Same sex binational couples still waiting for their day of celebration

[JoFerret]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040517/nym220_1.html

NEW YORK, May 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Today history is being made in Massachusetts.... For gay men and lesbians in binational couples, however, there is little cause for celebration because a marriage recognized at the state level, but not at the federal level, will do nothing to confer immigration benefits on the couple.
....

Under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, marriage is defined as the "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, "meaning that the marriages performed in Massachusetts will result in state-based marriage rights for the couples but not in federal-based marriage rights. Immigration is governed entirely by federal law. Making matters worse, foreign nationals who marry U.S. citizens, may be denied future visas because their strong ties to the U.S. could be interpreted as "immigrant intent," or an intent to remain in the U.S. permanently.

Unless there is a change in federal law, couples like "Brian" and "Ken" will be unable to secure immigration rights. The Permanent Partners Immigration Act, currently pending in both houses of Congress (H.R. 832 and S. 1510) would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding the term "permanent partner," wherever "spouse" currently appears. This would allow gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their permanent partners for immigration to the U.S. Immigration Equality estimates that there are 35,000 same sex binational couples currently living in the U.S.

"For us, today's celebration is bittersweet because binational couples still won't enjoy the most important right of all that marriage brings -- the right to be together," says Victoria Neilson, the Legal Director of Immigration Equality.
<more>

[Q3JR4]

1. Wouldn't the next logical step

be to find two people in Mass. who marry and then have one of the two apply for citizenship for the one non-citizen and then appeal the decision all the way to the supreme court?

Have they recently ruled on such a decision? Or is that outside of the sphere of influence of the court?

[David Dunham]

2. That would likely be a loser in the US Supreme Court

The Court is much more likely to find that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires one state to respect gay marriages performed in another state.

[JoFerret]

3. ...and they have to do all this because?

...we still have discrimination.
Stories like this remind us that this is about legal rights not romance.