Confusion Over Policy on Married Gay Immigrants
 

An announcement by immigration officials in Washington on Monday that they were delaying decisions on some immigration cases involving gay couples led to a surge of expectations among gay advocates that the Obama administration had taken a small but significant step toward recognizing same-sex marriage.

But on Tuesday, immigration officials moved swiftly to clarify their position and dampen those hopes, saying they have not made any policy changes that would provide an opening to gay couples. The episode added to the legal confusion that has followed the administration’s determination last month that the law that bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/us...ration.html?hp


Note: March 29, 2011

why yes, the homophobic US of A withholds gays the rights they grant heterosexuals... tell us something new:roll:

Now now, don't offend Vendor, if he goes on strike Subsimers will go uninformed and we'll be competely out of the loop

I should post something to your taste :DL

Says the guy from a country where free speech is banned by law. :roll:

Quite right, other countries have banned people to have free will and freedom of speech, we see it as obvious, but in other parts of the world, you sit in jail instead

This is another opportunity to press it into people's wanted, demanded, almost ordered and certainly politically corrected opinion that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual people, and both are of the same sociological importance for a sociaty and culture, and have the very same biological meaning.

Seen that way we only survived until today and got that far only because the Apemen who were our forfathers had no capoability to discuss this concept, and could only say Oh, Uh, Ah and Eh. And procreate - most likely with partners of not the same sex, considering that the story of mankind did not end with them.

Forgive my brief interference, this is an issue of world-moving importance and relevance, so we really need to discuss it every couple of times. :know:

There is nothing to apologize for Sky, the issue may be controversial in some eyes, but the fact remains, how it is possible to change the conditions, everything can be solved as long as the will is there.

Says the guy that doesn't know Dutch law(not you this time Darkfish);)
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by law.
However if what you say, broadcast or print is a violation of other laws then you are liable under those laws.

It's not.

You know our constitution? :-?

Sure seems like it from this side of the pond:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12904395

Free speech is not banned, hate speech is

Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech

It is still a restriction since prosecutors and the Government decide what is "acceptable" speech (Canada has the same law btw).

The US of A goes to the other extreme, even allowing wackos to protest military funerals in the name of free speech...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7213R320110302

...but at least the law is clear.

In the case of Geert Wilders, it does appear to be a politically motivated prosecution since I understand the prosecutors had initially recommended that the case be dropped, but they were overruled. (to be clear, I do not agree with his views).

The law isn't meant to be clear so everybody can understand, it's meant to prevent crimes and bring justice. The world isn't black and white.
If your words call for people to use violence, or if what you say is racist, then yes, it's illegal.
In fact, our constitution is quite clear about this. And forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't racism illegal in the states too? That's what the Wilders trial is about; he isn't even convicted yet; it's civil court; people who felt offended and discriminated started a trial, it's not like he's been arrested or anything.
I understand what you mean, but it's not like the government is deciding what you can and cannot say. It's judges who ultimately decide that here. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but what is? You've got to draw some lines to prevent people from abusing 'freedom of speech' to be racist or even cause violence.