Shirley Tan Advocate Magazine’s Activist of the YEAR!

Congratulations to Shirley and Jay and the boys and mamy as well for being named ADVOCATE MAGAZINE’s  Activist of 2009.   This is well deserved.  However they may have been used in a way that could result in resentment from the community rather than the applause they deserve:

Here are the comments from Immigration Equality’s site after IE makes the announcement:

1. Quoting the Announcement by IE on their website:

Congratulations are in order for Shirley Tan (pictured here with her family), who has been chosen as one of The Advocate’s “People of the Year” for 2009.   Shirley, who testified before the Senate in June and was also recently featured in People Magazine, was chosen by Advocate editors as their 2009 Activist.  “There are two types of activists,” the magazine writes, “. . . those who revel in the spotlight, and those who would rather slink away from it when the speech is over. Speaking with Shirley Tan, who catapulted into national discourse following an early-morning arrest last January by Immigration and Customs Enforecement agents in her Pacifica, Calif., home, you get the sense that she’d prefer going back to relative anonymity.”  But, the magazine notes, Shirley “is visible, but not eagerly.”    “I’m certainly not used to this,” she told The Advocate. “I’m just an ordinary housewife, living my own life, doing everything for my kids and my family. But this is what I have to do now. It’s not only for our family, but the 36,000 binational couples who are relying on UAFA.”

 Indeed, Tan has become a passionate and effective advocate for binational families. In addition to her testimony before the Senate, she has also met with White House officials and spoken out widely in the media about the need to pass immigration reform that will help families like hers.  All of us at Immigration Equality applaud – and thank – Shirley and her family for their extraordinary work. We are proud to be standing with them to end our country’s discriminatory immigration laws.

 To read the full write-up about Shirley, pick up a copy of the December/January issue of The Advocate, on newsstands now. “

HERE are the first seven comments including my own – number 7….

1. Check this out on Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125816110639347917.html
If they are the key players for the immigration overhaul, we might be screwed, especially with Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s bill because he is a co sponsor of UAFA, but under his bill, he did not include us in his bill. On the other hand, Chuck Schumer is also a big supporter of UAFA, but whether he will include us in the bill remains unknown. Unless we can gain momentum for UAFA, let’s keep fighting for the inclusion of bi national couples in the bigger immigration bill. If we don’t do anything, we will be ignored and defeated again!! Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — November 14, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

2. I am so sincerely happy for this family. At the same time, disappointed that all of us are not being afforded the same opportunity with extended stays for our partners, etc. We all deserve the same attention and “exceptions” – Again, I truly, am happy for you! Tom Comment by Very happy For the Tan Family But Disappointed For the Rest Of Us — November 15, 2009 @ 4:32 am

3.We don’t yet know if Gutierrez has included us. His bill hasn’t been introduced yet. The House version of the CIR will be introduced in December. Or perhaps I missed something. Comment by nola — November 15, 2009 @ 10:02 am

4. There is a lot of talk about moving Immingration reform to the top of priorities for Obama…ARE YOU ON IT IE? We need to be in there getting our rights! Comment by Brian — November 15, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

5. re – the talk about moving immigration reform to the top of priorities – where is this information coming from or is it hearsay? Comment by Where Is This Talk Comming From — November 15, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

6. It would really piss me off if any immigration bill didn’t include UAFA. I think I would leave and never come back to this country again. It would be disgusting if 12 million illegal immigrants get in front of someone that has been in the usa legally, and has been in a relationship with an American citizen for almost 4 years. Comment by Gerry D — November 15, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

7. MY COMMENTS :- This week I testified together with Shirley Tan at a symposium with the Immigration Commission in San Francisco. Nancy Pelosi sent a staffer as did Zoe Lofgren. The symposium had a group of panelists including Professors at Law schools etc.  NCLR was invited and did not show up. IE had no rep there either.  There were no panelists to speak for UAFA- yes at a symposium that was looking for advice on Immigration Reform, which will report to Mayor Newsom and the Sf BOS. My testimony will be published on my BLOG at www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.  Caught in IE’s strategy I did promote UAFA as a component of CIR and asked the commission to work on behalf of its locals to ensure that UAFA is included in CIR. Afterwards a  key Immigration Organization insider in D.C. who was on the panel suggested that IE had made a big mistake – that we should have pushed for UAFA as a stand alone. This is something I have been writing about since June 4th, 2009. I brought Shirley and Jay to IE and worked as the lead advocate and strategist on Shirley Tan’s Private Bill. I promised Julie Kruse of IE that Shirley would advocate for UAFA, as she had given me her word in exchange for my pro bono work.  Indeed instead IE used Shirley to promote UAFA as a component of CIR.  A strategy I would only have pursued AFTER exhausting all opportunities to get UAFA moving on its own. Shirley and Jay have innocently followed their lead.   A mere few made this decision on behalf of all binationals.  The grassroots have had no control over this as only IE has an effective lobby with the HILL and no other LGBT organization seems to show much interest in UAFA. IE left Shirley with no choice but to advocate for CIR.  I just want to be clear- that if UAFA is not in CIR – Shirley was used by IE for their own strategy and should not be blamed.   If UAFA is in CIR, it may be very bad for us because then we can  no longer promote it as a stand alone and we will be at the mercy of the bigger Immigration Lobby, including the faith based groups who are anti LGBT.  If we are NOT included it could be very bad because then UAFA may be perceived as DOA…. Basically we are screwed either way. HOWEVER maybe it is best left out and we can be sneaked in -in committee – we have our necks in a very tight noose right now, the noose of IE strategy and the components that were not thought through.  I hope that this will have all LGBT and friends call reps tomorrow to sign on to UAFA NOW, regardless of CIR!!!

 I am documenting this note in the hope that you will remember that Shirl and Jay are innocent bystanders who got caught up in a situation and have been inadvertent activists. If anything goes wrong it will not be for lack of trying on their behalf to help others. It would have been much easier for them to remain silent.

Thanks for the visit and the support……

see also http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/politics/14immig.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1258204566-/N+R+Iaj0/ko10FvCIrdmQ

Melanie Nathan Calls for Moratorium as US Citizen’s Brazilian

Tuesday 27th October I blogged for :

Melanie Nathan Calls for Moratorium as US Citizen’s Brazilian  same-sex husband denied asylum ..

Tagged with: Brazil    Brazillian    Defense of Marriage Act    DOMA    John Kerry    Junior Oliveira    Kerry    Marriage    Melanie Nathan    Obama    Same-sex marriage    Tim Coco    UAFA    United States    Uniting American Families Act    USA

BOSTON — Associated Press reports today that a gay Brazilian man has been denied asylum by the Obama administration and won’t be reunited with his Massachusetts husband in the U.S. It is reported that Tim Coco, the US citizen binational spouse said that  Attorney General Eric Holder did not act on a Friday deadline in the case of Genesio “Junior” Oliveira, effectively denying the 30-year-old Brazilian man’s request for asylum in the U.S. on humanitarian grounds.

This is not the first time a gay man from Brazil has been denied an immigration path through marriage to theUSA.  The other case involving a Brazilian is that of the husband of US citizen Gordon Stewart, as Pfizer employee who is now living in exile in the United Kingdom so he and his spouse can live their marital relationship.

 In June 2009, Gordo, together with Shirley Tan provided oral testimony before Senator Leahy and other Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the hope that the Uniting American Families Act would engage congress enough to do something about the inequities in our immigration law.

 Coco said, “We needed the Attorney General to make a decision on whether Junior could come home,” said Coco, 48, of Haverhill. “He didn’t take this request seriously.”  It seems as if the Justice department has yet to respond to questions about this case.

 In 2002, Oliveira had sought asylum in the U.S. apparently basing his case on a rape as a teenager in Brazil.  But an immigration judge denied his request.  The Associated Press noted that it does not typically name rape victims, but Oliveira speaks openly about his case and is allowing his name to be used.

 Oliveira  and Coco married in Massachusetts in 2005 and bought a house together. However unlike other married couples in the US, gay marriages have no bearing on the immigration law that overtly discriminates against same-sex spouses.  The undeniable fact is that gays and lesbians are allowed  to marry in the US in under the law of certain States. Yet because of the Defense of Marriage Act they are precluded from federal rights which includes that provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

 In March,Sen. John Kerry asked Attorney General Eric Holder to grant Oliveira asylum on humanitarian grounds.  Kerry spokeswoman Brigid O’Rourke said Monday that the senator will continue to work toward a solution that would reunite the couple for good. The fact is that if Tim and Junior were a heterosexual married couple, they would never have suffered through more than two years of separation,” said O’Rourke.

 The Uniting American Families needs it’s time now. While there are thousands of unpublicized stories in the shadows right now, many more are being exposed to Congress and yet Senators such as Kerry who favor the passage of UAFA are still failing in their leadership on the issues.  What is the point of advocating for individuals when you have the power of the legislation in your hands?

 Coco said he thought there was “no way” the Obama Administration would deny Oliveira’s asylum request after Kerry made his plea to Holder.  “We are profoundly sad,” said Coco. “This is more than any married should have to face.”

 AP reports, the case comes as Obama tries to smooth a rocky relationship with gay activists, who want him to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays, which he has pledged to do but hasn’t given a timeline. Tens of thousands of gay rights supporters marched in Washington earlier this month, demanding Obama keep his promise to end the policy.

 Coco said he has spent about $250,000 in legal bills and hasn’t seen Oliveira since January, though the two video chat online every night. A heterosexual sponsorship of a spouse costs $750-$1500 if you use an attorney.

 Oliveira was denied a visa to return to Massachusetts last year for the funeral of Coco’s mother. Gordon Stewart’s husband has been denied the right to visit his spouse’s sister who has cancer.  Gordon gave up a robust career wityh Pfizer. Although the company transferred him to the UK, he is unable to rise in the ranks as he may have done had he been able to continue his career in the USA headquarters.

 Coco said the couple plans to launch a legal challenge against the federal Defense of Marriage Act as a violation of immigration laws.

 That may be a worthy attempt but with my experience in this issue I believe that energy should be put into legislation – we should be calling all our Representatives in Congress and demanding the change we were promised.  Challenging this in the Courts will still yield one major shield for those who are not allowed to marry in their respective States.  Until marriage is uniform, UAFA ascribes the right to Permanent Partners, as the relationship that seeks validity to circumvent DOMA.  

  In the meantime, pending legislation, which must happen and soon,  I call on Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Gillibrand, Schumer, Frank to pave the way for binationals by enacting / introducing/Class Private Bill whatever it takes -a moratorium on all deportations of married LGBT spouses;  by providing a special Visa Program with status for married LGBT couples (perhaps one that can sunset pending a solution or legislation– similar to the R1 (religious workers visa program) for married lesbians and gay spouses.

 When I was in DC during August I spoke with congressional staffers and received an “interested” response to this idea. 

 The reason for this is based less on the privilege granted to ‘a would be immigrant,’ but rather based on the RIGHT – the CIVIL RIGHT of the American Spouse…. Never since the days pre-civil rights movement has there been such a flagrant apartheid-esque practice perpetuated upon US citizens.  We do not have a right that other Americans have.

 O’Rourke said Kerry supports the couple’s legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners. This I personally find outrages. Why does Senator Kerry not get behind the REPEAL of DOMA.  Congressman Nadler has had the courage to introduce it in the form of the Respect of Marriage Act.  Why is he talking Domestic Partnership.  Another incremental crumb? I don’t want to hear that word…Domestic Partnership.

 This month, Obama called on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Well do it. This case is one in thousands. We need our remedy now. I am not available for a life on hold. Neither is Mr. Coco and others whose names remain private at this juncture.

Senator Gillibrand Tells LGBT audience to PUSH Reps for UAFA…. Must be passed by the Spring….

Today a Binational married lesbian couple (names private) attended Senator Gillibrand’s meet and greet at the LGBT Center in NYC. They went armed with a letter setting out their dire circumstances, including reference to the unconscionable detention suffered by one of the spouses. 

After asking the pertinent question about the passage of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)  and its relationship to comprehensive Immigration reform (CIR) , the Senator spoke specifically of an integrated approach. Privy to this information through my advocacy on behalf of this particular couple I was told- “Meeting with Sen. Gillibrand was great; she’s indeed a great advocate for the LGBT community. She seems a very authentic person, genuine, kind and responsive, sensitive to all matters regarding LGBT issues. The Senator referred to Sen. Schumer who is writing the bill. She also said that CIR and UAFA should be on the table by the end of this year, so it can be passed by spring.  She stressed the fact that it is important to have things dealt with before March. They’re going for an integrated approach.”

This may be interpreted to confirm that CIR will in fact include UAFA, when introduced by Senator Schumer.  However in August of 2009, when I asked Julie Kruse of Immigration Equality why would we be concerned that an overt champion of UAFA and LGBT issues such as Schumer would fail to include LGBT in CIR,  she cautioned that there was no guarantee that Senator Schumer would  in fact include UAFA.  However it would seem that Senator Gillibrand may now be providing some valuable insight as to what we can expect.   

That said, we must take heed of the Senator’s most fervent suggestion. We cannot ignore the overt and bland advice when she told her participants today that she recommends we push, push and push for the legislation now.  That we write like we have never written before and specifically that we bombard our representatives, urgently.  I know out4Immigration is doing an amazing job in the 34^th week of their letter writing campaign, but it is not enough and they cannot do it all. We need to hear from our brothers and sisters in the community who may not be directly impacted by this. 

The Senator emphasized the importance of Senator Schumer introducing Immigration reform legislation by year’s end; and the fact that it is imperative that the legislation passes by Spring 2010, the latter in her estimation possibly being a last opportunity.

I challenge every single person reading this, regardless of whether their rep is supportive or not of the Uniting American Families Act, to get 5 members of your community, friends, family to write and simply as follows: “Where do you stand on Uniting American Families Act and will you support it in comprehensive immigration reform. What are you doing to ensure this legislation passes before the Spring.” That’s all you have to do!!!

At the moment though, everybody is focused on DADT  (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) as priority and that seemed to dominate the conversation, especially given that Lt. Dan Choi was there to introduce the Senator.

A community, advocates and activists, thank Senator Gillibrand for holding the meet and greet on this perfect Sunday.  In doing so she clearly displays her championship of our equality and that there is a good chance she could step forward to lead the more timid amongst our allies

Updated: 

Video with compliments of  The New Civil Rights Movement.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN,  CEO of Private Courts, Inc.  Communications, public policy consulting, mediation & private advocacy; motivated by injustice, I blog about family, law, mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.lezgetreal.com. Contact Nathan@privatecourts.com

Shirley Tan -Jay Mercado and the Twins visit the White House

Shirley tan and Jay Mercado with Melanie Nathan and the Twins

When all was lost and there was no “next step” for Shirley Tan, about to be deported  within mere weeks, Molly McKay of Marriage Equality called my office to see if I could be of assistance.   Unfortunately Shirley’s was a losing case and she was told that there was nothing anyone could do to help her stay in the US with her partner of 23 years and their twin sons.  A native of Philippines, Shirley  had  been unable to receive any help as there were  no groups or organizations that could take this to the next level.  Most people do not know how to advocate for themselves at the higest of levels and it is probably a service that is unavailable to most.

Having gone through the pain of being a binational myself, I offered to help and had no idea where this would lead, but was willing to stop everything to keep this family together.   The saving of Shirley from deportation took a life of its own.  I had the idea that we should ask Senator Feinstein for a Private Bill and against all odds and contrary to the recommendation of those who had more experience , we asked Senator Feinstein for a Private Bill.  

During this time, and through my advocacy and coordination, Marriage  Equality,  Love  Exiles ,  Julie Kruse of Immigration Equality ,  OUT 4 Immigration, GLAAD, People Magazine,  all jumped on Board and helped with advocacy and strategy meetings.   Great commendation must go to  Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her help and to Senator Feinstein’s office and her extraordinary group of Staffers.

SO who would have thought the utterance of my words on the very first day I spoke to the Family when I said “ This case is going to blow the roof off UAFA. If I take it on, and it will be at no charge, will you be willing to stand up for UAFA.”Jay said, “Melanie, if we can keep Shirl here we will do anything,” would lead to this:-

Shirley and Jay have  came through on their word a good many times. In June of this year, Shirley testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee  hearing; the  family have been key note speakers at numerous important conferences in both the LGBT community and Asian American communities, culminating in this week in their meeting with White House Staffers, Senator Feinstein and other members of Congress.

This adventure to D.C., now their second was sponsored by Immigration Equality.  Who would have imagined where that one call by Molly could lead.  It just goes to show what going that extra mile can do.  This should be a lesson to all -  there is always hope as long as one takes it to the ‘n-th degree.’

So well done Tan Mercado family you have been true to your word and your community.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN,

Ask your Congress Members to Redeem Themselves….

 

Melanie Nathan and Senator Patrick Leahy 2009

    This is what we need to see more of – We should urge all those who voted for DOMA to now co-sponsor its repeal under the new Respect for Marriage Act introduced this week by Rep. Jerrold Nadler.  

 

Proudly changing my position on DOMA (Rep. Earl Blumenauer  By Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) – 09/16/09 10:22 AM ET - referenced from  The Huffington Post and The Hill Blogs.   “On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values. I’ve been a strong champion of civil rights and protections based on sexual orientation since I chaired the first legislative hearing on anti-discrimination legislation in 1973. Even worse, this vote was cast after careful consideration.”

He goes on —–
“It should have been obvious to me that we would not be able to quell this assault based on sexual orientation. Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry. Once Congress had put its imprimatur on DOMA, it was a logical step for the homophobes and political cynics to intensify their efforts and make permanent a ban on gay marriage in both the U.S. and state constitutions — spawning many state initiatives and intensifying the assault.”   …..     

Earl Blumenauer

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/58977-proudly-changing-my-position-on-doma-rep-earl-blumenauer

Please read the entire post its a worthy read – then look up the vote of your RE P on DOMA and send them a copy or link to this Post – and ask them to Cosponsor Nadler’s RFA – asap – as a matter of correction and redemption.   If your Rep voted NO on DOMA – ask them to ensure their support for RFA.

List of commentary on his issue:

Changing Their Tune On DOMA

President Clinton, Bob Barr and seven sitting members of Congress who supported DOMA, now oppose it.

 http://advocate.com/Politics/Washington_D_C_/Changing_Their_Tune_on_DOMA/      By Kerry Eleveld

 Barr, Clinton, and Blumenauer – Legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally restricts marriage to heterosexual couples, was introduced Tuesday in House of Representatives amid a growing chorus of people who have had a change of heart on the matter.

““When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter,” Clinton said in a statement. “Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”

Barr, who was a member of the House at the time, joined Clinton, saying, “This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted.”  

Melanie Nathan

  My own comments to other blog comments on this issue:-

Barney Frank has made a big mistake on this one; it is important that REPEAL of DOMA is tackled in every way possible. This is a MUST DO Bill. There is nothing more onerous to civil rights than a piece of legislation that specifically excludes  members of our society- so Barney get off your strategy crap and embrace this legislation – NOW.  The question this begs “what is the point of State autonomy on marriage if the Federal government fails to recognize it?

What stops us from the fight?  I don’t give a farthing about the numbers in Congress – now or then or then or now…. How could anyone think that not standing up for or introducing a Correction BILL such as Nadler’s RFA is negative to the cause.  It is severely a MUST DO!!  What fight was ever won without taking the ultimate risks, least of all on civil rights issues.  I believe Barney may be right that the Courts will ditch DOMA long before RFA passes.  But unlike Barney, strategically I think RFA is a must do nonetheless.  It’s mere introduction emphasizes the fight and provides legitimacy to the fight by endorsing the fact that equality on a federal level is a civil rights issue.

Queercents shuts down new blogger’s first blog to comments….

What makes me mad

 

Have you ever heard of an editor closing the comments down on a Blogger’s  post?  Serena Editor of QueerCents did just that, and I quote:

 “Serena Says:  May 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pm  Editor’s Note: Due to the nature of many of the comments on this thread, comments have been disabled for this post. For a clarification of our commenting policy, please read our disclaimer and commenting policy. “

The context:   Under current immigration law, committed same-sex foreign partners of US citizens are unable to use the family immigration system – a system that accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the US.  According to the most recent census, approximately 36,000 bi-national, same-sex couples are living in the US. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals.

UAFA would allow lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the US. The bill (H.R. 1024), introduced on February 16th, 2009 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in the Senate and by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House, would add “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” after the words “spouse” and “marriage” in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 Yasmin Nair describes herself as an academic, activist, and writer.”  Which, she states, “ simply put, means that she struggles to pay rent while living the glamorous life of a freelance writer. Her work appears in Windy City Times, where she is a book reviewer, columnist, reporter, and photographer.” Uhuh  supposedly she “speaks explicitly about and for sex, and identifies herself as a queer lesbian who loves cock. ”  (Expression of Gay man or straight woman? I dont know I AM a lesbian – how would I know.)

She gets her first ever post on QUEERCENTS blown up…… did she think she could hide from the real activists?  Her  post can be viewed at QUEERCENTS :  http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/ Actually not easy to to find on the Blog site.

She titles the BLOG: Uniting American Families Act: Facts, Fiction, Money and Emotions -Posted by: Yasmin @ 4:23 pm and then slaps off sme crap that bears no thesis and no conclusion that remotely relates to the Title, which in my assumption was crafted in the hope that her quest to denounce UAFA, would fit into this unrelated forum .

So anyway this Nair,  the activist then expounds the ‘dis-virtues’  of Uniting America Families Act, purports compassion in responses, but fails, even when others beg for answers, to provide alternatives.  The narcissistic attempt to thwart this legislation is tainted beyond measure with flaws and contradictory messages.  Our Chicago academic cannot make a case for her unfounded notion that UAFA would be bad for us. 

 She prefaces her blog – “NOTE: The information presented here is based on research, community discussions, and conversations with lawyers.  It does not constitute  legal advice.  If you or someone you know has legal issues like the kind discussed here, please seek the expertise of a qualified attorney. This is the first of a series on immigration reform and its effects on the LGBTQ community. “        

 Sheez I cant wait for the rest of the series or is it dead in the water Serena what do you think?   The only quote I recall in Ms Nair’s post is a one and a half page article in People Magazine – none of the updated quotes or articles are referenced and Ms. Nair attacks Ms. Tan based on this flimsy notation.  What about the research she alludes to in her preface?  and so she posts:-    http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/ 
YASMIN NAIR SAYS ON QUEER CENTS BLOG (QUOTE)
  “Shirley Tan came here in 1986 as a tourist. Then, she overstayed her visa, supposedly after meeting her female partner Jay Mercado who was, like her, originally from the Phillipines.  Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented.  They have been domestic partners for a while, according to a People article, and even wed in 2004.  Tan gave birth to their twin sons who are both citizens.  In 1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister. In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it.  Finally, this year, on January 28, ICE agents showed up at the couple’s Pacifica California home and arrested her.  Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010 and a private bill on her behalf has been issued in Congress. 

Immigration Equality and other supporters of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) have made Shirley Tan and her family members the poster children for a piece of legislation that, they claim, would guarantee that binational couples like the Tan-Mercados are able to stay together.  Why is this important?  Under existing law, in many circumstances, heterosexual married citizens or permanent residents are able to sponsor their partners for immigration….. :  AND SHE GOES ON…..

Then she she says she is against UAFA for a number of reasons, QUOTING AGAIN,  ”not the least of which is this: even if immigration through marriage/permanent partnership is a solution, who says it’s the ideal solution anyway?  And why push for a law that guarantees rights to a privileged few while leaving the plight of others unquestioned? ” Is this , Ms. Nair a GOOD REASON FOR DISCRIMINATION?

Nair goes on to say,  ”As an immigration rights activist,( LOL)  my concern is with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).  The current immigration crisis has come about because the United States feeds on cheap labor and the exploitation of millions, the very people it chooses to dispose of quickly and crudely via the mechanisms of raids and deportations.  It does this because it knows that there is more cheap labor to be had because of the conditions of “free trade” it has created, conditions that guarantee a breakdown in the economies of countries like Mexico.  These conditions, in turn, guarantee the flow of people desperate to find a living here.”  Ok so I ask Nair, is another reason to deny equality to LGBT through UAFA?   AND FURTHER  states :-     “you know the ones we mean – the day laborers who move from job to job, underpaid and overexploited; the low-paid workers who build suburban houses for us on the cheap as opposed to living in them, and so on.”   (What a ridiculous assertion- of course Rachel Tiven is concerned about all immigrants, however it happens that her organization advocates for Lesbians and Gay couples who do not have rights equal to straight  couples.)

Ok enough: So I wrote a response:-

 Melanie Nathan Says: On the Queer Cents Blog:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm  QUOTING Myself ON HER BLOG:     
“Share and Enjoy” you say – how can I when you insult my client, and my own right to equality..

“…..and not all straight marriages are automatic routes to citizenship…..” and therefore I presume Jasmin , that you intend that to mean that lesbian and gay couples ought not have an equal opportunity to not have this route marriage…..okay maybe I am stretching what may be unintended interpretation of your statement, but as a blogger and the person who played a pivotal role in obtaining the introduction of Private Bill # 867 for Shirley Tan and her family, kindly allow me to make some corrections to the mistakes and inaccuracies in your reporting:
1. “Phillipines” is spelt ‘Philippines’;
2. “Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented” –Inaccurate – Tan has always had a valid work permit;
3. Jasmin’s misrepresentation: “1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister.” Shirley Tan came to the USA when the person who shot and beat her to near death and murdered her mother was released from prison due to political connections. She was not safe. We brought the case files, prison record and hospital files from Philippines to prove her story to Senator Feinstein- there is no doubt as to the validity of these facts – you may effectively delete the “according to her.”

4. You say: “ In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it.” I am informing you that in April, prior to receiving the Private Bill, ICE withdrew the deportation order on the basis that Shirley had never been served with the deportation order. That is tantamount to an admission. So her status is legal and not illegal. She was then given a few weeks to voluntarily leave the USA, by May 10th; Dianne Feinstein introduced the PB on 4/22.

5. Then you say: “Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010” ; There was a great deal more work than mere press coverage; this is from the horses mouth. Personally I worked non-stop for five weeks, ten hours a day exclusively and pro bono on this case. Then almost every LGBT organization with Immigration Equality concerns chipped in their talent and efforts. You have to be quite naïve to think that it was merely press and “abra cadabra shim shalabim” a private bill; pow! You say you research and speak to attorneys etc. You sure did not speak to me; nor did you speak to Shirley – nor did you speak to anyone. You read a one page article in People magazine; well at least that is all you quote.

6. Jasmin, Jasmin, Jasmin – this takes the cake. …. “upstanding suburbanites. Why, she’s even a stay-at-home soccer mom! Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality drives the nail home in a quote: “They are exactly the kind of people you want living in this country.” Right. The others can just rot in hell” Well that is an inflammatory and insulting statement – Rachel Tiven and others at IE work very hard for equality, whether you agree with the legislative format or not. There are many organizations that work for immigrant rights, it so happens that Immigration Equality, has LGBT immigration equality as their mission statement. The donors and funding for this non-profit expect their money to be used in terms of their mission statement. To think that advocating for one person or a group precludes help or concern for the others is simply a ridiculous notion and in no way helps to support your argument.

7. He rest of what you posit , staring with “This is only my first problem with UAFA – it doesn’t really change the paradigms of immigration. It fixates……” is simply a load of nonsensical hogwash and your entire posting begs the question…. EQUALITY.

8. UAFA simply provides language to correct DOMA, which akin to apartheid serves to institutionalize discrimination. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, you miss the entire point. Equality Under the law. The language of UAFA equates same-sex couples to different-sex couples and that is it. The opportunities for fraud are there whether gay or straight. Fraud comes with huge consequences and many straight people have been deported or fined as a result. To deny legitimate couples their rights simply because others break the law is a disingenuous argument and discriminatory in itself.

9. As far as CIR- Reunification of Families and the Honda initiatives, hopefully this too will include Lesbian and Gay families after all why should we be discriminated against.

10. I too am a binational couple. The consequences of my not being able to sponsor my wife resulted in me having to choose to leave my country with the love of my life (for past eight years) and our 4 year old daughter whom we had together or to stay in the US with my 11 year old child who I share custody of with an ex. What would you have done? . Had I been straight, the passage of the law you deny as relevant would have been MY BEST PATH to her immigration and keeping our family in tact. Fortunately we managed with 12 hours left to illegality, $15,000 in legal fees later, and stress beyond belief to complete our process that kept her here.  

PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME or my friend Martha who is living in exile ( loveexiles.org) that you think UAFA is a bad idea. It is irresponsible, unproductive to equality as well as to the fight on behalf of all immigrants, not to mention he lack of merit both de facto and de jure in your argument.

That said I invite you and your readers to my blog (www.oblogdeoblogda.wordpress.com) Read the post on Bill #867, Shirley’s Bill and note that this gay issue provided a forum for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s first ever public mention of the PLIGHT OFF ALL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; she acknowledges in essence the support of Reunification and CIR and it was Shirley Tan and her courage that for the first time shows a marriage, if you will, between the unfairness of all Immigration Law as it pertains to gays and straights.

Because you are ‘ an immigration activist’ I encourage you to seek harmony and unity in your efforts, rather than looking for divisive means to make your point– even if you disagree with the form of legislation please do not put down the courageous fighters amongst us and please do not stand in the way of my right to equality. Melanie Nathan

————————— 
Yasmin NAIR responds to Melanie – there are many responses by the way which can be read on the QueerCents Blog. 

Yasmin Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 am John and Mattilda,  
Thanks for your comments, and for the tenor of your posts! Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who has written, even in disagreement, in a tone that’s fitting for public discussion. Many of you who’ve disagreed have still managed to do so in a productive way, and I hope that will continue.

Madison,
With all due respect, I suggest you write your own blog and not use the comments section to do so.

Melanie,
I think it’s hilarious that you correct my spelling of Philippines, but keep referring to me as Jasmin. Multiple times.

I’m really, really glad I’ll never have to call on your services (although I’m not sure you’re her lawyer – a blogger and a person involved in introducing the bill – what does that make you, exactly?) Your inflammatory language and vituperative tone are not helping anyone, and it really doesn’t help your reputation. DOMA is akin to apartheid? I know an entire country, South Africa, that might beg to differ.

As for the facts of the case, um, if you have any issue with what I presented, go talk to the People Magazine reporters.

 I cited the article quite emphatically. I’m not sure how to break the news to you but this is …
a BLOG! Part of the blog’s point is to use a case that’s emblematic of the issue at hand and then to discuss the issue.

It’s interesting that you criticize me for not having contacted you — after having just shown that your temperament here shows why that would never be a good idea (and you still haven’t indicated who you are, exactly, ahem) — and then you go on to happily and unethically combine my critique of UAFA with some imagined personal criticism of Shirley Tan.

My point here was to look at the representation of an “ideal/good” family and then ask us to look UAFA more closely. This was not meant to be an airing of your client’s perspectives (and again, in what capacity are you acting on her behalf, exactly?). You need to do that job, not me. And, by the way, you need to do it elsewhere, not here.

Have I already mentioned that your tone is vituperative and quite unlike what someone’s public advocate should adopt? I know dozens of lawyers, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just used. I also know a lot of advocates and publicists, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just adopted. You’re just screaming at me.”

Then when I go back to respond CUT CUT CUT…. no more.

Now I was not the only one who did not agree with her. I think out of 44 responses (excluding her own defensive responses) no one agreed or understood what the heck she was saying.  

Anyway Madison, Great Blog too – you did it justice on this one   

http://lotusopening.blogspot.com/2009/05/yasmin-nair-eat-this.html

 

OH SAY…..

AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE

THE GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD

THE HOME OF EQUALITY FOR ALL

.. time to talk? Not sure yet..

 

 

 

 

 

Melanie Nathan
Lesbian mom, “Me  and our  Baby”

 

Today I was picked up by a BLOGGER that sees Gays and Lesbians as lesser Americans Michigan Redneck II -  (yes that is what the blogger calls him/herself)   –  - or so I presume from the postings. 

THIS IS WHAT SHE WROTE ON HER BLOG AND I QUOTE: note her words are in red

THE MICHIGAN REDNECK IS A WOMAN AND THIS IS WHAT SHE SAYS-

Immigration News Daily; Earlier this morning I posted a few articles found in Immigration News Daily. But this one I figure deserves a post of it’s own.

WTF! Binational and UAFA   Posted by michiganredneck on April 25, 2009

Dianne Feinstein Luvs her Them Philippino Lesbos:

Sometimes I just find things that just make me say, “WTF!”. And I feel like posting on such things, but don’t really know how to make a big wordy post.  From now on, I making this a serious when I find issues that make me give the above reaction.

The Feinstein story about the Philippino lesbo got me started on a few searches. I found this one blog by someone who supports the gay agenda who is all excited about the Shirley Bill. This “Although it does not help the myriad (36,000) binationals living in fear or exile” got me to wondering what is binational. So I did a Google Search for binational and some of the things made me say, “WTF, I didn’t know about that.” Like;

America/Canada EPA collaboration with Environment Canada

Binational Migrant Education Program (BMEP)

2009 Border Binational 

Also in the Feinstein/Philippino article was something called UAFA.  I wanted to do a Google Search on that too.  Here is some of what I came up with. This one really shocked me:-  Uniting American Families Act - The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424) is a U.S. bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.^[1][2]

The UAFA was introduced during the 111th Congress, to the United States House of Representatives on February 12, 2009 by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).^[3] There are currently 96 cosponsors of this bill in the United States House of Representatives.^[4]

The UAFA was introduced in the United States Senate on February 12, 2009 by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).^[5] There are currently 17 cosponsors of this bill in the United States Senate.^[6]

Most of the blogging and MSM news on this issue is gay agenda support.  This is an issue that I will be checking up on in the future.  Most of the blogging and MSM results have a gay agenda support of it.  I am surprised that there is barely any Conservative talk on the bill.  When the gay agenda enters into the immigration arena, conservatives leave it alone.  But not me.  Now that I know about it.  I will collect more info and inform y’all.

 How could this “She applied for asylum in 1995 because she was afraid of a cousin in the Philippines who had killed her mother and sister and critically wounded her when she was a teenager.” even be considered a valid reason for asylum? This is nothing more than family issues. Applying for asylum should be based on political issues. The United States should not be the World’s policeman. If one of my crazy relatives was trying to kill me and/or other family members no other country would take me in.

1. Lyn said  in a a response to MICHIGAN REDNECK

April 24, 2009 at 3:24 pm

What did Feinstein win? I mean seriously is there some contest going on to see who can be the most lefty in politics?

Just one more day and one more reason I’m so glad I don’t live in People’s Republic of California.

Unreal. US Senators are elected to serve American citizens and support our laws. Not give amnesty to illegal lesbian immigrants. I’m gonna be dry heavin over this one for a while.

 __________________________________________________________________________________

Melanie responded to the above BLOG as follows. :- Maybe I am naive – but I did take the step of providing my perspective in a reply on the blog and then it went further:-

“Thank you so much for helping us to spread our Gay agenda. It is very kind of you.  Yes we do have an agenda indeed and the agenda is quite simple – Equality for all Americans, including people who have loving relationships with someone of the same-sex.   Now while you are researching and doing all you can to create your own definition of the gay agenda, I highly recommend doing some serious research that makes sense and you will se that our founding fathers ( and that they were!)  were brilliant in their recommendations and dialogues that led to our wonderful and insightful constitution. 

In 1790 George Washington declared, “As mankind becomes more liberal,  (so I guess he expected and wished for it) they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” 

That said, please do not be afraid of gay people – the Shirley Tan case highlights the importance of family.  Her catholic church priest wrote a supporting letter to the Senator, stating what an amazing family this is, how well adjusted the twin boys are, the valuablecontributions they have made to the entire community. This is an example of good family values.   These are amazing people entitled to a peacefull and equal life.  Americans shouldnot have to leave the USA simply because they happen to love someone of the same sex. 

I would like to invite a dialogue with you and help you see that this is really not an important issue for you – but as a lesbian mom it is an important issue for me. I know letting go of this may make your site less worthy if you are unable to continue to assist other conservatives feed into the fear and promote false rhetoric, but truly there are other issues – ones tha do not hurt your fellow Americans. There are issues that you can take up that will remain in keeping of the vision of our founding fathers – PEACE , FREEDOM AND JUSTICE for every single American.

 

kazzadraskmedia said

April 26, 2009 at 9:56 am

I’m happy to help you with your research on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). If you’re an American, if you truly believe in American values and the right we all have to the pursuit of “life, liberty and happiness”, then I think you can help us support equal immigration rights for all American citizens. WTF — you say!? American citizens need immigration rights? Well, yes we do. You, for example, live up in Michigan. Near the Canadian border. Probably not too hard to meet an attractive Canadian lassie (or lad) up there and fall in love. Want to get married and live with your Candadian sweetie in your own country. If you’re both of the heterosexual variety, snap, get married (heck, just get engaged to get married) and the US government protects your right to be in America with the one you love. Gay and lesbian American citizens (and yes, gays and lesbians are American citizens — which means, according to our founding documents, we are all created equal — esp. the men : – )) do not have the same rights to sponsor their Canadian partners (or, horrors(!) Mexican partners — or Australian, Romanian, Indian, Japanese, Egyptian…you name it). Even those Americans who have been married in a fair-minded country (or state) that permits same-sex marriage cannot stay in America legally with their foreign partner until we pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Here’s a short list or organizations who will be happy to educate you and your readers further on how you can help: Out4Immigration, Marriage Equality USA, Love Exiles, Immigration Equality, Love Without Borders. You might also want to call Rep. Jerrold Nadler at 202-225-5635 and ask him to give you more information. He is the sponsor of this legislation and has done extensive research on the “gratuitous cruelty” lack of equal immigration laws has inflicted on countless Americans. Sincerely, Kathy Drasky

Reply

kathryn said

April 26, 2009 at 7:10 pm re: UAFA.

so it’s a piece of politics that you don’t agree with. that’s allowed, obviously. i just wanted you to know that it’s more than that for some of us. i was born and raised in the u.s. (and still pay taxes from afar…), but because my partner is from paraguay and of the same sex, i can’t sponsor her to come live in my country. so, we live in argentina.

i support UAFA…just because i want to come home. that’s all.
-kathryn griess

Reply

equality_now said

April 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm My partner and I- a bi-national same-sex couple, of which one is from a European country- also thought:

WTF, why can’t we stay together in the US, when our American friend can bring his wife from France to live in his home state?

We are married and living together in exile in Europe, as many other couples are, as this country ( as well as over 20 countries worldwide) provides equal immigration rights to straight and gay couples.

The UAFA would merely provide us the same rights as straight couples have. And it would force us to prove our commitment to each other in the same way as straight have to.

Why are you so opposed to this?

We would appreciate it if you could explain your arguments.

Best wishes,

Lee Danner

Reply

Daddyblueyes said

April 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm Let me put it in terms you can understand:
WTF You MF, CS,Conservative Right Wing AH.
I am a Viet Nam Vet, Tax Payer, Home Owner, and member in good standing in my community. BUT yet I am not afforded the same protections under the law a you because I AM GAY.
If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed. As far as the Government is concerned we are total stangers.
The UAFA would simply change the wording of the immigration policy to allow permenant partners to sponsor the same sex partners, we would be held to the same strict regulations as straight couples. There would be no greater chance of fraud than there is with straight couples.

You mentioned “the GAY Agenda” several times, would you like to know what the GAY Agenda is? Really? Are you sure you can handle it?
OK so Here it is plan and simple:
LET US THE F ALONE and let us live our lives in peace, stop dening us our civil rights. Keep your Evangelical Noses out of our business. We will answer to a higher power when we reach the Golden Gates, but we will not answer to you.

Have a nice day.

Reply

Daddyblueyes said

April 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm After reading “All You Need to Know About Michigan Redneck” I was surprised to learn you are a self proclaimed “Chick” you write like a Dude.
There may be a “Lesbo’ hiding in there somewhere… :0)
There may be hope for you yet.

Thank you for helping spread the word about the UAFA.
Randy
California

Reply

michiganredneck said

April 27, 2009 at 1:38 pm Ha-ha Daddy Blues,

Since I am so thick skinned not only did I allow both your comments to post, you actually gave me a good laugh. And no, I am not laughing at you. I’d like to think I am laughing with you. While I am still trying to gather more info from all sides on the issues I will address the other comments soon. But your’s is light enough that I can comment to you now. Until then, I would please ask that everyone give me time to respond and please don’t jump to conclusions. I stated that I just recently heard about this and want to learn more.

First, I want to thank you for serving this great country, in uniform . As you can tell from the right hand corner, I am a fan of Barry Goldwater. He was more of a fis-con than so-con. I can’t remember the exact quoting or where I read it, but he did say something along the lines of it not mattering if a person in uniform was gay or straight. I am glad to hear you are a good standing member of your community. I think that is good for both gays and straights.
I see you wrote “If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed” before you read the about me. So obviously I could not have an Australian bride. I am not even a big fan of heteros bringing in foreign spouses. There are cases where it may be valid, but generally it seems like one side or the other can easily take advantage of the other. I despise those stupid mail order bride situations. I will address that later.
As I said, I am still trying to get all views of the UAFA.
Next off, I am not an Evangelical. Christian yes, Evangelical no. Evangelicals scare me. Since you are not a regular reader, I will inform you that I am a Fiscal Conservative. It may surprise you to know that I get irritated with Republicans who only talk of pro-life stands and for a federal amendment stating of marriage between one man and one woman, yet they shimmy around the issues of welfare and immigration. For the record, I am pro-life. I have nothing against gay people. I am accepting of all people.
Why should you be offended by the phrase “gay agenda”? Everyone has an agenda. I am more upset by conservatives not talking on the UAFA agenda. Regardless of whether they support it or not, they should say so. I hate chicken shits and hypocrites.
Lastly, the last comment you entered actually had me laughing. I like to consider myself balanced. I am not the flowery type chick. I do not write flowery words. Too much of a realist. If you notice, the pic included with my comments is of a sewing machine. I write occasional posts about sewing. I don’t think those would be considered writing like a dude. I think modern girls are too sissy. I do not like bimbos or either feminists. Funny how Republicans want women to be old fashioned, yet they would think that someone like Ma Ingalls on Little House would be a feminist. Due to the fact that she didn’t get all primped up. Old fashioned women needed somewhat of a “dude” persona. Men knew that there was a large percentage of leaving the mother of their children a widow. They needed someone who could pull a plow, take care of the farm and support the family should anything happen to him. Sorry, I got off topic.

Reply

oblogdeeoblogda said

April 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm I am thrilled at all these postings- I bet this lady had no idea about the world out there. Michigan Redneck now has us “lefty lesbos” explaining our existence because she has never met one before, and on her site at that. I bet all of you picked this up off my blog and I am glad you did. Lets keep the discourse sweet and friendly and lets focus on the edification of conservatives as you have all mostly done. I just want to clarify that I am not ooffended by word GAY AGENDA – I am offended by ignorant defnitions as to what it IS> WE WANT EQUALTY that is our ONLY AGenda.

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 27, 2009 at 3:24 pm Actually “this lady” has met a few lesbians. Don’t know if any of them are/were lefty. After all there is the Log Cabin Republicans . Only knew them as friends of friends. I even had one ask me to dance at a bar. I merely said thanks, but no thanks. I would do the same with a man I was not interested in.

  Reply

Gregory Graves said

April 27, 2009 at 10:54 pm Michiganredneck,

I am a fiscal conservative too. It was one of the hardest choices I have ever made to decide who to vote on for President in the last election. I am however gay and want to be a full citizen (not liberal in my mind, very conservative position). I’d be a Repulican if I weren’t gay.

I believe literally in the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Well not as literally as they did pre-1920 when the populous thought men literally meant men and women were not allowed to vote. Also don’t take Creator to mean just the Christian God of Evangelicals and Baptists. My church, Universalist Unitarians has been around since the late 1500’s; this kind group of straight people advocates for gay citizens having equality.

All that said, the real thing is, imagine, how ever it came to be, you and the one you loved most couldn’t be together. Imagine you paid taxes just like the gal next door, and the government took those words above seriously and let her pursue her life, liberty and happiness–she is able to love and choose anyone in the world–she is not limited as a citizen of the USA. But here you are, locked in to living as a proud American without your partner/family in the good ‘ole USA, or leaving and giving everything up….like your medical license in my case.

That’s pretty much what the Uniting American Families ACT is about. Just a simple bill to let a US citizen have the one they love in the same home with them. I don’t really it as a big agenda. It is a pretty simple one that almost anyone can understand if they think about living across an ocean isolated from the one they love the most. I do think it should be done legally and those who sidestepped the rules shouldn’t get special favors. Just asking for equal treatment of my own interests–very conservative thing to do wouldn’t you agree?

Here is the Wikipedia write-up on UAFA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_American_Families_Act

The House Version of the Bill on Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.1024:

The Senate Version of the Bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S424:

I hope we get you on-board to support this bill. It’s the conservative and humane thing to do Michiganredneck…

(:

Greg Graves, MD

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 28, 2009 at 2:07 am Hi Greg,

  Thank you for your level headed comment. I am glad to receive a comment from a gay Conservative. Not that I dislike the comments from the “lefty gays”(paraphrase from Oblog…,)I want to hear from all sides. I brought this subject up to bring it to light and start a dialog. I would love to have this be picked up by Conservatives, both for and against UAFA, whether gay or straight. I have stated on many issues, within the past 2 years that the Republican Party needs to shut up or put up on all issues, social AND fiscal. “Preaching to the choir” has it’s time and place, but those who truly believe what they say would have AND should have the balls to speak out to those who are not part of the choir. While many of the commentors to the UAFA issue probably would not have reason to continue to become regular readers. I would like to invite you to become a regular reader and check my archives. You will notice that I interchange the words Conservative and Republican. There is a reason for this. But sneaky as I am, I leave it up to the reader to figure it out , tee-hee. Oh, where was I? Yeah, I was replying to your comment.
  OK, it was hard for me to choose who to vote in the presidential election. Well maybe not. It was not between McAmnesty and Obummer. I ended up voting for Bob Barr (Libertarian). I just could not get distracted by McAmnesty’s shiny objects (read Sarah Palin and “Joe the Plumber”). Those two did not shit roses, like the Evangelicals acted like. Yet, they were not evil like the libs acted like.
  I am going to be honest here, I do not know a whole lot about Universalist Unitarians. It gives me another something to search about, argh ! Another honesty, I do believe in equality for everyone. But I dissent on Gay marriage. If someone is gay, that’s fine. Live with whom you want. I just don’t agree with that choice or lifestyle.
  I think the laws for hetero international-marriage immigration need to be made stricter, first. I don’t think we should allow situations with some fat, short, old, bald guy sitting at his computer or reading his “bride catalog” wanking off to “Tiana-I coot/hot Russian girl. I wan be bride in America. I cook. I clean. I do what you say. I your girl. You silly boy. You coot.” Let me state that one of my grandmothers was a German “war bride.” God rest her soul. I do not think she was taking advantage of my grandfather. After all, he was a sixth grade graduate from Arkansas. And she was an educated teenager who knew at least three languages, including German. If she were to use a soldier to get to the states, she could have found someone more educated. I do not think my grandfather was trying to take advantage of some Euro-girl. He was very handsome and could have married any Arkansas girl when he arrived back in the states. My grandfather left for the states with his troop without her. She had to come in on a different boat, with other brides. She went through a lot of scrutiny to get on that boat. Again, I got a bit OT.
  But under the UAFA what is to stop me from a possible situation where I were to spend maybe a year in Europe, or other continent, and I become friends with a foreign girl. Under said hypothetical situation, I like hanging out with her. The two of us devise a plan to tell U.S. and her country’s officials that we are “partners” and I want her to join me in the U.S. She arrives in the U.S. as my partner. Somewhere along the way one of us meets a man. One of us is attracted to him. Go through courtship. Gets married. Or even under current laws, I meet a man who is simply a platonic friend. We get married in his country of nationality or tell officials we will get married in the U.S. he gets to the U.S. and we divorce and go on our own ways?
  Thank you for the links. I have read those. Those are the links on this post.
  Regardless of whether or not I end up supporting the UAFA, two VERY important things; I do have empathy for your cause AND most importantly, all of us have a write to our own thoughts and opinions and being able to speak on those.
  BTW, I read somewhere about a gay REPUBLICAN candidate running for something or another in Florida or Cali who is fiscally conservative. I want to check out more about him, and possibly post about him. But him being gay is not a reason to support or not support him. It is where he stands on the issues.

  Reply
  • 

    Gregory Graves said

    April 30, 2009 at 2:06 am Thanks for your receptiveness. My family worked hard to go from working class poor family of the depression to get me into med school and to build something to pass on to our posterity/legacy. Not keen on government taking it away after doing the work.

    Responding to your comment about gay marriage and lifestyles, I don’t support a Klu Klux Klan lifestyle, nor being a Communist. I hold our national value of each being able to have equal access despite their choices or circumstances higher than my distaste for those lifestyles (I could go on a long path talking about chosen lifestyle vs. been born this way–lots of prayers and wanting to die because never could convince my sympathetic nervous system that it was a choice). I digress. The idea in the Declaration of Independence, from my study, was government promoting Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness for those from checkered protestant and Catholic backgrounds. This was between colonies that very different beliefs no more than 200 years before our Declaration of Independence was written. It was certainly not written by a group of conservatives. They were overthrowing status quo and moving toward englightment. Away from monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy. But people try to compulsively repeat the past. The King of Romania at the time was at the Center of the Universalist Unitarian group. He was tired of people being killed as heretics because they didn’t believe in the trinity but saw God, son, spirit all as one. Imagine…dying over such a thing today… Guess it still happens in the Middle East.

    Allowing Klu Klux Klan members to have their beliefs and practice their rituals is one of my highest values though I vehemently oppose that lifestyle. Conversely limiting others rights and killing people are not acceptable … beliefs and rituals are different matter, they are guaranteed in the Country I support. Now gay marriage. I support that a group of people should be able to declare homosexuality an abomination in their church and refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to. I feel that way about the Klan. But 4 States (Mass., Conn, Iowa, Vermont) and 7 Countries later (Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden), heterosexual marriage still looks pretty much the same.

    Look at the science, the most recent UN stats on divorce rates: Canada 2.2/1000 Belgium 2.8/1000 Netherlands 1.9/1000 Spain 1.7/1000 Sweden 2.2 / 1000. US Stats aren’t listed. CDC reports US average is 3.6/1000. Conn. 3.2/1000, Iowa 2.6/1000, Mass. 2.3/1000, Vermont 3.6/1000. Of the 11 provinces (countries and states) that have legal gay marriage, 10 have a lower rate of divorce than the U.S. average and the remaining one ties that average. Don’t forget Galileo was put under house arrest for life because he made the unpopular lifestyle choice of publishing a scientific document showing the Earth wasn’t the center of the solar system.

    Regarding your grandmother and grandfather, would you have wanted to limit their freedom to pursue their happiness. Doesn’t sound like handcuffs were on either party. And you are the wonderful outcome of that freedom to choose. They had things to offer each other. I’m not balding but in your example maybe the balding guy has something to offer the Russian bride and vice versa. Maybe their progeny will be more successful than either of ours. Who am I to interfere with their free will to choose?

    Regarding the rules of UAFA. I would hope they would be the same as for heterosexual couples. Same timeframes leading to rejection of the greencard if a separation of the permanent relationship resulted–this act would require proof demonstrating that was the nature of the relationship, permananent. And if you want to lengthen those timeframes for all, more power to you. I wouldn’t disagree our citizens shouldn’t be used to get into the country. And I wouldn’t support fraudulent use of immigration. Same monitoring should occur for all.

    What else stands in your way of supporting me as your fellow citizen being with the person I love most? And making sure I have a legacy through his progeny. He’s unbearable cute to me. He’s doing very well in his country too. We’ve got other paths to get him here than UAFA because of that. I am cute as well so I’m told. My wisdom, knowledge and family wealth passed to his progeny… Well that is my dream. Sure doesn’t sound worse than supporting the Klan being able to have their lifestyle…which you do I’m counting on.

    Thanks for your time in really listening to all of us. That’s true charity/love in my book.

    -Greg

    Reply
    • 

      michiganredneck said

      April 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm Hi Greg,

      I admit to not having all the answers. I wish I did. I will say I am glad that you found someone you care about. There is no black and white answer to any issue that one can name. The prob is that no one can judge what is another person’s heart, regarding the immigration issue of bringing in a spouse or partner to the U.S. Sometimes it is true love, sometimes not.
      I do know for a fact that I do not support gay marriage within the confines of a religious ceremony. As for Civil Unions, I think it should be up to the voters of the ind. states. And whatever the result, no whining.
      I am saddened by divorce rates the world over. But that is a whole other can of worms.
      As for the KKK, obviously I do not agree with what they stand for. But as you say, they should be allowed to say what they want.

oblogdeeoblogda said

April 28, 2009 at 2:35 am I take umbrage with your rewritten history here MR (I mean Michigan Redneck); Kindly allow me to remind you of the following:

1. Your first post about Shirley Tan led to your acknowledgment and so called research that yielded UAFA to your lexicon;
2. I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;” also your assertion of a Gay agenda as being a negative one;
3. I wrote you a detailed response, despite my busy schedule, inviting you to discuss this with me.
4. I then posted everything you said and I commented on in my oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com blog;
5. You then sent me a comment stating you did not have time to answer me, that you would get to it and that you were too busy;
6. Then suddenly all the good people that came to my Blog, wrote on your Blog too, after visiting mine and being directed to you;
7. You then communicate only with those who can beat your drum –in great detail, I must add, for such a busy gal who has STILL not taken the time to respond to me, Melanie, the one who started the discourse! – Nor have you apologized for your demeaning and offensive remarks – instead in your response to others- you throw out token remarks such as “I was once asked to dance by a woman and… – … which simply exacerbate your original insults!” What are you running away from? You cannot face me with a straight (no pun intended of course) answer?
8. The many gay people who have written so eloquently on your site have been polite and stated their positions and all you can do is go off on crazy irrelevant tangents.

OKAY that all said I now challenge you to answer the following:-
1. Are you sorry that you used the word “lesbo” and do you plan to continue to use that word? I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language includingthe “F” word and WTF – I know you have a 1st amendement right, but for as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us – especially now that we tell you its offensive to us
2. Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA and then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?
3. Why the hell cant people fall in love with people from other countries- straight or gay? How do you think you got here? I know you have the word RED in your name – but I did not think you were pure blood native American – maybe I am wrong – only then can you have the chutzpah to be anti spousal immigration.

Lets leave gay marriage for another day and another time.

If you do not take the time to answer me, neither I nor my blogging friends will waste their time coming back to your blog, rest assured an honest discussion involves dealing with the things you need to apologize for… Melanie Nathan

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 28, 2009 at 3:35 am I am just now starting to respond. I really, really am trying to get your comments. There has only person who has responded that is against UAFA. The others support it. And my responding has been going down the line, as opposed to the date I received them. In my responding to them, I am trying to add a bit of humor. You and all the commentors have given me a lot to think about and I thank all of y’all for that. So I just want to lighten the situation. That’s the way I work. Once the situation has been lightened. We both know that if this were another Conservative blog the commentors would be vilified. I am trying to be fair and diplomatic, yet, like Carrie Prejean (Miss California), I can have my own opinion. I will get to addressing exactly what you have addressed soon. And I am sorry that I did not address your comments sooner.

  Reply
• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 28, 2009 at 4:50 am How and where did I re-write history?

  RE: 1.“..so called research…” How do you know if my research is so called or not? Are you or someone you know hacking my computer to see what search results I am Googling?
  RE: 2.“I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;”” Perhaps I was a bit hasty in using the word lesbo as shortened form of lesbian. What is wrong with the word Philippino? Isn’t that her nationality?
  RE: 3.“I wrote you a detailed response,…”Which I am trying to get to as soon as I can. You do have an advantage over me. You know more about this than I. I should be allowed a little time to learn, via searches, comments and personal contacts.

  Answering questions;
  RE: 1.I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language…” Please do not ask/demand for an apology. I have already changed the words. I honestly did not know that people find “lesbo” offensive. I merely assumed it was short for lesbian. Just like hetero is short for heterosexual. As for “…includingthe “F” word and WTF…as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us…” The F word and WTF have nothing to do with whether or not I hate gay people, which I don’t just for the record. If you re-read the intro to this post, I am using it for anything that surprises me, gay or not related. As you can tell, WTF is a new series I am starting. Plus, the first three Google search results have nothing to do with gay. They were things that made me say “WTF” Whoa, I didn’t know that. This can include anything, like something I may read about Elvis, like a famous actress he may have dated or silly name for one of his horses. Just an example I could throw out there.
  RE: 2.“Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA…” I am going to refer to any agenda I find out about, whether my reaction to it is negative or positive. “…then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?” Not once did I pretend to promote anything. I said I wanted to find out about what it was and decide from there.
  RE: 3. Instead of just posting your question and then answering I will plain ol’ address that. People from other questions can fall in love. But we can not just let people in willy-nilly. No, I am not FULL Native American, that is correct. I have done research on my family line, other than the previous example I gave, my other ancestors met in this country.

  Reply

Keith Almli said

April 28, 2009 at 10:24 am Free speech, quit wining.

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm Hi Keith,

  I like you and all, I think your a great person and do a great job forwarding the Conservative message. And please do not think I am chastising you or anything. After all, I did ask for help with a Conservative voice in this issue.

  But I will say that this blog is and always has been open to discussions from all sides. I still want to hear from Conservative DEEP THOUGHTS on this specific cause. I hope you are willing to come back once you learn about the UAFA and let everyone know your thoughts, whether pro or con. Everyone needs to think for themselves, regardless of what political side they are on, on any issue.

  Reply

oblogdeeoblogda said

April 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm Good answer to the the host Michigan Redneck – I appreciate it and your visit to my site – now let us put that behond us and concentrate on a discussion about UAFA and other issues, of American Equality.

I wrote this on my BLOG http://www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

Thanks I really appreciate your post, your apology and your willingness to engage and remain open; it takes a strong person to do that! What do you think of Specter? Looks like he is seeing the light too…actually he always has -its just that he has now chosen to move into it!

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 28, 2009 at 1:02 pm Hi Ms. Nathan,

  Or would you prefer me using your first name? I was always raised to more formal names towards people of professions such as law, medical, religion, etc.

  That being said, I am quite hungry. Bought a fish, on sale at that, yesterday. I should probably cook it, knowing fish that is on sale . Every time I plan to get up to stick it in the toaster oven, something happens on the internet. Yeah for live feed on Yahoo, NOT! But I will get back to you soon about what you have said, i.e. Specter and other stuff. Maybe I will send an email sometime. I do guard my privacy, and my email addy will let people know my real name. I am the same way with everyone. I have learned my lesson, even in Conservative and/or Republican situations.
  I will sometime write a post on the UAFA. Most likely in series’. Sort of like a follow along online diary. Look at me, planned to be quick, oops.

  Reply
• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 29, 2009 at 1:12 am I am and always have been open minded. I do believe in American equality for everyone. I do not think anyone should be considered more or less of American. I think everyone’s voice should be just as loud as the next guy or gal, regardless of ethnicity and/or orientation. But at the same time, if someone disagrees they should be allowed to say so.

  What do I think of Specter? Hmm…From what I have been seeing, I think he is correct on the Republican Party moving to the right…on social issues. Wrong on the fiscal issues. I think the Republican Party is moving left and/or silent on fiscal issues. This whole “Compassionate Conservative” irritates me. I was not too keen on George Bush’s Faith Based Initiative. Even if monies do go to Religious Organizations, it is still MY tax dollars. Certain Religious groups may give money to causes that I don’t believe in, like immigration related. I should have the right to give to what Religious Organizations I want. Since I am more pro-adoption than pro-life, meaning that don’t just stop at pro-life, but do something about like helping bio mothers find loving families for the child. Back to Specter. In this current unemployment and economy situation, I am against the H1 and H2 B programs. Specter supports H-2B.

  “Looks like he is seeing the light too” Exactly what do you mean by “too”? I have never been much into social issues. I have beliefs, but I separate those between religion and politics. As for other things, I will never been won to the other side.

  Reply

Chad T. Everson said

April 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm Hey this looks like a healthy debate! This is the way I look at it, what you do in your bedroom is only your business and the other adult you get nasty with. However, once it enters into the political arena, Katey bar the door.

If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble! This is exciting to see such a vibrant and interactive discussion here on this great blog.

Michigan Redneck, your a good friend and blogger and I salute you for eliciting a great response. Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!

Hey regardless of their Socialist Squirrel status or sexual orientation, it is great to have the discussion. However, when it gets Nuts as Socialist Squirrels often do, you no longer have to respond. Just move on and keep getting out there great content and message you are delivering.

I would take this response as a pat on the back, you are hitting them where their political agenda hits the road. Bravo! Keep getting Grizzly!

One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.

That is one things those of the political pro Gay agenda have over us. They move this message and agenda forward in a pack mentality. The Grizzly Groundswell actually has learned from those of our enemies in the political agenda realm.

Hey I am sure on a personal level we are all Americans and I am sure I can stand around my Raku kiln and bullshit with about anyone. But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty. So that is why this is such a flash point issue.

So battle on, but don’t loose your sense of humor. This is all politics and anyone who takes it beyond that will be dealt with in like measure under the rule of law.

Get Grizzly Michigan Redneck, I hope this great opportunity has shown you who your friends are.

Chad Everson

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm Thank you Chad,

  …For being a Conservative with a concise voice. Well HoosierArmyMom left a was clear and concise also. I have read your comment fully. As I told Ms. Nathan, I am hungry and trying to cook my fish. As any long level-headed comment deserves a feedback, I will get back with you as soon as I can.

  Before I go “Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!” Yes, even when I don’t agree, my unspoken rule is that as long as no one is threatening or violent, most all posts are allowed. But I understand if some bloggers opt to be more stricter. Free speech on all sides. Free to choose what gets part of the convo. So long as it is the people who choose, NOT the gubmint!

  Reply
• 

  Chris said

  April 28, 2009 at 7:57 pm Mr. Everson,

  I hope you don’t think me a Socialist Squirrel, but here goes.

  In your love letter above to MR, you did have a few kernels that are worth replying to:

  “If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble!”

  This is interesting for you to say. It seems, from reading the rest of your post, that you believe that those who are advocating for immigration sponsorship rights for Americans in same-sex relationships are infringing on your rights. If I am wrong in this, I apologize. However, if I am correct, as I think I am, then exactly which rights are we supposedly infringing upon?

  I can tell you which rights current laws infringe upon – the rights of my American husband. My American husband cannot sponsor his legally wedded spouse for immigration as you would be able to yours (assuming it was a woman). My American spouse cannot receive Social Security death benefits should I die first (nor me his), as you can should your wife die before you, even though we’ve been paying into the system just as you have. I could go on – there are 1,138 rights in all that we don’t get that you do, but I hope you get my point.

  “But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty.”

  Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy? Why exactly does this deserve opposition? We’re not looking for what some may call ’special rights’. We’re demanding equal rights. We see our relationships as equal to yours, and demand rights from our government that honor that equality.

  I have recently come across, thanks to Melanie Nathan, a fantastic quote, written in a letter from George Washington on March 12, 1790, addressed to “The Roman Catholics of the United States.” In it, he writes:

  “As mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of the civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality.”

  I suggest you read the whole letter, study its historical context, and can see that we are, in essence, akin to the 1790 Roman Catholics. We are law-abiding, tax-paying, positive forces in our community, just as (I hope) you are in yours. Why, exactly, are we not equally entitled to the protection of the civil government?

  I hope I wasn’t too ‘nutty’ for you to be able to reply and offer some examples as I have asked for them. This is a learning experience for me, too, and I look forward to hearing the replies of the apparently more socially conservative who contribute to and enjoy reading this blog.

  I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. I don’t like to see people breaking the law, nor do I like to see them no pay for doing so. But this country was founded on a principle of equality for all, and as I believe strongly in this, this tends to override many of my fiscally conservative tendencies. I am what you would probably consider a social liberal, although I consider myself socially moderate at most.

  Reply
  • 

    michiganredneck said

    April 29, 2009 at 12:29 am Chris,

    On the Geo Washington quote, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, I think it depends on the definition of Liberal.

    “I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. This is exactly why I think political parties need to stay out of social issues. I have nothing against politicians talking about their social views, but it should not be a litmus test. It is also why I, and others, find myself leaning toward the Libertarian Party. They don’t care about social issues. That is up to the church and families. It is like the old school Republican Party.

    In terms of your responding to Chad, I think it is good for all of us to be able to have conversations agree or disagree. I think all sides come into the convos with their own condensed views of an issue, along with their own condensed views of what others may or may not think. When a conversation takes place with everyone from all sides, we may or may not change our views, but at least we know where the other side is coming from.

    Now we may or may not agree, but this is why I am against the Hate Crimes Bill. I could get into that more on another post, but to summarize, ALL crimes are motivated by hate. It actually patronizes “minorities.” I believe any moron has the right to speak out on their hate. Then others can pick up on this and speak out. That is true power to the people! Oh God, I sound like a Ron Paul-er.

    Reply
    • 

      Chris said

      April 29, 2009 at 4:51 pm MR, on the Geo Washington quote, he did say ‘liberal’ (small ‘l’) and ‘liberality’, which some online dictionaries define as “the quality of being broad-minded”. In his day, it was broad-minded to extend equality to Roman Catholics, something that we would say, well, of course! In our day, LGBT’s who are upstanding members of our civic community deserve the right to equality just like the RC’s of the 1790’s did. As society becomes more broad-minded, we will allow equality to more and more whom we realize deserve it.

      As to Chad and his like-minded friends, I encourage him in my post to talk about his beliefs and to explain himself as I have done with mine. Talking points and inflammatory rhetoric, which both sides of every issue use, do nothing to advance the discussion. I’d like to hear what exactly his list of supposed lost liberties looks like, especially when put up next to my husband’s list.

      A final note: I don’t know that any of us have truly been concise. Mr Everson rambles around how much he misses you on other blogs without offering anything substantive. Your HoosierArmyMom friend is not terribly concise, either. It’s like they are trying to come up with a reason to oppose this legislation that uses facts, rights, etc., and can’t. Like you, I’d like to hear, from either a fiscal conservative or a social conservative, an actual reason why this bill that keeps families together and Americans in their homes and jobs should not become law. Isn’t that the basis of the ‘family values’ folks – to keep families together? and isn’t that the tenet of the fiscal conservatives – to keep Americans in their homes and jobs? How does sending an American into exile do either?

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 28, 2009 at 11:48 pm “Hey this looks like a healthy debate!” Yeah, except I wish some So-cons had come on to defend whatever their positions may be. That is my problem with the So-cons in the Republican Party. They are willing to say one thing within their circles, yet when they are given the chance to speak with another side with another view, poof.

  “One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.” You are correct there. As you know, I had gone into hiatus, again for a while. Somehow, I have to figure out how to be able to work on my sewing and blogging.

  Reply

oblogdeeoblogda said

April 28, 2009 at 1:14 pm Thanks for the update on my blog, I will approve it as soon as I can. That said yes e-mail would be great – I am not afraid to have my name out there – I used to be – maybe that is my naivity because I live in a community where there is no prejudice – or at least I like tio think so; maybe it is limited. Here we all champion common causes such as poverty, the environment, fair treatment for all under the law. By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.

That said, I do not think children should suffer; once there is a de facto situation – that is if it “IS” then children should come first and all else forgotten. It is not a reward to keep children with their mothers and/or fathers, it is a G-d given right, regardless of borders.

So if two things could happen in conjunction – give children their intact families and allow Americans to live in America including all American kids, regardless of so called “anchor-baby-syndrome” and at the same time firm up borders, then over 100,000 families would be united again and illigal immigration will decrease dramatically.

Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.

So we think alike – except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders TIGHT!

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 29, 2009 at 1:39 am “By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.” The prob is that neither side wants to get serious about the borders. They both have reasons to be for it, behind closed doors (read ass kiss to lobbyists).

  I really do have empathy for the children. Don’t get me wrong. The Libertarian in me says that everything really needs to be thought out. Unfortunately, there are many outside our borders who know our laws and take advantage of it. Of course there are American women who live in trailer parks, going out to the bar, pick up some guy, any guy, get knocked up, check off father unknown, collect welfare. Then repeat for the next three or more generations. I think if we get rid of the welfare system, a lot of probs can be solved. Again, both parties advantage from keeping people on welfare.

  “Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.” Yes, you’re correct! I have not talked about that because so many other bloggers and news sources are talking about that. I try not to repeat something, unless of course it is something that I have strong beliefs on. Other than that, I try to find things others are not talking about, or their is not conservatives talking about it.

  “…except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders” Amen, not that I agree. But at least someone who is pro-amnesty is willing to use that word.

  Oh BTW, I see you spell out “G-d” instead of God. Here you are allowed to use any word, just nothing threatening or violent. If that is your personal choice, that is fine. But if you are doing that for my benefit, don’t worry.

  Reply

oblogdeeoblogda said

April 28, 2009 at 2:24 pm Please call me Melanie.

Reply

oblogdeeoblogda said

April 29, 2009 at 12:01 am I concurr with Chris; and find MR’s point about “poof…. ” interesting;yes, seems away he went! Chris I am so glad you were directed here from my BLOG; and that you are so established in your truth that you are able to come back and revisit the comments. I challenge Mr. Everson to return here and answer the big question : “Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy?” If he fails to answer, it is clearly unanswerable and in that event MR, you will see completely unfounded/

MT thanks for keeping this dialogue alive and allowing the discourse; its unusual and rewarding – that said I hope a lot more join in. But more than anything else I hope Mr. Everson eturns to back up his tstaements and answer these questions, because if he does not you will either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends. Melanie.

Reply

• 

  michiganredneck said

  April 29, 2009 at 2:13 am In Chad’s defense, not that he needs, I do know him via internet and know that he is busy. Not that any of the commentors who have come back aren’t. We all choose when and where we want to respond. That being said, I will say he does think on his own and his views on many issues are well thought out. I think he will be back, in his own time. The ones I was talking about regarding “poof” are regular readers or other conservatives who may have just landed here.

  “…either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends.” I hope to neither be lonely AND also have some new i-net friends. And I hope that everyone can converse on any issues that I may post on. I hope that everyone can keep it civil, when disagreeing. In girl scouts we used to sing a song about make new friends and keep the old…

  Reply

Save Shirley Tan Urgent – deportation set for 4/3/09

March 27, 2009

Help us Please – twin boys beg for Mother’s rights

 This picture was taken before Shirley Tan knew that she was in fact out of legal status in the USA. The family had requested a visit to the White House and were apparently cleared – while there was an deportation order in effect. They had no idea!  LESBIAN MOTHER FACES DEPORTATION

IMMIGRATION RIGHTS IN THE USA - Why should our Children Suffer? by Melanie Nathan - breaking news…
Shirley Tan will be deported on April 3^rd 2009.   The only way she can stay in the country is if a private bill is passed by congress or her case is adjudicated to be reopened, the latter which may not happen in time to prevent the deportation.   (see erlier post on 3.27/09) http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/family-to-be-torn-apart-due-to-failure-the-us-laws-to-protect-equally/

 http://www.advocate.com/news/

We now are hoping for the passing of a special private bill by congress.  If you are in support of this, and want to help this family,  please send a supporting letter via e-mail to Senator Feinstein c/o Melanie Nathan -at

nathan@privatecourts.com

Also please mention the name of your congressperson , your district and your Senator/s

thank you.

media picking up this heart wrenching story 

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html

SF GATE

AARP

IM.Q.US

MIKE TIDMUS

TENEMENT MUSEUM –

http://tenement-museum.blogspot.com/2009/03/immigration-now-facing-deportation.html#comment-form

THE ADVOCATE

 http://fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2436&pageno=1&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all&cat=&title=Filipino%20lesbian%20mother%20faces%20deportation%20from%20US

FRIDAE ASIA

 

 

 

 

America can be such a sad place for so many

 

 PLEASE CONGRESS 36,000 AMERICANS AND THEIR CHILDREN DESPERATELY SEEKING UAFA…. 

Most Americans have barely any insight into immigration law and its intricacies; the rigidity of certain regulations that serve only to create extraordinary hardship – and the saddest victims are most often our American children – the very souls who we purport to protect through our laws and our Courts.   

  Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric has been guised in fallacious moronic (Mormonic..mmm) talking points, where the proponents insist that gay couples do not need marriage to be equal.  This in itself denotes an argument in favor of ‘special rights’ (such as UAFA) and yet the same groups oppose ‘special rights for gays,’ the latter, their coinage!  This paradox attempts to negate the de facto existence of gay relationships, regardless of marriage.  However gay relationships will always be and hence the de jure must follow.  Immigration law must change. Congress must wake up to the reality; it must acknowledge the de facto existence of these emotionally legitimate families, and that we are Americans,  for as long as it does not, American citizens and their families are being discriminated against, whichever way the opponents try to spin it.  Now is the time for every American to stand up against discrimination and suffering.  It is so important to spread these stories to the eyes and ears of those who have no clue. This is not about marriage – of course we want the right to marry and of course we want DOMA to disappear, its about one particular right that bi-national gay families do not have and that is the right of one person in love to petition for the person he/she loves to reside in his/her home country.

These stories, though briefly told reveal a measure of the hardship:- I just received a link from a new friend visiting from Netherlands.  We have never met face to face but will on Monday. My new friend is American but has been forced to leave her home because she cannot sponsor her same-sex spouse to live with her in the USA.  This is archaic.  So many countries regard this as a fundamental abuse of civil rights; personally I regard it as an abhorrent violation of basic human rights.

This is not the first taste of the sordid invalidation by my own Country. My spouse and I have suffered our own immigration hell, and thankfully with the help of an extraordinary attorney, Kip Steinberg, were able to navigate the deep tempestuous sea of immigration laws and regulations; with mere hours from the sun-setting of a law that we had relied on for 5 years to get to the point of completion. With the assistance by our Senator’s office we were able to expedite the application before the law disappeared over its seductive horizon.

Now we must all fight for the others… those who are living the hell and there are many. This month I have encountered two terrible cases- similar to the one in the Article.

In each case the same sex spouse of a US citizen was taken into custody by ICE, for deportation – treated so badly- and their lives altered forever.    My friend, a Psychiatrist who was the regional head for the California Penal system, committed suicide- could there be any relationship between that and the fact that deportation of his beloved was imminent?

 This week an associate asked for my help with a two mom family- 23 years living together- twin sons, aged 12, born through donor sperm, egg of one mom invitro and carried by the other mom who is now about to be deported – next week.     

  The family is in agony – they do not know what is going to happen – one son wrote to Senators Boxer and Feinstein stating that he cannot live without his mom.  I have not told it all, and it is bad, very bad,  If the mother returns to her country of origin, she fears the same fate as her mother and sister, brutally murdered some years ago.  This story will be highlighted in the next few weeks, but I cannot now, do to sensitive timing.

Here is a mother of two American children and the California spouse of an American citizen, who is about to be deported because there is no Federal law to protect this family of 23 years.  Unlike couples whose marriages are recognized by the Federal law, gay couples are excluded because of DOMA – and UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) is barely hobbling through congress.

ILLEGAL “FRONT GROUP”

LOS ANGELES, CA – Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate today filed a supplement to the complaint against the Utah-based the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

 COPY OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT LETTER TO FOLLOW IN NEXT EMAIL AND GO TO:  http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com

 In a 9 page letter, Californians Against Hate alleges that the Mormon Church established the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE (NOM) as its California front group in the summer of 2007 for the sole purpose of qualifying and passing Proposition 8 in 2008.  Karger alleges that none of the costs associated with secretly establishing NOM was reported by the Mormon Church as required by California election law.

 In official, extensive and detailed Mormon Church documents, one can see how NOM was very likely modeled after the Hawaii front group — “Hawaii’s Future Today” – which the Mormon Church set up to defeat same-sex marriage in Hawaii in 1998.  Californians Against Hate submitted these official Church documents along with the complaint to the FPPC today.  All the documents as well as the complaint are posted on its new web site:  http://www.mormongate.com 

 Californians Against Hate asks the FPPC to investigate the “obvious underreporting” in the Mormon Church’s January 30, 2009 campaign report. 

 “I have carefully reviewed the late filing by the Church,” said Karger.  “It seems just to be the tip of the iceberg as far as what they spent in support of Prop 8. They have admitted errors publicly in press accounts after their filing.”

 

 

 

“The Church’s report actually raises more questions than it answers.   It is particularly odd since they (the Church) announced their active involvement to pass Proposition 8 in a letter from Church President Thomas S. Monson on June 29, 2008 read to all Church members.  Now they claim that they did not spend any money in the form of non-monetary contributions until the last two weeks of the election campaign,” Karger stated in his letter to the FPPC. 

 

 

The complaint outlines an additional 6 specific charges and substantial areas of likely Mormon Church activity that should be investigated as reportable non- monetary expenditures. 

 

 

Californians Against Hate’s original complaint to the FPPC against the Mormon Church led to the Commission’s ongoing investigation of the Church which was announced on November 21, 2008 (FPPC FILE NO. 08/735). This additional information is to help with that investigation.