Trump admin begins denying visas to unmarried gay partners of diplomats

[fskimospy]

You still haven't made any point that hasn't ready been made and countered. The only difference is you've already acknowledged that you don't give a shit about what the rules are in other countries.

It’s a bold move to see a system where straight people can get their partners a visa and gay people can’t and then say ‘I don’t see how this discriminates against gay people’. After all, it’s only discriminating against unmarried people, that’s totally equal.

Seems like my previous quote was more on the mark than I thought. The full quote is this:

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

 

[mikeymikec]

One thing I find funny about this whole situation is this business of demanding that the diplomat be married to their partner, it's almost like a developed country is acting like my 80-something parents and insisting that couples can only sleep together under their roof in the same bedroom once they're married.

Interestingly my parents held fast to this rule until very recently, I guess they felt more than a little silly to demand it of my >40 year old brother and his similar-aged partner.

 

[pauldun170]

I'm torn on this one.
What is the difference between issuing a visa to someones partner who would probably be married if it was legal and issuing a visa someone's friend\really hot hookup from last week who offered ass for a visa?

From a legal standpoint, Pence\GOP are big fans of cherry picking existing laws to screw over folks they thing need screwing and a valid point is raised.
If you don't like it....change the law.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm torn on this one.
What is the difference between issuing a visa to someones partner who would probably be married if it was legal and issuing a visa someone's friend\really hot hookup from last week who offered ass for a visa?

From a legal standpoint, Pence\GOP are big fans of cherry picking existing laws to screw over folks they thing need screwing and a valid point is raised.
If you don't like it....change the law.

As someone who knows several people who work for the UN and related agencies that wouldn’t even make the top ten list of shitty things UN diplomats do here. It’s simply not a meaningful issue.

They probably would give a visa to some hot girl, because lots of UN diplomats are gross horndogs. I still remember how they had to close the bar in the UN (yes, it has a bar!) because the diplomats were molesting all the interns.

 

[pauldun170]

As someone who knows several people who work for the UN and related agencies that wouldn’t even make the top ten list of shitty things UN diplomats do here. It’s simply not a meaningful issue.

They probably would give a visa to some hot girl, because lots of UN diplomats are gross horndogs. I still remember how they had to close the bar in the UN (yes, it has a bar!) because the diplomats were molesting all the interns.

I wonder who was the person who got the ball rolling to mess with diplomats?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Another example of lefties complaining about true equality and not accepting equal treatment. The reality is libs want privilege, not equality.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm torn on this one.
What is the difference between issuing a visa to someones partner who would probably be married if it was legal and issuing a visa someone's friend\really hot hookup from last week who offered ass for a visa?

I'm going to go with: None.

AFAIK a diplomatic visa is temporary, only for as long as the diplomat works for their government in that specific role, and it can be revoked by either side. If you had just hooked up with someone who happened to be a diplomat, in what screwed up and convoluted set of circumstances are you going to agree to move abroad with them only to be turfed out the moment that they change post, and the diplomat wants you to, their random one-night-stand to come with them? Also, your bad behaviour abroad would likely affect their job prospects.

The only argument I can think of against my idea of dispensing with the marriage requirement is the potential for a slave to be brought to a country that slavery is not legal in, but considering that diplomatic visas/provisions are already somewhat different to normal everyday visa-type situations, I suspect that a competent lawyer somewhere can come up with wording to stop that from being a possibility legally speaking. Having said that, maybe a diplomat bringing a slave is still allowed due to some archaic and rarely used diplomatic provision?

 

[mikeymikec]

Another example of lefties complaining about true equality and not accepting equal treatment. The reality is libs want privilege, not equality.

Yes, that's why more than once I've suggested getting rid of the marriage requirement. Good job in reading the thread before you post.

 

[allisolm]

I'm torn on this one.
What is the difference between issuing a visa to someones partner who would probably be married if it was legal and issuing a visa someone's friend\really hot hookup from last week who offered ass for a visa?

From a legal standpoint, Pence\GOP are big fans of cherry picking existing laws to screw over folks they thing need screwing and a valid point is raised.
If you don't like it....change the law.

1. They don't issue visas to anyone's friendly/really hot hookup from last week. Only to legal spouses who may or may not be friendly/really hot hookups from last week but are married to the employee.

2. It isn't a law. It's a State Department policy so citizens can't change it.

3. I agree with the OP that it is a douche move.

 

[fskimospy]

Another example of lefties complaining about true equality and not accepting equal treatment. The reality is libs want privilege, not equality.

Similarly it’s illegal for both rich and poor people to sleep under bridges, true equality.

 

[IronWing]

The policy is likely a violation of the Civil Rights Act as applied to folks already in this country. For keeping folks out, it is probably legal. Note that the Civil Right Act prohibits discrimination against persons, not just citizens.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

 

[pauldun170]

1. They don't issue visas to anyone's friendly/really hot hookup from last week. Only to legal spouses who may or may not be friendly/really hot hookups from last week but are married to the employee.

2. It isn't a law. It's a State Department policy so citizens can't change it.

3. I agree with the OP that it is a douche move.

OK thanks for the clarification
So its a policy.Like no jeans on Monday. You have to wear your ID badge on site and no baby wipes in the toilet.
So, if you live in a country where you can buy another family's daughter for marriage.
You can bring your property in as your wife.

If you have been in a relationship with someone for 30 years, have children but can't get married in your country because of crazy religious idiots then you are out of luck.

 

[pauldun170]

The policy is likely a violation of the Civil Rights Act as applied to folks already in this country. For keeping folks out, it is probably legal. Note that the Civil Right Act prohibits discrimination against persons, not just citizens.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Civil rights act only applies to people that have access to FoxNews on US soil who are born here. Preferably their parents are born here too.
Foreigners are by default "Enemy combatants" unless they can prove they love Jesus and Fottball.

 

[Ichinisan]

Because in many of those countries heterosexual couples have the option to be married and gay couples do not.

That means if you’re straight and from one of those countries you have the option of getting married to get your partner a visa. If you’re gay you're shit out of luck.

Now do you see why this is discriminatory?

It's those other countries doing the discrimination by not allowing homosexual marriage.

 

[allisolm]

It’s a bold move to see a system where straight people can get their partners a visa and gay people can’t and then say ‘I don’t see how this discriminates against gay people’.

Straight people can't get their partners visas and gay people can't get their partners visas. All people involved can get their legal spouses visas. That's nondiscriminatory on it's face. That some of the people involved in nonheterosexual relationships are unable to legally marry in their own countries is, apparently, something no longer to be taken into consideration.

My question is this - do not their own countries know who their employees are and who has been issued visas to travel with whom? It seems like they have tacit approval for these relationships from their own countries.

 

[IronWing]

It's those other countries doing the discrimination by not allowing homosexual marriage.

True, but this policy creates a disparate impact in this country.

 

[allisolm]

OK thanks for the clarification

If you have been in a relationship with someone for 30 years, have children but can't get married in your country because of crazy religious idiots then you are out of luck.

Yes. Likewise, if you have been in a relationship for 30 years and can get married in your country but haven't, you are out of luck.

 

[fskimospy]

Straight people can't get their partners visas and gay people can't get their partners visas. All people involved can get their legal spouses visas. That's nondiscriminatory on it's face. That some of the people involved in nonheterosexual relationships are unable to legally marry in their own countries is, apparently, something no longer to be taken into consideration.

Right, but shouldn't we look at policies in terms of what they, you know, actually do? That was the point of my quote about sleeping under bridges being illegal. That's totally nondiscriminatory on its face but we all know in reality it is extremely discriminatory against the poor. The simple fact of it is that straight people have an avenue to get their partner a visa and now gay people do not. If you want to say that's up to their home country to fix I would say why? There's nothing about those countries' policies that require us to tailor our visas to them and there's no harm in allowing diplomats to bring whatever partner they want with them.

This policy is obviously meant to signal animus towards gay people and nothing more. It's dumb and shameful.

My question is this - do not their own countries know who their employees are and who has been issued visas to travel with whom? It seems like they have tacit approval for these relationships from their own countries.

Sure, they know. Why is that relevant?

 

[hal2kilo]

Similarly it’s illegal for both rich and poor people to sleep under bridges, true equality.

This is whoosing right over.

 

[Zorba]

It seems to be fair as hetero not married partners are also not allowed a visa from the way I read the article. So it is equal, they are just not getting special treatment.
It is not the fault of the US that their own country does not allow same sex marriage.

I can see doing it on a country by country basis, but if they can't get legally married in their own country I think we should make an allowance.

 

[fskimospy]

This is whoosing right over.

Haha it does appear so.

I thought we had dispensed with this nonsense years ago during the old gay marriage debate. I remember some people saying the law was already equal because both straight and gay people weren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex. True equality!

 

[Cozarkian]

Can't they can get married in the U.S.? Their home country might not recognize it as valid, but the U.S. should.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's those other countries doing the discrimination by not allowing homosexual marriage.

And the US enables such behaviour and even allows them to go a step further by that country's government saying to a prospective diplomat, "sorry, you have a partner, and since you can't get married you can't go on this assignment with them", along with, "we don't hate gay people, we just don't allow them to marry".

Who knew that the point of having principles means you shouldn't selectively apply them? Oh, life is so hard.

 

[fskimospy]

Can't they can get married in the U.S.? Their home country might not recognize it as valid, but the U.S. should.

Yes, it would be possible for them to get married in the US, although that seems like it has the potential to lead to unforeseen legal consequences down the road.

To me the easier and more correct answer is to simply allow diplomats to have a visa for a partner, regardless of what sex.

 

[Cozarkian]

This is whoosing right over.

Because it is a bad example that uses an appeal to emotion to try to circumvent logic. The question is whether the no sleeping under bridges rule is a bad policy, not whether it discriminates. If we decide it is a good policy, then the law is in the proper form. A rule that says only poor people can't sleep under bridges might be just as effective from a policy standpoint, but it would discriminate in addition to having the same policy concerns.

Once you start looking at people's desires as the basis for determining discrimination, everything becomes discrimination. Speeding discriminates against those who like to drive fast, exotic pet bans discriminate against those not satisfied with traditional pets. These are all policy questions - do we want to ban a behavior that certain people would enjoy - not a discrimination question.