Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Even though Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and New Hampshire perform same-sex marriages, (1) as do Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain, (2) a gay American citizen or lawful permanent resident who marries in those jurisdictions cannot sponsor her spouse immigrate United States. (3) As a result, over 35,820 same-sex couples must choose between living in their native country alone or being with their spouse abroad. (4) Unlike foreign spouse in a heterosexual couple who can obtain a permanent visa relatively quickly, foreign member of a same-sex couple has limited options legally immigrate United States. In best-case scenario, foreign national might have a parent or sibling who can sponsor her. The wait for a family-based visa sponsored by a parent or sibling immigrate United States takes between four and ten years. (5) A second option is secure an employment visa. Employment visas are contingent on foreign national's skill level and labor needs in United States. Yet, even if a foreign national meets criteria, person could wait anywhere between a few months and nine years. (6) The protracted wait and uncertainty of obtaining any type of visa makes it unfeasible for most same-sex binational couples permanently live in United States together. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is main impediment same-sex couples receiving immigration benefits. (7) DOMA, a federal law, defines as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and further states that the word 'spouse' refers only a person of opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. (8) Explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman means that immigration officials can recognize only heterosexual marriages for purposes of granting family visas. (9) Congress has ability bar same-sex marriage immigration through DOMA due plenary power doctrine. The plenary power doctrine states that power regulate immigration is an inherent power of a sovereign nation; Congress's ability aliens ... [is not] open controversy. (10) Hence, Congress can exclude a foreigner because of her sexual orientation or because it does not choose recognize her marriage an American citizen. Because of plenary power doctrine, Congress's authority exclude aliens without legally recognized marriages is not open legal challenge. So this Note focuses on effect of DOMA on same-sex marriage immigration. This Note asks two questions: (1) Whether DOMA is only obstacle same-sex marriage immigration, and (2) Whether, if DOMA were repealed, would Americans who marry foreign nationals of same sex be able sponsor their partners for family visas. These questions are not solely theoretical; there are indications that eventually DOMA will be repealed or amended. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a lawsuit filed in a Massachusetts federal district court in March 2009, plaintiff argues that DOMA should be struck down because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination in its denial of federal benefits for spouses of federal employees. (11) Gill is currently being litigated in district court, but because of importance of federal questions involved, it could go before Supreme Court. (12) Even if Gill does not dismantle DOMA, it represents a concerted legal effort challenge law. Furthermore, President Barack Obama supports repealing DOMA. (13) While gay rights advocates believe President Obama has done little in his first year in office help gay community, and in fact his Department of Justice has filed briefs in support of DOMA, (14) he maintains he is committed promoting civil rights for gays and lesbians. In October 2009, for example, Obama administration filed papers stating that administration wishes repeal DOMA because it prevents equal rights and benefits, but in meantime Justice Department is obligated to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".