tigretigre

Funny...I heard that religion wants Elton John banned.

My cat is not oversexed--she's spayed. She can't help it that she happens to be bursting with sex appeal.

No, I was watching some movies, playing WoW, trolling other forums and cuddling with the cat all at once. I'm superwoman, woot!

And I thought I said to stop posting!! WTH Cristy, you should apologize RIGHT NOW, ya hear?!

Was it Steve's gay cat, or my sexy cat?

Point of clarification, because I think certain people would bring polygamy up a lot less if they actually knew what it was:

Polygamy is one person entering into multiple marriages. Each marriage is the union of two people--the polygamist, and someone else. Let's say Morgan the Polygamist marries Lee the Spouse, and then marries Pat the Spouse and then Terry the Spouse. Lee and Pat and Terry are all married to Morgan, but not to each other. Legalizing polygamy wouldn't redefine marriage to include more than two people--it would just make it legal to be party to more than one marriage at the same time.

Given the nature of the marital agreement, which includes a mutual duty of support, it's quite apparent to me why the government might have policy concerns about polygamy that have nothing to do with "lifestyle issues." Puh-lease don't tell me you can't imagine why the government would possibly be concerned about potential state expense associated with tapped-out polygamists, not to mention the enormous potential for fraud. In essence, the government is characterizing the civil marital agreement as an exclusive one. That's much different from the government saying that, because of their respective genders, certain people are not allowed to enter into the marital agreement at all.

I also pointed out that I am torn on this issue, as there are valid points to each side...yet you're too close minded to see that someone who has deep roots in religion is basing beliefs not in hate, but in the belief of their Holy Book...whatever that may be.

I can respect that someone's religious principles mandate a disapproval of gay marriage, or even a refusal to recognize it as a proper marriage. I have no problem with that, as this person is entitled to adhere to his or her religious beliefs. I have an enormous problem with the idea that this person is also entitled to have his or her religious views enforced throughout the country by way of government action.

Wowowowowow so much to say, and so little time before I'm completely debilitated from doing so by carpal tunnel syndrome!

Here's how laws that discriminate work: If the government passes a law that treats two classes of persons differently, or denies any civil rights to a particular class of persons, and someone challenges that law, the law has to pass a "test." How hard the test is depends on the class of persons and the right denied. By way of example only, laws that treat people of different races differently have to pass a really rigorous test in order to be allowed, because of the degree to which race has been a factor in discrimination historically. Laws that deny a certain group of people the right to vote also must pass a really rigorous test in order to be allowed, because of the fundamental nature of the right to vote in this country.

In order to pass any of the tests, the government has to advance an interest in keeping the law that outweighs the interests of the persons whose rights are affected by the law. Someone here mentioned polygamy--in the Reynolds case, the government was able to show that it had an interest in prohibiting polygamy that outweighed the right of the plaintiff to practice his religion in this way. Remember, by the way, that polygamy is one person being married to multiple people simultaneously. If I recall, the public charge issue was pretty central to this case--the government was concerned about the risk that parties to these polygamous marriages and their children would end up on government assistance because of problems associated with having one person be legally responsible for the support of multiple families. The court considered the government's interest in keeping large numbers of people off the welfare rolls to outweigh the interest in the plaintiff's being able to practice this aspect of his faith in this fashion.

What interests do folks think the government could advance that would override the interest same-sex couples have in equal access to the institution of marriage? Keep in mind that arguments like "the government has an interest in protecting the public morals" haven't impressed the courts as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals (Lawrence v. Texas).

And Gary, the fact that the gay marriage ban was approved in several states by popular vote doesn't matter squat in a civil rights context. In this country, we aren't supposed to be putting civil rights to the popular vote.

As for the validity of marriage issue--the general rule is that state governments and the federal government will recognize the validity of any marriage that was legal in the state or country in which it took place, unless there are compelling public policy reasons not to do so. This is what happened in Loving v. Virginia--an interracial couple married in a state that allowed interracial marriage, and then moved to Virginia where it was illegal. Virginia refused to recognize the marriage as valid. The court said they had to recognize it, which essentially struck down the interracial marriage ban in that state. In another case, an underage girl and an older man ran away, got married in a state that at the time didn't require parental consent for minors under 16 to marry, and then came back home. The court said that their home state did not have to recognize that marriage because it had a compelling policy interest in preventing adults from absconding with its minor residents. Right now, state governments (and the federal government) are not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid even though they may have occured in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal, and no compelling public policy reason is yet forthcoming, which is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Finally, the question about protecting churches from being compelled to perform gay marriages: this kind of legal protection for churches already exists. It's called the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It effectively prevents the government from acting to mandate or prohibit the practice of any religion. It's not ironclad--there is a balancing test of government interests and individual rights--so please nobody present scenarios of ritual decapitation of children as a "what-if" argument. However, it will offer pretty solid protection to churches that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriages, as a church's recognition or non-recognition of a marriage has no legal effect.

As for the NAMBLA case, if it was a wrongful death lawsuit, that's a tort suit and I'd have tossed it if I were the judge unless the argument for causation was pretty compelling. Of course the ACLU doesn't want an unpopular organization to get dragged into civil court and have to pay damages every one of their members hurts some one, simply because the organization's message is so unpopular that nobody really minds. A private tort action isn't the same as a criminal prosecution--I bet there could be a pretty good prosecutorial case against NAMBLA for conspiracy to commit child sex abuse, and the free speech issue would be a lot murkier.

Eat my post!

Tigre

you can get a realtors license with just a written test! The time some of you sit and squawk about pay you could be sellin your first house!

The problem right now would be finding someone to buy the house.

Its the Bush adminstration's John Wayne, sorry General Custer style approach to the middle-east that is the primary cause for the public backlash against him and the Republican party, not "liberal media" and not the actions Al Qaeda fighters. Bush seems to believe that the war on terror supersedes being politically accountable. The democratic process has proven otherwise - despite the fact that it took the electorate 6 years to figure it out.

Very, very well-put. I've been pretty sick of this "don't sass me, I'm fighting the War on Terror" attitude that's come out of the White House whenever anybody's had the temerity to question the President's position, or suggest that another approach should be considered. I guess I wasn't the only one.

I'm not going to get into the what-about-polygamy debate with you, so when you argue with me, you will have to remove that from your arsenal of wit. There have been government interests advanced in the prohibition of polygamy that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality or the "definition of marriage," and in any case polygamists are not per se a class of persons whose disenfranchisement triggers Constitutional scrutiny. Unless you want to get into a discussion about religious freedom, equal protection, and the three-prong test for violation of the Establishment Clause. Something tells me you don't.

What I will say is that you took the most inconsequential part of what I said and made it the focus of your argument, without addressing the issues presented to you. Before you say another word about polygamy, which I didn't write about, it would be nice if you would do me the courtesy of addressing the issues that I and other people have raised in our posts.

All this tells me is that nobody really liked Rumsfeld that much. Not even mean terrorists.

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

I think I read somewhere that we're all endowed with the same inalienable rights. It's not a question of you or I or anybody in this thread "granting" rights to others. The question isn't whether I would "grant equal rights" to someone--it is whether I will stand up and protect his or her inalienable rights when they are threatened.

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

Under the law, there is nothing sacred about marriage between a man and a woman. Under the law, marriage is a construct of rights, duties and privileges that are gender-neutral. What makes a marriage sacred and unique is what the two people who make that commitment bring to it, and our legal tradition has recognized the importance of the government staying out of this private aspect of marriage as much as is possible.

If part of what makes your marriage special and sacred to you is the fact that you and your partner are different sexes, then by all means celebrate that in your covenant. But don't make it part of mine.

My cat is hot. I think other cats of either gender would find her attractive.

Most Americans believed that marriage between a black person and a white person was immoral, unnatural, and deviant when the Supreme Court held in Loving v. Virginia that state bans on interracial marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.

There are a not-insignificant number of Americans who still hold these beliefs. Nobody's stopping them. They can view it as immoral, unnatural, and deviant all they like. And interracial couples can go right ahead and get married anyway.

The whole reason we have this system of courts as interpreters of Constitutional rights is because in this country we aren't supposed to allow "most Americans" to decide who gets Constitutional protections and who doesn't. If you're a woman and you voted on Tuesday, if you're a black person and you sued a white person in court, if you're Jewish and you worked at a government job, you've enjoyed a Constitutional protection that the majority of Americans did not want you to have when the courts decided you were entitled to it.

The Supreme Court, in another unpopular decision, once held that mandating separate legal institutions for different groups of people based on classifications like race and gender and disability was inherent discrimination, even if the institutions functioned equally. To allow one group (heterosexuals) access to the institution of marriage, and restricting access to the other group (homosexuals), or even restricting them to an institution that offers most of the rights and protections of marriage but cannot by law be called "marriage," offers a pretty good test case for this holding, in my opinion. And I believe that's where this will be decided--in a courtroom. It will get called "judicial activism," and people will be mad about it, but gay couples will be able to go right ahead and get married anyway. That's how people's rights are safeguarded from the tyranny of the American popular vote.

So, as a proponent of legalizing gay marriage YESTERDAY, I'm not telling you that you have to accept what you call a homosexual lifestyle. I'm not telling you that you have to like it, approve of it, support it, or tolerate it. You don't, and you won't. I'm telling you that when the courts do make this decision, what you think is right or wrong won't stop people gay people from getting married. The law will not tell you what to think and how to feel. It will ask that when it comes to who does and doesn't get married, you mind your own business.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it's child abuse to teach your children that homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and wrong. I just think it's really sad.

It will be a clear sign that the terrorists have won when the Democrats propose one of their pet pieces of national defense-weakening, terrorist-helping legislation that would allow our government to negotiate with Big Pharma for lower drug prices.

In 2001, Prozac went generic in the U.S. and prices plummeted. In 2001, the U.S. was attacked by terrorists. COINCIDENCE? The Democrats would have you believe that the cost of prescription drugs and national security are unrelated issues, but the evidence is clear: when drug prices go down, the terrorists win!

You see, not every American thinks about terrorism 24/7. Many Americans are clearly willing to risk the possibility that the Democrats are allied with al-Qaeda and will fling open the doors to terrorists, for a chance at a higher minimum wage, affordable medicines, and other frivolities.

It's absolutely mad.

Now the scientists just need to find a way to replace the tails of the blind mice that were cut off by that sadistic, carving knife-wielding farmer's wife.

Nov. 30 he will be here. His family would have rioted if he tried to leave any earlier.

I can't wait! It's been so great to do stuff like getting the house painted and fixed up for him, and planning our wedding, rather than reading the FAM over and over and drafting letters to various medical professionals. I just get nervous that being too happy and excited will bring him bad luck or something. After months of immigration paranoia, it's hard to relax!

OK so my fella and I went to the US Embassy in London for his K1 interview on 9/15. Here's the rundown:

-Got there around 9:30 for his 10:00 appointment.

-Got in line, some ladies came by asking everyone in line if they had liquids (yeah this was back during that)

-Got to the ZZ Top guy at the front. He asked who I was...I said I was D's fiancee. He beamed at me..."I like that!" Said D's passport photo was too scary, but let us in anyway.

-Had to divest myself of my lipstick at the security checkpoint, and D had to ditch his cell phone. D got to take his umbrella in, though. Sharp pokey thing = ok. L'Oreal Shine Delice in Cranberry Pop = security risk?

-Got in. Felt like such a VIP because all I had to do was flash my U.S. Passport and they would nod me through. D's was checked against the schedule 3 times at 3 different checkpoints. We said "K1" and the lady gave us a number and told us where to sit.

-We sat. It was like the DMV on acid. They called a bunch of numbers, but it appeared to be in absolutely no order that we could figure out. We tried a few times, but it was just too chaotic.

-We were finally called to a window where our papers were taken by a nice gentleman with an Eastern European accent. He was lovely. We only had one copy of the 156 and they wanted 2. The gentleman said that's why they keep a photocopier behind the counter. Problem solved. Fingerprints taken. They wanted minimal paperwork--just my I-134 and supporting documentation, besides the forms D had to do.

-We sat. A long time.

-Finally at just about quarter of noon, we were called up to the interview window. A young, rather brisk but not unpleasant American woman asked some basic "when did you meet, when are you planning to go to the U.S.?" stuff. Then she asked if she could speak with my fiance alone. I was like, uh, ok. I went just around the corner.

-10 minutes pass, felt like 10 hours. D comes back around the corner, white as a sheet, shaking like a leaf. "She wants to talk to you now. I'm getting all flustered. I forgot the name of your company!"

-I went to the window. She asked what I did for a living. I gave the name of my company and explained my job. "So that's like, legal publishing?" That's exactly what it is, I said. I could tell by her face I'd given the right answer, whew! Wanted to know why I wasn't practicing law. I said I was certified for admission to the bar, but that I really liked the job I had now, and that it was with a good company. "But you could make a lot more money as a lawyer." I said that I could, but then I'd be spending a lot more time at the office and a lot less time with D and our family. She said yeah, that's definitely true. She asked me a bunch of times if I understood my support obligations (I did), then said that I earned enough to sponsor D and that she was happy to issue the visa. Explained the courier thing. I said, "so we're approved?" She said yes, we were. To me. The USC.

-Went back, gave the good news to D. He could hardly believe it, having not actually heard it himself, but we went and signed up for the courier service. Then we got out of there and crossed the street to the park and sat on the bench and decompressed. Took a while to sink in that it was over, and all was well. And that we'd be together forever in just a couple of months! We hugged a lot.

His visa was delivered 3 days later, along with the big brown envelope.

I guess what it came down to, for us, was the public charge thing, because of his health history and because I'll be the primary earner. The panel physician seems to have really come through and given him an OK with regard to the mental health issue, because mostly she asked him about his work history and how long he was in the hospital and stuff, not about any harmful behavior. And asked him about my health and if and when I'd ever been ill. And then got me alone and put the support questions to me, checked up on my professional credentials, etc. It really seemed to be focused mostly on that, which I think was reasonable of the consulate under the circumstances. They were really...decent about it all. I was impressed, though D was understandably not too keen on the experience!

So, all in all a tough day, but happy in the end. Now, the POE. I hope that's a breeze--D hates traveling enough as it is!

Tigre

And, the courier delivered the visa yesterday! It's for real, man!

Gimme a bunch of other letters that spell A-P-P-R-O-V-E-D!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dan and I are very tired--but the interview successful and they will deliver my fella's visa soon. I will tell all later...right now we are in the Midlands and are resting and celebrating before I have to fly back to the U.S. on Monday.

Thank you so very much to all at VJ who offered support and advice--couldn't have done it without you!

Tigre

You can put Tigre and Dan up as a big fat red APPROVED!

Well, it took no fewer than three additional visits to the psychiatrist's office to prod them into action, but my fiance reported that his psychiatrist's secretary faxed the letter this morning before his very eyes.

He got to see the letter--it's not unequivocally positive, but the negative information reported isn't technically relevant so hopefully won't hurt us. Fortunately the guy did sum up by confirming the absence of harmful behavior for 2 years, and by saying my fella's mentally stable and has not been prescribed any medication for a long time. The panel physician said at the exam that she was inclined to give my fiance the thumbs-up, but was required to get this letter first, so hopefully she can now do her thing. We'll find out in about 10 days how it turned out.

Lizzie, you look beeyootiful in your wedding pics!

T

Bethanie, I hear you, and I'm trying to stay calm and be reasonable. This would actually be good news if it weren't for the fact that his psychiatrist is such a poor excuse for a medical professional and can't be relied upon for anything. He's also been hostile with my fiance in the past, so we're a bit nervous about what he's going to write. We just don't trust him.

As I mentioned, I'm going to write a letter to the psychiatrist for my fiance to take in along with the letter from Knightsbridge. He's going to try to get this taken care of on Monday. In the letter, I think I'm going to explain to the psychiatrist that I realize he can't guarantee that my fiance will never need mental health treatment again, and that what they are looking for is a medical opinion that he will not need anything beyond routine mental health maintenance care, such as institutionalization or long-term hospital/home care. What do people think?

Joseph22, as for your fiance, I would say that it's best that you have a letter from the GP stating that your fiancee is taking meds for anxiety/stress, but is otherwise healthy and poses no threat to herself or anyone else. This is what's recommended for anybody with any kind of health condition--diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. But I don't think shg will have any sort of problem getting a visa because of it. Anxiety disorders are as common as mice, and your fiancee has no history of harmful behavior.

Just got off the phone with my fella, who's back from his medical exam in London. He's pretty wiped out and feeling very discouraged.

He said that the doctor told him she was satisified that he's stable enough to pass the medical, but that she couldn't complete and process any report stating this unless she had a letter from his psychiatrist confirming it.

Furthermore, in addition to stating that my sweetheart isn't going to harm himself/others/property, the letter has to state that he won't need psychiatric treatment in the future.

#######? I didn't know that it was a visa eligibility requirement that you never need to see a doctor again. I mean, what physician is going to write a letter like that???? Is it possible that what's meant is that they need assurance that my fiance won't need institutional psychiatric care? That would make more sense, considering the whole public charge requirement. More sense than "I promise I'll never need to see a psychiatrist again."

He has a form to give to his psychiatrist requesting this letter, and requesting that the doctor fax it directly to the medical office, also sending a copy to my fiance. So he won't even be able to see it before it goes out, and make sure that it's going to be helpful. Not that it matters--they made it pretty clear that without this letter, they won't sent his exam results to the embassy. I'm drafting another note from me for my fiance to give to his psychiatrist, explaining that this letter is really important and they can't process his application without it (since this doctor so far hasn't been inclined to lift a finger to help my fiance) and telling the doctor to CALL ME if he has any questions. Yes, I am an angry Tigre now!

Can anybody think of anything else we can do to salvage this? Anything that might help? We are so tired, and it feels like the nonsense over my fiance's medical history will never end. Is this going to follow him his entire life, keeping him from doing things other people are allowed to do?

a weary and forlorn Tigre

But I want to marry a man who plans to be resentful about my career! I liked the other one better

The exam should be over by now and he's probably in his car on the 3+ hour drive home. He knows I'm taking a half day, so I'll see if there's a message on my machine when I get home.

Thanks for all the good wishes.

Tigre on tenterhooks

Wait...almaty...point of clarification:

Was your former wife a career woman who you feel was similar to a prostitute in that she compromised her marriage in exchange for the material rewards of a career outside the home?

Or was she a career woman and her career was in prostitution? Because I can definitely see how that would cause additional trouble in a marriage.

Thanks,

Tigre