New at Reason
After the New Jersey gay marriage decision comes down, Cathy Young sees a rare piece of pragmatism break into a broiling political battle.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Terry | October 31, 2006, 3:10am | #
"Cathy Young sees a rare piece of pragmatism break into a broiling political battle."A court of seven, none elected, ordering the legislature, all elected, to produce a law to their liking and not the people's is good?
Cathy are you having your period or in menapuse?
That is a dictatorship by committee and by its nature worse than a dictatorship of one since it leaves the people with no visible target.
I would think two hundred plus years of history would prove that the American people can be trusted, or at least, not underestimated.
Cathy should START reading some history because she has the same percipation of the American people as do Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and all the other limousine liberals do.
barneca | October 31, 2006, 6:41am | #
"Cathy are you having your period or in menapuse?"thanks, terry. you saved me valuable time. i was going to read your entire post, but when i got to this, i knew i could stop and do something more productive; no sense wasting time reading the rantings of an idiot.
-cab
Perhaps now is the time to "civil union" my New Jersey boyfriend of 4 years and see if that keeps him from getting deported back to Malaysia now that his visa has run out. We'll see how "equal in all but name" a civil union really is.
gl | October 31, 2006, 9:28am | #
Terry, it would serve you well to stop frothing at the mouth. No one will take you seriously if you don't.Rhywun, that's horrible. Sounds like a trip to New Jersey may be in order for you and your man. Connecticut also allows civil unions, don't forget; depending on where you work it might be easier to live in Connecticut and commute to your job. (CT civil unions are only valid if you live in-state. I'm guessing the same holds true for Jersey.)
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 9:43am | #
What's so "horrible" about a person who's visa has expired being sent home?Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 9:47am | #
whoseJennifer | October 31, 2006, 9:52am | #
What's horrible, Rocking Chair, is that the man Rhywun loves might be permanently sent to a country thousands of miles away. I'd be devastated if that were to happen to the man I love. But of course, if that happened to me I could simply marry him and keep him here. Rhywun can't, due to prissy purse-lipped little bigots who think that if Rhywun is allowed to marry the one he loves, dogs will fuck little children and every marriage in the country will end in an acrimonious divorce.Or something like that; I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.
No, wait. Dogs won't fuck children, but marry grown men. That's it. Damned horndogs.
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 9:57am | #
OK. I agree that it's not right that Rhywun cannot keep his beau in the country through the same legal mechanism available to heteros, but if his situation were a "straight marriage", then it would still be a marriage of convenience (if the only reason for wedding is to avoid deportation), and I say go home. If you can't renew your visa, then leave.Jennifer | October 31, 2006, 10:00am | #
then it would still be a marriage of convenience (if the only reason for wedding is to avoid deportation)No, a marriage of convenience would assume no love on either side. If I married Rhywun's boyfriend to keep him in the country, that would be a marriage of convenience. And one hell of a favor, too.
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 10:03am | #
I repeat:If the only reason for getting married/civil-unioned is to escape deportation, then it is a marriage of convenience and should be considered invalid.
Actually, I don't think any marriage performed after a deportation order has been issued should be accepted.
Jennifer | October 31, 2006, 10:09am | #
If the only reason for getting married/civil-unioned is to escape deportation, then it is a marriage of convenience and should be considered invalid.You could say the same thing about a marriage between two heteros who loved each other but had no intention of getting married until the woman discovered she'd caught pregnant.
Actually, I don't think any marriage performed after a deportation order has been issued should be accepted.
I'm getting damned tired of the ever-growing idea that innocent people who have harmed no one must nonetheless be harmed themselves, not even because this will improve society or make the country safer, but Just Because.
You need to lose the love of your life, Rhywun. Suffer, both of you. Nyaah nyaah nyaah.
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 10:13am | #
Jennifer,I'm not asking that Rhywun or his boyfriend be harmed. All I want is for the law to be enforced. He got a visa. He did not renew the visa. Now he must leave.
Jennifer | October 31, 2006, 10:17am | #
Now you're being semantic, Rocking Chair. "I don't want anybody harmed; I merely want the government to pursue a course of action that will break apart two people who love each other."Also, I'm libertarian enough to not be swayed by the argument of wanting to enforce the law for its own sake. "I don't want to see this runaway slave harmed. All I want is for the law to be enforced. Send him back." Fuck that.
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 10:22am | #
I sympathize. I'm sorry that two lovers are being separated. But it's really very simple: renew your visa. It's not that difficult. Millions of people have done it. This is a self-created tragedy.And making a comparison to the fugitive slave acts is way out of line.
Jennifer | October 31, 2006, 10:42am | #
But it's really very simple: renew your visa. It's not that difficult. Millions of people have done it. This is a self-created tragedy.I don't know the specifics of Rhywun's case, but some visas cannot be renewed for whatever reason. Even if Rhywun's friend merely forgot, the fact remains that there is no legitimate reason to deport him--nobody is harmed by his presence, no threat will be averted by his absence--the only possible justification for his deportation is "follow the law purely for the sake of following the law."
Which was also the case for the Fugitive Slave Acts, which is why I don't feel the comparison was out of line at all. You, Rocking Chair, are not arguing to defend the innocent or make the country a better place--you're only arguing that the law is the law is the law.
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 12:14pm | #
"...fact remains that there is no legitimate reason to deport him..."Yes, there is. He didn't care enough about the laws of this country--where he is a guest--to make an effort to stay.
Jennifer | October 31, 2006, 12:28pm | #
Yes, there is. He didn't care enough about the laws of this country--where he is a guest--to make an effort to stay.Translation: the law is the law is the law is the law. Further translation: Rocking Chair has ESP, since he knows Rhywun's boyfriend "doesn't care" about the laws of this country. Was it a paperwork snafu? Did he have a visa that couldn't be renewed? Nope--he just didn't care. How does Rocking Chair know this? Because he does.
I suppose you and I just view the law from two completely different angles, Rocking Chair: I think the law should serve the people, whereas you think people should serve the law.
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 1:24pm | #
Hostile.I wanted to take a cpe class at NYU next spring. However, I put off applying for so long that I missed the deadline. Apparently, I didn't want to take that class enough to do what was required to take it.
Jennifer would say that I should still be allowed to take it because, while I was dawdling, I fell in love with someone who will also be taking the class. If I can't take it, then we can't take this wonderful class together.
Rocking Chair | October 31, 2006, 1:34pm | #
Better example:I can't make it to the polls next Tuesday. I can show up Wednesday, though. I have a right to vote. I should be allowed to vote on Wednesday. It's just a dumb rule to make me vote on Tuesday.
Rhywun | October 31, 2006, 1:51pm | #
Forget the "love of my life" rhetoric for now, as I have known about the difficulties of becoming an American long enough for the passions to have settled somewhat below that lofty level. In other words, why put any effort into a relationship with no future?Rocking Chair,
Before you make a *complete* ass of yourself, let me point out that he has already extended his visa three or four times. He's pretty much run out of educational options (he has a Masters already). Employment options are few. Employers are required to demonstrate that a suitable American cannot be found before they are allowed to sponsor a foreigner for a green card. They are also required to pay set wages. He is perfectly capable of becoming a dishwasher in a Chinese restaurant but has chosen to better himself and "follow the rules". Not an easy task when the "rules" are only able to be followed by the politically connected or supergeniuses.
Neu Mejican | October 31, 2006, 1:51pm | #
Jennifer,Maybe it was your way with people that disagree with you that turned the "Merchant of Venice Incident" into the non-renewal of your teaching contract. I think I see clearly now.
Rocking Chair has not taken anything close to the position you accuse him of...it is a frequent problem you have...mischaractrizing others points in order to rant against them.
As for Rhywun's boyfriend...he should be allowed to marry the same as anyone. He is not being deported for being gay (at least not yet).
Curtis | October 31, 2006, 3:27pm | #
I don't think the decision is the "right" one at all. The right decision would be to abolish all laws (including marriage laws) that give special privileges to select individuals.The decision might be better for gay people, and that is good, but it doesn't really address the primary problem: That the government has no business declaring what constitutes a proper relationship between individuals.
Jennifer | October 31, 2006, 4:05pm | #
Maybe it was your way with people that disagree with you that turned the "Merchant of Venice Incident" into the non-renewal of your teaching contract.Or maybe not. Give up, Neu Mejican: every assumption you made about it on the last thread was completely wrong; why do you wish to continue your unblemished record of wrongness?
I think I see clearly now.
You may see clearly, but your thought processes are still a tad on the cloudy side.
Jennifer would say that I should still be allowed to take it because, while I was dawdling, I fell in love with someone who will also be taking the class. If I can't take it, then we can't take this wonderful class together.
No, Jennifer wouldn't. Jennifer still says, however, that the purpose of the law should be to serve people, and absolutely nobody is being served by the deportation of Rhywun's friend. Jennifer is also quite amused by Rhywun's post which demonstrates that she was right and you were wrong: it wasn't a matter of Rhywun's boyfriend "forgetting" or "not feeling like" renewing his visa.
Bee | October 31, 2006, 5:30pm | #
If the only reason for getting married/civil-unioned is to escape deportation, then it is a marriage of convenience and should be considered invalidI would be interested to know how you propose to determine that.
I know several non-citizens who joined the U.S. military in an effort to win citizenship. The consensus is that it's easier to endure a year or two of combat in a jungle or desert than it is to navigate the INS labyrinth.
Neu Mejican | October 31, 2006, 9:33pm | #
"why do you wish to continue your unblemished record of wrongness?"Ahhh...I love the wrongness of it all.
Sorry Jennifer, but I fail to recognize you as arbiter of wrongness. Particularly in regards to our last discussion... a careful read of the interchange would reveal few inaccurate predictions on my part.
Example (summarized from memory--archive is gone): Me: (1) Jennifer would probably admit she was not punished because of this incident [note singular form].
Jennifer: (2) You are wrong NM. [followed by] (3) I was technically not punished, but my pricipal didn't rehire me because he said I generated too many complaints from parents, and didn't respect the diversity of my students. I had lots of students that liked me, and I was very prepared for class. I even got letters of recommendation. Some parents did complain for "bullshit reasons." So see how you are wrong about what you said NM.
Declaring (1) wrong, in (2) supported by (3) doesn't give me faith in your ability to judge wrongness. So declaring my latest post wrong [particularly in light of (3)] doesn't really shake my faith in my assertions.
Sorry, it just doesn't ;^)
Stevo Darkly | November 1, 2006, 12:26am | #
Rhywun --I am sorry to hear about your situation. I hope a solution can be found.
Employers are required to demonstrate that a suitable American cannot be found before they are allowed to sponsor a foreigner for a green card.
My cousin dated an Australian woman who worked for IBM in the US. She was periodically panicked that her green card might not be renewed, and I think this was the reason. A few years back there was some kind of flap about HB-1 or something like that -- demagogues were concerned that American IT people couldn't get jobs because employers could hire cheap foreign ones instead, from underdeveloped nations (like Australia) and said demagogues thought mabye they should make it more difficult to hire foreigners.
Stupid political flaps like that can make it difficult to get visas renewed, even for people who "follow the rules."
Rottin' in Denmark | November 1, 2006, 8:43am | #
As an American who's lived in Australia, Britain and now Denmark, I can attest to the sheer assholery of visa statutes in most Western countries. It's never as simple as 'I didn't feel like renewing my visa, but now I want the state to bend over backwards for me.' Most of these systems seem to be designed for maximum inconvenience and obfuscation, and I have nothing but the deepest sympathies for Rhykwun and his boyfriend for navigating it all.And Jennifer's right, there's no genuine compelling reason to deport this dude other than the rule itself. Such rules were designed to keep uneducated, underemployed, unproductive immigrants from being/staying in this country, and it sounds like The Boyfriend isn't that. If he's not violating the reason behind the rule, why blindly follow the rule?
And it *does* amount to being deported for being gay. If he was straight, he could simply marry his significant other. He is gay, so he can't, so he faces deportation. Maybe it's not direct in the sense of being told 'We don't want you here because your gay', but that's what it amounts to.
Neu Mejican, why are you interested in ignoring the issue at hand and re-hashing something from a few weeks ago? Stay on topic: resume telling me that I should be nicer to Rocking Chair in regards to his insistence that Rhywun's boyfriend deserves to be deported.
Neu Mejican | November 1, 2006, 7:21pm | #
Okay Jennifer,You summarize the disagreement thusly...
"I suppose you and I just view the law from two completely different angles, Rocking Chair: I think the law should serve the people, whereas you think people should serve the law."
Please support this assertion based on Rocking Chair's statements.
Rocking Chair: "He didn't care enough about the laws of this country--where he is a guest--to make an effort to stay."
This assertion assumes that Boyfriend did not make an effort. This is not an assumption I would make, but it is Rocking Chair's. Given that assumption, how does his statement indicate that he thinks the people should serve the law, and not the law the people? He seems to be asserting something about the law providing guidance as to the expectations of the people (that he assumes Boyfriend has not lived up to). He might be incorrect in his assumption about Boyfriend's efforts, but his statement does not leave me with the impression that he values the law more than the people. He seems more to be valuing in-group versus out-group status and saying that you must meet the in-group's expectations to stay. The law is just a mechanism to make that discrimination.
I don't agree with Rocking Chair, but if you are going to argue with someone it is important to start with an understanding of their position. This is not always as easy thing to do.
In this discussion I would ask Rocking Chair (hey Rocking Chair, feel free to answer)... why do you assume that Boyfriend has not made the effort? (we now have testimony that he has). I would also ask "if we assume that the effort had been made, how would that change your position?" Then we can get to whether or not he supports the current legal regime based on his answer...Then we can determine if he thinks Boyfriend "deserves to be deported." Getting to those answers might require that you are nicer to Rocking Chair, who was very polite to you.
As to the issue at hand: Given the testimony to effort by Boyfriend, it is clear that the visa renewal system is either to complex or too strict or both to fairly serve this couple. When you throw in the lack of a marriage (or civil union) option for gay couples, this makes the current policies discriminatory in a certain restricted sense (as pointed out by R in Denmark). Another argument for either making all "marriages" civil unions, or allowing a larger cohort into the group that is allowed to marry.