The BiNational Blues

We live in a world of transparent electronic borders.

Prior to the Internet it was rare for a person from one country to befriend a person in another country. I mean, prior to the Internet, unless you traveled to that country or signed up for some type of international pen pal club it was unlikely.

However, with the advent of the Internet all of that changed. The borders and travel distances, through the Internet, became transparent. Suddenly our clicks on the computer could connect us with many people worldwide.

We can now type, teleconference and even videoconference in the blink of an eye. This opened up an entirely new phenomena. The ability to become close friends with someone you’ve never met and the ability of that friendship blossoming into a relationship.

Of course if you’re heterosexual and want to pursue the relationship the law fully supports you. You can marry the foreigner and bring them to your home country. It is legal to do so. It is legal in the vast majority of countries in our world.

Unfortunately, that is not the case with homosexuals. In the majority of the worlds countries homosexuals are not granted the same immigration rights as heterosexuals.

This is where the term bi-nationals comes in. In other words, two individuals from two different nations.

It’s really quite a ‘straight forward’ process (pun intended) if you’re heterosexual. You marry the person (in any country). Then you submit that marriage license, along with other paperwork, to the government, along with associated fees. Poof, Presto, like magic you and your spouse are living together legally.

With homosexuals, this is only possible in a handful of countries around the world. The additional problem is that homosexuals can only marry in a handful of countries as well. Add to that the fact that most countries have strict requirements for residency and/or citizenship and you begin to see the issue.

Let’s just look at a couple examples.

Joe meets Jin. Jin is a female living in Viet Nam. Joe is from America. Joe can simply go to Viet Nam and marry Jin there in Viet Nam. Afterwards Joe can submit paperwork to the authorities in the USA. In a short amount of time, Jin and Joe are living happily ever after in the USA.

Now let’s say Paul met Huang. Paul is a gay American citizen. Huang is a gay citizen of Viet Nam. Paul cannot go to Viet Nam and marry Huang. Viet Nam doesn’t have gay marriage. Huang cannot go to America without a visa. Even if he could, there is no gay marriage, in the USA, which has any affect on federal immigration laws.

It’s possible Huang may be able to obtain a visa to another country which supports gay marriage, but even if he could obtain that visa, the USA doesn’t recognize gay marriage and therefore will not allow Paul to bring Huang into the USA.

Paul could attempt to relocate to another country, which supports gay marriage, but then he must meet that countries residency and/or citizenship requirements. Quite frankly, Paul shouldn’t be forced to leave his homeland due to inequality.

If one citizen has the right to bring the person they love into the country then all citizens should have this right. The term “All Men Are Created Equal” means very little if it isn’t true. Indeed it would seem the cornerstone of our country’s foundation was built on unstable ground.

UK Marriage Equality Fight Continues

Many of us in the USA are a little foggy on marriage equality issues in the UK. Since the UK has allowed open homosexuals in it's miliary since around 2000 we seem to think they must really be progressive.

But that is not the case at all. In the UK they have civil-partnerships for members of our LGBTQI community. However, those civil-partnerships are also available for heterosexuals.

In fact, it wasn't so long ago an article was published stating many UK heterosexuals felt civil-partnerships was a good start; a pre-marriage test. In other words, they feel civil-partnerships is less than marriage.

The simply fact that civil-partnerships are available to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, while marriage is still exclusively for heterosexuals seems to support that.

Add to that the fact the UK has a ban on same-sex marriage and you start to see civil-partnerships in a different light.

Our friend in the UK, Peter Tatchel, tells me there is a legal effort in progress to change the marriage equality issues in the UK.

For more information about that click here

Thank you Peter for keeping us informed.

Luxembourg Will Approve Gay Marriage + Adoption Before June

According to my friend Holebis:

LUXEMBOURG will approve GAYMARRIAGE + ADOPTION before june, according to the minister of justice François Biltgen writes gaysite.nl ! The tiny country Luxembourg is a "Grand Duchy" (a kind of monarchy) , +borders on south of Belgium,and also France and Germany.This means that the so-called "BENELUX" = BElgium The NEtherlands and LUXembourg all three will have gay marriage and gayadoption approved.

Video: For Better or For Worse: Gay Marriage

US Constitution, Article VI, No Religious Test for public office

We’ve heard many examples of “officials” refusal to issue “gay” marriage licenses based on religious beliefs. I’m talking about areas where same-sex marriage is legal.

I’ve always wondered if these “officials” ever refused a marriage license due to divorce, different religious beliefs or because the applicants were atheists?

Since a marriage license is a legal state/government document the “official” is an officer of the state/government.

Of course, all state and government officials are legally bound by the United States Constitution.

According to article six of the United States Constitution:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under
this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the
laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by
oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.
In other words no religious test was required for these
“marriage officials” to take office.

As you can see, that would be against the law as stated above in the United States Constitution. It would be illegal.

Yet some of these “officials” chose to impose a religious test on those who seek to obtain a legal document, which, in these cases, is their legal right.

Divorce is clearly against Christian beliefs. One must wonder why we haven’t heard about divorced applicants being refused a marriage license.

It’s obvious they are being selective in the enforcement of these religious beliefs. Of course that means they have “crossed the line”; the dividing line between “religious beliefs” and “personal bias”.

In this case, as with so many religious issues these days, it becomes apparent the later of the two is the most likely suspect.

In the bigger picture, why are any of our state/government representatives using religion as a arguing point for/against issues?

Since requiring religious affiliation to hold office would be unconstitutional, constitutionally religion falls under the umbrella of personal beliefs. Of course most of us don’t need the constitution to tell us that.

But we must take note of the fact this is in the constitution at all.

Since religion and the bible are about truth and love, one must wonder why it be rejected as a requirement to hold public office?

Obviously the wisdom of our founding fathers was based on their life experiences.

As we see religion attempting to creep into politics we must remember, history forgotten is often history repeated.