Is anyone else just getting the paperwork out of the way and planning a real wedding for later?

cwaggoner07

Amsdragonfly said:

If marriage is legal in one state, it should be recognized by the country as marriage, even if other states don't allow it. That's bull that they are continuously separated.

I agree with your sentiment, and I agree with what everyone else has said, but I don't agree, in the  general scope, that federal and state laws should mimic each other.  Then what's the point of having states? Anyways, that's really boring political talk no one cares about.

But yes, I love this video, and I MAY be wrong, but I think they have some connection to Anna Kendrick? Friends maybe?

Bubblegum5586

Thank you for sharing that! I have always been proud to be from MA and one of the first states with gay marriage... but no idea federally you still don't have certain rights. I dind't realize how far we had to go still.

QueerFemme

cwaggoner07 said:

Amsdragonfly said:

If marriage is legal in one state, it should be recognized by the country as marriage, even if other states don't allow it. That's bull that they are continuously separated.

I agree with your sentiment, and I agree with what everyone else has said, but I don't agree, in the  general scope, that federal and state laws should mimic each other.  Then what's the point of having states? Anyways, that's really boring political talk no one cares about.

But yes, I love this video, and I MAY be wrong, but I think they have some connection to Anna Kendrick? Friends maybe?

it's not boring political talk to me.  I like it, and I care about it.

Federal law should mimic state law in this case.  And actually, no state should be able to deny a civil right that should be granted under federal law.  That's the whole point of trying to overturn DOMA.  If DOMA is overturned, the federal goverment may be forced to grant benefits and rights for people who were married in the states that do allow gay marriage.

And furthermore, this should never have been allowed on any state ballot.  People shouldn't be allowed to vote on civil rights. It was the same way with other civil rights that have been granted in the past. (i.e. Loving v. Virginia; Brown v. Board of Education) The voters didn't want it, but the federal goverment allowed it anyway because it was unconstitutional.  The majority should never be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority.

 

GoofyAssChick

This made me bust out crying at work. 

bunni727

lyndausvi said:

bunni727 said:

Maybe Kristin's New Zealand confusion came from a picture where the New Zealand sign was visible in an airport picture.

Maybe?  But pretty early on in the video had both of them with flags under their pictures to show they are from different countries.

Yeah, not denying she's out of touch. Just guessing about where she got New Zealand out of that. 

OjitosVerdes

cmgilpin said:

cwaggoner07 said:

Amsdragonfly said:

If marriage is legal in one state, it should be recognized by the country as marriage, even if other states don't allow it. That's bull that they are continuously separated.

I agree with your sentiment, and I agree with what everyone else has said, but I don't agree, in the  general scope, that federal and state laws should mimic each other.  Then what's the point of having states? Anyways, that's really boring political talk no one cares about.

But yes, I love this video, and I MAY be wrong, but I think they have some connection to Anna Kendrick? Friends maybe?

it's not boring political talk to me.  I like it, and I care about it.

Federal law should mimic state law in this case.  And actually, no state should be able to deny a civil right that should be granted under federal law.  That's the whole point of trying to overturn DOMA.  If DOMA is overturned, the federal goverment may be forced to grant benefits and rights for people who were married in the states that do allow gay marriage.

And furthermore, this should never have been allowed on any state ballot.  People shouldn't be allowed to vote on civil rights. It was the same way with other civil rights that have been granted in the past. (i.e. Loving v. Virginia; Brown v. Board of Education) The voters didn't want it, but the federal goverment allowed it anyway because it was unconstitutional.  The majority should never be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority.

 

Double this. Ugh. 

AnitaH08

This breaks my heart. And it pisses me off that the reason this couple has to go through this is because religious people in this country feel it's ok to deny rights to those who do things with which they don't agree.

Regardless of whether or not you feel being gay is a choice, and regardless of whether or not you feel it is morally wrong, that is not a basis for denying someone rights. Last I checked, this country was founded on religious freedom, that means you don't get to make laws applying to everyone based solely on your religious beliefs. I urge people who use the Bible as a reason to keep DOMA to go through it and look at all the other things that are wrong according to the Bible but still perfectly legal. My favorite one to point out is that sex before marriage is considered immoral. Yet, us straight fornicators still get to be legally married, don't we?

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now. This issue just really gets to me.

keochan

People who cite the Bible are dumb. I'm Christen, but I'm of the belief that God created an loves us ALL and to just live a good life and treat people well. also, they always cite Leviticus, "Man shall not lie with man as he would a woman for it is an abomination" (paraphrasing from memory) Has nothing to do with actual sex for one. An increasingly popular interpretation was when a man 'lay' with a woman it was as his property, it's saying you can't claim a man as property the way your would a woman. Also, Jesus coming and all wiped out all the old laws, so citing Leviticus is basically saying "Oh yeah Jesus died to absolve us of our sins but that's not good enough, see look at this old law that justifies my bigotry"

Also, it drives me insane that the people that run and want to run this country forget about Separation of Church and State. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't have religious backing.

lyndausvi

I don't see people using the Bible as a reason to keep slaves, I don't see why we should use the Bible as why we should not let gays marry.

** I'm sure there are some out there who do, but it's not nearly as widespread as why we should not allow gay marriage.

leia1979

For people saying he should just become a citizen (in addition to that being difficult), the version of the video I saw yesterday had an update saying his application had been denied. 

It's so sad, and I'm still baffled by how my home state of California managed to pass a gay marriage ban. It's not defending marriage in any way. Straight people have screwed it up plenty on their own.

annathy03

keochan said:

People who cite the Bible are dumb. I'm Christen, but I'm of the belief that God created an loves us ALL and to just live a good life and treat people well. also, they always cite Leviticus, "Man shall not lie with man as he would a woman for it is an abomination" (paraphrasing from memory) Has nothing to do with actual sex for one. An increasingly popular interpretation was when a man 'lay' with a woman it was as his property, it's saying you can't claim a man as property the way your would a woman. Also, Jesus coming and all wiped out all the old laws, so citing Leviticus is basically saying "Oh yeah Jesus died to absolve us of our sins but that's not good enough, see look at this old law that justifies my bigotry"

Also, it drives me insane that the people that run and want to run this country forget about Separation of Church and State. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't have religious backing.

Exactly!  A church has a right to say "sorry, we won't marry you in our church" but they don't get to dictate who can get married in general.  The fact that the feds don't recognize these marriages is complete bull.

QueerFemme

leia1979 said:

For people saying he should just become a citizen (in addition to that being difficult), the version of the video I saw yesterday had an update saying his application had been denied. 

It's so sad, and I'm still baffled by how my home state of California managed to pass a gay marriage ban. It's not defending marriage in any way. Straight people have screwed it up plenty on their own.

that wasn't even a citizenship that was denied, it was just a visa application.

shannyb41

This breaks my heart.  Thank you so much for posting it.

lyndausvi

cmgilpin said:

leia1979 said:

For people saying he should just become a citizen (in addition to that being difficult), the version of the video I saw yesterday had an update saying his application had been denied. 

It's so sad, and I'm still baffled by how my home state of California managed to pass a gay marriage ban. It's not defending marriage in any way. Straight people have screwed it up plenty on their own.

that wasn't even a citizenship that was denied, it was just a visa application.

Wait you mean you can't just renounce your citizenship and walk into the US and get a US citizenship?  They have to get a get a sponsor, then get a visa approved,  live in the country for a while, fill out countless paperwork, deal with the slowness of the gov't, take come classes, pass some tests sometimes taking YEARS?  

 Who knew? 

Off topic, but I knew a couple where she could not get a visa because they were just dating. He was from South Africa on was here on a work visa.  So she would come to St  Thomas for about 85 days, then go back to the UK for a few weeks, then fly back for another 85-90 days. Sometimes the trips back were less.    They did this for 3 years.     She couldn't work and it was expensive, but that is how she got away with it.   It helped she had adult daughters in the UK so she got to see them, but what a PITA to have to figure that out all the time.

QueerFemme

lyndausvi said:

cmgilpin said:

leia1979 said:

For people saying he should just become a citizen (in addition to that being difficult), the version of the video I saw yesterday had an update saying his application had been denied. 

It's so sad, and I'm still baffled by how my home state of California managed to pass a gay marriage ban. It's not defending marriage in any way. Straight people have screwed it up plenty on their own.

that wasn't even a citizenship that was denied, it was just a visa application.

Wait you mean you can't just renounce your citizenship and walk into the US and get a US citizenship?  They have to get a get a sponsor, then get a visa approved,  live in the country for a while, fill out countless paperwork, deal with the slowness of the gov't, take come classes, pass some tests sometimes taking YEARS?  

 Who knew? 

Off topic, but I knew a couple where she could not get a visa because they were just dating. He was from South Africa on was here on a work visa.  So she would come to St  Thomas for about 85 days, then go back to the UK for a few weeks, then fly back for another 85-90 days. Sometimes the trips back were less.    They did this for 3 years.     She couldn't work and it was expensive, but that is how she got away with it.   It helped she had adult daughters in the UK so she got to see them, but what a PITA to have to figure that out all the time.

it's ridiculous, right!?  And most people don't have the financial resources to fly overseas every 60-90 days.

lyndausvi

@cmgilpin - Ridiculous.    He had a great job, so money was not to much of an issue them.  I'm sure they made other sacrifices  I didn't know about.  St Thomas is not a hub and to the UK is not exactly a direct route.  You are right, no way the average person could do that.   

Viczaesar

keochan said:

People who cite the Bible are dumb. I'm Christen, but I'm of the belief that God created an loves us ALL and to just live a good life and treat people well. also, they always cite Leviticus, "Man shall not lie with man as he would a woman for it is an abomination" (paraphrasing from memory) Has nothing to do with actual sex for one. An increasingly popular interpretation was when a man 'lay' with a woman it was as his property, it's saying you can't claim a man as property the way your would a woman. Also, Jesus coming and all wiped out all the old laws, so citing Leviticus is basically saying "Oh yeah Jesus died to absolve us of our sins but that's not good enough, see look at this old law that justifies my bigotry"

Also, it drives me insane that the people that run and want to run this country forget about Separation of Church and State. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't have religious backing.

No, the Hebrew is clear that it's talking about sex.  A more literal interpretation would actually be "you shall not lie down in the beds of".

keochan

Viczaesar said:

keochan said:

People who cite the Bible are dumb. I'm Christen, but I'm of the belief that God created an loves us ALL and to just live a good life and treat people well. also, they always cite Leviticus, "Man shall not lie with man as he would a woman for it is an abomination" (paraphrasing from memory) Has nothing to do with actual sex for one. An increasingly popular interpretation was when a man 'lay' with a woman it was as his property, it's saying you can't claim a man as property the way your would a woman. Also, Jesus coming and all wiped out all the old laws, so citing Leviticus is basically saying "Oh yeah Jesus died to absolve us of our sins but that's not good enough, see look at this old law that justifies my bigotry"

Also, it drives me insane that the people that run and want to run this country forget about Separation of Church and State. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't have religious backing.

No, the Hebrew is clear that it's talking about sex.  A more literal interpretation would actually be "you shall not lie down in the beds of".


Ah see I don't know the Hebrew I've just read that as an interpretation. Still a religious backing so I say it has no place in law making

Viczaesar

That I agree with, keochan.

WinstonsGirl

Kristin789 said:

Totally agree with previous posters, but the New Zealand guy should apply for dual citizenship with the U.S., or give up NZ to become an American, and then he would be a U.S. citizen ON HIS OWN.

Not knowing them, I could be wrong, but the impression I got from this video is that he doesn't care if he's a US citizen, but he wants to be able to stay in the country and live with his Husband rather than being kicked out every 90 days and being separated from him