The Sunday Star-Times (via Stuff) reported that the longtime aide to former Prime Minister Helen Clark, Heather Simpson, has married her partner, Sue Veart, in a civil union at their home in Wellington. Clark, whose government created civil unions, did not attend.
The article talked about Simpsons political power during Clark’s Labour-led government, before moving on to how Simpson had her “arm twisted” to work for Clark at the United Nations in New York City. Apparently Veart recently left her job so she could join Simpson.
The article said: “One acquaintance said she believed the civil union would make it easier for Veart to live in the US.” Personally, I doubt that’s true, given Simpson’s well-known political nous. She would know that no foreign or domestic legal recognition of same-sex relationships—whether civil unions or marriages—are recognised by the US
Search results for amerinz
When disappointment becomes more
Posted by
DividedByLaw 1072 days ago
(http://amerinz.blogspot.com)
I’m profoundly disappointed in President Obama. For several days, I’ve been trying to write this post to explain. The first version was basically outraged anger. The next attempted to be more neutral. Now? I’m beyond disappointed.
There are two huge problems with this: First, the DoJ absolutely does not always defend all laws, especially when they’re indefensible or clearly in conflict with presidential policy (Obama called DOMA “abhorrent”). But even accepting their claim, they didn’t have to use anti-gay arguments to do so, and that’s my focus here.
As Richard Socarides, former Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton, put it, “There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.”
There are two huge problems with this: First, the DoJ absolutely does not always defend all laws, especially when they’re indefensible or clearly in conflict with presidential policy (Obama called DOMA “abhorrent”). But even accepting their claim, they didn’t have to use anti-gay arguments to do so, and that’s my focus here.
As Richard Socarides, former Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton, put it, “There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.”
AmeriNZ Exploding christianist lies
Posted by
UnitedByLove 1134 days ago
(http://amerinz.blogspot.com)
GLBT Immigration Equality in the US. I support HR 1024/S 424, the Uniting American Families Act, for GLBT immigration equality in the United States. For a regularly updated list of sponsors of the bills, check out the end of this post. ...
« previous1 next »
“How may I assist with these stories, if at all?...”
“My question back to you is how do we get immigration reform defined as a...”
“Watch the actual video on ABC 7's website, and you'll see that he's really...”
“Thanks. I shortened it through tinyurl. Works now....”
“Note from imeQ about this editorial: This is an independent project which...”
Feedburner
Promoting public awareness of the need for fairness in immigration policy particularly as it relates to the rights of same-sex bi-national couples in the United States who seek equal immigration rights; Providing information regarding political issues relating to gay immigration equality issues, rights and policy.