sciencenerd

The federal government does recognize my marriage. Immigration discrimination wouldn't occur if the feds weren't in the business of marriage - they don't recognize many legal marriages that are recognized by the state a person resides in (ie: marriages between two people of the same sex). I also get tax benefits from the IRS recognizing my marriage - also benefits that the federal government chooses to deny some married couples. Validation and recognition are two different things. The federal government sees a same-sex married couple legally as complete strangers while they see my wife and I as a family - you can't tell me that the federal government treats us the same or just follows state law when that's not the case.
You don't have room to talk because you are benefiting from the government recognizing your marriage. Regardless of your personal belief that government should stay out of marriage completely (which I actually agree with 100% in an ideal world), you are gaining a benefit from the federal government acknowledging a familial relationship between you and your spouse. I would not have thought twice about moving to Canada to be with my spouse. We chose the U.S. because it made more sense for us, not because our relationship depended upon it.
Regardless, gay people should not be held to a different standard than straight people. Even if there is some ideal of getting rid of the concept of civil marriage completely, that is not the world we live in. Even if you could get contracts to give you all the benefits of marriage (which you can't - immigration and taxes being 2 of those) or move to another country to be with your spouse, gay people should not face that burden when straight people do not. It's all kind of irrelevant when it comes down to that - the government should not force gay people to jump through a million hoops that straight people don't have to jump through. It's that simple. You're arguing against civil marriage in general, but since you can't accomplish that, you're arguing that some people should not have the right to access marriage at all.

One of the rights of marriage is to get divorced and have equitable division of property, custody agreements, etc. When straight people have a divorce rate of 50%, I don't think there's much room for criticism that a gay couple is getting divorced. Gay people don't want access to the institution of marriage to be in competition with straight people - they just want the same rights and responsibilities in their spousal relationship and that includes the right to dissolve that marriage.

This USCIS memo talks about the USCIS recognizing some marriages but not others, the policy has changed since then, but not the policy of recognizing some but not others
http://www.immigrationequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/yates-memo.pdf
　
20 Massachusetts Avenue Washington, DC 20536
HQOPRD 70/6
To: REGIONAL DIRECTORS SERVICE CENTER DIRECTORS DISTRICT DIRECTORS, INCLUDING OVERSEAS
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
From: William R. Yates /s/ Associate Director for Operations U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Date: April 16, 2004
Re: Adjudication of Petitions and Applications Filed by or on Behalf of, or Document Requests by, Transsexual Individuals.
I. Purpose
　
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance related to the adjudication of petitions and applications filed by or on behalf of, or document requests by, transsexual individuals, including those who have either undergone sex reassignment surgery, or are in the process of doing so.
II. Summary Conclusion
　
In the context of adjudicating spousal and fiancé petitions, CIS personnel shall not recognize the marriage, or intended marriage, between two individuals where one or both of the parties claims to be a transsexual, regardless of whether either individual has undergone sex reassignment surgery, or is in the process of doing so. In instances where an individual claims to be a transsexual, but the gender of the individual is not pertinent to the underlying application or petition, CIS personnel shall consider the merits of the application without regard to the applicant’s transsexuality. Any documentation (whether original or replacement) issued as a result of the adjudication shall reflect the outward, claimed and otherwise documented sex of the applicant at the time of CIS document issuance.
Transsexual HQOPRD 70/6 Page 2
III. Background
　
No Federal statute or regulation addresses specifically the question of whether someone born a man or a woman can surgically change his or her sex. Transsexualism is a condition in which a person feels persistently uncomfortable about his or her anatomical sex, and often seeks medical treatment, including hormonal therapy and "sex reassignment surgery." The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) generally took the position that absent specific statutory authority recognizing sex changes for purposes of Federal immigration law; it could not recognize that a person can change his or her sex. In arriving at this conclusion, the INS stressed the following. First, whether a "marriage" qualifies for immigration purposes is a matter of Federal, not State or foreign, law.
Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1981). It is well settled that, in enacting immigration and nationality laws, Congress intended the terms "spouse" and "marriage" to include only the partners to a legal, monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. Howerton, supra. Moreover, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7, bans any Federal recognition of same-sex marriages for immigration purposes, and defines marriage as an institution involving a "man" and a "woman The legislative history of the DOMA also clearly supports a traditional view of marriage, especially one that ties its basic character and importance to children, even though the marriage laws do not require that a couple be physically or mentally ready and able to procreate. See, H.Rep. 104-664, reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2905, 2916-19. For all of these reasons, the former INS maintained, and its successor U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) agrees, that no legal authority permits recognition of homosexual relationships as "marriages" for purposes of immigration and nationality laws, regardless of whether the relationship may be recognized as a "marriage" under the law where the relationship came into existence.
However, neither the DOMA nor any other Federal statute addresses whether a marriage between (for example) a man and a person born a man who has undergone surgery to become a woman should be recognized for immigration purposes or considered invalid as a same-sex marriage. While whether a marriage may be recognized for immigration purposes is a matter of Federal law, almost one-half of the states authorize the issuance of "new" birth certificates to individuals who have undergone sex reassignment surgery, as long as they present appropriate medical documentation. These same states also permit the issuance of marriage licenses for couples where one member presents a newly issued birth certificate reflecting his or her name and/or sex reassignment.
Differing state practices related to the issuance of new birth certificates and marriage licenses, coupled with a general lack of detailed guidance in this area, have resulted in inconsistent adjudications within the INS and CIS offices of cases involving transsexual applicants.
Current CIS policy disallows recognition of a change of sex so that a marriage between two persons born of the same sex can be considered bona fide for the purpose of spousal immigrant petitions. W. Yates, Memorandum for Regional Directors et al, Spousal Immigrant Visa Petitions (AFM Update AD 2-16) (March 20, 2003). With respect to replacement documents, CIS has required that the sex at birth as identified in the A-file be used unless the original birth certificate shows a CIS error with respect to sex at birth. Furthermore, if an individual indicates or claims a different gender than the one he or she was born with as reflected in his or her A-file, CIS policy has mandated use of the gender listed in the alien’s file unless the applicant presents a Federal court order directing CIS to change its records. I-90 Replacement National SOP at 6-22.
Transsexual HQOPRD 70/6 Page 3
IV. Guidance
　
A. Spousal and Fiancé(e) Petitions
To ensure consistency with the legislative intent reflected in the DOMA, and to reiterate existing CIS policy, CIS personnel shall not recognize the marriage, or intended marriage, between two individuals where one or both of the parties claims to be a transsexual, regardless of whether either individual has undergone sex reassignment surgery, or is in the process of doing so. For example, a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, or Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), cannot be approved if one or both of the parties to the petition was born a sex other than what they claim to be at the time of filing. This same policy applies to any immigration benefit that is granted based on a marital relationship. For example, an individual shall not be approved for H-4 status based on a marriage to a principal alien if either the principal alien or the potential H-4 beneficiary was born a sex other than what they claim to be at the time of filing.
When adjudicating petitions and applications based on a spousal relationship, CIS officers should be guided by objective indicators, and avoid imposing subjective assumptions or judgments. For example, if the previous name used by the petitioner or the beneficiary is different than that contained elsewhere in the application materials or A-file, and is a name that would normally be used by the opposite sex, officers should issue a request for evidence (RFE) to establish that person’s identity. The RFE should request copies of all birth certificates issued to that person and any court (or other) documentation evidencing the legal name change. Again, a petition or application based on a spousal relationship may only be approved if it has been clearly established that the underlying marriage is recognizable for immigration purposes, in accordance with the policy outlined in this memorandum.
B. Other Petitions or Applications
In instances where an individual claims to be a transsexual, but the gender of the individual is not pertinent to the underlying application or petition, CIS personnel shall consider the merits of the application without regard to the applicant’s transsexuality. Any documentation (whether original or replacement) issued as the result of the adjudication shall reflect the outward, claimed and otherwise documented sex of the applicant at the time of CIS document issuance. For example, an alien with an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, and Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, who underwent sex reassignment surgery shall be issued a Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card, reflecting the claimed sex of the alien at the time of issuance (provided, of course, that the alien submits appropriate medical and other documentation establishing the alien’s new claimed gender and legal name). It is important to note that applicants are no longer required, as previously indicated in the I-90 Replacement National SOP at 6-22, to present a Federal court order directing the agency to change its records where such an individual indicates or claims a different gender than the one he or she was born with as reflected in his or her A-file.
In instances where an individual is requesting a replacement document to acknowledge a name change resulting from sex reassignment surgery, the alien must submit the birth certificate issued at birth, the newly issued birth certificate reflecting the name and/or claimed sex reassignment, and the court order granting the legal name change. Examples of such applications include, but are not limited to, Form I-765,
Transsexual HQOPRD 70/6 Page 4
Application for Employment Authorization, or Form I-90, Application to Replace Alien Registration Receipt Card. Name changes arising in all other situations should be reviewed in accordance with established procedures.
Finally, as is the context of any other adjudication, all CIS officers shall perform their duties in a manner that accords maximal respect, sensitivity and consideration when adjudicating any petition, application or document request filed by, or on behalf of, a transsexual individual.
V. Further Information
CIS personnel with questions regarding the policy presented in this memorandum should raise them to Headquarters Operations through appropriate supervisory channels.

One of the rights of marriage is to get divorced and have equitable division of property, custody agreements, etc. When straight people have a divorce rate of 50%, I don't think there's much room for criticism that a gay couple is getting divorced. Gay people don't want access to the institution of marriage to be in competition with straight people - they just want the same rights and responsibilities in their spousal relationship and that includes the right to dissolve that marriage.

One of the rights of marriage is to get divorced and have equitable division of property, custody agreements, etc. When straight people have a divorce rate of 50%, I don't think there's much room for criticism that a gay couple is getting divorced. Gay people don't want access to the institution of marriage to be in competition with straight people - they just want the same rights and responsibilities in their spousal relationship and that includes the right to dissolve that marriage.

The federal government does recognize my marriage. Immigration discrimination wouldn't occur if the feds weren't in the business of marriage - they don't recognize many legal marriages that are recognized by the state a person resides in (ie: marriages between two people of the same sex). I also get tax benefits from the IRS recognizing my marriage - also benefits that the federal government chooses to deny some married couples. Validation and recognition are two different things. The federal government sees a same-sex married couple legally as complete strangers while they see my wife and I as a family - you can't tell me that the federal government treats us the same or just follows state law when that's not the case.
You don't have room to talk because you are benefiting from the government recognizing your marriage. Regardless of your personal belief that government should stay out of marriage completely (which I actually agree with 100% in an ideal world), you are gaining a benefit from the federal government acknowledging a familial relationship between you and your spouse. I would not have thought twice about moving to Canada to be with my spouse. We chose the U.S. because it made more sense for us, not because our relationship depended upon it.
Regardless, gay people should not be held to a different standard than straight people. Even if there is some ideal of getting rid of the concept of civil marriage completely, that is not the world we live in. Even if you could get contracts to give you all the benefits of marriage (which you can't - immigration and taxes being 2 of those) or move to another country to be with your spouse, gay people should not face that burden when straight people do not. It's all kind of irrelevant when it comes down to that - the government should not force gay people to jump through a million hoops that straight people don't have to jump through. It's that simple. You're arguing against civil marriage in general, but since you can't accomplish that, you're arguing that some people should not have the right to access marriage at all.

The federal government does recognize my marriage. Immigration discrimination wouldn't occur if the feds weren't in the business of marriage - they don't recognize many legal marriages that are recognized by the state a person resides in (ie: marriages between two people of the same sex). I also get tax benefits from the IRS recognizing my marriage - also benefits that the federal government chooses to deny some married couples. Validation and recognition are two different things. The federal government sees a same-sex married couple legally as complete strangers while they see my wife and I as a family - you can't tell me that the federal government treats us the same or just follows state law when that's not the case.
You don't have room to talk because you are benefiting from the government recognizing your marriage. Regardless of your personal belief that government should stay out of marriage completely (which I actually agree with 100% in an ideal world), you are gaining a benefit from the federal government acknowledging a familial relationship between you and your spouse. I would not have thought twice about moving to Canada to be with my spouse. We chose the U.S. because it made more sense for us, not because our relationship depended upon it.
Regardless, gay people should not be held to a different standard than straight people. Even if there is some ideal of getting rid of the concept of civil marriage completely, that is not the world we live in. Even if you could get contracts to give you all the benefits of marriage (which you can't - immigration and taxes being 2 of those) or move to another country to be with your spouse, gay people should not face that burden when straight people do not. It's all kind of irrelevant when it comes down to that - the government should not force gay people to jump through a million hoops that straight people don't have to jump through. It's that simple. You're arguing against civil marriage in general, but since you can't accomplish that, you're arguing that some people should not have the right to access marriage at all.

If they have the right to marry, they have the right to decide to divorce. Since close to half of 'conventional' marriages in the US end up in the divorce court, why should gay people be any different? Going through hell to be together doesn't necessarily bring you closer together forever - just look at how many marriages fail right here in this group.

The federal government does recognize my marriage. Immigration discrimination wouldn't occur if the feds weren't in the business of marriage - they don't recognize many legal marriages that are recognized by the state a person resides in (ie: marriages between two people of the same sex). I also get tax benefits from the IRS recognizing my marriage - also benefits that the federal government chooses to deny some married couples. Validation and recognition are two different things. The federal government sees a same-sex married couple legally as complete strangers while they see my wife and I as a family - you can't tell me that the federal government treats us the same or just follows state law when that's not the case.
You don't have room to talk because you are benefiting from the government recognizing your marriage. Regardless of your personal belief that government should stay out of marriage completely (which I actually agree with 100% in an ideal world), you are gaining a benefit from the federal government acknowledging a familial relationship between you and your spouse. I would not have thought twice about moving to Canada to be with my spouse. We chose the U.S. because it made more sense for us, not because our relationship depended upon it.
Regardless, gay people should not be held to a different standard than straight people. Even if there is some ideal of getting rid of the concept of civil marriage completely, that is not the world we live in. Even if you could get contracts to give you all the benefits of marriage (which you can't - immigration and taxes being 2 of those) or move to another country to be with your spouse, gay people should not face that burden when straight people do not. It's all kind of irrelevant when it comes down to that - the government should not force gay people to jump through a million hoops that straight people don't have to jump through. It's that simple. You're arguing against civil marriage in general, but since you can't accomplish that, you're arguing that some people should not have the right to access marriage at all.

The federal government does recognize my marriage. Immigration discrimination wouldn't occur if the feds weren't in the business of marriage - they don't recognize many legal marriages that are recognized by the state a person resides in (ie: marriages between two people of the same sex). I also get tax benefits from the IRS recognizing my marriage - also benefits that the federal government chooses to deny some married couples. Validation and recognition are two different things. The federal government sees a same-sex married couple legally as complete strangers while they see my wife and I as a family - you can't tell me that the federal government treats us the same or just follows state law when that's not the case.
You don't have room to talk because you are benefiting from the government recognizing your marriage. Regardless of your personal belief that government should stay out of marriage completely (which I actually agree with 100% in an ideal world), you are gaining a benefit from the federal government acknowledging a familial relationship between you and your spouse. I would not have thought twice about moving to Canada to be with my spouse. We chose the U.S. because it made more sense for us, not because our relationship depended upon it.
Regardless, gay people should not be held to a different standard than straight people. Even if there is some ideal of getting rid of the concept of civil marriage completely, that is not the world we live in. Even if you could get contracts to give you all the benefits of marriage (which you can't - immigration and taxes being 2 of those) or move to another country to be with your spouse, gay people should not face that burden when straight people do not. It's all kind of irrelevant when it comes down to that - the government should not force gay people to jump through a million hoops that straight people don't have to jump through. It's that simple. You're arguing against civil marriage in general, but since you can't accomplish that, you're arguing that some people should not have the right to access marriage at all.

One of the rights of marriage is to get divorced and have equitable division of property, custody agreements, etc. When straight people have a divorce rate of 50%, I don't think there's much room for criticism that a gay couple is getting divorced. Gay people don't want access to the institution of marriage to be in competition with straight people - they just want the same rights and responsibilities in their spousal relationship and that includes the right to dissolve that marriage.

how about in the case of visas - a gay USC is not able to petition for his/her partner to join them. in this case i bet they do not WANT the government to validate how they feel about each other, but yes they do "need" it do, since without it they can never be together. the system is pathetic, and you're disgusting homophobia is too.

One of the rights of marriage is to get divorced and have equitable division of property, custody agreements, etc. When straight people have a divorce rate of 50%, I don't think there's much room for criticism that a gay couple is getting divorced. Gay people don't want access to the institution of marriage to be in competition with straight people - they just want the same rights and responsibilities in their spousal relationship and that includes the right to dissolve that marriage.

One of the rights of marriage is to get divorced and have equitable division of property, custody agreements, etc. When straight people have a divorce rate of 50%, I don't think there's much room for criticism that a gay couple is getting divorced. Gay people don't want access to the institution of marriage to be in competition with straight people - they just want the same rights and responsibilities in their spousal relationship and that includes the right to dissolve that marriage.

One of the rights of marriage is to get divorced and have equitable division of property, custody agreements, etc. When straight people have a divorce rate of 50%, I don't think there's much room for criticism that a gay couple is getting divorced. Gay people don't want access to the institution of marriage to be in competition with straight people - they just want the same rights and responsibilities in their spousal relationship and that includes the right to dissolve that marriage.

It's unfortunate that such a modern nation is so far behind in human rights... it's stuff like this that sometimes makes me question how much I actually want to be a US citizen....

Really? You mean to tell me that all of my efforts with my wife and her K-1 visa was not a federal issue? My trip to that federal building in Detroit to prove our marriage was real for our AOS was not controlled by federal laws?

The Constitution is the very basis for building the case for gay marriage. Read the article. Ted Olson is a very accomplished lawyer who has an impressive record on the cases he advocated before the Supreme Court. He knows that the Constitution is the key to marriage equality. In the real, actual world we live in. Not sure what role, if any, the Constitution plays in your alternate reality.

Then do as your God tells you and leave the rest of us out of it.
Why? I have four sons and they seem well prepared to deal with it. Why would yours not be?

The government doesn't have to assist gay couples in marrying any more than it assists hetero couples to marry. Nobody is asking for any such thing. The issue is that the government prevents gay couples from marrying. Not that you'd be able to notice. You do live in an alternate reality after all.

Good for you. Just don't expect anyone else to care. I sure don't. God created gays. He wants them to marry. There, I said it.

I've always loved how guys on their 5th wife want to "protect" my marriage. And prevent someone else's.

Yes it is.

I don't see how it's different from hetero couples. They would still have to prove the validity of their relationship just like hetero couples.

The majority of voters who actually cared to cast a vote may have been. That's a far cry from the majority of Californians. Throw in the demagoguery that's going into a wedge issue like this and you actually have a small minority - the California based American Taliban - having scored a victory at the ballot box. It's also important to remember that the attitude towards same sex marriage has changed since this ballot initiative passed. It's been last year that the tide turned in favor of same sex marriage in this country. As a nation, we're slow to embrace the 21st century but even Americans will eventually get there. The American Taliban will lose and human rights and liberty will win.