Marriage Equality and Immigration

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    This underlines the importance of @3 of DOMA, even if was limited merely to federal applications. Without it, there was some flexibility for agency and executive as a whole application of same sex marriage.

    Also, Windsor by striking down DOMA, sec. 3 (not adding that last part is almost forgivable, since the opinion itself repeatedly merely says “DOMA”) shows the breadth of a ruling that is not just about states though the opinion goes out of its way to focus on state discretion, the right of the people of states to evolve on marriage.

  2. Brett Bellmore says:

    Given the number of immigrants who are members of plural marriages, in full legality in their country of origin, I wonder what basis remains for insisting that the US will not recognize polygamous marriages? Especially given that polygamy has been a widespread institution for thousands of years, and same sex marriage was essentially unknown as much as a decade ago, and even now could not be described as “wide spread”.

    I suspect the legal challenges are already being planned. Perhaps the Mormons are setting one up right now. And what basis remains for opposing them?

  3. Joe says:

    Perhaps, those who “wonder” can look at the the hundred other comment threads where this “what about polygamy” question comes up and it is answered over and over again.

    Ted Olson also helped during oral argument. But,the “widespread institution” issue does clash with the “change in definition” argument other way.

  4. Brett Bellmore says:

    Look, Joe, I’m not asking if it’s possible to distinguish SSM from polygamy. Obviously it is, or they’d be the same thing. Nor am I asking if some people do so distinguish, in an “Of course this doesn’t imply polygamy is next!” way of disputing reductio arguments.

    I’m asking what legal basis remains for so distinguishing. I don’t see squat.

  5. Joe says:

    It has been explained whenever this question — it always tends to be — raised how polygamy, incest or bestiality is not the same thing for equal protection purposes [“legal basis”] than same sex marriage.

  6. Kari Hong says:

    What a thoughtful and helpful analysis! The portability of a state’s marriage law will be an interesting issue to watch play out. It seems like the immigration courts have been grappling with that issue for years (in terms of the validity of first-cousin marriages, uncle-niece marriages, etc.) Kerry, do you have any thoughts on whether the same-sex marriage issue will fit nicely into the existing framework or move it in either direction. Thanks for the great piece.

  7. Kerry Abrams says:

    Thanks for all of the insightful comments. I’ll try to address some of these issues in upcoming posts.