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

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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

Yeah, we may have to access the news sites on the Internet Tubes all by our selves.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Yeah, we may have to access the news sites on the Internet Tubes all by our selves.

Hold on now, I'm fully capable of knowing what is right and wrong, but in the future you will get to sniff the news itself, which is not difficult

[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.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by 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.

So what? Do you really think that if we recognize gay marriage, straight men and women will suddenly turn gay, which will threaten the survival of the species?

No, if we recognize gay marriage, all that will happen is that a large part of the population will no longer be discriminated against for no reason. They weren't going to have biological children anyway, so why stop them from getting married?

And on the solution of things, in this case, and comparable things dealing with PC: let brain rain from heaven and make some interest groups think before they assume once again they are the navel of the universe and everything revolves around them.

So expecting equal treatment under the law makes you self-centered?

[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?

[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. .

[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