US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this feature | View comments | Email this feature | Printer-friendly version
News :: GLBT/Queer : Human Rights : International
Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
12 Apr 2005
Modified: 03:23:16 PM
For many communities who have tried to plant roots in the United States, we live in a time of great uncertainty. Everyday we face more limitations on being able to continue with our work and lives in the US, and everyday people like us have to make decisions on how to leave a large part of ourselves behind in order to be able to survive the best way that we can.

We are a bi-national, married, same-sex couple who write to you to share our testimony as a couple living in exile from the United States who desire to reunite with our communities. We are looking for ways to tell our story from the other end of the continent, and we hope that you might sign on to these words as individuals or as organizations in order to support our case.

####

Para muchas comunidades que han intentado plantar raíces en los estados unidos, vivimos en un tiempo de mucha incertidumbre. Hoy día enfrentamos más limitaciones para poder continuar con nuestro trabajo y vidas en los estados unidos, y cada día personas como nosotras necesitan tomar decisiones sobre como dejar un gran parte de nosotros mismos atrás para poder sobrevivir de una mejor manera.

Somos una pareja casada bi-nacional del mismo sexo que les escribe a ustedes para compartir nuestro testimonio como una pareja viviendo en el exilio de los estados unidos, que desea reunirse con nuestras comunidades. Estamos buscando maneras para contar nuestra historia desde el otro lado del continente, y esperamos que ustedes firmen estas palabras como personas o como organizaciones para apoyar nuestro caso.
couple.jpg
(espanol abajo)

To: Organizations and Individuals
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple
Contact: Hana Tauber & Miriam Morales, hana (at) riseup.net and m_morales (at) riseup.net

April 10th, 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

For many communities who have tried to plant roots in the United States, we live in a time of great uncertainty. Everyday we face more limitations on being able to continue with our work and lives in the US, and everyday people like us have to make decisions on how to leave a large part of ourselves behind in order to be able to survive the best way that we can. We are a bi-national, married, same-sex couple who write to you to share our testimony as a couple living in exile from the United States who desire to reunite with our communities. We are looking for ways to tell our story from the other end of the continent, and we hope that you might sign on to these words as individuals or as organizations in order to support our case.

We are fortunate to be included among the couples of Massachusetts who have been able to legally marry and acknowledged on a state level. Among family and friends, we were married in East Boston on May 23rd, 2004 the weekend just after same-sex marriages became legal on May 17th, 2004. What marked us as different among the rest of couples is that we were one of the few couples and perhaps the only couple that consisted of a US citizen and an undocumented immigrant partner. Within standard immigration law, married couples are allowed to sponsor their immigrant partner for residency, but gay couples are barred from this and other federal benefits because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Miriam was an undocumented immigrant in the US who could not resolve her legal status and now faces a 10 year penalty for re-entry unless sponsored by a family member (who could only be Hana, as her spouse). No one encouraged the marriage of couples like us this since coming forward puts the immigrant partner at risk, but we were ready to return to Miriam’s country of origin, Uruguay, since we realized that if Hana was unable to provide the protection forMiriam, we could not continue to live in the US in a stable and safe situation. Because of our choice, we are one of the few and perhaps only bi-national couples that consisted of a US citizen and an undocumented immigrant partner that could get married and go through this process.

Before our departure to Uruguay, we married in East Boston and Hana filed a petition to immigration to give Miriam residency. The week after our marriage and a few days before our departure, the City of Providence, where we temporarily worked and studied, officially acknowledged our marriage. Another step was that the Uruguayan consulate in New York and the Internal Ministry of Uruguay recognize our marriage, and Hana is currently in the process of applying for Uruguayan residency. However, we still are not able to do anything to re-enter the US together and give Miriam residency from Hana’s home country. We believe that if gay people are considered full citizens in the United States, than we should have the right to bestow the protections of our citizenship for our partners, just as any other couple consisting of an immigrant and US citizen.

On March 15th, 2005, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services issued us a letter stating that Hana’s petition for Miriam as her spouse will be denied by immigration since the federal government is not bounded by state law that sanctions same-sex marriages. Specifically the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines any marriage for purposes of federal law, to be between a man and a woman. We were told that because our case involves “unusually complex or novel issues of law” immigration would automatically forwarded our case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for their review where we can submit a written brief to defend our petition. If we are rejected from the Board of Immigration Appeals, we can choose to appeal our case to the Federal Circuit Courts, and if rejected there, to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.

Before we can consider moving our case forward to the federal court level, we need to share the story of our case and find more support for our cause. We would like to use this time to look for allies and/or others who find themselves in a similar situation, and to others who are also trying to find an alternative for living together with the right to movement and stability in their communities, wherever they might be. We request that you share this letter with your networks of individuals and organizations to see if they will sign on for support.

We thank you for your solidarity!

Sincerely,


Hana Tauber & Miriam Morales


Please fill in your information below and forward it to hana (at) riseup.net and m_morales (at) riseup.net. Thank you for your support!

Name Organization Address E-mail Telephone
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

####

Para: Para Organizaciones e Individuos
Re: Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
Contacto: Hana Tauber & Miriam Morales, hana (at) riseup.net y m_morales (at) riseup.net

10 de abril, 2005

A Quien Corresponda:

Para muchas comunidades que han intentado plantar raíces en los estados unidos, vivimos en un tiempo de mucha incertidumbre. Hoy día enfrentamos más limitaciones para poder continuar con nuestro trabajo y vidas en los estados unidos, y cada día personas como nosotras necesitan tomar decisiones sobre como dejar un gran parte de nosotros mismos atrás para poder sobrevivir de una mejor manera. Somos una pareja casada bi-nacional del mismo sexo que les escribe a ustedes para compartir nuestro testimonio como una pareja viviendo en el exilio de los estados unidos, que desea reunirse con nuestras comunidades. Estamos buscando maneras para contar nuestra historia desde el otro lado del continente, y esperamos que ustedes firmen estas palabras como personas o como organizaciones para apoyar nuestro caso.

Tuvimos la fortuna de ser incluidas entre las parejas de Massachussets que han podido casarse legalmente y con reconocimiento a nivel estatal. Entre familia y amigo, nos casamos en el Este Boston el 23 de Mayo del 2004, el fin de semana justo después que los matrimonios de mismo sexo fueron legalizados el 17 de Mayo del 2004. Lo que marcó la diferencia con el resto de las parejas que es que éramos uno de las pocas parejas y talvez la única que consistió de un ciudadano de los estados unidos y una pareja inmigrante indocumentada. Entre la ley común de inmigración, las parejas casadas pueden solicitar a su pareja inmigrante para la residencia, pero las parejas gay tienen una barra de eso y otro beneficio federales por causa del Acto de la Defensa de Matrimonio de 1996.

Miriam era una inmigrante indocumentada en los estados unidos que no pudo resolver su estado legal y ahora enfrenta una pena de 10 años para el reingreso al país, a menos que ella sea pedida por un miembro de la familia (que solo podría ser Hana, como su esposa). Nadie animó el casamiento de parejas como nosotras porque al presentarse pone la pareja inmigrante en peligro, pero nosotras estuvimos listas para volver al país de origen de Miriam, Uruguay, porque entendimos que si Hana no puede proveer la protección para Miriam, no podríamos seguir viviendo en los estados unidos en una situación estable y segura. Por causa de nuestra opción, somos uno de las pocas y talvez la única pareja bi-nacional que consistió de un ciudadano de los estados unidos y una pareja inmigrante indocumentada que pudo casarse y hacer este proceso.

Antes de nuestra salida para Uruguay, nos casamos en Este Boston y Hana hizo una petición a inmigración para dar la residencia a Miriam. La semana después de nuestro matrimonio y pocos días antes de nuestra ida, la Ciudad de Providence, donde temporalmente trabajamos y estudiamos, nos reconoció oficialmente nuestro matrimonio. Otro paso fue que el consulado Uruguayo en Nuevo York y el Ministerio Interno de Uruguay reconoció nuestro matrimonio, y Hana ahora esta en el proceso de solicitar la residencia Uruguaya. Sin embargo, no podemos hacer nada para reingresar los estados unidos juntas y dar la residencia a Miriam desde el país de origen de Hana. Creemos que si la gente gay son considerados como ciudadanos completos de los estados unidos, entonces debemos tener el derecho a dar las protecciones de nuestra ciudadanía a nuestras parejas como las otras parejas que consisten de un inmigrante y ciudadano de los estados unidos.

El 15 de marzo, los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos nos mando una carta diciendo que la petición de Hana para Miriam como esposa será negada por inmigración porque el gobierno federal no necesita respetar la ley estatal que permite los matrimonios del mismo sexo. Específicamente el Acto de la Defensa de Matrimonio del 1996 define cualquier matrimonio como entre un hombre y una mujer para los propósitos de la ley federal. Nos dijeron que por causa que nuestro caso tiene “temas inusualmente complejos o nuevos de la ley” que inmigración mandará nuestro caso automáticamente a la Junta de Apelación de Inmigración para su revisión donde podemos somete una composición escrita para defender nuestra petición. Si nos niegan en la Junta de Apelación de Inmigración, podemos hacer la opción en apelar nuestro caso a los Circuitos de las Cortes Federales, y si nos niegan allí, podemos apelar el caso a la Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos.

Antes que podamos considerar mover nuestro caso hacia el nivel de los cortes federal, necesitamos compartir la historia de nuestro caso y buscar mas apoyo para nuestra causa. Nos gustaría usar este tiempo para buscar aliados y otros que se encuentren en una situación similar, y a otros que también están tratando a buscar una alternativa para vivir juntos con el derecho al movimiento y estabilidad en sus comunidades, a donde sean. Pedimos que compartan esta carta con sus redes de individuales y organizaciones para ver si firmen para apoyar.

¡Les agradecemos por su solidaridad!

Sinceramente,


Hana Tauber & Miriam Morales

Por favor llene su información y enviela a hana (at) riseup.net y m_morales (at) riseup.net ¡Gracias por su apoyo!

Nombre Organización Dirección Correo Electrónico Teléfono
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Oh, this is rich. Now, the government will have a whole new weapon to fight GLBT marriages
13 Apr 2005
Congratulations on your Union. However, the "undocumented immigrant" is actually an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Our current political correctness is only an affectation to prevent the harsh sounding term which better decribes them. If same-sex marriage is going to be used to try to circumvent the immigration status of an illegal, then the Feds are going to have a very valid argument against it.

I have absolutely nothing against same-sex marriage (SSM), but the illegal immigrants here in the United States are a big thorn in my side. Perhaps you should have started the process of legal immigration before taking this case to Court. I can guarantee you that as soon as this is taken to the legal levels above the State level, your case will be decided against you. Your marriage is not legal in the adjacent states to MA, nor in any of the other 49 states.

* 37 states have enacted "Defense of Marriage Acts" (DOMAs) that ban same-sex marriage. Other states have similar legislation pending.
* 3 states (AK, NE, NV) have amended their state constitutions to ban SSM.
* 4 states (MD, OR, WI, WY) have marriage laws that specifically prohibit SSM
* 5 states (CT, NJ, NM, NY, RI) and DC have no explicit prohibition of SSM.
* 1 state (MA) allows SSM, but only to residents of the state.

The chances of you winning your battle are about nil. In fact, it may give the Feds the ammunition to nullify and reverse the court decision won by the State of MA to allow the State to issue marriage licenses to SSM couples.

I wish I hadnt read this article.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
13 Apr 2005
"the illegal immigrants here in the United States are a big thorn in my side"

Well then I hope you bleed to death you nationalist fuck. How is this woman "illegal"? She is in Uruguay.

I think you don't understand what's involved in this case from a legal or ethical perspective. A state-recognized heterosexual marriage grants and has always granted certain rights vis-a-vis the naturalization process. This is a case of the federal government using the DOMA to block those rights to a same-sex couple, and in turn exploiting the anti-immigrant racism of people like you to set an important precedent that weighs on the implied constitutionality of the DOMA. People like you--who are willing to say "hey, I'm all for same sex marriage usually, but not if it means giving them 'illegals' one more human right"--are precisely the segment of the population the administration depends on to advance its strategy. It's pretty amazing how consistently you can rely on privileged people to abandon their solidarity once rights won by a movement begin to threaten their privilege (e.g., earlier in this century when African-Americans began being more accepted into the labor movement, a lot of white people who unionization had helped abandoned the labor movement and began supporting politicians who tried to destroy it). Once people like you get to the roof, you give the ladder a good shove so not too many people follow you up.

Nobody is illegal.
Uneducated
13 Apr 2005
Iron Council, only the uneducated and/or the ignorant use profanity in print.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
13 Apr 2005
"Iron Council, only the uneducated and/or the ignorant use profanity in print."

Wow, gee, you really engaged with my argument there. Score one for the "educated"!
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
13 Apr 2005
Iron Council, I may agree with your argument, ergo, nothing to engage. You have, however, shown yourself to be at the very least ignorant and immature. You may or may not be educated. You appear to me - a casual observer -be quite uneducated. Nevertheless, you are certainly ignorant and immature.
hmm
13 Apr 2005
So it would have been more mature to call "Straight as an arrow" a "nationalist scumbag" maybe? I can live with that.
Indeed. Blurting out nonsensical statements does not help your position.
13 Apr 2005
YOUR QUOTE: "Well then I hope you bleed to death you nationalist fuck. How is this woman "illegal"? She is in Uruguay."

QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: "Among family and friends, we were married in East Boston on May 23rd, 2004 the weekend just after same-sex marriages became legal on May 17th, 2004"

Besides the fact that you didnt bother to read the article from the women, you obviously did not comprehend it. SSM is not even legal in Uruguay. Its ONLY legal in Mass and nowhere else in the United States.

Something else, I am not the one who made the immigration laws, but I certainly support them. If that invisible border between countries is what makes the difference between the Third World nations of Mexico, Uruguay and the like, and the luxury of the United States, then I support those laws by all means (as do 90% of Americans).

Why is she here illegally anyway? Why dont they just live in Uruguay? (as if).
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
13 Apr 2005
"SSM is not even legal in Uruguay."

Actually, in Uruguay at least pension rights have been won by same-sex couples, and there's a very strong movement toward increasing rights and recognition for civil unions. Uruguay is a very progressive place; there's a monument to sexual diversity in the capital city. Talk about ignorant blurtings.

You ask: "Why is she here illegally anyway?" And you attack MY reading comprehension skills? If you had read beyond the first two paragraphs, you would have learned that they are in Uruguay:

"Before our departure to Uruguay, we married in East Boston..."

You ask: "Why dont they just live in Uruguay?" Why shouldn't they both be able to visit the American woman's friends and family here?

"If that invisible border between countries is what makes the difference between the Third World nations of Mexico, Uruguay and the like, and the luxury of the United States, then I support those laws by all means (as do 90% of Americans)."

Yes. And those "invisible" lines have also been completely integral in *producing* both the poverty on one side and the wealth on the other. Those lines guarantee that the luxuries that have been won by workers here in the global North can be systematically stripped from us by breaking up the productive process and moving key segments of it to places where people tremble under the regimes of global capital's local strongmen--places like Colombia and Indonesia--who ensure that their labor is cheap and that workers who try to organize will disappear. I am unabashedly with the 10% of people in our country who have come to realize that these borders ultimately do us more harm than good. Here is a case of a family being torn apart by the violence of the state, supported by a coalition of uncaring homophobes and uncaring bigots like you.

Here is a woman who cannot laugh around a dinner table with her wife and her parents at the same time. It's one case among millions. I suppose it's good that you're at least willing to admit that you are content in the knowledge that your privilege, your luxury, is built on the shattered lives of so many others.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
13 Apr 2005
Illegal alien and undocumented is not the same thing at all. Illegal is someone who entered this country without a visa. Undocumented is someone who entered the country legally and overstayed their permit or were not able to extend their legal stay in the US.

For example, someone who has a work visa with a company and is laid off together with other employees, loses the work visa and has 7 months to re-apply or has to leave the country. A person with a student visa has 1 year where he/she can work legally in the US and then has to apply for a visa.

Marriage is just one of the ways that many immigrants in this country seek to legalize their status AND the reason why many of them decide to stay. People fall in love (weird concept huh?). Many try desperately to work out their status within the deadline rather than leave their loved ones behind and many become undocumented in the process.

Hana and Miriam are obviously trying to stay within legal terms, or else they would have stayed here in this country. They went to Uruguay because Miriam's probably overstayed her visa. We're talking about separating families here.

This is a fascinating case. If gay marriage is legal so should be the right to apply for citizenship through your partner.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
13 Apr 2005
Well put sofiushka.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
14 Apr 2005
straight as an arrow seems suspiciously trollish, as does kimba. I could be wrong but, neither of them really engaged in a conversation but only tried to piss off people.

Best thing to do is say your piece and let them make fools of themselves. If they seem like fools to you then you can bet they appear the same to 99.9% of our readers.
Oh come on, Pete. READ the messages. Nothing trollish about them at all.
14 Apr 2005
Your definition of "troll" is as follows:

""An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person."

The lead article suggests that there is something wrong with enforcing immigrations laws when marriage is involved. I started my original message with a congratulatory remark, then presented FACTS. I have stated that I am straight, but support the concerns of the GLBT community.I happen to support the current immigration laws, and as such, I cannot support the deccision of Hana and her spouse to take their case to the Supreme Court. What will happen is that the Feds will realize the potential for abuse by same-sex couples consisting of one illegal and one citizen. In the long term, it may hurt or reverse the victories won by the State of MA. In case you didnt realize it, 49 of 50 states fo NOT allow SSM but DO allow "Domestic Partnership" which affords all the tax benefits and priviliges of married couples and does so irregardless of sex.

The fool here has alreay shown his head....ahem....

Does any conservative viewpoint (mine is more centrist) come off as "foolish" or "trollish" to you Pete? Why attempt to create friction by passing judgement on those with which you disagree? This thread was following a distinct and generally courteous path until you rudely interrupted it with your judgemental comments.

FOR THE RECORD:

1. I support the same-sex union between Hana and Miriam.

2. I am straight, but I support gay people and their issues.

3. I am against iillegal immigration, and I am against using marriage to circumvent immigration laws, no matter if it is a same-sex couple or a straight couple.

4. I think that fighting a case in Federal court which cannot prevail, and doing so at the risk of losing the small gains achieved by the State of MA is selfish and irresponsible.

Trolls dont carefully write intelligent responses to articles....WITHOUT passing judgement....do they?
BTW, why didnt you call "iron council" a troll?
14 Apr 2005
The only comments in this thread which are "trollish" were posted by "iron council":

"supported by a coalition of uncaring homophobes and uncaring bigots like you"

AND

"Well then I hope you bleed to death you nationalist fuck"

Did you conveniently ignore those comments because they did not violate your extreme Left bias? I respect you, Pete, but you are an editor here, and you have a responsibility to be somewhat objective in your comments. Lets hear more about this issue, because it is interesting and the participants seem to be having a healty debate free of "trollish" behavior, or do you disagree?
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
14 Apr 2005
"What will happen is that the Feds will realize the potential for abuse by same-sex couples consisting of one illegal and one citizen."

The legal-tactical argument is one thing. What you are saying here involves something else altogether, and I really don't see the ethical basis: you feel that legal opportunities which are currently available to heterosexuals, i.e. naturalization for their partner, should not be extended to gay and lesbian people; but not because you have anything against gay and lesbian people--because you don't think that those legal opportunities should be available in the first place. You are actually advocating the *elimination* of those opportunities for all people, because in your view, each of those situations includes the granting of citizenship status to non-citizens, which you oppose.

This is what I read in your statement:
"I am against iillegal immigration, and I am against using marriage to circumvent immigration laws..."

Just to get absolutely clear on this: a few years ago two of my friends (a man and a woman) got married, and I went to their wedding. They were in love and planning to get married anyway, but moved the date up in an attempt to beat the expiration of the groom's work visa, which would have sent him back to Ireland. They married, and he has gotten naturalized, in my impression on some kind of fast track that involves his spouse being a citizen. Now, in your opinion, that shouldn't have happened, right? That was "using marriage to circumvent immigration laws"? People who aren't citizens are a "thorn in your side" and you want *all* of them out, so we should change the immigration laws accordingly?

Let us know, because if that is really your position--hardly a "centrist" one I should note--that should be out front when you make your comments on this case.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
14 Apr 2005
By the way: you're straight. We get it. We got it the first time. You named yourself after it. If repeating it makes you feel straighter or something, that’s one thing, but the more you mention it the more it sounds like you’re using it to bolster or lend legitimacy to your argument, which kind of ends up having the opposite effect.
No, not exactly.
14 Apr 2005
First, thank you for being civil. Now lets look at this statement you made:

"The legal-tactical argument is one thing. What you are saying here involves something else altogether, and I really don't see the ethical basis: you feel that legal opportunities which are currently available to heterosexuals, i.e. naturalization for their partner, should not be extended to gay and lesbian people; but not because you have anything against gay and lesbian people--because you don't think that those legal opportunities should be available in the first place."

No, that's not what I meant at all. The legal opportunities available to heterosexuals are already available to gay couples in the form of Domestic Partnership. The SSM marriage issue is a different issue altogether. Gays want their unions to be EXACTLY the same as heterosexual marriages, and they want religious and legal recognition of those marriages in all those places where marriages are legal. That is the goal, correct? The rest of America is already up in arms about this issue, so coming into it with more negative issues (illegal immigrants marrying legal citizens) is fuel for the fire. It can do nothing but hurt.

I am against illegal immigration, I am for deportation of illegals, and I do not feel that legal status should be conferred to illegals simply because they marry a citizen. Being gay has nothing to do with that. I feel the same way about hetero couples in the same situation. Why? Because there is a process in place (more than 100 years now) which immigrants must follow in order to gain legal status.

The potential for abuse is too great.

Here is a scenario: A foreign national wants to gain entry into the US in order to infiltrate the military. They contact a gay person here in the States through a chat room. They offer to pay $5000 to marry (to legalize citizenship), and then divorce 6 months later with their legal status intact.

Here is another (similar to Hana and Miriam): An illegal who has been here for a while, KNOWING they are illegal and made no effort to attempt legal immigration...or is "resolving" her issue by attempting to push her application for citizenship ahead of the other more conscientious and patient applicants who did not become illegal in the first place.

There is no way to ice cream this issue. This is not an issoe of SSM, its an immigration issue which will not be resolved by trying to circumvent the waiting period that all other (less self-centered) applicants must endure.
yes, exactly.
14 Apr 2005
"Here is a scenario: A foreign national wants to gain entry into the US in order to infiltrate the military. They contact a gay person here in the States through a chat room. They offer to pay $5000 to marry (to legalize citizenship), and then divorce 6 months later with their legal status intact."

Okay... besides the fact that you underestimate the scrutiny and monitoring that couples are put through before, during, and after the naturalization of a spouse, and how long that naturalization process actually takes... here's another scenario:

A foreign national wants to gain entry into the US in order to infiltrate the military. They contact a straight person here in the States through a chat room. They offer to pay $5000 to marry (to legalize citizenship), and then divorce 6 months later with their legal status intact.

It'd be a much easier plan. There's a hell of a lot more straight people.

Look, as I said, there are two separate and separable parts to what you've been saying. The first part is that you are afraid that bringing forward this case at this point in time has a potential to set the same-sex marriage struggle back in various ways (fuel for the reactionary backlash; setting precedents about DOMAs, etc.). That's one argument, and there's a necessary conversation to have around that, concerning some of the social ethics of these individuals' wanting to bring their case forward: should Hana be expected to live in quiet exile, or Miriam to live in quiet fear, for the rest of their lives so that they don't risk disrupting a strategy put forth by the socially privileged leaders and strategists of the SSM movement? It's a tough question, and I'm personally not in any position to answer it.

The second thing you're saying, which is as I said completely distinct from that objection, is that you want the ten to twelve million people currently living in the US without the privilege of citizen status or visa tracked down, apprehended, and deported to whatever impoverished, globalization-and/or-dictatorship-destroyed place they struggled so hard to escape in the first place, and you figure this appeal from Hana and Miriam is as good a time as any to vent your opinion on the subject. It's completely separable, it's driven by a completely different logic; it's called nativism. Nativism flares up every now and again in this country as an easy answer every time our statesmen and masters of industry drive us all into another ditch. I have no intention whatsoever of being civil to you if you insist on dragging your fearful xenophobic baggage into this discussion of these two women's case, and try to blur the line between the progressive tactical questions involved here and your stupid Fortress America platform.
Pete Stidman
15 Apr 2005
Pete Stidman said:
"straight as an arrow seems suspiciously trollish, as does kimba. I could be wrong but, neither of them really engaged in a conversation but only tried to piss off people."

Pete has a strange definition of troll (a stupid term to begin with). Pete seems to think that if you cry foul on someone's gratuitous use of profanity, you are a troll. Pete, please grow up. If you can't moderate this forum properly then you should step down. You seem suspiciously immature.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
15 Apr 2005
No, you're immature, for whining about other people using Bad Words on a website you choose to read and whining about the moderation policy on a website you choose to post on.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
16 Apr 2005
Hello. I am a volunteer that helps keep this site running. Thanks for attacking me for trying to keep the conversation fruitful. Thanks also for making sure to use my full name in your attack while hiding behind a fake indentity.

If you want to be taken seriously try to grow up yourself, take responsibility for your actions, and be considerate to those who try to provide you with a free service for absolutely no compensation.

I would easily apologize if I have mistaken either of you for a troll, but your response to my stated suspicion (notice: not allegation) that you might be trollish was out of proportion to my potential error.

If you like this site, if you like a free and open participatory media, go easy on all of the volunteers here that work their ass off for you trying to innovate a new kind of media.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
18 Apr 2005
No response? good. looks like I win.

Final score:
Solidarity to Hana & Miriam from Boston!!!
Hey, lets commend Pete for his generally good job here.
19 Apr 2005
Hey Kimba, I didnt like Pete's statement implying that Iam a troll, but I am a regular reader here (under different aliases), andI can state that he is USUALLY fair, even if he is unabashedly biased toward the extreme Left.

He COULD have deleted all of the comments he didnt like, but he did not. Incidentally, I agree that "troll" is a stupid term, and if taken literally, could apply to any of the IMC centers since they are going against the grain by publishing articles which bash "corporatist media" and Right Wing issues.

Your work is appreciated, Pete.
No, "iron council", you dont win.
19 Apr 2005
If "winning" means that Hana and Miriam will successfully become a nationally acknowledged SSM couple and Miriam becomes a citizen, and they live happily ever after in the United States, then you cannot win.

I didnt come here to win.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
19 Apr 2005
No, it meant that four days had gone by without you clumsily attempting to defend your xenophobic views. Five and counting, now.
Is that all you have to say?
19 Apr 2005
"No, it meant that four days had gone by without you clumsily attempting to defend your xenophobic views. Five and counting, now."

How many days (or years) go by is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the lead thread. Statisfying your need to "win" or play childish games is unimportant to me. Regarding my "clumsy attempts to defend my xenophobic views"....are you serious?

It is not me who has to defend my views (since they are already the Law of the Land), it is YOU who have to convince others that your rather unrealistic views about immigration and the legality of SSM in this nation are correct. Good luck. Might I suggest that you refrain from using ill-conceived gems such as:

"Nativism flares up every now and again in this country as an easy answer every time our statesmen and masters of industry drive us all into another ditch."

WTF?
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
19 Apr 2005
Saying I'd "won" got you back into this argument, which was obviously the point of it.

You've still done absolutely nothing to argue with what I said (last post on 14 Apr). Pointing out how many other people agree with you--"I don't have to argue with you, the state agrees with me"--can only be a substitution to actually participating in debate.

So, I am correct in pointing out that the two elements you've been voicing are separable arguments, right?
Right. They are two separable arguments.
19 Apr 2005
The arguments are indeed separable, but Hana and Miriam have chosen to combine them. Unwisely, I might add. I said this earlier:

"Congratulations on your Union. However, the "undocumented immigrant" is actually an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Our current political correctness is only an affectation to prevent the harsh sounding term which better decribes them. If same-sex marriage is going to be used to try to circumvent the immigration status of an illegal, then the Feds are going to have a very valid argument against it."

My statements still stand. The two issues are as follows:

1. Same sex marriage (legal in MA and nowhere else).

2. Illegal immigration being made legal my means of marriage.

I am not against SSM, but I am against illegal immigration, and any loophole which allows illegals to become legal OTHER than the standard immigration process whichhas been in place for more than 100 years.

This is not really an argument, its a statement of facts. I hadnt responded because this discussion is basically over. You lose, I win. Hana and Miriam can live happily ever after as a "married" couple in Uruguay (which also makes SSM illegal). No amount of debate or personal attacks against me is going to change that.

GAME OVER.
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
28 Apr 2005
Game over, you're a xenophobe
Re: Rights to Immigration of Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple / Derechos de Inmigración de una Pareja Casada Bi-Nacional del Mismo Sexo
06 Aug 2005
Running from earthwakes in their native countries, all four of my grandparents had to pass all the requirements as individuals- not skip some by coming under the "umbrela" of a community as the author above wants for that particular type of situation. I say make each couple meet the requirements as 10s of millions of others have done. Their sexual acts should not make them eligible to evade any of the other requirements. Do not discriminate on the others by making them do all the requirements while letting the same-sex couples in because they call others names like bigots and so forth. Are the same-sex couples little children that have to degrade and demean others to get an advange over others? Make them work like the others.
mercury car
10 Jun 2006
Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.
renault dealer
13 Jun 2006
Thank you for your site. I have found here much useful information...
toy r us.com
17 Jun 2006
This is very interesting site...
free mp3 song
19 Jun 2006
Pretty nice site, wants to see much more on it! :)
Same-Sex Bi-national Married Couple
23 Jan 2007
This Time it's About Marriage

Pointer
this incorrectly show most women not marrying




The New York Times has once again published another 'hit piece' on the institution of marriage, alleging that for “the first time more American women are living without a husband than with one”. However, US census data for 2005 shows that the January 16th front-page story in the New York Times is just another disturbing showcase of the Times’ tolerance for “journalistic malpractice”.

“For what experts say is probably the first time,” writes Sam Roberts on the Times front page, “more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.”

“In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000,” writes Roberts. He adds that now married couples make up a minority of all American households and “the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.”

The plain truth is that Roberts’ findings are at variance with US census reports for 2005, which demonstrate a far different picture from the profiles selected by Roberts of single women “delighting in their new found freedom.”

According to the 2005 report “Marital Status of the Population by Sex and Age”, the United States is not yet a culture that has discarded the institution of marriage, where 60.4% of men and 56.9% of women over 18 years old are married.

However, Roberts creates his own analysis by using the Census Bureau’s “Living Arrangements of Persons 15 Years Old and Over by Selected Characteristics”, by including in his 51% figure of women living without a spouse: unmarried teenage and college girls still living with their parents, women whose husbands work out of town, are institutionalized, or are separated from husbands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Perhaps most disturbing is how blatantly Roberts’ claims are at variance with US census bureau statistics. Among marriageable women over 18 years old, 56.9% of women are married, with 53% having a spouse present, 1.4% with a spouse absent, 9.9% widowed, and 11.5% divorced. Yet, 67.3% of women 30-34, and 70.5% of women 35-39 are married, a far cry from the profiles of women offered by the Times of women finding fulfillment outside marriage.

“It’s one of a series of articles the New York Times has run…playing games with numbers in a misleading and dishonest way, each one of them having the same point: marriage is over, marriage is finished, nobody wants to get married anymore, people are happier not getting married,” conservative talk show host Medved told his radio audience, accusing the Times of committing “journalistic malpractice”

“Obviously 97% of women between the ages of 15 and 19 are never married!” Medved fumed. “What does it tell you when he’s including girls living home with their parents as single women and then uses that to create this lie that the majority of women are unmarried?”

Dr. Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, said that today’s median marrying age for woman is 26, a fact that radically skew marriage statistics when comparing the data to other eras where men and women married at younger ages. Far from women abandoning marriage, he said “the number of people who want to be married and have it work out well is still extraordinarily high.”

The census data also reflects the reality that women are delaying marriage after age 25. As a percentage, 95.2% of women 18-19 years old, and 74.6% of women 20-24 years old have never married. However, more than half of women have married between 25-29 (41.3% never married), a percentage which continues to increase in the other age groups.

Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family described the article as “another brazen attempt by The New York Times to advance an ultra-liberal social agenda," adding that the profiles seemed more interested in disparaging marriage and discouraging young women from even considering it than reporting the fact that married women have better physical and emotional health than unmarried ones.

"Marriage as an institution is suffering in our country," he added. "We should do everything we can to promote healthy, stable marital relationships, because those relationships remain the bedrock of our society."

www.sfimc.com

http://www.raven1.net/nessie/27.htm
"nessie"
30 Jan 2007
You mean *this* nessie?

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/1698659.php

(snip)

nessie

(snip)