The article is about an immigration problem between a married couple where the woman is a former man. The US federal government didn't go for it, and the result is the destruction of a happy couple.
This kind of case illustrates the injustice of the anti gay marriage movement.
Just to be clear on how absurd these laws are, if a man married a woman and either one of them then had a SEX CHANGE to be in effect a gay couple, that gay marriage would be accepted by the federal government.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/200...ita_ganzon.html
Full Version: Defense of BIGOTRY act!
The silence is deafening.
The reason I think this is so is because this couple is a couple mainstream heterosexual people can completely relate to.
They are not the feared and hated "other".
They would probably say, make an exception for this special couple, but doing so would do a lot to open the floodgates of justice for all gay marriages.
Also note and note well, the various state CIVIL UNION schemes would do NOTHING for this couple, as it is a FEDERAL issue.
The reason I think this is so is because this couple is a couple mainstream heterosexual people can completely relate to.
They are not the feared and hated "other".
They would probably say, make an exception for this special couple, but doing so would do a lot to open the floodgates of justice for all gay marriages.
Also note and note well, the various state CIVIL UNION schemes would do NOTHING for this couple, as it is a FEDERAL issue.
Could it be that nobody cares? However you do bring up a valid point. Too much attention is paid to some hapless he she while our southern borders continue to be invaded. 
Yes, it could be people don't care.
And that might be a very good thing.
The only reason gay marriage is banned is because the radical right fundies are evil enough to care about denying happiness to other people.
But right now there is a major injustice against a sector of the population, and that is worthy of concern.
And that might be a very good thing.
The only reason gay marriage is banned is because the radical right fundies are evil enough to care about denying happiness to other people.
But right now there is a major injustice against a sector of the population, and that is worthy of concern.
The topic is an intersting legal issue at the Federal level where it has had limited success. It best venues in recognition have been three blue States but has been very limited elsewhere.
It is to me, a private personal, medical reality and practices issue. But is also now one that is covered in the law the CIS cited in its denial.
They live in the 9th Circuit, California I believe which is more likely than any other to advance the idea that this person is now a female and not a male. I would envision, in maybe a few years, it reaching the Supreme court which will by them most likely be different in its orientation I imagine than today.
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/cases/index.htm
It is a who care issue as far as I am concerned. Like Cigar Anne Monica and the Toak master Slick willy, who cares.
That is all!
It is to me, a private personal, medical reality and practices issue. But is also now one that is covered in the law the CIS cited in its denial.
They live in the 9th Circuit, California I believe which is more likely than any other to advance the idea that this person is now a female and not a male. I would envision, in maybe a few years, it reaching the Supreme court which will by them most likely be different in its orientation I imagine than today.
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/cases/index.htm
It is a who care issue as far as I am concerned. Like Cigar Anne Monica and the Toak master Slick willy, who cares.
That is all!
Oh c'mon. The gays can get all the legal rights of married people with a lawyer and a notary. Marriage is and always has been the union of a man and a woman. This is the natural order. While I can sympathize with the birth defect of being gay it does not give th gays the right to overide 5000 years of tradition. Those born with handicaps have limits. 
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Are you not capable of critical thought?
The federal immigration example I cited is a classic example of how gay couples CANNOT get all of the rights of heterosexual married people.
Are you not capable of critical thought?
The federal immigration example I cited is a classic example of how gay couples CANNOT get all of the rights of heterosexual married people.
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ May 28 2005, 04:21 AM)
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Are you not capable of critical thought?
The federal immigration example I cited is a classic example of how gay couples CANNOT get all of the rights of heterosexual married people.
Are you not capable of critical thought?
The federal immigration example I cited is a classic example of how gay couples CANNOT get all of the rights of heterosexual married people.
What do you mean that you don't have the same rights. YOu can marry a woman just as we can also. What is to stop you from doing that?
Duh!
Because there wouldn't be any point and it would cruel and unusual for the woman.
What a lame argument!
Might as well say to blacks in the old south, what do you mean you don't have the same rights, you can die your skin and have the priveledges of whiteys.
John, you have really stooped to a NEW LOW.
Because there wouldn't be any point and it would cruel and unusual for the woman.
What a lame argument!
Might as well say to blacks in the old south, what do you mean you don't have the same rights, you can die your skin and have the priveledges of whiteys.
John, you have really stooped to a NEW LOW.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.