The cons are sure desperate, aren't they, Jarod? Anyone would think we were forcing them into same sex marriages...
I am thinking about switching teams now, how about you?
The cons are sure desperate, aren't they, Jarod? Anyone would think we were forcing them into same sex marriages...
I am thinking about switching teams now, how about you?
So the queers got what they wanted. The all out destruction of marriage.
No matter where they live in the United States, citizens can now sponsor a foreign-born same-sex spouse for permanent residence (a green card) as long as they wed legally in a state or country that allows it and have a bona fide marriage, according to immigration experts.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they will get a green card, but they should now be treated just like opposite-sex couples in the immigration system.
Last week’s Supreme Court decision striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act gives same-sex married couples the same federal rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples. For some federal benefits and programs, such as taxes and Social Security, the ruling generally applies only to same-sex couples living in states where they can legally marry.
But other programs, such as immigration, may not depend on the couple’s state of residency.
So the queers got what they wanted. The all out destruction of marriage.
I tell ya what... If two gay folks getting married is enough to destroy YOUR marriage, my guess is your spouse was getting it elsewhere for a long time before that.
So the queers got what they wanted. The all out destruction of marriage.
@Jarod, question for you - according to this article, not all federal benefits will be available to couples who got married in a state where same-sex marriage was legal but then moved to a state where it isn't legal. I thought federal benefits would be available regardless. Do you know why?
http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2013/06/30/same-sex-couples-gain-immigration-rights-post-doma/
Another example why we need marriage equality everywhere - this poor couple.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/the-story-of-lon-and-jim-torn-apart-after-34-years-by-the-hidden-evils-of-marriage-inequality/marriage/2013/07/06/70574
It's long; for those of you who want the Reader's Digest version:
Two men in Texas in a long-term relationship; Lon and Jim. Jim developed Alzheimer's. Lon took care of him for years; also took care of Jim's sister's (Carolyn) mother-in-law. Jim finally had to go to the hospital; Carolyn swooped in, banned Lon from visiting; she had their Power of Attorneys, but hid them; she took their house away (which she was able to do because her name was on the deed - she agreed to help them buy it; they were two years from paying her off when she took it from them); and has made their lives miserable.
Wouldn't have happened if they were legally married.
Another example why we need marriage equality everywhere - this poor couple.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/the-story-of-lon-and-jim-torn-apart-after-34-years-by-the-hidden-evils-of-marriage-inequality/marriage/2013/07/06/70574
It's long; for those of you who want the Reader's Digest version:
Two men in Texas in a long-term relationship; Lon and Jim. Jim developed Alzheimer's. Lon took care of him for years; also took care of Jim's sister's (Carolyn) mother-in-law. Jim finally had to go to the hospital; Carolyn swooped in, banned Lon from visiting; she had their Power of Attorneys, but hid them; she took their house away (which she was able to do because her name was on the deed - she agreed to help them buy it; they were two years from paying her off when she took it from them); and has made their lives miserable.
Wouldn't have happened if they were legally married.
sounds like the lady was a sociopath.
the rate of sociopathy is about 4 in 100 people.
3 will be male and one will be a woman.