The press has made much of how evangelicals -- remember, those people who only care about abortion and same sex marriage! -- are embracing a bigger agenda and breaking ranks with Republicans by endorsing comprehensive immigration reform.
But as I reported on Monday, that support comes with a caveat: no equality for gay and lesbian couples.
Now religious groups who support LGBT equality have pushed back, issuing a statement through the group Immigration Equality Action Fund condemning evangelical efforts to exclude the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) from a comprehensive reform package.
Search results for opposition
Calling for a New Direction by Marrying DREAM ACT to UAFA
Posted by
freedom2immigrate 600 days ago
(http://lezgetreal.com)
Grassroot sloggers amount to a handful, a small dedicated group that has done an enormous amount of work with no resources at hand. This group of people, some under the Out4Immigration banner and others unpaid independent activists have fought hard for the ideal of one basic right – Equality – and in this instance equality under the immigration law.
Gays and Lesbian spouses in the USA cannot sponsor foreign born partners for immigration to the USA, commensurate with that very right, freely exercised by different-gender couples.
Contextually, this fight has been going on for well over a decade and has a history of Bills introduced, none of which garnished as much traction as the Bill introduced by Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New last year, The Uniting AMERICAN Families Act. (UAFA)
Gays and Lesbian spouses in the USA cannot sponsor foreign born partners for immigration to the USA, commensurate with that very right, freely exercised by different-gender couples.
Contextually, this fight has been going on for well over a decade and has a history of Bills introduced, none of which garnished as much traction as the Bill introduced by Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New last year, The Uniting AMERICAN Families Act. (UAFA)
UAFA Outreach or Overreach (Prayer Action News)
Posted by
UnitedByLove 961 days ago
(http://prayer-and-action.blogspot.com)
Making a Difference, Once Call at a time - Yesterday, while I was on the Hill meeting with a handful of senators, I learned that FRC's noise on the immigration bill, S. 424, is having a considerable impact. After your calls and emails started pouring in, one leader told me the legislation, which would give a special resident status to same-sex partners, had become an embarrassing "spectacle." Although the bill is still active, finding support for it will be even tougher now that FRC has shined the light on its real objective: undermining marriage. If you haven't contacted your senators, please chime in this week and urge them to vote "no" on the "Uniting American Families Act."
UAFA Sex Discrimination Part 2 (EVIL WARNING)
Posted by
UnitedByLove 968 days ago
(http://agoodchoice.blogspot.com)
This post concerns S.424, The Uniting American Families Act. The dispute between me and those who commented center on whether the act really unites real families, or if it is all about encouraging people to engage in sinful behavior and ...
The term “intimate relationship” clearly indicates that sexual activity is a requirement that one must complete in order for one to benefit from the privileges of this bill. Now, not only does the federal government, in enforcing this law, have to make judgment about whether or not the potential immigrant is really having sex with the “permanent partner”, it must also make a judgment about whether the quantity of sex and degree of intimacy is enough to be considered an “intimate relationship”. Such a subjective choice will nicely tie up the courts while matters of real importance are set aside. But even it’s worse than that! “Both indivi
The term “intimate relationship” clearly indicates that sexual activity is a requirement that one must complete in order for one to benefit from the privileges of this bill. Now, not only does the federal government, in enforcing this law, have to make judgment about whether or not the potential immigrant is really having sex with the “permanent partner”, it must also make a judgment about whether the quantity of sex and degree of intimacy is enough to be considered an “intimate relationship”. Such a subjective choice will nicely tie up the courts while matters of real importance are set aside. But even it’s worse than that! “Both indivi
UAFA and Sex Discrimination (Letter to Senator)
Posted by
ATLdave 974 days ago
(http://agoodchoice.blogspot.com)
Dear Senator: I am writing this in regards to S.424, The Uniting American Families Act, and in particular section 20. It seems unthinkable to me to add the term "permanent partner" to immigration law. It is easy to see that the intent of this bill is to allow same-sex partners equal status as married couples in regards to resident status.
First of all, by including same-sex partners, this encourages unhealthy, immoral behavior that is condemned by every major religion on the face of the earth.
Secondly, "permanent partner" is an inherently ill-defined term. What if people who aren't really "partners" (either same or different sex) say that they are just so that they can get visas, etc.? What are you going to do, watch them while they...? Do they have to sign an affidavit saying that they had sex a certain number of times and plan to continue to do it with cert
First of all, by including same-sex partners, this encourages unhealthy, immoral behavior that is condemned by every major religion on the face of the earth.
Secondly, "permanent partner" is an inherently ill-defined term. What if people who aren't really "partners" (either same or different sex) say that they are just so that they can get visas, etc.? What are you going to do, watch them while they...? Do they have to sign an affidavit saying that they had sex a certain number of times and plan to continue to do it with cert
A White House summit with congressional leaders scheduled for June 16 is intended to begin the serious push toward creating and passing a comprehensive reform bill. President Obama has said he intends to take up immigration reform this year, but the White House staff has said they don't expect it to be resolved until 2010.
"The benefits this legislation seeks to provide are not contingent upon the definition of marriage, which I believe is an issue best left to the states," said Leahy. The bishop who heads the migration committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in letters to members of Congress on June 2 that the conference would oppose such legislation. Another family reunification bill, the Reuniting Families Act, would allow traditionally defined families to reunite more quickly in the United States.
Leahy's bill, and a companion version in
"The benefits this legislation seeks to provide are not contingent upon the definition of marriage, which I believe is an issue best left to the states," said Leahy. The bishop who heads the migration committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in letters to members of Congress on June 2 that the conference would oppose such legislation. Another family reunification bill, the Reuniting Families Act, would allow traditionally defined families to reunite more quickly in the United States.
Leahy's bill, and a companion version in
Bishop Wester emphasized “It is extremely important that barriers that keep the nuclear family—husband, wife and child—divided are removed as soon as possible,” he said.
“As you know, the USCCB supported H.R. 6638, similar legislation that you introduced during the 110th Congress. Unfortunately, however, while the bishops support many of the provisions in the Reuniting Families Act, your decision to include in the bill the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would provide marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships, makes it impossible for the bishops to support this year’s version of your bill.”
"UAFA would erode the institution of marriage and family” and called it “a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage which pre-dates the Church and the state.”
“As you know, the USCCB supported H.R. 6638, similar legislation that you introduced during the 110th Congress. Unfortunately, however, while the bishops support many of the provisions in the Reuniting Families Act, your decision to include in the bill the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would provide marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships, makes it impossible for the bishops to support this year’s version of your bill.”
"UAFA would erode the institution of marriage and family” and called it “a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage which pre-dates the Church and the state.”
READ FULL TESTIMONY By Roy Beck I am scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee later this morning on one of many bills proposed to increase green cards and immigration at a time of incredibly high unemployment. My remarks probably could apply to any bill that increases green cards. Members of Congress almost never consider the cumulative cost of all the green cards they decide to hand out. I call on them to put that consideration first.
We represent urge you to view S. 424 as a piece of the larger fabric of our national community. By adding green cards without reducing others, S. 424 directly contradicts the recommendations of President Clinton’s sustainability commission. passing S. 424 would be irresponsible to the environment, to future generations and to the most economically vulnerable members of our national community.
We represent urge you to view S. 424 as a piece of the larger fabric of our national community. By adding green cards without reducing others, S. 424 directly contradicts the recommendations of President Clinton’s sustainability commission. passing S. 424 would be irresponsible to the environment, to future generations and to the most economically vulnerable members of our national community.
UAFA Leahys Passport to Same Sex Marriage
Posted by
uluckidog 987 days ago
(http://www.frc.org)
Under its cheery name, The Uniting American Families Act, lies yet another attack on marriage at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. As part of the movement to give same-sex partners special privileges, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill, S. 424, to allow any gay or lesbian foreigner who is currently dating an American to immigrate to the U.S. on the same basis as foreign spouses. Like a married couple, these homosexuals would be eligible for "permanent resident status" under the current immigration law.
Although Leahy frames the policy as an anti-discrimination measure, the truth is, this weakens our federal law and chips away at the unique status of marriage. For the federal government to recognize homosexual pairs in any way, shape, or form is a violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If the liberal leadership wants to repeal DOMA, then they should do so with a
Although Leahy frames the policy as an anti-discrimination measure, the truth is, this weakens our federal law and chips away at the unique status of marriage. For the federal government to recognize homosexual pairs in any way, shape, or form is a violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If the liberal leadership wants to repeal DOMA, then they should do so with a
« 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.