Yet ANOTHER reason to support gay marriage....

Pacifica lesbian mom's deportation blocked

I think they'll have to repeal DOMA for her to be able to stay, unless Congress grants her a specific exception, which they sometimes do.  Or unless Congress enacts "comprehensive immigration reform" which might allow her to stay, but not because of her marital status.

So, if she got married to a man, she would still be deported?

if she got married to a man, then she'd be able to go through the process of getting a permanent green card with him as her sponsor because the government recognizes them as being married and therefore he is entitled to sponsor her

DOMA says that the federal government "may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."

So if she is married to a woman, the government doesn't recognize them as being married, and therefore, her wife can't sponsor her.

Unless DOMA is repealed.

Hard to say what will happen -- there are plenty of democrats in Congress who don't want to repeal DOMA.  I think there are 1 or 2 republicans who would favor repealing DOMA.  So it seems like a long shot.

Wow. Never thought about deportation, that sucks.  I wonder what a strict right-winger that believes marriage is a religious institution would have to say about this.

This family would basically be losing a parent, for no good reason.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED LEGAL UNIONS.  It's all about legal protection and rights.  It has nothing nothing to do with morality/belief about the institution of marriage.  I don't understand why people confuse the two.  In France, EVERY couple has a civil union, and then a religious marriage on top of that if they chose to do so.

Nomo- which is why I believe we need to support gay marriage...Not just at a State level, though that is where it's starting.

DOMA needs to be repealed in my eyes. It is counter productive to society's forward motion, and just hurtful rather than helpful.

kaffwyn: I'd never thought of the deportation side of this either!

But all marriage laws, gay or otherwise, have always been made at the state level.  That's why some states have waiting periods for licenses, other states require blood tests, and some allow people to get marriage at a younger age than others.  The federal government is not supposed to be in the business of overriding the individual states in these matters.

i support legal reform that would leave the states to issue civil partnerships (or unions, whatever you want to call it) and churches to marry whom they wish

then, the govt isn't recognizing anyone's marriage, but is recognizing the contract they have with each other

I may agree that DOMA should be repealed, but i hope everyone who is agitating for this understands that if the democrats who oppose repeal of DOMA are strong-armed into going along with it, they'll probably lose their seats in the next election cycle.

The reason those democrats are opposed to it is because they represent constituents who are opposed to it.

I don't know if I think that any congresspeople are noble enough to sacrifice their political careers so that gay people can be recognized as married.

Maybe I'm wrong...

Would you give up your job and livelihood for it?

Would I give up my job and livlihood so that DOMA could be repealed, or so that gay marriages could be recognized as equal to straight marriages?

I know getting DOMA repealed is just one step down the line.

When I say 'not just at a state level', I mean repealing DOMA so that the federal government has no say on the sex of partners in a legal union.

I don't believe government should have anything to do with marriages at all...they should issue licenses for legal unions, and that's it.

Marriages would then be a ceremony preformed by your church/synagogue/temple/whatever.

I'd just like for everyone's partnership to be seen as equal to everyone else's, in all States.

Original Post by nasuoni:

Would I give up my job and livlihood so that DOMA could be repealed, or so that gay marriages could be recognized as equal to straight marriages?

I agree with your position.  Wholly.

Though I am idealistic in what I believe and in the standards I aspire to, I am also very practical when it comes down to getting things done.

About 1/3 of the democrats in congress would lose their seat in the next election if they support repeal of DOMA.

So while it's easy for you and me to say that that's what we want.  It's easy for us to go out and protest for it.  Agitate for it.  Neither you nor I lose our jobs by supporting it.

That's what I was asking.  If your support of repealing DOMA would cost you your job and your future jobs, would you still support it?

As a practical matter, I don't think that democrats who serve in "conservative" districts are willing to give up their seat and their future political career for this.

But like I said, maybe I am wrong about their level of nobility and willingness to sacrifice for others.

All my future jobs? That would be very hard to do, so I understand your point of view entirely. I'm not in politics, so it would be hard to see how it would cost me my job, but I can invision it.

I can see why they wouldn't want to. They have families to support, and reputations to protect. They also would be giving up the chance to fight for any other matters more important to them by losing their seats....

So, I get the practical side of it completely. Doesn't mean we can't dream :)

Sometimes, if we calm down and think creatively, we may find that a previously unseen solution will present itself.

So definitely don't give up.

[they] may say that [you're] a dreamer,
but [you're] not the only one

:)

Hehe Nomo you just made me giggle and smile :D

Contesting DOMA in front of the Supreme Court would make the most sense. That way it's not the constiutency's problem.

edit Looks like that's what might be happening.

Original Post by kathygator:

Contesting DOMA in front of the Supreme Court would make the most sense. That way it's not the constiutency's problem.

good point

and one would hope that such a ruling would be definitive and robust enough to be able to prevent (or strike down) the flood of state constitutional amendments that would follow it, trying to circumvent it....

It's a fairly limited challenge.  It doesn't go to the underlying validity of DOMA, just to its limitation of federal benefits to couples validly married under state law.

Realistically, in the modern court, a constitutional challenge will not fly.  Many gay marriage advocates adopt the analysis used to strike down the miscegenation laws.  In those cases, the court said that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied on the basis of race without violating the 14th amendment.  Problem is, gays have never been recognized as a "protected class" for 14th amendment purposes, and the current court will never in a million years do so.

Seems to me it's a significant beginning. Once benefits are granted, that opens the door to furthering the rights of married couples.  I think it's possible that the court can take the teeth out of DOMA bit by bit without having to repeal it.

Original Post by nasuoni:

Would I give up my job and livlihood so that DOMA could be repealed, or so that gay marriages could be recognized as equal to straight marriages?

I think the more important question would be: Would you give up your job and livlihood so that DOMA could be repealed if you know that the person who replaces you in the job you gave up would put it right back in place? 

Lys: Sexual orientation discrimination is not recognized as illegal under federal law?

Touche, floggingsully. Touche.

Original Post by kathygator:

Lys: Sexual orientation discrimination is not recognized as illegal under federal law?

no.

you know the EEOC statement that employers include on various hiring  documents?

sexual orientation is not a protected class

link

many other elements are also not included, such as being red-headed, freckled or overweight.