GSTamral
09-12-2004, 10:17 AM
They met. They fell in love. The fact that one was a U.S. citizen and the other was not made a big difference due to the current laws of the land that they moved to. They were both here in the United States. They moved in together-sharing a mortgage and finances, caring for one another and becoming a loved member of the other’s family. Now they want to get married.
If they were straight, they could. But, they’re not, so they can’t.
Greg Meissner and his Taiwanese partner, Shan, are gay men. They’ve built a life together that is a model of love and commitment. Shan taught Greg to speak Mandarin so Greg could communicate with his in-laws. Greg’s family has embraced Shan as a son-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle.
Since Greg and Shan can’t get married under the current legal system, Greg can’t sponsor Shan for American citizenship-unlike their heterosexual counterparts. With his work visa running out, Shan must leave the country even after working and paying taxes here for the last five years, which is not unusual for people with such work visas. Without company sponsorship, people with such visa's have a time limit on their stay in the United States. Paying taxes is not something he "even did for 5 years", it is something ALL people who work here on Visa's must do. He was asked to understand and obey the laws of the land when he came here, as is required by coming here on a work Visa. He must also, as a foreigner living here, respect those laws dutifully, even if he disagrees with them for so long as he is a foreign citizen in this country.
Will this loving couple be torn apart? Will they have a tearful separation at the airport? Will they have an international commuter relationship? No. All of these questions are used to do nothing other than generate sympathy for a known situation. Shan was free to attempt to get another work visa, or apply for a green card, something the article never bothers to mention. Furthermore, once a temporary status was granted, there are many states that, at least to some degree, recognize civil unions. They had other options, which, while most definitely more difficult, did not shatter their every fiber as the article stated it.
Instead of leaving each other, they are leaving the country, which was one of his available options. Greg will leave his position as an assistant principal in the San Jose, CA school district and they will both venture northeast to Toronto, Canada where they can marry and both attain citizenship. Where’s the justice in that? Yes it is agreeably unfair, but not everything in life is fair. He made a very bold decision to leave a job and move out of the country, at which point he must accept the consequences of such.
And at what cost? They must sell their home and buy a new one. Boo Hoo. They must leave their jobs and find new ones. That's what happens when you move. They must leave their friends and build a new circle of support. Again, this happens when you move. They must uproot their lives and plant themselves in a new country-all just so that they can stay together and continue to love and care for each other. You know, people do move all the time and this happens.
Greg’s mother, Kathleen, is an old friend of mine. In a note to me about this situation she wrote “Greg is being forced to choose between his relationship and his citizenship. Needless to say, he has made his choice but it is unfair at best.”
As unfair as the situation is, they make it seem like it is the absolute only option available, which is not true. There were other available options, and while none of them are as easy as a man and woman getting married, which is an unfair situation, to spin this as though they only had an option to leave the country does not generate any additional sympathy from those who didn't give sympathy to begin with. This is a preaching to the choir article. For those who cared, it makes them feel sad. For those that don't, it doesn't generate anything further.
Is it fair to ask a committed, loving couple to choose between love or country? No, it is not. We don’t ask straight couples to do this. Yes, that is true, and it does present an unfair situation to homosexual partners. Why should lesbian or gay couples have to? It is agreed that such a situation is indeed unfair.
Simple. Our government’s immigration laws actively discriminate against us.
No, they simply have not been updated to include them. Many of those laws are rooted when church and state were much more closely tied. The church recognized a married couple as a man and woman. Marriage is also a part of religious institution. While I personally don't give a shit on the technicalities of marriage, I perfectly understand the arguments of those who will never recognized homosexual partners as "married". Whilst they have no problems with homosexual partners having a civil union which presents them with the exact same rights, the roots of marriage are in the church, and that is not something that can be easily rooted away. Immigration laws say nothing to discriminate against homosexuals. NOTHING. It simply does not provide them with the opportunity to marry same sex for the purpose of becoming a citizen.
According to the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force based in New York City with chapters throughout the country, our nation’s immigration policy is predominantly based on the principle of family unification. This allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their spouses (and other family members) for immigration purposes.
rehash paragraph with sympathy spin deleted.
The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, added insult to injury. DOMA guarantees that for federal purposes including immigration, marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman.
sympathy rehash about Greg and Shan.
Once again the United States is in the minority in the western world when dealing with lesbian and gay issues. Fifteen of our international friends and allies recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of immigration. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have no problem letting one of their citizens sponsor their lesbian or gay partner for citizenship.
The same thing can be said for gays serving in the military. Most of the western world doesn’t have a problem with it. But, we do.
[
Our immigration laws also bar people who are HIV+ from entering the country and gaining permanent legal resident status. How bizarre is that? While the Americans with Disabilities Act bans discrimination against U.S. Citizens living with HIV or AIDS, the government discriminates against HIV+ people who want to immigrate here. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the compassion? Thankfully, if you are a legal permanent resident and find out you’re HIV+, the government won’t deport you.
]
Ok, taking exception to this one. If you had even the first clue how much it costs to take care of such a patient, you'd understand why this law exists. The hell if we all pay more so someone with HIV can move here and live off of our tax dollars. If they can't pay for their own care, why should they simply be able to get up and move here so we can burden the expense? Where's your sympathy for lower middle class america trying to save up to buy their own house? (That last statement is an example of equally stupid and asinine spin that can be used from the other side). This paragraph is displaced in that it does not belong in this article.
Now, Greg and Shan could try to find a friendly lesbian who would marry Shan-or, a friendly straight woman for that matter. But, these types of marriages of convenience are lavender flags for the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Not only do these marriages create tremendous hardship for all involved, they can also lead to prosecution by the INS where the accomplice, partner and immigrant-in this case, the friendly woman, Greg and Shan-could all face jail terms and hefty fines and then Shan would be deported.
Ummm, that's what happens when you sidestep the law, even an unfair one, and cheat the system, no matter how just your cause. I find it unfair that some cities have outlawed smoking inside the confines of a bar, even if it has an air system. That doesn't mean I hide somewhere in the bar and smoke anyway. It means I respectfully disagree with the law and move on.
Unfair at best, Greg and Shan have made a choice they shouldn’t be forced to make. They are leaving the United States so that they can stay together. For them, love triumphs all-even citizenship and love of country. But, where is the fairness in that? That is the decision they made in the face of a law that many deem as unfair. That the law exists in such a way and has the support of enough people to not be changed immediately means the only way to fight it is to raise awareness, not just sympathy.
If they were straight, they could. But, they’re not, so they can’t.
Greg Meissner and his Taiwanese partner, Shan, are gay men. They’ve built a life together that is a model of love and commitment. Shan taught Greg to speak Mandarin so Greg could communicate with his in-laws. Greg’s family has embraced Shan as a son-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle.
Since Greg and Shan can’t get married under the current legal system, Greg can’t sponsor Shan for American citizenship-unlike their heterosexual counterparts. With his work visa running out, Shan must leave the country even after working and paying taxes here for the last five years, which is not unusual for people with such work visas. Without company sponsorship, people with such visa's have a time limit on their stay in the United States. Paying taxes is not something he "even did for 5 years", it is something ALL people who work here on Visa's must do. He was asked to understand and obey the laws of the land when he came here, as is required by coming here on a work Visa. He must also, as a foreigner living here, respect those laws dutifully, even if he disagrees with them for so long as he is a foreign citizen in this country.
Will this loving couple be torn apart? Will they have a tearful separation at the airport? Will they have an international commuter relationship? No. All of these questions are used to do nothing other than generate sympathy for a known situation. Shan was free to attempt to get another work visa, or apply for a green card, something the article never bothers to mention. Furthermore, once a temporary status was granted, there are many states that, at least to some degree, recognize civil unions. They had other options, which, while most definitely more difficult, did not shatter their every fiber as the article stated it.
Instead of leaving each other, they are leaving the country, which was one of his available options. Greg will leave his position as an assistant principal in the San Jose, CA school district and they will both venture northeast to Toronto, Canada where they can marry and both attain citizenship. Where’s the justice in that? Yes it is agreeably unfair, but not everything in life is fair. He made a very bold decision to leave a job and move out of the country, at which point he must accept the consequences of such.
And at what cost? They must sell their home and buy a new one. Boo Hoo. They must leave their jobs and find new ones. That's what happens when you move. They must leave their friends and build a new circle of support. Again, this happens when you move. They must uproot their lives and plant themselves in a new country-all just so that they can stay together and continue to love and care for each other. You know, people do move all the time and this happens.
Greg’s mother, Kathleen, is an old friend of mine. In a note to me about this situation she wrote “Greg is being forced to choose between his relationship and his citizenship. Needless to say, he has made his choice but it is unfair at best.”
As unfair as the situation is, they make it seem like it is the absolute only option available, which is not true. There were other available options, and while none of them are as easy as a man and woman getting married, which is an unfair situation, to spin this as though they only had an option to leave the country does not generate any additional sympathy from those who didn't give sympathy to begin with. This is a preaching to the choir article. For those who cared, it makes them feel sad. For those that don't, it doesn't generate anything further.
Is it fair to ask a committed, loving couple to choose between love or country? No, it is not. We don’t ask straight couples to do this. Yes, that is true, and it does present an unfair situation to homosexual partners. Why should lesbian or gay couples have to? It is agreed that such a situation is indeed unfair.
Simple. Our government’s immigration laws actively discriminate against us.
No, they simply have not been updated to include them. Many of those laws are rooted when church and state were much more closely tied. The church recognized a married couple as a man and woman. Marriage is also a part of religious institution. While I personally don't give a shit on the technicalities of marriage, I perfectly understand the arguments of those who will never recognized homosexual partners as "married". Whilst they have no problems with homosexual partners having a civil union which presents them with the exact same rights, the roots of marriage are in the church, and that is not something that can be easily rooted away. Immigration laws say nothing to discriminate against homosexuals. NOTHING. It simply does not provide them with the opportunity to marry same sex for the purpose of becoming a citizen.
According to the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force based in New York City with chapters throughout the country, our nation’s immigration policy is predominantly based on the principle of family unification. This allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their spouses (and other family members) for immigration purposes.
rehash paragraph with sympathy spin deleted.
The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, added insult to injury. DOMA guarantees that for federal purposes including immigration, marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman.
sympathy rehash about Greg and Shan.
Once again the United States is in the minority in the western world when dealing with lesbian and gay issues. Fifteen of our international friends and allies recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of immigration. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have no problem letting one of their citizens sponsor their lesbian or gay partner for citizenship.
The same thing can be said for gays serving in the military. Most of the western world doesn’t have a problem with it. But, we do.
[
Our immigration laws also bar people who are HIV+ from entering the country and gaining permanent legal resident status. How bizarre is that? While the Americans with Disabilities Act bans discrimination against U.S. Citizens living with HIV or AIDS, the government discriminates against HIV+ people who want to immigrate here. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the compassion? Thankfully, if you are a legal permanent resident and find out you’re HIV+, the government won’t deport you.
]
Ok, taking exception to this one. If you had even the first clue how much it costs to take care of such a patient, you'd understand why this law exists. The hell if we all pay more so someone with HIV can move here and live off of our tax dollars. If they can't pay for their own care, why should they simply be able to get up and move here so we can burden the expense? Where's your sympathy for lower middle class america trying to save up to buy their own house? (That last statement is an example of equally stupid and asinine spin that can be used from the other side). This paragraph is displaced in that it does not belong in this article.
Now, Greg and Shan could try to find a friendly lesbian who would marry Shan-or, a friendly straight woman for that matter. But, these types of marriages of convenience are lavender flags for the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Not only do these marriages create tremendous hardship for all involved, they can also lead to prosecution by the INS where the accomplice, partner and immigrant-in this case, the friendly woman, Greg and Shan-could all face jail terms and hefty fines and then Shan would be deported.
Ummm, that's what happens when you sidestep the law, even an unfair one, and cheat the system, no matter how just your cause. I find it unfair that some cities have outlawed smoking inside the confines of a bar, even if it has an air system. That doesn't mean I hide somewhere in the bar and smoke anyway. It means I respectfully disagree with the law and move on.
Unfair at best, Greg and Shan have made a choice they shouldn’t be forced to make. They are leaving the United States so that they can stay together. For them, love triumphs all-even citizenship and love of country. But, where is the fairness in that? That is the decision they made in the face of a law that many deem as unfair. That the law exists in such a way and has the support of enough people to not be changed immediately means the only way to fight it is to raise awareness, not just sympathy.