Can my same-sex partner obtain a green card through marriage due to a "notice of approval"?

[jayoa]

Jayoa, not to argue but you seem to be confused between civil law and criminal law. I hope marrying someone is not criminal, , as marriage is intended to be civil (law that is).
India (yes, a developing, third world country) allows same sex marriage (Indian supreme court ruled that anyone human being can marry another human being). So, let's not lose focus and let's not start debating whether marrying a dog is next. Again, not to confuse with civil Vs criminal law; murder is criminal and marriage is civil.
We all know how a man looks like and a women looks like; but, justice is based on law, my question was; does law know how to define a man and a women; if law does not, then who defines what a man is and what a woman is?
Every country has constitution, and laws (yes both criminal and civil) defined and established. It's the society that dictates extent of law to be followed.
So, "we the people" determine how we want to live.

I get your point, however, the government NEEDS to have set laws regardless if its civil or criminal. The saying that "the government has no business" does not really make sense otherwise marrying one's pet animal is civil and I bet there are some who are willing to take up that argument in court. Of course law knows the difference between a man and a woman even if it has not been applied to same sex marriage cases and as a matter of science which very much is acceptable in any court of law Biology 101 clearly tells you what a man and a woman are. Just to be clear, gender is not a state of mind, it is actually scientifically defined, ask your biology teacher, and that science is fully acceptable in the court of law. Actually science is one of those things that is readily acceptable in the court of law because they usually have proven facts.
You are right that it is the society that dictates how they want to live but then again sometimes the society does not know what is good for it. A good example is the issue of the US government trying to limit people's sugar intake due to its abuse and the resultant overwhelming diabetic population (that is costing the country billions in medical expenses) by taxing drinks that contain them so the society can buy/intake less of them but the society is itself raging against it even though it is killing them. Where I come from we don't take sugar the way people do here, I even have to dilute drinks half and half with water because they are just too sweet here but the population consumes large amounts of these same things and do not intend to stop even if it leads them to diabetes and complications from it and they don't feel the government should help them even though they can't help themselves. And many only learn when they are finally diabetic and dying but still many cannot control themselves even after resulting in diabetes which then leads to amputations and death. I know I don't need someone to tell me how to intake sugar because I have full control over it and do not abuse it in any way and if the tax is levied I will have to pay it too even though it is not levied for my own sake but for those who lack sugar intake control but many others need the help but still do not want it until it is too late.
Another good example is immigration laws, though it is civil but without it there will be a much worse illegal immigration problem and we all know how that can take its toll on the economy. We know there are those that worry about racial profiling but there has to be a good balancing act in order not to stop people for the sole purpose of inquiring about legal status. I guess that is why authorities are merging citizenship/immigration information onto driver/non-driver IDs so they can read it off ID cards or inquire about them after an arrest.
Just like criminal laws, civil laws are very necessary otherwise there will be chaos as I said earlier and do not expect the government to do away with any of them.

 

[Jackolantern]

I am not a democrat nor a republican but, shouldn't two people decide who they should get married to? instead of government deciding for people?

A legally recognized marriage is a collection of benefits the government provides to you. So the government definitely should have a say in who they will recognize for those benefits. If you don't want those government benefits, you are still free to walk into a church and marry however many people you want of whatever gender you want.

No states allow 12 year olds to officially marry, but some allow 14 or 15 year olds. No states will allow brother and sister to officially marry, but some allow first cousins while most don't. Some states require testing for particular STDs as a condition of the marriage license. No states will allow one person to be officially married to multiple at the same time, or to get married to a dog. It's established that the government has a role in deciding who should get legal recognition of their marriage, it's just a debate on what the criteria should be.

 

[jayoa]

Good points. I can only wonder where the equal protection blanket will stop given that people seem to think "any human being should be able to marry any human being". Perhaps brothers and sisters, 10yr olds, etc are human beings too. These will surely make valid civil suits in the court of law under "equal protection" just as the same sex cases (since the government should not have any business with who or what we want to marry), but in every single religious scripture they are all abominable, which I believe is one of the reasons they were all excluded by civil law in the first place. But its quite ironic that humans will fight against government encroachment with civil laws saying if they let the government they don't know where the encroachment will stop but don't look at their own demands and ask themselves "where do we ourselves draw the line" with open-mindedness? Its a two-way street or even a double-edged sword, either way you go something gives and so far morality and family values have been the ones that have been giving mostly because politicians sell them for votes.

So far, I am not convinced that the American society knows what it wants. Republicans spent 8 years taking a surplus and ruining the economy into a huge deficit, Democrats have only had two years to try to fix the situation and Americans have voted to put Republicans back there. Logically, there is no sense in any of this. They must not know that it usually takes longer to build than to destroy or perhaps since it is a microwave society they must want a quick turn-around and not realize that it is not at all possible to "quickly" recover the economy but simply give it at least 8 years of Democrats who have proven time and again that they are better at fiscal management while also getting things done instead of just fighting wars.

 

[Al Southner]

Marriage is union of one man and one woman, then why allow this "one" man and "one" woman to divorce?. but what defines this "one man" and "one woman"? is it physical appearance or is it state of mind? if it is physical appearance, then what are standards to apply to be "qualified" as one or the other? and at what point does word discriminatin kicks in? does congress (House and/or senate) has over arching authority in qualifying humans into men and women? (or is it even constitutional?)
I am not a democrat nor a republican but, shouldn't two people decide who they should get married to? instead of government deciding for people?
There is no merit to DOMA to begin with, which was ruled unconsitutional earlier.

Unfortunately, your post is that of a confused soul. Marriage is a civil matter, iit's like asking FAA the permission to drive a motorcycle in your state, the correct authority is DMV. Nowhere have I found has Supreme Court or COngressional record been asked to consider male or female. Unconstitutional as a word is grossly overused...

 

[TheRealCanadian]

The idea that someone would file for an immigration benefit for same-sex marriage on an issues which the federal laws supersede the state laws, is like a a tail wagging the dog. There is no case law which will even sustain an appeal of such a denial, and it will only cause problems for the same-sex unions.

I do not understand your post.

When DOMA is overturned, there will be no federal law that supercedes state law, and any denial of an I-130 could be appealed to federal courts arguing that USCIS has violated the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

A legally recognized marriage is a collection of benefits the government provides to you. So the government definitely should have a say in who they will recognize for those benefits.

Absolutely, but there's a consistent history of the government being legally unable to use certain criteria in deciding who they recognize for such benefits. Race was struck down, differing ages of consent based on gender have been struck down, and I can see gender being an equally impermissible category.

 

[olddude]

Question is when there is no clearly accepted legal definition from the perspective of law of what constitutes a man and woman, there should not be any law supporting only one type of so called union. This does not mean that we go marrying ourselves to animals or brother-sister marriage or any other imaginative stuff. Fortunately or unfortunately, law is not speculative.
Other than double taxation, not sure what benefits does either state or federal laws offer to one man and one woman couple. of course, immigration benefits. We have not stopped using modern amenities just because they were not described in scriptures of any religion; it's just way of life and process of natural evolution.
Al, if DMV is not evolved, probably we would all be pilots of motorcycles, who knows? ; Anything not defined in consitution or defined as law is either unconstitutional and/or illegal. That's why we had to come up with amendments to provide voting rights, etc to all.
If we were to stick only to one school of thought and not able to see other points of view, we would still be believing Earth is center of solar system and communicating old fashioned way (what ever it was).