Skip to main content

View Diary: Have Dems sold out too early on immigration? Not if they want something to actually pass (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you're misreading (10+ / 0-)

    he said it would put them on equal footing. It would. An unmarried gay couple would then be on equal footing with an unmarried straight couple, and a married gay couple would be on equal footing with a married straight couple. Getting rid of DOMA would mean that the federal government would recognize gay marriages, and so gay couples would be in the same position then as similarly situated straight couples.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:14:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Once again, with feeling. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shanikka

      No, it wouldn't put them on an equal footing.  Getting rid of DOMA will not necessarily bring marriage equality to the entire country.  So gay people in states without marriage equality would not have the same rights as straight people, whose marriages are universally recognized.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:13:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you can get married in a state that (0+ / 0-)

        you don't live in, you know.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Thu May 23, 2013 at 01:59:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          That had never even occurred to me.  Thanks for that idea.  Because you know, if a straight person hadn't told me that, I'd never have come up with it.

          Has it ever occurred to you that having to travel to a distant state to get married costs money?  Then when you come back to your home state, your marriage isn't recognized.  So if you're not legally married in your home state, will you get federal immigration law benefits?

          And by the way, why should gay people have to run all over the friggin' country to do something that straight people can do anyplace they please?

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:45:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  once DOMA is gone, every state must (0+ / 0-)

            recognize marriages performed by every other state. That's why its unconstitutional: under the equal protection clause of the constitution every state is already required to recognize acts of other states.

            And of course I don't think people should have to go to other states to get married just because they're gay, but I never said they should. That's a straw man. I've volunteered for marriage equality, knocked on hundreds of doors for it in my state, and will again before we pass it next year.

            ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

            by James Allen on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:03:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, no. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen

              First of all, DOMA is not gone.  If we are lucky, the Supreme Court will declare one section of it unconstitutional this summer.  But the section to which you are referring, which deals with full faith and credit, is not at issue in either the Windsor or Perry cases.  The statute explicitly permits states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, and that section is not before the Supreme Court.  Thus, even if there's a victory in Windsor, this problem will remain.  (I don't think Perry will be decided on the merits at all.)  

              Nor is DOMA going to be repealed legislatively anytime soon.  If we can't get pro-gay provisions attached to must-pass legislation like the immigration bill (and Markos argues here that we can't), then a stand-alone DOMA repeal has far, far less chance of passing.  

              If you don't think gay people should have to go to other states to get married, then I'm not sure why you suggested it as a solution.  And whether you think they should have to or not, the reality today is that gays in all but a dozen states would have to do that.  As I pointed out before, even if they do, it still doesn't necessarily solve their problems.  

              That's why giving up on what was our best chance to fix this legislatively is so wrong.  The only silver lining in all of this is that if this compromise bill fails, it will now be much harder to blame gay people for that failure.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:11:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  No It Wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

      Because a straight couple can get married anywhere in the world such that the US citizen spouse can sponsor immigration into the US.  Gay couples, despite the great progress, cannot get married in MOST of the world at all.  Thus, unless the gay couple is willing to violate US immigration law and have the potential spouse enter on an improper visa so that the marriage can be solemnized here, they have no options.  The only thing getting rid of DOMA would automatically do would be to put them on equal footing as it related to the K (fiancé) visa.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site