US to force gay diplomats to marry

[RestoreTheJoy]

Given that Trump's constituency tends to oppose gay marriage it seems a bit odd that we're forcing gay diplomats to get married:

US will only grant diplomatic visas to married couples, not domestic partnerships - CNNPolitics

The world isn't surprised when the US tries to force its own policies on the world, but gay marriage isn't something I expected Trump's folks to try and force on the world. Of course for people outside the 25 countries where gay marriage is legal this can present difficulties.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. This is just a policy correction.
Why should shacks-ups be covered in any situation? They are not family.

 

[usexpat97]

Sounds true to form to me. Gays don't want to stop at "equality". They want special treatment. And if you compare salaries of professional gays vs. professional straight people, they are already getting it.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Huh? The change in policy affects only gays. Previously the US had accepted non-married gay partnerships, treating them as equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Because gay marriage is now legal, we've stopped doing so, and will accept only actual marriage, both for US diplomats and most foreign diplomats in the US. The change affects only gays, so it's hard to see how it wasn't decided with gays in mind.

They've given diplomats who are in gay relationships a deadline to get married. There are some exceptions, but for most gays this applies.

So their shack-up relationships should receive special treatment but everyone else has to be married? You object and think special treatment is warranted?

Maybe I misunderstand. Sounds like shack ups weren't covered as family in the first place. Why should they be now?

 

[baryogenesis]

I wonder if the new policy excludes a diplomat's partner even if that partner has been in an adulterous relationship with the diplomat for some time? Does it count against inappropriate content star adultery too? Family values!

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, one could use a sham marriage but it would leave a paper trail and multiple marriages would be questionable. Far easier for non-contractual domestic partners to be fluid and deceptive.

And our enemies are too dumb to cover their tracks, you think?

 

[The Barbarian]

I wonder if the new policy excludes a diplomat's partner even if that partner has been in an adulterous relationship with the diplomat for some time? Does it count against inappropriate content star adultery too? Family values!

THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!

 

[pat34lee]

Given that Trump's constituency tends to oppose gay marriage it seems a bit odd that we're forcing gay diplomats to get married:

US will only grant diplomatic visas to married couples, not domestic partnerships - CNNPolitics

The world isn't surprised when the US tries to force its own policies on the world, but gay marriage isn't something I expected Trump's folks to try and force on the world. Of course for people outside the 25 countries where gay marriage is legal this can present difficulties.

The USA is not saying that homosexuals can't
be diplomats. Only that their current sex partner
won't be accepted as a spouse for visa purposes.

Anyway, it applies to all domestic partners who
are not legally married, straight or not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just another way to get the rest of the civilized world to laugh at us.

 

[Chesterton]

Misleading thread title is misleading.

 

[SolomonVII]

Trump was the first president elected who was publicly for gay marriage when at the time of his election.
That is his constituency.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Previously the US had accepted non-married gay partnerships, treating them as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

There is no visa for a non married gay partnership. Never has been. You can get a Fiance' Visa but you have to get married within 3 months.

 

[joshua 1 9]

one could use a sham marriage

No you can not get away with a sham. Those people are very good at their interviews and they know how to catch the law breakers. They have lot of tricks up their sleeve.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Trump was the first president elected who was publicly for gay marriage when at the time of his election.
That is his constituency.

June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court approved gay marriage, that was under Obama and Trump had nothing to do with it This is one of the reasons why the liberals are fighting against conservative judges. Because they want to promote their gay liberal agenda.

 

[The Barbarian]

June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court approved gay marriage, that was under Obama and Trump had nothing to do with it This is one of the reasons why the liberals are fighting against conservative judges. Because they want to promote their gay liberal agenda.

The court had a conservative majority. It's not a liberal/conservative thing; it's a libertarian/authoritarian thing. If you prize freedom, you let people free to choose. If you prize government control, you impose your rules on everyone else.

 

[SolomonVII]

June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court approved gay marriage, that was under Obama and Trump had nothing to do with it This is one of the reasons why the liberals are fighting against conservative judges. Because they want to promote their gay liberal agenda.

Never said Trump had anything to do with changing the law. Obama was elected stating he was for traditional marriage. He switched his position while sitting as president. Trump was elected publicly accepting SSM.
And yes, Democrats use an activist court to pass laws that they don’t dare run on. Trump is keeping his promise on electing judges who are not social justice warriors but are constitutionalists.
He also accepts the laws as they exist, and follows the laws as written. That is rather novel after eight years of Obama not enforcing laws on marriage that he did not like.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Democrats use an activist court to pass laws that they don’t dare run on.

All law makers are to lazy to write laws that mean anything. They leave it up to the Judges to do whatever they want to do. I was importing and they confiscated one of my shipments. I was told you have to get stuff approved ahead of time. So before you ship your suppose to get a ruling if the item is legal or not. It was no big deal it was only $100 but it made me mad because it was something I had custom made. It could be something they wanted to take home with them. So they just sent me a notice so knew that I was not going to get the item.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The court had a conservative majority. It's not a liberal/conservative thing; it's a libertarian/authoritarian thing. If you prize freedom, you let people free to choose. If you prize government control, you impose your rules on everyone else.

So you agree that this has nothing to do with Dr Ford and everything to do with Kavanaugh being what you call an authoritarian. But you do not think it is authoritarian to force someone to bake you a cake to cerebrate your gay wedding? As usual your guilty of what you accuse others of.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court approved gay marriage, that was under Obama and Trump had nothing to do with it This is one of the reasons why the liberals are fighting against conservative judges. Because they want to promote their gay liberal agenda.

You are refuting what was not said. He said: Trump was the first president elected who was publicly for gay marriage when at the time of his election.

Remember, Obama was against same sex marriage when it was politically expedient for him. He opposed it in 2008.

Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008

 

[The Barbarian]

So you agree that this has nothing to do with Dr Ford

Someone did? Where did that come from? I'm pointing out that conservative libertarians don't want to abuse the rights of anyone.

and everything to do with Kavanaugh being what you call an authoritarian.

How do you figure he's an authoritarian?

But you do not think it is authoritarian to force someone to bake you a cake to cerebrate your gay wedding?

If I was a baker, I'd sell "celebration cakes",and sell accessories to let people decorate them as they wished. Problem solved.

As usual your guilty of what you accuse others of.

As usual, you came up with all sorts of things you want me to believe, and insist that I believe them.

 

[pat34lee]

Just another way to get the rest of the civilized world to laugh at us.

The rest of the world is not civilized.