Trump admin begins denying visas to unmarried gay partners of diplomats

[mikeymikec]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/0...-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...arried-sex-partners-foreign/story?id=58222208

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-life-harder-on-lgbt-diplomats-u-n-staff.html

The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.

- edit -

On moderator request I've made the title a bit more informative and adding a bit more content to the OP. I hope this is to their satisfaction

A policy change in 2009 to allow unmarried gay partners of international diplomats a diplomatic visa has been rescinded by the Trump administration. I think that such a change is more than a little petty and childish, and a better change (bearing equality in mind) would have been to remove the marriage requirement entirely as I see very little purpose being served in such a restriction, and is more in line with modern Western culture.

 

[shortylickens]

fuckin dickhead!

 

[Ichinisan]

Do they give visas to girlfriends of male diplomats?

 

[mikeymikec]

Do they give visas to girlfriends of male diplomats?

The decision is meant to “ensure and promote equal treatment,” according to a State Department spokesperson, as heterosexual domestic partners of foreign diplomats are also not eligible for U.S. visas. That rule has been in effect since 2009, but the Trump administration is saying because same-sex marriage is now legal in the U.S., it’s no longer necessary or fair.

Despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal everywhere, the logic of saying "well it's legal here" to people not from "here" escapes me, except as an intentional act of supreme pettiness and a swipe at gay people.

 

[greatnoob]

Despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal everywhere, the logic of saying "well it's legal here" to people not from "here" escapes me, except as an intentional act of supreme pettiness and a swipe at gay people.

Maybe this is his way of proving he’s not a closet homosexual, with you know... his recent “I love Kim Jong” comment.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

 

[mikeymikec]

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.

Whoosh!

It is the fault of the US in helping to discriminate against people who are being discriminated against in their own country.

IMO it would make far more sense to question why the partner must be married to the diplomat in order to be allowed in and thereby achieve equality while embracing modern principles, instead of acting like marriage is some kind of notion of propriety.

 

[pcgeek11]

Whoosh!

It is the fault of the US in helping to discriminate against people who are being discriminated against in their own country.

IMO it would make far more sense to question why the partner must be married to the diplomat in order to be allowed in and thereby achieve equality while embracing modern principles, instead of acting like marriage is some kind of notion of propriety.

Whoosh indeed.

That is equality. All are treated equally in this regard, non married partners are not granted a Visa regardless of their sexual preference.

You may not like it, but to say it is to discriminate against gay people is just not true. At best it discriminates against unmarried partners.

 

[darkswordsman17]

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 disagree, but the issue comes from the fact that the US started allowing it in 2009 for some reason. Not sure if because in some other places homosexual people could get married, so even though it wasn't legal in the US at that time, it was legal elsewhere. Or was it like asylum where they were doing it because homosexual persons experience more discrimination? If the latter then this change is horrible. If the former then its kinda inconsistent, as most of those people couldn't get legally married so they should've handled it on a country by country basis.

Do they have exemptions for person that cannot legally get married? Since the diplomats wouldn't be legal US citizens (or am I wrong?), they wouldn't be able to get married here to fix that aspect, so most of them don't have the ability to get legally married in their own country in order to meet that requirement.

Considering the actions and attitudes of this administration, this sounds like just another big FU.

Whoosh indeed.

That is equality. All are treated equally in this regard, non married partners are not granted a Visa regardless of their sexual preference.

You may not like it, but to say it is to discriminate against gay people is just not true. At best it discriminates against unmarried partners.

No, it really isn't. Because most of those homosexual couples cannot get legally married in their own countries, whereas all of the heterosexual couples can, but are choosing not to get married.

 

[interchange]

You may not like it, but to say it is to discriminate against gay people is just not true. At best it discriminates against unmarried partners.

Let's see here. Unmarried opposite sex partners can get married and receive visas. And unmarried same sex partners can do nothing. Unmarried opposite sex partners are getting no change to their rights. Unmarried same sex partners are getting their right to receive visas removed.

So.... You're obviously blatantly wrong here. Now, if the US used to grant visas to unmarried same sex partners from countries where same sex marriage was legal, then that would be discrimination.

Here's another smell test. Who was being wronged by the previous policy? Any indication at all that anyone was upset at the way things were or it was posing any security risk at all? Any downside you can think of? Even if something might have some logical fault (it really doesn't), you don't change something that was working just fine already.

 

[brycejones]

Let's see here. Unmarried opposite sex partners can get married and receive visas. And unmarried same sex partners can do nothing. Unmarried opposite sex partners are getting no change to their rights. Unmarried same sex partners are getting their right to receive visas removed.

So.... You're obviously blatantly wrong here. Now, if the US used to grant visas to unmarried same sex partners from countries where same sex marriage was legal, then that would be discrimination.

Here's another smell test. Who was being wronged by the previous policy? Any indication at all that anyone was upset at the way things were or it was posing any security risk at all? Any downside you can think of? Even if something might have some logical fault (it really doesn't), you don't change something that was working just fine already.

You have to understand pcgeek11 really doesn't care how shitty the rule is, just as long as everyone is treated poorly.

 

[Meghan54]

You have to understand pcgeek11 really doesn't care how shitty the rule is, just as long as everyone is treated poorly.

Well, pcgeek11 is still in the closet, so you know how that piece of conservative dung will act.....trash exactly what they want and aspire to become but are too chickenshit to do anything about it.

 

[fskimospy]

As the quote goes, rich people and poor people are both barred from sleeping under bridges, therefore the law is equal for everyone.

 

[mikeymikec]

Whoosh indeed.

That is equality. All are treated equally in this regard, non married partners are not granted a Visa regardless of their sexual preference.

You may not like it, but to say it is to discriminate against gay people is just not true. At best it discriminates against unmarried partners.

Saying "it's just not true" is not a substantial counter-argument, it's about as insightful as children in the playground saying "Nuh-uh!". Try harder.

I have to say though, attempting to argue "equality" by removing rights is definitely a special kind of argument; the kind that would have gone down like a lead balloon when the US and other countries in recent years discussed marriage equality: "Let's just get rid of marriage!".

 

[fskimospy]

Saying "it's just not true" is not a substantial counter-argument, it's about as insightful as children in the playground saying "Nuh-uh!". Try harder.

I have to say though, attempting to argue "equality" by removing rights is definitely a special kind of argument; the kind that would have gone down like a lead balloon when the US and other countries in recent years discussed marriage equality: "Let's just get rid of marriage!".

That was a fairly frequent conservative argument, to remove the state from recognizing marriages entirely instead of recognizing gay marriages.

 

[greatnoob]

That was a fairly frequent conservative argument, to remove the state from recognizing marriages entirely instead of recognizing gay marriages.

What's that saying about something, something... conservatives would... something, something... just to spite liberals?

 

[mikeymikec]

That was a fairly frequent conservative argument, to remove the state from recognizing marriages entirely instead of recognizing gay marriages.

Really? Beyond say someone suggesting it and pretty much everyone saying "uh, no"?

 

[fskimospy]

Really? Beyond say someone suggesting it and pretty much everyone saying "uh, no"?

If you google ‘get the government out of marriage’ you will see plenty of right wing think pieces about it, and not just from fringe people.

The dominant conservative position was that we should just keep it for heterosexual couples and deny it to gay people but the #2 argument was definitely to get rid of state marriage entirely.

 

[mikeymikec]

If you google ‘get the government out of marriage’ you will see plenty of right wing think pieces about it, and not just from fringe people.

The dominant conservative position was that we should just keep it for heterosexual couples and deny it to gay people but the #2 argument was definitely to get rid of state marriage entirely.

Interesting. I don't think it was a common argument in the UK at all, but then in the UK among conservatives there's not a significant "small government" mindset like there is in the US.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting. I don't think it was a common argument in the UK at all, but then in the UK among conservatives there's not a significant "small government" mindset like there is in the US.

People who want to remove state recognition of marriage are mostly libertarians, which means they usually haven’t thought through the consequences of their ideas.

Getting rid of civil marriage in the US would be a huge pain in the ass and would require its many contractual functions to be replaced by a patchwork of other agreements. It’s not impossible by any means but it’s hard to see why it would be worth the time. Apparently it was preferable to allowing the Hated Gays to marry.

 

[Ventanni]

All the new US ruling does is require that you and your partner be married in your home country for the visa to be granted here in the United States. If your home country has legalized gay marriage, then your partner receives a visa. If they don't recognize gay marriage, then your partner doesn't receive a visa. I don't see anything wrong with that, as diplomats are not US citizens. The same applies for hetero couples; no visa unless you're married.

Heterosexual domestic partners of foreign diplomats have been ineligible for U.S. visas for a long time now. And honestly, whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed in the diplomat's parent country is really not my problem.

 

[mikeymikec]

All the new US ruling does is require that you and your partner be married in your home country for the visa to be granted here in the United States. If your home country has legalized gay marriage, then your partner receives a visa. If they don't recognize gay marriage, then your partner doesn't receive a visa. I don't see anything wrong with that, as diplomats are not US citizens. The same applies for hetero couples; no visa unless you're married.

Heterosexual domestic partners of foreign diplomats have been ineligible for U.S. visas for a long time now. And honestly, whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed in the diplomat's parent country is really not my problem.

I guess this thread has already reached the phase of "I didn't bother to read the thread before I make a point that's already been made and countered".

 

[Ventanni]

I guess this thread has already reached the phase of "I didn't bother to read the thread before I make a point that's already been made and countered".

Also: Uh, if they were US citizens, they wouldn't need a visa.

I realize that US citizens don't need visas (it's kinda circular and funny on my part), but my point still stands; they are citizens of their parent countries and therefore are required to obey the laws of their home land. They are, after all, representing the interests of their parent country. Marriage is a legally binding contract, and if there is no contract in their parent country, then there is no contract to be recognized here in the states. I don't see a problem with that. The same rule applies to hetero couples, so I don't see how this is discrimination against gay people. It was an awkward and inconsistent ruling to begin with and should have never been allowed in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

I realize that US citizens don't need visas (it's kinda circular and funny on my part), but my point still stands; they are citizens of their parent countries and therefore are required to obey the laws of their home land. They are, after all, representing the interests of their parent country. Marriage is a legally binding contract, and if there is no contract in their parent country, then there is no contract to be recognized here in the states. I don't see a problem with that. The same rule applies to hetero couples, so I don't see how this is discrimination against gay people. It was an awkward and inconsistent ruling to begin with and should have never been allowed in the first place.

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?

 

[mikeymikec]

I realize that US citizens don't need visas (it's kinda circular and funny on my part), but my point still stands; they are citizens of their parent countries and therefore are required to obey the laws of their home land. They are, after all, representing the interests of their parent country. Marriage is a legally binding contract, and if there is no contract in their parent country, then there is no contract to be recognized here in the states. I don't see a problem with that. The same rule applies to hetero couples, so I don't see how this is discrimination against gay people. It was an awkward and inconsistent ruling to begin with and should have never been allowed in the first place.

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.