Confusion Over Policy on Married Gay Immigrants

[Gerald]

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

[DarkFish]

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

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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

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

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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

I should post something to your taste

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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

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

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by August

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

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

[Skybird]

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.

[Gerald]

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 from a country where free speech is banned by law

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.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by August

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

It's not.

Freedom of speech (Article 7). This article has only been partially changed in the 1983 revision, as it was linked to very complicated case law. Sub article 1 contains the classic freedom of the press. Any censorship is absolutely forbidden. However, formal law can otherwise limit this freedom, e.g. by making a certain content punishable under penal law. Such limiting powers cannot be delegated to lower administrative bodies such as municipalities; the related right of distribution of printed materials can similarly only be limited by formal law. However, the Supreme Court has nevertheless ruled since 1950 that such bodies may in fact limit the distribution of materials, if such a limitation is not based on the content of those materials and does not imply a complete impediment to any separate means of distribution. They may for instance limit the spreading of pamphlets to certain hours for reasons of public order. Sub article 2 has the same arrangement for television and radio broadcasts. Sub article 3, added in 1983, gives a general right of expression, for those cases where neither printed nor broadcast information is involved; this includes the freedom of speech. Again, no censorship is ever allowed, but the right can otherwise be limited by formal law; explicitly mentioned in sub article 3 is the possibility to limit the viewing of movies by minors under the age of sixteen. Although no delegation is possible, lower bodies may limit the exercise of the right for reasons of public order if such limitations are not based on the content of the expressed views. .

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Vendor

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

You know our constitution?

[August]

Originally Posted by Fish

It's not.

Sure seems like it from this side of the pond:

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

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

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

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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).

[Bakkels]

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.