Iowa SC Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Guard Dog]

Story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/03...constitutional/

 

The law banning same sex marriage in Iowa was passed by the legislature in 2005 as I understand it. Today the Iowa SC struck it down. The vote was unanimous so that is a pretty clear message. You all know ny opinion on this, any law that limits personal liberty is a bad thing. I find it ironic that same sex marriage is legal in Iowa but illegal in California. The battle does not end here in all probability however. Ususally after a juducial defeat a movement gets going for a constitutional amendment. But maybe not.

[Kaftan Barlast]

"We cant allow gay people to get married, cause that would make marriage gay."

[Hurlshort]

I read an extremely sad story this week about a couple who had been together for 25 years. They have two children together. One was a US citizen and the other is from Cambodia, I believe. Normally, these two people would get married and everything would be fine, but because the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages, the Cambodian woman is facing deportation. What an absolutely ridiculous system. Some horny guy can order a Russian bride and he will have less problems getting citizenship then a couple that have been together for 25 years and raised two teenage boys.

[Gfted1]

Do you feel the Cambodian woman should be able to skirt our immigration laws because she is gay?

[Hurlshort]

Do you feel the Cambodian woman should be able to skirt our immigration laws because she is gay?

 

How is she skirting the law? Any immigrant can get a green card by marrying a citizen. She has an established relationship with this women, including two children. They are married within the state of California for the time being, but the Federal government refuses to recognize that.

 

Here's the story: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=n...&id=6742854

 

Currently they have delayed the deportation order, since the public outcry as been pretty heavy. Still, it's messed up that it even comes to this.

 

edit: It was the Philippines, not Cambodia

Edited April 3, 2009 by Hurlshot

[Kelverin]

Do you feel the Cambodian woman should be able to skirt our immigration laws because she is gay?

 

Any immigrant can get a green card by marrying a citizen.

You sure about that?

[Walsingham]

Two Pints said it best:

 

"Homophobia is gay"

[Gfted1]

How is she skirting the law?

 

 

Until recently, that marriage wasnt even legal in California (and is now again illegal). So I suppose shes "only" had 24 years of skirting the law.

[Hurlshort]

Do you feel the Cambodian woman should be able to skirt our immigration laws because she is gay?

 

Any immigrant can get a green card by marrying a citizen.

You sure about that?

 

http://greencard-marriage.com/

 

According to that guy it is. I'm sure it's not as easy as saying I do and then getting a green card in the mail, but the process for a spouse of a US citizen to get it is a heck of a lot less complicated and time consuming then someone who is not married. She was in the process, she had been in the process for years, and the government decided that her case for citizenship wasn't good enough. That doesn't happen to people who are recognized by the Federal government as a married couple.

[Hurlshort]

How is she skirting the law?

 

 

Until recently, that marriage wasnt even legal in California (and is now again illegal). So I suppose shes "only" had 24 years of skirting the law.

 

She was married in '04, when it was legal. Currently that marriage is valid, the court case is not over on whether they will be invalidated.

 

It seems like a few people are failing to see the forest through the trees here. I'm not an immigration lawyer, but does the system really need to split up families like this? Is that what all our laws are for, to drive out people that have made a life here?

 

She hasn't been living here for 24 years illegally either. She had a pending case, it was recently denied, and that is why she is being deported now and not earlier.

[Gfted1]

She was married in '04, when it was legal. Currently that marriage is valid, the court case is not over on whether they will be invalidated.

 

It seems like a few people are failing to see the forest through the trees here. I'm not an immigration lawyer, but does the system really need to split up families like this? Is that what all our laws are for, to drive out people that have made a life here?

 

She hasn't been living here for 24 years illegally either. She had a pending case, it was recently denied, and that is why she is being deported now and not earlier.

 

Im not an immigration lawyer either but in 1984 when she entered this country I would assume the clock started on becoming a citizen through whatever the process is. Twenty years later she gets married. So, I suppose she dodged the process for long enough to get married and thus fall under green card status but that doesnt make it right. And split up families? How about she follow the rules in the first place? Youve got no problem with her gaming the system for twenty years but you do have a problem with her being deported when they finally catch up to her? Our laws exist to keep illegal immigrants out and if they want to skirt them I guess they have to be willing to face the music when the government catches up to them. Whats the saying, dont do the crime if you cant do the time.

 

PS: I could care less that shes homosexual.

[Meshugger]

I find it ironic that same sex marriage is legal in Iowa but illegal in California.

 

You can say that again. The truth is really stranger than fiction.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Meshugger

[Trenitay]

Did she dodge the process? Maybe she was in the process for 20 years. Then she wouldn't be skirting the law.

[Hurlshort]

Did she dodge the process? Maybe she was in the process for 20 years. Then she wouldn't be skirting the law.

Since Gfted1 is so curious...

 

In 1979, when Tan was 14, a cousin shot her in the head and murdered her mother and sister because he wanted a larger share of a family estate, according to documents related to her case. The cousin spent at least 10 years in jail.

 

Tan first came to the United States as a visitor in 1986, stayed for about six months, then returned to the Philippines. She returned to the United States in 1989 and has stayed in this country since then, according to the documents, which also state that Tan failed to leave the United States by March 22, 1990, as her visa required.

 

In 1995, Tan applied for asylum based on past persecution and fear of future persecution from her cousin, but her case was denied. Tan fought that decision but in May 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals gave her 30 days to leave the country voluntarily or be deported.

 

Tan claims that she didn't know about that decision until it was far too late. Her recent motion to the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen proceedings and stay her deportation while her motion is pending states that the notice had gone to an old address for Norma Molinar, the attorney representing her at the time.

 

According to Tan's account, posted on the blog of Melanie Nathan, a family law mediator with mediation firm Private Courts who's serving as the family's spokeswoman, two officers came to the couple's door around 6:30 a.m. and eventually told her of the 2002 deportation order. Mercado said the incident happened January 28. The motion filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals states that the officers were from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

 

Tan was placed in handcuffs and taken to the immigration office in San Francisco, where she was put in a jail-like cell before being released at around 5:30 that afternoon, according to her written account.

 

After her release, Tan wrote, she was taken to the ICE Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, where a monitoring device was put on her leg. Tan now reports to the program three times a week.

 

Lori Haley, a customs enforcement spokeswoman, said she's not permitted to talk about individual cases, but when asked about the possibility of officers appearing at someone's door at 6:30 a.m. and taking them in handcuffs to the agency's office in San Francisco, Haley said, "If people had a final order of immigration issued by a judge and were targeted by our fugitive operations team, that could happen, yes, if they were found to be out of status."

 

But none of this accounts for the fact that there is a legal loophole for a straight couple here. They can get married and apply for a green card whether the spouse is in the country illegally or not, and they have a very good chance of success. This couple wasn't even given the option to get married until recently, and it doesn't even count on a federal level. The system is broken.

[Gfted1]

Shes been here illegaly for 19 years...sickening. And I love the "dur, I didnt know" defence. All we need now is for her to lock herself in some church. Youre right Hurlshot, the system is indeed broken.

[Trenitay]

What?! Someone is in the U.S. illegally? What sorcery is this?!

[Humodour]

Story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/03...constitutional/

 

The law banning same sex marriage in Iowa was passed by the legislature in 2005 as I understand it. Today the Iowa SC struck it down. The vote was unanimous so that is a pretty clear message. You all know ny opinion on this, any law that limits personal liberty is a bad thing. I find it ironic that same sex marriage is legal in Iowa but illegal in California. The battle does not end here in all probability however. Ususally after a juducial defeat a movement gets going for a constitutional amendment. But maybe not.

 

Wow. I wasn't expecting that from Iowa. Cool.

[Guard Dog]

Wow. I wasn't expecting that from Iowa.

 

And why is that exactly?

[Guard Dog]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...dName=worldNews

[Meshugger]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...dName=worldNews

 

Iowans, lead the way. Even the self-proclaimed 'liberals' of California have failed. You are our destiny.

[taks]

Wow. I wasn't expecting that from Iowa.

 

And why is that exactly?

because he's seen all the michael moore films. that, and he stayed in a holiday in express recently.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Aren't you a little ashamed about how all this chasing around after gays with legislation is making the country look.

[Gorgon]

There was a discussion here a while ago which related to envitro fertilsation. The big fuss was whether the state should extend the free treatments they give couples as part of trying to get the birth rate up to gay couples. I can understand the pros and the cons both, a discussion that needed to take place.

 

This blatant discrimination with religious undertones however, aren't we supposed to be past that.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Gorgon

[Trenitay]

Those fanatics make the rest us semi-religous people look bad.

[Humodour]

Wow. I wasn't expecting that from Iowa.

 

And why is that exactly?

 

Why do you think? Because they're not exactly a socially progressive state, that's why. They're not as bad as, say, Wyoming, but they're not exactly at the forefront of democracy.

 

I found this amusing, though:

 

Court Strikes Down Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Iowa

 

In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court voided a state law saying that a marriage must be between one man and one woman. Starting May 1, same-sex couples can get married in Iowa.

 

This decision immensely complicates the 2012 election for the Republicans. For social conservatives like Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee ® it is a twofer: they can campaign for the Iowa caucuses by railing against (1) gay marriage and (2) activist judges. Iowa's Republicans are deeply conservative and by moving the hot-button social issues to the front burner, Palin and Huckabee benefit from this. Mitt Romney is currently against gay marriage, but Iowa Republicans can never be sure what position he will take a week later in New Hampshire.

 

If Palin and Huckabee finish first and second in Iowa, in whichever order, whoever finishes fourth will have a hard time recovering in New Hampshire. If the #3 finisher is a relative moderate, such as Romney or Gov. John Huntsman (R-UT), he could still have a good shot at winning the New Hampshire primary. While winning Iowa is no guarantee of getting the nomination (just ask Mike Huckabee), it certainly is a good start. As a consequence, the likelihood of the Republicans nominating a highly conservative, deeply religious candidate has been greatly increased by the Iowa court decision.

 

The problem for the Republicans is that highly conservative, deeply religious candidates don't play well in many swing states, especially Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Florida, and not at all well with independent voters. This decision may stoke up the Republican base to nominate someone very popular with hard core Republicans, but incapable of winning the general election, especially if the recession is over by 2012. This decision couldn't have happened in a worse state for the Republicans.