Can I marry a foreigner of the same sex here in the United States if their country does not have legalized same-sex marriage?

Updated on : December 3, 2021 by Grayson Webster



Can I marry a foreigner of the same sex here in the United States if their country does not have legalized same-sex marriage?

If you can. You will want to meet with an immigration law attorney first, this is imperative.

For example, if the alien has a tourist visa, and if USCIS determines that the two of you knew each other prior to the tourist visa, then they would object to this due to their claim that the application for a tourist visa was made. under false pretenses, if marriage was the real goal.

I have been through the entire process myself and I did not heed the advice of people who claimed that I did not need an immigration attorney and because I hired a great attorney, the entire process

Keep reading

If you can. You will want to meet with an immigration law attorney first, this is imperative.

For example, if the alien has a tourist visa, and if USCIS determines that the two of you knew each other prior to the tourist visa, then they would object to this due to their claim that the application for a tourist visa was made. under false pretenses, if marriage was the real goal.

I have been through the entire process myself and I ignored the advice of people who said I did not need an immigration attorney and as I hired a great attorney the whole process was very smooth.

Keep a few things in mind: Many people who don't know anything about the immigration process in some way just foolishly believe that two people are getting married and then the other person "instantly" becomes a US citizen. That is a ridiculous and ridiculously simplistic perception of the process. This is not how it works.

First, there is usually the Fiancé Visa, in most cases. That process takes 6 to 9 months. Then there is the initial and expensive application that involves many different parts and supplemental forms and then meeting in person for the USCIS interview. The entire process to obtain a TEMPORARY AND PROVISIONAL TWO YEAR Green Card (NOT citizenship !!!) can easily take a year or more.

After two years of marriage, there is another interview for the permanent Green Card (which must be renewed every ten years). The interviewer will look for body language and inform you that they have researched and studied you. It is an open question whether this means / had meant surveillance, interviews with third parties, or simply reviewing public records.

After obtaining permanent residence, the green card holder can apply for citizenship.

I scornfully scoff at the fact that 95% of the people I met, in some way, simply believed that on the wedding day, the immigrant spouse magically became a United States citizen. Could not be farther from the truth.

Under no circumstances, ever, ever, ever, will you even consider marrying someone for any reason other than love, because if the USCIS has any suspicions of some business "arrangement," then they will call both spouses and question each. one of them. Separate rooms.

USCIS isn't stupid - they'll be looking for things like letters and cards from parents and friends congratulating the two of you as a couple. They can interview family, friends, relatives, or neighbors to confirm that they really are a loving couple. They will expect some kind of legitimate mix of finances. However, it is still possible to maintain a joint marital account, as well as each of you maintaining your own individual accounts. Not everything has to mix, but there has to be something.

Hire a good immigration law attorney. My immigration attorney was:

Stacy Cozart with Sharon & Kalnoki LLC.
6500 Rockside Rd., Suite 180. Independence, OH 44131
Phone: (216) 328-9878

Sadly, my marriage didn't work out. My spouse, perhaps more than a few years younger than me, was homesick and wanted to return to his home country. Despite Hollywood exports of how American life is depicted, money doesn't grow on trees in America and everyone is expected to go to school or work.
Despite all efforts to make sure we were both as communicative as possible from the start, in hindsight, I think he had expectations that I would keep him as a Sugar-Daddy and live a life of leisure, traveling. while I financed his lifestyle. While teaching you to drive might seem comical, especially to someone else, and in hindsight I might be able to laugh at that now, but it was hell on wheels teaching a 27-year-old with no driving experience how to learn to drive. And I wouldn't wish the same on my worst enemy Driving schools are worth their weight in gold. It took him 4 times to pass the written exam, 4 times to pass the driving test, and I wasn't sure if I was going to live to see the day for fear that it would wreck the car and kill us both before I win over the proverbial drivers. license.

Fortunately, neither of us contested the divorce as we had no children and he did not attempt to pursue my assets. While doing all the paperwork for your own divorce was not an easy task, taking around 200 hours of paperwork, I was able to complete and file all the necessary paperwork for a divorce myself (or face spousal abandonment and uncertain legal limbo. ), with moderate legal guidance and assistance.

We parted ways in a semi-civil way and we both moved on with our lives.

If any of you have more than $ 10,000 in assets or debts, then you should seriously consider a prenuptial agreement. No marriage “requires” that individual joint property automatically become marital property as soon as you walk down the aisle. I oppose the conventional wisdom that says that as soon as you marry someone, you give them half of everything you have.

First, even if that were true, neither person would be singled out, the rule would apply to both people. Second, if a person is married less than 36 months and gets divorced, there is a legal term and a set of rules that apply that at least lays the basic foundation to prevent either spouse from breaking away from the other. Third, if a person actually got half of someone else's assets, they would get half of their debts as well, and vice versa.

Prenuptials are legitimate to the extent that:

  1. The prenups must correspond to a last will and testament. If someone expects to be in the will, they must also agree to be in a PreNup. In other words, no one is getting everything I worked for, on my corpse, literally. Just as it would be mean to expect one spouse to sign a prenup, but leave it out of the will, the same is true for a spouse to expect to be included in the other spouse's will, but be allowed to opt out. a prenuptial agreement, which makes the marriage a lossless proposition, a proposition without risk to them, but one that puts the burden back on the other spouse.
  2. Preparations not only protect one spouse from losing assets to someone else, but also protect one from getting stuck with more debt than they can pay or with the other person's bills. Divorce courts not only grant assets, they also assign debts, so it is important to detail the financial image of each person on the assets and liabilities that each contributes to the marriage.
  3. Since any marriage can fail (and it only takes one person to divorce), divorce courts expect responsible adults to have a prenuptial agreement as the rule, not the exception, specifying what is individual property and what is marital. property. Courts are only going to go so far to mess up a couple's messy finances, and the more messy and mixed up they are, the more expensive a divorce will be and the greater the chances of inequalities or even injustices arising.
  4. My position is that liabilities follow assets. If one spouse divorced another and wanted the house, then they will also receive the mortgage liability against which the property is secured. No one gets free property or cars while the other person is stuck with all the payments.
  5. There is nothing wrong or anti-love that establishes that either spouse, or both, can have their own individual property, such as their 401k retirement plan that they have been paying for their entire life, or their car or family. . relics. Marriage doesn't mean a free food frenzy for everyone.
  6. While newbies are vilified because one spouse does not trust the other, marriage is nevertheless a business arrangement based on love. In any marriage, there is the business side of things and also the love side. Treating business in a charming, whimsical, and naive way is as foolish as treating love in a sterile commercial way is cold. Love is love and business is business, and a marriage is a combination of both. Life is not a continuous fairy tale; Life involves responsibilities like school, work, paying bills, paying taxes, voting, planning finances, and making good decisions, not just emotional ones. Of course, there are intimate and cuddly moments when couples don't bring spreadsheets into the bedroom while screaming: there is a time and a place for everything. But just to underline that while marriage begins with love and is based on love, the fact that there is a business side to marriage is a very stark reality that is foolish to bury only in the footnotes of these chapters. romantics of your life. The business side of things deserves at least a little conscience, as any couple makes big decisions and doesn't just get lost in the "I love you" and the honey stuff.

Yes.

It wouldn't depend on where they come from, just their visa status in the US.

I am not a professional, but I am pretty sure of it.

If they have temporary residence in the United States, they could probably marry any American.

Yes, but your home country may not recognize that the marriage existed. But the US and the countries that recognize American marriages (most countries have treaties that recognize the marriages of others, so when you move from the US to Canada or from Australia to the UK , you do not have to remarry), he will consider you married.

If you are a gay refugee from Iran and recognized as a refugee and citizen in Sweden, then you can marry someone of the same sex here. But if your status is negative you will have to go back to your country and get married there, which is not possible and is not recognized.

Yes, you can get married in the US and you will be granted most of the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, but your marriage will not be recognized in your partner's country.

Yes.

Because:

A The 1987 Constitution guarantees equal access to all the rights that it consecrates to all citizens of the Republic. Last time I looked, "Citizen" does not discriminate between gender preferences.

B The Republic of the Philippines, as defined by the 1987 Constitution, is a secular and liberal democratic state. It does not recognize any state religion. It demands the separation of Church and State, in the same way that it allows Citizens to practice any belief they can, as long as they do not contravene any of the laws of the Republic.

It is not a question of morality. As citizens of the Republic, ho

Keep reading

Yes.

Because:

A The 1987 Constitution guarantees equal access to all the rights that it consecrates to all citizens of the Republic. Last time I looked, "Citizen" does not discriminate between gender preferences.

B The Republic of the Philippines, as defined by the 1987 Constitution, is a secular and liberal democratic state. It does not recognize any state religion. It demands the separation of Church and State, in the same way that it allows Citizens to practice any belief they can, as long as they do not contravene any of the laws of the Republic.

It is not a question of morality. As Citizens of the Republic, homosexuals must not be discriminated against with regard to access to the full civil rights granted to Citizens. And that includes being able to enter into a civil union with your partner.

But, part of the problem is that the law that determines it in the Philippines - the Family Code - was based on the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church (if I remember my classes at the Athenaeum on the right), this being the largest Catholic An Asian country, the ICR has traditionally played an important socio-political role in public life since the Spanish conquest of these islands.

The first articles of the Family Code are clear:

Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman concluded in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.

Art. 2. No marriage will be valid, unless these essential requirements are met:

(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be men and women; and

Unlike the United States, our laws define marriage as that between a man and a woman. Because, Canon Law.

So, in order for same-sex marriage to have the opportunity to occur in this country, the Family Code must be amended, or a new law must be introduced that legalizes the civil union between people of the same sex in Civil Law.

As you can see, I continue to emphasize the term “civil union”. That's because the word "marriage" is a ... loaded term in these debates, especially when conservative Christians are involved. For Christians of any denomination, marriage is a sacrament. And, as my Marriage Theology professors explained, this is defined among Christians, from the Catholic Church to the many Protestant denominations in this country, as between the two sexes that God created.

However, we do have laws and other provisions that, when you look at them, require (in a sense) marriage.

Take, for example, the situation where half a same-sex relationship suffers some mishap, one that renders them unable to decide for themselves. This becomes a problem if that person's family is against the same-sex relationship. They can legally deny access to the partner under the law (iirc) that grants the primacy of access and decision-making to the immediate family.

What about the children? I am sure that all of our laws regarding adoption only cover cases where the "family" is that of a man and a woman. It would already be difficult given that many orphanages are run by religious institutions, in addition to the stigma around same-sex parents, but a same-sex couple will also have the law against them when trying to adopt a child. Their application may be denied on the grounds that they are not a "family," and very few judges will rule against a decision because, again, as far as I know, we have laws that (can) prevent same-sex couples from adopt children simply because the law does not recognize them as capable of starting a family.

The laws of inheritance are another problem. In its most basic form, the law says that a spouse is entitled to half of their deceased partner's property, and the other half is divided between their children. But the law recognizes the "spouse" as a husband or wife. Unless you assume that the two who form a same-sex couple draw up clear wills, or arrange legalities beforehand (such as residences placed under their partners' names, etc.), the surviving couple could have difficulties if the family of their deceased love one intervenes.

Can same-sex couples open a joint account?

And that's just a cursory and spontaneous review of some of the obstacles that same-sex couples face because they can't "get married" in this country.

When you look at him, his situation is a bit discriminatory. They are denied a host of protections, rights and privileges of the adult Citizens of this Republic who pay taxes and contribute to the economy simply because we have laws that somehow do so on the basis of religion, again despite the fact that that '87 insists that religion should play a minimal role, if not none, in policymaking.

The only way I can think of that same-sex couples can get married here is to first adopt a different term from that theologically loaded word and then use it to amend the Family Code or (somehow) have a new law worked out to same-sex unions.

Note that such a law or amendment to the Family Code should not require religious institutions to allow the sacrament to same-sex couples. Just as advocates of civil liberty demand that churches not interfere in matters of secular law and policy, secular law and policy must not interfere in matters of religion.

The Constitution is clear about the separation of Church and State and that goes both ways, regardless of what some people think of the churches. A law that requires churches to allow their ministers to marry same-sex couples is the same as churches that require the state not to marry same-sex couples.

Civil law must not discriminate. It should not be dictated by religion. And even now that civil unions are between a man and a woman, it has a different character from the way the churches view marriage.

For religion, marriage is a sacrament, hence the ... virulence of opposition to same-sex marriages because Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that it should only be between a biological male and female.

For the State, civil unions are a contract between two Citizens. That's why you sign documents and we call them marriage contracts. It is an agreement between two adult citizens to become a single entity, something like LLC and corporations, and will henceforth be treated as such by the State unless the conditions for dissolution of the union are met and declared (see, also opens the possibility to easily allow divorce) by the signatories.

So I don't see why we, as a secular state, should deny same-sex marriages at the level of civil law. Churches can still say no; that's their belief, their theology. Changing that is beyond the purview of civil liberties activism, at least for the moment.

But churches should not hinder civil unions. It is a right and privilege conferred by the State to its Citizens. Asking Citizens for their denial based on a preference that is not illegal would be discriminatory and has no place in the formulation of public policies.

Contrary to common opinion, I would say that it may become a reality surprisingly soon. Like, 20 years from now. It's probably already dead or too old for me to care, but it's still not the 50-100 billion years that most people estimate.

You see, while Russia may seem desperate in that regard, there are signs that things are not too bad.

1. Russia is not really a religious country. People pretend to be religious, yes, but most Russians can't even tell what pascha is about, they've never read the Bible and have been to church maybe once or twice in their entire life, if at all. they ever did. This is the legacy of 70 years

Keep reading

Contrary to common opinion, I would say that it may become a reality surprisingly soon. Like, 20 years from now. It's probably already dead or too old for me to care, but it's still not the 50-100 billion years that most people estimate.

You see, while Russia may seem desperate in that regard, there are signs that things are not too bad.

1. Russia is not really a religious country. People pretend to be religious, yes, but most Russians can't even tell what pascha is about, they've never read the Bible and have been to church maybe once or twice in their entire life, if at all. they ever did. This is the legacy of a 70-year communist reign. Russia is a very atheistic country that pretends to be the opposite.

2. Acceptance of LGBT people increases with each new generation, no matter what. Millennials tend to be more receptive than their parents and grandparents.

3. The level of acceptance has risen rapidly since the fall of the Soviet Union, from literally 0% to almost 20% until the Putin government began to impose traditionalist views. This clearly shows that Russians * are * very capable of accepting homosexuals, but they are manipulated too easily. So once Putin's government falls ... who knows what could happen?

4. As with religion, most people * really * don't care. They express anti-gay views and openly oppose gay marriage only because they fear that if they don't, they will be labeled gay. And sometimes, it is enough for a person to openly support LGBT, or declare himself gay or transgender, to change the mentality of the people around him.

So I think there is hope despite how ugly things can look right now.

There is no reason the new country should have to, although it could.

This happened to some couples who got married in Canada and sought American recognition of their marriages, which was initially denied. Although the Windsor and Obergefell Supreme Court decisions ultimately resulted in such marriages being recognized as a matter of constitutional law, the state of the law as it existed prior to those decisions illustrates what is likely to happen. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Canada in 2007. Although New York recognized them as married before their Legislature officially declared

Keep reading

There is no reason the new country should have to, although it could.

This happened to some couples who got married in Canada and sought American recognition of their marriages, which was initially denied. Although the Windsor and Obergefell Supreme Court decisions ultimately resulted in such marriages being recognized as a matter of constitutional law, the state of the law as it existed prior to those decisions illustrates what is likely to happen. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Canada in 2007. Although New York recognized them as married before its Legislature officially established marriage equality (in 2011), the federal government did not officially recognize any form of same-sex marriage. until 2013 after Windsor was unveiled,

Therefore, the reference to the local law of the new country would be essential; there is not and cannot be a general rule. There is definitely no general legal authority that can be considered a resolution of the way the United States Constitution was ultimately upheld at Obergefell.

Obviously, my answer will be partial, but I fully support it and legalization.

Why should someone deny love to another person while the person who denies it can have it? Sounds human?

It is also a fact that homosexuality is found in a variety of species, which makes it a natural variation. Is it really our place to say no to what is natural?

Most of the problems related to legalizing same-sex marriage is religion. The Bible itself says that you still have to respect everyone, if you are denying someone the same rights it is to respect or repress them.

“While the Bible disapproves of homosexual acts,

Keep reading

Obviously, my answer will be partial, but I fully support it and legalization.

Why should someone deny love to another person while the person who denies it can have it? Sounds human?

It is also a fact that homosexuality is found in a variety of species, which makes it a natural variation. Is it really our place to say no to what is natural?

Most of the problems related to legalizing same-sex marriage is religion. The Bible itself says that you still have to respect everyone, if you are denying someone the same rights it is to respect or repress them.

“While the Bible disapproves of homosexual acts, it does not condone hatred of homosexuals or homophobia. Instead, Christians are commanded to "respect everyone."

—1 Peter 2:

17,

The Bible also does not say that homosexuality is bad, but homosexual acts are what are supposed to be avoided.

So most of the people who use religion as an excuse or reason to deny same-sex rights and marriage, are either uneducated in the areas of the Bible that focus on homosexuality ... or they don't understand it as it is written.

So my answer is yes.

These things are changing a lot right now. Until very recently, the answer was no, but the recent DOMA court case may have turned things around. I think it's pretty clear by now that a US citizen can sponsor a same-sex spouse to get a green card, but I'm not sure about the situation with H-4 visas. I would speak to an immigration attorney. You can go to http://immigrationequality.org/ and request a referral.

There are many ever-changing details in US immigration law and I find that many well-intentioned people on the Internet often give bad advice. For example, you mention that your partner is fr

Keep reading

These things are changing a lot right now. Until very recently, the answer was no, but the recent DOMA court case may have turned things around. I think it's pretty clear by now that a US citizen can sponsor a same-sex spouse to get a green card, but I'm not sure about the situation with H-4 visas. I would speak to an immigration attorney. You can go to http://immigrationequality.org/ and request a referral.

There are many ever-changing details in US immigration law and I find that many well-intentioned people on the Internet often give bad advice. For example, you mention that your partner is from Australia. I know there are some immigration rules that are different for Australians than for citizens of any other country, due to a bilateral trade agreement. In this case, they turn out to be especially favorable. But even someone who is quite familiar with the process and has gone through it himself, if he is not involved in it on a daily basis in a professional capacity, could easily miss such a detail.

Also, even though you probably just meant that you don't plan on having an elaborate wedding, you need to be careful when writing things on the internet like "not the great marriage." You don't want a literal-minded immigration official to Google your name and find some evidence that your marriage could be destined for immigration only. While this is (in my opinion) a horribly intrusive imposition of a single vision of what marriage is supposed to be and that the government would never dare to impose outside of the immigration context, the reality is that there have been cases. known where immigration officials have questioned the validity of (heterosexual) marriages based on considerations as totally irrelevant as whether the spouses sleep in the same bed.

RE: What will happen to married homosexuals if the law allowing same-sex marriage is repealed?

I wish I had a crystal ball, but I have some ideas.

First of all, it will once again be legal to discriminate against partners in healthcare.

Second, draconian laws will begin to be enacted throughout the state and then on federal ballots to further limit the rights of non-male-female unions.

Third, and this is happening now, but it's just a "hidden" problem: Attacks on same-sex partners will start to pick up speed, and any protection that same-sex partners had will disintegrate.

It is something like what is happening to women

Keep reading

RE: What will happen to married homosexuals if the law allowing same-sex marriage is repealed?

I wish I had a crystal ball, but I have some ideas.

First of all, it will once again be legal to discriminate against partners in healthcare.

Second, draconian laws will begin to be enacted throughout the state and then on federal ballots to further limit the rights of non-male-female unions.

Third, and this is happening now, but it's just a "hidden" problem: Attacks on same-sex partners will start to pick up speed, and any protection that same-sex partners had will disintegrate.

It's kind of like what's happening to women across America when it comes to bodily autonomy.

We are losing ground.

And it's scary as hell.

Welcome to Gilead ... I mean America.

* Western
* I live in Japan
* Straight
* I have asked this question to several Japanese friends

I do not claim to understand Japanese attitudes towards sexuality. But I can say that, in my experience, most of the Japanese men I have met have quite a negative attitude towards homosexuality (particularly between men). I know several Japanese women with many gay friends and they not only accept homosexuality, they say they make wonderful friends (although I'm not sure if this reflects broader points of view). And I know some bisexual and lesbian Japanese women, but none of them have said

Keep reading

* Western
* I live in Japan
* Straight
* I have asked this question to several Japanese friends

I do not claim to understand Japanese attitudes towards sexuality. But I can say that, in my experience, most of the Japanese men I have met have quite a negative attitude towards homosexuality (particularly between men). I know several Japanese women with many gay friends and they not only accept homosexuality, they say they make wonderful friends (although I'm not sure if this reflects broader points of view). And I know some Japanese bisexual and lesbian women, but none of them have told their families about it and tend to keep it a secret. A Japanese friend hid the fact that he is gay from me for 6 months because he was worried that I would react badly.

In general, Japan is a socially conservative country. Japanese attitudes toward gender, sexuality, and individual rights and obligations are very different from those of Western democracies. There is a Wiki article with some details here: LGBT Rights in Japan

Sure, that's changing. Sure, it differs between areas and individuals. There is a district in Shinjuku specifically for bars, clubs, etc. homosexuals and there is a significant gay population. But it is rare to see in the open. (That said, public displays of affection are rare overall here, even between men and women.)

To answer the question directly, polls probably suggest that opinion is against legalization, divided or marginally in favor (with some staunch opposition). In any of these scenarios, it is unlikely to be a big vote winner, and as such has less political currency than many other issues (from the perspective of legislators).

Furthermore, while there are lobbies, public demonstrations and civil disobedience are less common in Japan than in other countries, so the LGBT community may not have the same channels or means to influence political debate that were central to it. make the laws change. in other countries.

Yes. They can still marry in a foreign country that recognizes same-sex marriage, but the marriage is simply not recognized in their home country.

I may be wrong, but something similar happened with married same-sex couples who moved to Canada (or vice versa). Basically, although same-sex marriage was legal in one country, only civil unions were recognized in the other. Therefore, they were only considered civil partners in the new country.

Sorry I don't remember where I read that, but it somehow helps answer the question.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.