading its full implications.
The single mother and grandmother are already related and that bond is recognized by the state. Same sex marriage does not diminish that in any way that opposite sex marriage does not. You must contend that heterosexual marriage discriminates against them to claim that homosexual marriage does. Since you don't then you are making an ad hominem argument (you are probably going to need to look it up as this is a special case and you have shown you don't really get fallacies).
Yes, and marriage fraud for purposes of immigration has nothing to do with the validity of your marriage according to the state. See the link provided and Lutwak v United States.
They are separate interests and your argument that it relates to immigration is invalid. The INS has no specific or stand alone interest in your sexual relations. It has an interest in prohibiting immigration fraud.
Steelplate
New member
Yes, and in the scenario of the old lady and her housekeeper, if the housekeeper is living with the old lady...it's no one's business what they do in the bedroom.
dixon76710
New member
State law becomes irrelevant when you are deported from the country.
dixon76710
New member
No, its turned out fine. Just pointing out how you focus like a lazer beam on what you claim to be irrelevant.
The state laws that continue to exclude platonic and closely related couples. And Rhode Island just enacted legislation which added this to their marriage statute.
Creating laws to make marriage between the single mother and grandmother illegal, as their intent was only to extend marriage to include gay couples. Perry v in California declared as unquestioned fact that only a homosexual would marry someone of the same sex AND that marriages limitation to heterosexual couples was intended to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals.
Last edited:
You will be deported based on federal law. The ins has no specific interest in your sex life or, for that matter, whether you are able to procreate. You could have sex in front of them and invite to the baby shower nine months later and that alone will not determine marriage fraud. Marriage laws are not their direct interest. They have an interest in whether you are attempting to evade immigration laws. Nice try, but your argument is still bs dix.
dixon76710
New member
Yes, we are all aware that immigration is federal law, not state.
philly rabbit
Verified User
I don't see any evidence of this.
In fact the opposite is occurring because you are pushing the envelope and creating more and more resentment toward these people as you continue to use them.
You're all radicals who want to replace the current marriage laws because those laws represent the male hegemony of the country but the country is not only fed up with your queer marriage agenda, it's also moving further and further away from compromise because you want nothing to do with compromise because you're not about equal rights.
Then what is your problem? The federal law has to do with the interest of enforcing immigration laws. The INS is not concerned with anyone's ability to procreate and that has nothing to do with their investigation of marriage fraud. Your argument fails.