The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Hazcat on October 27, 2009, 07:42:16 AM
-
(CNSNews.com) – Two amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act introduced in the House of Representatives’ current session would add language allowing “permanent partners” to sponsor their foreign-born "spouses" to become naturalized citizens.
At a Capitol Hill press conference held Friday by the Asian Pacific Legal Center, a panel expressed support for the legislation as part of its campaign to include family reunification reforms in federal immigration legislation, including for homosexual couples and their children.
“While many groups face enormous obstacles with the backlogs for family-sponsored immigrants, one group has seen its families shut out completely,” said a report released by the legal center in September 2008 and distributed at the conference states.
“Same-sex couples and their children have no standing in U.S. immigration law, and as a result many committed bi-national couples in the U.S. and their families … are forced to separate or live in constant fear of separation,” report added.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced House Resolution 1024 in February 2009 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to give “permanent partners” the same rights as heterosexual spouses under the law. The amendment was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law in March.
In June, Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) introduced HR 2709, which includes the permanent partner language and states it is designed “to promote family unity and for other purposes.” That amendment was referred to the same subcommittee in August.
Friday’s panel included a homosexual man who said his partner of nine years voluntary returned to Indonesia last week after he was laid off from his job and lost his work visa. Steve Orner said he and his partner plan to move to Canada when they are reunited.
“Joey is my family,” Orner said. “We got married in Connecticut, but unfortunately immigration does not recognize same-sex marriage.”
Panelists at Friday’s event said the amendments are the first in the House to incorporate “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender” rights into immigration reform legislation.
“In 2009, we should be ready as a society to acknowledge that stable American families come in all varieties,” Nadler said when he introduced the Uniting American Families Act. “We in fact strengthen our communities – and our nation – by encouraging loving couples and families to stay together and live as cohesive units.
“Any committed couple deserves the potential to form a life and a family together – this is a basic human right – and whether that couple is gay or straight should be irrelevant. “Gay and lesbian Americans in loving, committed relationships deserve the same rights as everyone else,” Nadler said.
“The Reuniting Families Act should be at the heart of comprehensive immigration reform, seeking to fix our broken immigration system while taking into account the current economic climate,” Honda said when he introduced the Reuniting Families Act.
“Our proposed legislation is in line with both American family values and with our short-term need to grow our economy and save taxpayer money,” he added.
Aside from its support for including homosexual rights in immigration reform legislation, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center report also supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage to the union between one man and one woman.
The legal center report said repealing DOMA is “an obvious and necessary step to ending federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.”
Entitled “A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs,” the report includes a long laundry list of recommendations for immigration legislation, including reclassifying spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents as immediate relatives, exempting Filipino World War II veterans from annual quotas and placing a permanent three-year cap on wait times for family-sponsored visas – which would include families headed by “permanent partners.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56102
-
Here's a 'letter' from a recent edition of "The Onion",(a satirical emag before anyone accuses me of being some sort of Grand Wizard!) that I though was funny,
MP
If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The Warmth And Compassion To Do So
By Jane Kendricks
October 13, 2009 | Issue 45•42
Jane Kendricks
Article Tools
I don't question God. The Lord is my Shepherd and I shall put none above Him. Which is why I know that if it were part of God's plan for me to stop viciously condemning others based solely on their sexual preference, He would have seen fit—in His infinite wisdom and all—to have given me the tiniest bit of human empathy necessary to do so.
It's a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that way. Why is that so hard to understand?
Here, let's start with the basic facts: I hate and fear gay people. The way they feel is different from how I feel, and that causes me a lot of confusion and anger. Everyone knows God is all-powerful. He could easily have given me the capacity to investigate what's behind those feelings rather than tell strangers in the park they're going to hell for holding hands. But God clearly has another path for me. And who am I to question His divine will?
Compassion, tolerance, understanding, basic decency, the ability to put myself in another person's position: God could have endowed me with any of those traits and yet—here is the crucial part—He didn't. Why? Because the Creator of the Universe wants me to demonize homosexuals in an effort to strip them of their fundamental human rights.
I'm sorry, but you can't possibly ask me to explain everything God does. He works in mysterious ways, remember?
Try to understand. If I were capable of thinking and acting any other way, then I'm sure I would, but God seems to be quite adamant about this one. He's just not budging at all. So unless our almighty Lord and Savior decides to change His mind about my ability to empathize on even the most basic level—which I find highly unlikely—then everyone is just going to have to accept the fact that I'm going to keep on hating homosexuals. And I know that He will fill me with the strength to remain mindless and hurtful in the face of adversity.
Which isn't to say that my faith hasn't been tested. Believe me, there have been times when I've drifted from the bitter and terrified life God has chosen for me. When my younger brother told me he was gay, it shook my faith to its very core. But here I am, 27 years later, still refusing to take his calls. Just the way God intended.
It's actually pretty astonishing how many complaints to the school board you can make regarding the new band teacher you've never met when you are filled with the Light of Christ and devoid of any real kindness or mercy toward His other children.
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to lead a good Christian life. That means going to church on Sunday, following the Ten Commandments, and fighting what I believe to be a sexual abomination through a series of petty actions and bitter comments made under my breath. Sure, I sometimes wish God would just reach into my heart and give me the ability to treat all people with, at the very least, the decency and respect they deserve as human beings. But unfortunately for that new couple who moved in three houses down, He hasn't yet.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have God's work to do.
_________________
-
Isn't that exactly the same argument the PRO gay activists use, only reversed ? ;D
-
Perverts have exactly the same rights as you, I and everybody else. Why should we have special rights for them?
-
Perverts have exactly the same rights as you, I and everybody else. Why should we have special rights for them?
That includes the right to marry then? Or serve in the military? Or adopt a child?
FQ13
-
That includes the right to marry then? Or serve in the military? Or adopt a child?
FQ13
Yes, yes and yes.
Yes they can marry, same as I can.
Yes they can serve in the military.
Yes they can adopt.
Same rights as I have. They just can't do it while promoting their perversions.
-
Yes, yes and yes.
Yes they can marry, same as I can.
Yes they can serve in the military.
Yes they can adopt.
Same rights as I have. They just can't do it while promoting their perversions.
So if you could only marry a man and had to pretend to be gay to serve or adopt you'd have no complaints? C'mon even you don't buy that. You support discrimination based on sexual preference, man up and admit it. The reason you don't is because you know bigotry is wrong, so you try to cover it up with happy talk about equality and "special rights". Insert the word Christian for gay. Religion is a choice yet we can't (correctly) discriminate on the basis of religion. Do Christians have "special rights"? Lets be real here and call a spade a spade.
FQ13
-
Why would I only be able to marry a man? Humanity would have died out long ago.
It's not 'sexual preference' it is sexual perversion. How about adults that like children, is that OK? It is their preference after all.
C'mon, man up and admit that you have no personal or societal morals.
-
Why would I only be able to marry a man? Humanity would have died out long ago.
It's not 'sexual preference' it is sexual perversion. How about adults that like children, is that OK? It is their preference after all.
C'mon, man up and admit that you have no personal or societal morals.
First pedophilia is a different animal. Children by definition can't consent. Leaving that red herring off the table, we then return to you proving my basic point. You define homosexuality as perversion. That's fine, its your right to think and say what you want. You then however seek to legislate that into disciminatory practice. Its no different than laws banning interracial marriage. Blacks and whites were treated equally, both could marry their own race. It was just the "unnatural" mingling of the races that was illegal. Its bigotry Haz. I'm not going to try to change your views on gays for two reasons. One, I don't care much about the issue, and two, its not my business what you think. It is my business when predjudice gets written into law. Civil marriage should appy equally, it currently doesn't and I think it should. If that somehow makes me immoral, than so be it.
FQ13
-
First pedophilia is a different animal. Children by definition can't consent. Leaving that red herring off the table, we then return to you proving my basic point. You define homosexuality as perversion. That's fine, its your right to think and say what you want. You then however seek to legislate that into disciminatory practice. Its no different than laws banning interracial marriage. Blacks and whites were treated equally, both could marry their own race. It was just the "unnatural" mingling of the races that was illegal. Its bigotry Haz. I'm not going to try to change your views on gays for two reasons. One, I don't care much about the issue, and two, its not my business what you think. It is my business when predjudice gets written into law. Civil marriage should appy equally, it currently doesn't and I think it should. If that somehow makes me immoral, than so be it.
FQ13
First off FQ, "Marriage is a contract with God. Despite what BO says America was founded on Christian principles and according to the book of Leviticus (I don't feel like googling the specific reference, I've used that before) God says that men who sleep together as man and wife are an abomination and should be killed, it goes on to say that their blood is on their own hands for being perverts (paraphrasing as I do not recall the exact wording, you can do a forum search of my posts if you want to find it) .
By that reasoning any Church Official who performs such ceremonies is committing a sacrilege and should be cast out not only from his Office but from his denomination until he has repented of his sin. Civil "Cohabitation contracts" are a matter of legislation and should be left to the discretion of the voters , there should however be no requirement for one jurisdiction to recognize the preferences of another (this is the same as current reciprocity laws on concealed carry and the laws that governed the bringing of slaves into free states and was upheld by the SCOTUS prior to the Civil war ).
As for adoption, regulations require a "Stable and Healthy" atmosphere, this is not present as Gay relationships are statistically far less stable than normal ones and is demonstrably unhealthy in that the gender relationship is unbalanced.
As to Gays in the military, on occasion even dead men have been propped up to draw fire under the premise that if the enemy is shooting at them they are not shooting at ME.
-
First off FQ, "Marriage is a contract with God. Despite what BO says America was founded on Christian principles and according to the book of Leviticus (I don't feel like googling the specific reference, I've used that before) God says that men who sleep together as man and wife are an abomination and should be killed, it goes on to say that their blood is on their own hands for being perverts (paraphrasing as I do not recall the exact wording, you can do a forum search of my posts if you want to find it) .
By that reasoning any Church Official who performs such ceremonies is committing a sacrilege and should be cast out not only from his Office but from his denomination until he has repented of his sin. Civil "Cohabitation contracts" are a matter of legislation and should be left to the discretion of the voters , there should however be no requirement for one jurisdiction to recognize the preferences of another (this is the same as current reciprocity laws on concealed carry and the laws that governed the bringing of slaves into free states and was upheld by the SCOTUS prior to the Civil war ).
As for adoption, regulations require a "Stable and Healthy" atmosphere, this is not present as Gay relationships are statistically far less stable than normal ones and is demonstrably unhealthy in that the gender relationship is unbalanced.
As to Gays in the military, on occasion even dead men have been propped up to draw fire under the premise that if the enemy is shooting at them they are not shooting at ME.
Bingo! And that is exactly what the above legislation does.
-
Bingo! And that is exactly what the above legislation does.
Tom, Haz
I two small points of disagreement. God is a party to marriage in a Christian marriage, its a contract between three people. Its why I'm not gung ho about seeing gay marriage in my church. Civil marriage on the other hand, is a horse of a different color. It is nothing more "than a cohabitation contract" between two people. God isn't in it, its a wholly secular matter. Two types of marriage, two different rules. That is why I think civil marriage should be open to any two individuals. As far as reciprocity, marriage laws can be worded to prevent that, as Massachusetts did.
As far as gays in the military, if you're willing to put on the uniform and pick up a gun, I say you're welcome. Letting gays in now is a lot less disruptive than integrating blacks in 1948. Telling some kid from Alabama that that he had to eat with, shower with, room with and take orders from a black guy was a far bigger cultural hurdle than havig a gay guy in a unit comprised of kids raised on MTV and Will and Grace.
FQ13
-
Marriage is between a man and a woman for purpose of procreation.
The other is a civil contract which as far as I know is legal now. If they want tax benefits for that civil contract they can petition respective governments (Fed, state, local) for that.
I have already stated that gays are in the military. As far as eat, shower, room etc., there are many females that would not be upset to have men do that with them BUT there are those that would. Same with guys or girls and homosexuals.
-
First pedophilia is a different animal. Children by definition can't consent. Leaving that red herring off the table, we then return to you proving my basic point. You define homosexuality as perversion. That's fine, its your right to think and say what you want. You then however seek to legislate that into disciminatory practice. Its no different than laws banning interracial marriage. Blacks and whites were treated equally, both could marry their own race. It was just the "unnatural" mingling of the races that was illegal. Its bigotry Haz. I'm not going to try to change your views on gays for two reasons. One, I don't care much about the issue, and two, its not my business what you think. It is my business when predjudice gets written into law. Civil marriage should appy equally, it currently doesn't and I think it should. If that somehow makes me immoral, than so be it.
FQ13
In the sense that some male pedophiles prey on girls rather than boys, yeah, I suppose it's "different".
Given that the gay community houses the lower-than-whale-shit likes of NAMBLA, I'm not sure that it is all that different.
Tom - another bingo, excellent.
Back to FQ - where is the right to be queer and marry another written? I missed that Article in the Constitution. Or is this another man-made right created from the ether by an activist judge?
-
It would be a man made right created by the 14th ammendment. Yes it was originally designed (intent) to be applied to blacks, but the text doesn't limit it to just them. So it has covered religious groups, Asians, women, political groups etc over the years. No judicial activism just the words on the page.
FQ13
-
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
Amendment 11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Explain to me how that translates into "You have the right to take it up the pooper ?
-
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
Amendment 11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Explain to me how that translates into "You have the right to take it up the pooper ?
Oops! That was meant to read the 14th Amendment. I left out the four. :-[
FQ13
-
Either drink, or type, don't try both at the same time ;D
Same question here
Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to
their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or
the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male
inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion,
or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of
President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the
United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of
any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the
United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.
The way I read it the 1st clause means the Constitution applies to all citizens
2nd Reiterates how Representatives are chosen, doing away with the 4/5 for blacks
3rd, No one who left Congress to join the Confederacy can be returned to Congress after the war.
4th Federal debts get paid, Confederate debts have to be written off as a loss
5 If Congress couldn't do one of these 4 things before they can now.
I still don't see anything about queers.
-
You don't see anything about mormons or women or left handed fly fishermen either. What it does say is that the government may not deny ANY PERSON the equal protection of the law. That means you can't have an except for (fill in your category here) clause. Civil marriage would seem to apply. Two persons of age wishing to marry would seem to apply to anyone, even you. ;D
FQ13
-
Marriage is a religious ceromony so your reasoning does not work.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
Your the one that bitches about the "Moral majority" , you can't have it both ways Buttwheat.
-
Marriage is a religious ceromony so your reasoning does not work.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
Your the one that bitches about the "Moral majority" , you can't have it both ways Buttwheat.
Actually Tom its not. Not if we're talking civil marriage. Going to the courthouse and getting hitched by a JP is purely civil. Religious marriage by a priest, rabbi, whatever is a different animal. They can set their own rules (and rightly so). Civil marriage, though is just a contract ratified by the state. The 1st Amendment doesn't enter into it. I support Civil Marriage for gays, I oppose it in my church. It doesn't make me a hypocrite, its recognizing that they are two different things, with different criteria.
FQ13
-
Homos have the right to get AIDS. They have the right to die. Nothing else come to mind ATM.
-
we already have federal law that says its not marriage as far as the federal goverment is concerned, and other states don't have to except it...
They are trying to back door it...
-
we already have federal law that says its not marriage as far as the federal goverment is concerned, and other states don't have to except it...
They are trying to back door it...
Back door it. ;D ;D ;D