ad_email
ad_facebook_468

5 responses to “LGBT inclusions in immigration: posturing or real?”

  1. Don

    I am opposed to immigration “reform” (amnesty). This country is overpopulated, and 21 million Americans are out of work.

  2. Javier

    Our marriages should be treated the same as anyone else’s. Having said that, I particularly resent Senator Menendez’s linking bi-national same-sex married couples who seek marriage equality with their heterosexual counterparts to the outrageous claims of 15-20 million illegal entrants who have no right to be in the country in the first place. No amnesty!

  3. FAEN

    I would like to think they mean it but my gut tells me…..POSTURING!

  4. FAEN

    Don&Javier
    ——————————–
    Well I’ll be damned…the gay guys are anti immigrant!
    The UAFA bill SHOULD be a stand alone bill so I agree with you there. But claiming that (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) is amnesty is wrong. If you actually read the frameword, because that’s all it is right now, you would know that.

    The system we have now is broken, antiquated and makes no sense. We need a system that is modernized, and prevents undocumented immigration, not encourages it. You really think the vast majority of immigrants don’t want to come here legally? They would like nothing better; but for many immigrants contributing to our country, there is no legal way to get here because the system doesn’t give everyone a fair chance.

  5. Mike

    Your article mentions the estimated 36,000 bi-national same sex couples who currently face separation, but it does not give an estimate of how many bi-national couples are already forced to be apart. Nor does it mention the great loss to our country of people like myself, a highly educated and productive member of society, who must live abroad if we wish to be with our partners. My partner and I have been happily and successfully together for almost 20 years – longer than most of my heterosexual siblings’ and cousins’ unions made it – yet we are not able to live in the USA because my partner is not eligible for a spousal visa. We BOTH have much to contribute to the world around us, but because of bigotry and the way things are set up, I guess it won’t be the USA that will benefit from our contributions. Hopefully, that won’t be the case for long.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

EEOC decision gives concrete remedies for federal employees facing bias

A U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision Thursday could provide important remedies to thousands of federal workers who might face sexual orientation discrimination and may increase pressure on Congress to advance the ENDA.

» more


“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more