Gay Marriage & Illegal Immigration

[oak999]

Why do I support gay marriage? Because the issue is US citizens who are being denied rights because of something they can not change. I think when we say "they" can marry but "they" can not thats wrong.

I also believe in "Sovereignty". The USA takes in over 2 million LEGAL immigrants a year more then any other country on the face of the planet. I seen many idiots in the gay community back people by a CHOICE should not even be in the USA. I am sorry.

But you do not just break in a country and violate its laws, its borders, march, show disrespect like walking on the US flag waving foreign flags etc. Illegal immigrants are people who do not have a right to be here not because of skin, not because of race, not because of religion but because they have broke in like a thief in the night or overstayed their visas when told to leave as they are GUESTS.

How are the two related you ask gay marriage and illegal immigration? Here is a copy from CNN. Please keep in mind of all the latino marches for illegals (many of them are latino people of their race--or they would not care). So we have latinos defending violating the USA. Here is the copy of part of the article notice the last sentence.

"This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue," Hoffenblum says. "A key area of the Democratic coalition here in California are Latino voters and African-American voters. But all surveys have shown among those who are most against gay marriage, it is African-Americans and Latinos."

So let me see if I have this straight. Blacks who fought for equal rights and latinos who really do not have a leg to stand on (they defending violating the USA as a nation with borders) are the most against gay marriage? What a bunch of HYPOCRITES!!

 

[opinterph]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

Here is the copy of part of the article notice the last sentence.

I was not successful in locating the CNN source document you apparently quoted. Please share a link, if possible.

Here is an alternative link that contains somewhat similar statements:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91552742​

In February, The New York Times extrapolated that almost 30 percent of California Democrats who actually voted in the Super Tuesday Primary Election identified themselves as Latinos. That suggests to me that they comprise a large segment of California’s voting constituency, are authentic US citizens, and are thereby guaranteed the freedom to express their opinions – regardless of however disagreeable an aggregation of those opinions may be to persons who can be characterized as members of other definable groups.


But to focus on “the main issue” …

… the issue is US citizens who are being denied rights …

I am interested to know what reasoning you use to establish marriage as a fundamental right afforded to US citizens. It is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. 8)

 

[construct]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

I am interested to know what reasoning you use to establish marriage as a fundamental right afforded to US citizens. It is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. 8)

I would base such a claim on Maynard v. Hill, Loving v. Virginia, and Zablocki v. Redhail. These cases show that marriage is deeply rooted in American tradition and that it is foundational to an ordered society. They describe the right to marry as a basic and fundamental liberty protected by the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Furthermore, Turner v. Safley lists several benefits of marriage apart from procreation and uses a lower level of scrutiny only because of the unusual circumstances of the case (prison inmates who wanted to marry each other). In Turner, the prohibition of marriage during incarceration was held not to withstand even intermediate scrutiny.

 

[oak999]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

No you guys missed my point. My point is latinos for example are fighting for people that do not have a leg to stand on (comming in the country illegally). These are citizens of other countries andthey are being critical of gay marriage. It just seems hypocritical to me. These are people that are fighting for "their people" to violate the USA and its borders in the meantime they turn around and want to deny US citizens rights. Does anyone else see my point?

The link is for NPR where I found the article not CNN sorry.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91562373

 

[Chalchalero]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

I see your point, I just disagree with it. The truth is that of the Latinos who are able to vote, particularly in the Western and Southwestern states, the majority of them are against illegal immigration and are in favour of tougher immigration laws and better enforcement of existing ones.

According to the website for the National Council of La Raza, the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., (http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/):

* NCLR helped draft and advocated for bipartisan legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate which included tough enforcement measures against unauthorized migration.
* NCLR’s President and CEO served on and endorsed the recommendations of the Independent Task Force on Immigration and America’s Future, an independent, bipartisan, blue ribbon commission chaired by former Rep. Lee Hamilton and former Senator Spencer Abraham, which recently released a set of recommendations on immigration reform, including more than a dozen new enforcement measures.
* In a major address in San Diego in 2005, NCLR President Janet Murguía stressed that any comprehensive immigration reform needed to include a strong, effective, and humane enforcement component.
* All of NCLR’s policy materials describing its positions and activities on the immigration debate are all available on its website. In particular, an Issue Brief, Immigration Reform: Comprehensive Solutions to Complex Problems can be found here. In addition, a set of FAQs related to NCLR’s position on immigration can be found here.


The common mistake people make when referring to "Latinos" is that they are all here illegally, which is not the case. While it is true that about 80 to 85 percent of the immigration from Mexico and Central America in recent years has been illegal, one must also keep in mind the fact that Hispanics have been living in this country and emigrating to this country since before America was a country.

There are many Latino families that were in California, (for example the Yorba, Domínguez and Nieto families), long before Americans arrived in California. For a time these families basically owned most of California through land grants made to them from the Spanish Crown in the 1780's.

Another frequent misconception is the belief that Hispanics vote as a monolithic bloc. This is not at all true. A Puerto Rican or Dominican from the East Coast is not going to have the same issues as a Cuban in South Florida. Cubans in South Florida will not have the same issues as Colombians and other South Americans in South Florida, New York and New Jersey. None of these will have the same issues as Mexicans and Central Americans on the West coast and in the border states. Mexicans on the West Coast and in the Border States tend to deal with a great deal more hostility and mistreatment than those who live either on the East Coast, or some other part of the country where the intensity of the debate is not so focused.

I believe it is incorrect to generalise the correlation between Hispanics who oppose gay marriage and those who support open borders and legal protections for illegal aliens, because they are not necessarily the same people.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

I believe it is incorrect to generalise the correlation between Hispanics who oppose gay marriage and those who support open borders and legal protections for illegal aliens, because they are not necessarily the same people.

Completely agree.

I don't really follow the original poster, who seems to be saying that Latino immigrants, who came here illegally, shouldn't be opposing gay marriage. I don't see what their original illegal status has to do with anything.

If they're still illegal, they don't have a vote in the matter.

If they've become naturalized, they're as American as anyone one else, other than perhaps the native Indians that here here originally until the illegal settlers took their land away from them or the Brits, who owned the place, until the illegal revolutionaries kicked them out.

The problem is opposition to gay marriage and the impact of the bigotry and prejudice against gays and not, in this context, illegal immigration status.

 

[oak999]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

Completely agree.

I don't really follow the original poster, who seems to be saying that Latino immigrants, who came here illegally, shouldn't be opposing gay marriage. I don't see what their original illegal status has to do with anything.

If they're still illegal, they don't have a vote in the matter.

If they've become naturalized, they're as American as anyone one else, other than perhaps the native Indians that here here originally until the illegal settlers took their land away from them or the Brits, who owned the place, until the illegal revolutionaries kicked them out.

The problem is opposition to gay marriage and the impact of the bigotry and prejudice against gays and not, in this context, illegal immigration status.

Never said all latinos where illegal. La Raza (the race) a latino group is a BIG supporter of illegal immigrants in the USA. My point was its funny how some latinos that support illegal immigrants (breaking in the country) but the minute gay marriage is brought up "well thats wrong". Lets get real here for a second. Yes their are many latinos here that are citizens. But MOST illegal immigrants are latino.

All I am saying is I find it funny they say "our people are not illegal--they are undocumented" but when it comes to gay marriage they feel gay US citizens should be treated different.

 

[Chalchalero]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

Never said all latinos where illegal. La Raza (the race) a latino group is a BIG supporter of illegal immigrants in the USA. My point was its funny how some latinos that support illegal immigrants (breaking in the country) but the minute gay marriage is brought up "well thats wrong". Lets get real here for a second. Yes their are many latinos here that are citizens. But MOST illegal immigrants are latino.

All I am saying is I find it funny they say "our people are not illegal--they are undocumented" but when it comes to gay marriage they feel gay US citizens should be treated different.

First of all the NCLR is not translated as "the race". From their website:http://www.nclr.org/section/translation/

Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.

They are also NOT "big supporters of illegal immigration", and I would love for you to cite for me a link to where they say they are. I doubt you would be able to find one.

It is popular for everyone to hate La Raza, because God forbid Hispanics should have a group that advocated for them. They have no right to that. Anyone who does advocate for them must be subversive, illegal and anti-American. The bigots who hate La Raza are the same bigots who basically just hate Hispanics, utilising the "illegal immigration" cover to hide their true feelings. They do not fool anyone though.

It is true that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic, but you still haven't shown the correlation between perfectly legal Hispanic voters, the percentage of these who oppose gay marriage and what this has to do with illegal immigrants who are unable to vote and have no actual say on the matter anyway.

What exactly is your issue? Who cares what illegal immigrants think about gay marriage? The article you cited in your first post mentioned opposition was among Hispanics and African Americans. There was no mention of Illegal immigrants, whatsoever.

I am not getting your point. Where is your source of information which states that illegal immigrants do not support gay marriage, or were even asked at all?

 

[oak999]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

First of all the NCLR is not translated as "the race". From their website:http://www.nclr.org/section/translation/

Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.

They are also NOT "big supporters of illegal immigration", and I would love for you to cite for me a link to where they say they are. I doubt you would be able to find one.

It is popular for everyone to hate La Raza, because God forbid Hispanics should have a group that advocated for them. They have no right to that. Anyone who does advocate for them must be subversive, illegal and anti-American. The bigots who hate La Raza are the same bigots who basically just hate Hispanics, utilising the "illegal immigration" cover to hide their true feelings. They do not fool anyone though.

It is true that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic, but you still haven't shown the correlation between perfectly legal Hispanic voters, the percentage of these who oppose gay marriage and what this has to do with illegal immigrants who are unable to vote and have no actual say on the matter anyway.

What exactly is your issue? Who cares what illegal immigrants think about gay marriage? The article you cited in your first post mentioned opposition was among Hispanics and African Americans. There was no mention of Illegal immigrants, whatsoever.

I am not getting your point. Where is your source of information which states that illegal immigrants do not support gay marriage, or were even asked at all?

First of all I do not care what race someone is if they are illegally in the country. Showing disrespect for our laws and our borders is just that illegal. Illegal immigrants do NOT have a right to be in the country because of a choice they made to come in illegally.

Second La Raza has advocated for illegal immigration and open borders. The fence is a very important part of securing our border. As we not only have illegal immigrants but also, terrorists, criminals, drugs comming in. La Raza has stated they do not support the fence seen below. A fence buys the border agents time along with unmanned aircraft, cameras, sensors.

http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/42858

Third I just stated a study on how MOST latinos feel on the issue of gay marriage. I just stated its funny how a group that advocates for its people being in this country illegally but then does not support equal rights for other US citizens. I do not know how to make it more clear for you.

 

[construct]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

I think the issue that you raise is broader than your statement of it. It is my understanding that generally racial and ethnic minorities exhibit more anti-gay attitudes than do Anglos. The irony is that these minorities have historically and even currently experienced discrimination first-hand. One might expect them to be natural allies of the gay community; yet they're not. I lay part of the blame on the relative importance of traditional forms of Christianity in the African-American and Latino communities. But be that as it may, the problem is not restricted to Latinos.

I further fail to see the direct connection between your appeal for border enforcement and the struggle for marriage equality. Furthermore, while I do believe that border control is a challenge we must meet, but I disagree with your proposed response to it. I am particularly opposed to building fences because they will be expensive without being effective. I also am concerned about the disruption such a fence would cause property-owners along the border.

 

[oak999]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

I think the issue that you raise is broader than your statement of it. It is my understanding that generally racial and ethnic minorities exhibit more anti-gay attitudes than do Anglos. The irony is that these minorities have historically and even currently experienced discrimination first-hand. One might expect them to be natural allies of the gay community; yet they're not. I lay part of the blame on the relative importance of traditional forms of Christianity in the African-American and Latino communities. But be that as it may, the problem is not restricted to Latinos.

I further fail to see the direct connection between your appeal for border enforcement and the struggle for marriage equality. Furthermore, while I do believe that border control is a challenge we must meet, but I disagree with your proposed response to it. I am particularly opposed to building fences because they will be expensive without being effective. I also am concerned about the disruption such a fence would cause property-owners along the border.

A border fence is effective as has been shown where it has been used. You are right. A fence alone will not stop illegal immigrants drugs or criminals for example. Thats why I said PART of the solution. Zero tolerance is also working in Arizona. If you get caught comming in illegally you go to jail not just released. Our federal government has the duty to secure our borders and ports.

I am sorry its not good for property owners on the border. Most do like the idea though as they see the crime such as all the murders on the border for example and drug lords. There have been lots of property owners who did not like highways and airports near them but that did not stop it.

I do not know how to make my point more clearer. I am just saying I find it interesting that those that are advocating for illegals in the country also agree with denying US citizens equal rights.

 

[construct]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

Our federal government has the duty to secure our borders and ports.

And it has fallen down on the job. I don't disagree with that judgment.

I believe the better response is a guest worker program, withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO, a return to bilateral trade negotiations, insistence on fair labor practices with our trade partners, and increasing the number of immigration courts. The latter is absolutely crucial. We do not have enough courts to expediciously handle the number of deportation cases that need to be heard. Because of the lack of necessary courts, I believe that a zero tolerance policy is premature, and I oppose it for that reason.

 

[Chalchalero]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

First of all I do not care what race someone is if they are illegally in the country. Showing disrespect for our laws and our borders is just that illegal. Illegal immigrants do NOT have a right to be in the country because of a choice they made to come in illegally.

Second La Raza has advocated for illegal immigration and open borders. The fence is a very important part of securing our border. As we not only have illegal immigrants but also, terrorists, criminals, drugs comming in. La Raza has stated they do not support the fence seen below. A fence buys the border agents time along with unmanned aircraft, cameras, sensors.

http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/42858

Third I just stated a study on how MOST latinos feel on the issue of gay marriage. I just stated its funny how a group that advocates for its people being in this country illegally but then does not support equal rights for other US citizens. I do not know how to make it more clear for you.

Firstly, NCLR feels (as do I) that the fence does nothing to protect the country against illegal immigration, as it is not funded (Congress defunded it almost as soon as they approved it), there is no effective enforcement policy, and it does not deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants who are presently in this country already and for whom Bush had promised to find a solution and cowardly backed away from doing.

NCLR on immigration:

Questions and Answers About NCLR’s Immigration Position

http://www.nclr.org/content/faqs/detail/43266/

An example:

Q: Does NCLR support undocumented immigration?

A: No. NCLR believes that all immigration to the U.S. should be safe and legal. Their lack of legal status means that undocumented workers are vulnerable and easily exploitable, resulting in unscrupulous employers offering these workers poor wages and working conditions. In addition, undocumented immigrants live in fear of detection, are vulnerable to crime, and not eligible for most social services, all of which contribute to difficult living and working conditions. It is in the best interests of the United States and of immigrants themselves to ensure that all immigration to the U.S. takes place legally.

Another example to refute a claim you made:

Q: Does NCLR believe in open borders?

A: No. NCLR does not and has never advocated open borders. We believe that the U.S. is a sovereign country with the right to control its borders. We care a great deal about how our borders are enforced; NCLR has long argued that enforcement at the border and in the interior must be conducted in a way that maximizes effectiveness without undercutting our values as a nation. We are especially troubled that more than a decade of increased enforcement measures along the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in a steep increase in the number of border deaths without much impact in deterring migration. NCLR takes the position that any border enforcement policies must be both effective and humane.

I do wish you would cease to make claims for which there is no basis.

Secondly, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=290), 52 percent of Hispanics surveyed were opposed to gay marriage as of April of 2008.

I still wish that you would somehow indicate for me which of those Hispanics also supports illegal immigration and open borders. I still can not see it.

And for the record, I am Hispanic, I am legal, I vote, I do not support illegal immigration or open borders, nor do I support gay marriage. I do not oppose its legality, I simply do not feel it to be necessary.

So where do I fit in to your massive and wholly inaccurate generalisation, I wonder?

 

[Chalchalero]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

And it has fallen down on the job. I don't disagree with that judgment.

I believe the better response is a guest worker program, withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO, a return to bilateral trade negotiations, insistence on fair labor practices with our trade partners, and increasing the number of immigration courts. The latter is absolutely crucial. We do not have enough courts to expediciously handle the number of deportation cases that need to be heard. Because of the lack of necessary courts, I believe that a zero tolerance policy is premature, and I oppose it for that reason.

I agree with everything you have said here. The American economy and people are not equipped for dealing with multi lateral trade agreements.

The necessity for more immigration courts is essential as well. It serves no purpose and costs the taxpayers enormous amounts of money to have people languishing in INS prisons for sometimes years awaiting their day in court. It is ridiculous.

Without a proper procedure for hearings, you are also correct in that a zero tolerance policy would be inefficient and thus potentially unjust.

 

[oak999]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

And it has fallen down on the job. I don't disagree with that judgment.

I believe the better response is a guest worker program, withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO, a return to bilateral trade negotiations, insistence on fair labor practices with our trade partners, and increasing the number of immigration courts. The latter is absolutely crucial. We do not have enough courts to expediciously handle the number of deportation cases that need to be heard. Because of the lack of necessary courts, I believe that a zero tolerance policy is premature, and I oppose it for that reason.

We do have guest worker program. This country takes in more legal immigrants then any country on the face of the planet. Enforcement of the laws is proving to be effective in Phoenix Arizona where illegals have fled because of new tough laws.

 

[oak999]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

Firstly, NCLR feels (as do I) that the fence does nothing to protect the country against illegal immigration, as it is not funded (Congress defunded it almost as soon as they approved it), there is no effective enforcement policy, and it does not deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants who are presently in this country already and for whom Bush had promised to find a solution and cowardly backed away from doing.

NCLR on immigration:

Questions and Answers About NCLR’s Immigration Position

http://www.nclr.org/content/faqs/detail/43266/

An example:

Q: Does NCLR support undocumented immigration?

A: No. NCLR believes that all immigration to the U.S. should be safe and legal. Their lack of legal status means that undocumented workers are vulnerable and easily exploitable, resulting in unscrupulous employers offering these workers poor wages and working conditions. In addition, undocumented immigrants live in fear of detection, are vulnerable to crime, and not eligible for most social services, all of which contribute to difficult living and working conditions. It is in the best interests of the United States and of immigrants themselves to ensure that all immigration to the U.S. takes place legally.

Another example to refute a claim you made:

Q: Does NCLR believe in open borders?

A: No. NCLR does not and has never advocated open borders. We believe that the U.S. is a sovereign country with the right to control its borders. We care a great deal about how our borders are enforced; NCLR has long argued that enforcement at the border and in the interior must be conducted in a way that maximizes effectiveness without undercutting our values as a nation. We are especially troubled that more than a decade of increased enforcement measures along the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in a steep increase in the number of border deaths without much impact in deterring migration. NCLR takes the position that any border enforcement policies must be both effective and humane.

I do wish you would cease to make claims for which there is no basis.

Secondly, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=290), 52 percent of Hispanics surveyed were opposed to gay marriage as of April of 2008.

I still wish that you would somehow indicate for me which of those Hispanics also supports illegal immigration and open borders. I still can not see it.

And for the record, I am Hispanic, I am legal, I vote, I do not support illegal immigration or open borders, nor do I support gay marriage. I do not oppose its legality, I simply do not feel it to be necessary.

So where do I fit in to your massive and wholly inaccurate generalisation, I wonder?

First let me say you are aware actions and words are different? NCLR has supported the Mccain- Kennedy bill that the US people stopped. Let me give you some parts of this bill that NCLR supported.

Under Section 601(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or "MS-13"), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a "renunciation of gang affiliation."

The Senate's bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for many illegal aliens' lawyers. Under current law, illegal aliens are not eligible for federally funded legal services. Section 622(m) of the bill would allow millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture to receive free legal services. Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense. This provision alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The bill would effectively shut down the immigration court system. Under Section 601(h)(6), if an alien in the removal process is "prima facie eligible" for the Z visa, an immigration judge must close any proceedings against the alien and offer the alien an opportunity to apply for amnesty.


The bill would make it extremely difficult for the federal government to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill would allow the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or terrorist.

Title VI of the bill grants amnesty to virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. This amnesty would dwarf the amnesty that the United States granted—with disastrous consequences—in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens.

NCLR CALLS ON BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO CEASE IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN CALIFORNIA INTERIOR
Washington, D.C. – Raul Yzaguirre, President of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights organization in the U.S., called on the Bush Administration to put an immediate end to immigration raids being conducted far from the border in southern California. “NCLR is alarmed at the raids and neighborhood sweeps being conducted in southern California targeting Latino residents,” stated Yzaguirre. “These raids are terrorizing large communities which include immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens. We’re hearing that many in our community are fearful of leaving their homes, school attendance in several schools is down, and health clinics report that patients are fearful of venturing out to keep their appointments for health services.”

Source Link (added by moderator): http://nclr.org/content/news/detail/25365/

So we are told that latinos are in fear? If you are legally in the country what do you have to be afraid of? Also being in the country illegally is ILLEGAL. If raids and deportations are how things have to be then thats how they have to be. You forget we have already been down this road and the US people are not going to let it happen again.

In 1986 citizenship was given to 2 million illegal immigrants with promise from our government the border would be enforced and interior laws would be enforced. Phoenix, Arizona, Houston, Hazelton prove that if the laws are enforced the illegal immigrnats leave. So what is NCLRs problem?

Finally you do not support gay marriage? Cool. So you do not support equal rights for those in a relationship?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

I am interested to know what reasoning you use to establish marriage as a fundamental right afforded to US citizens. It is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. 8)

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It doesn't have to be mentioned -- it's included here.

Anything that can be derived from the dignity of the individual human, from the fact of self-ownership, is a right already protected by the Constitution. Marriage is nothing but a religious form of freedom of association, and thus is covered.

But for that very reason I oppose any legislation establishing gay marriage: what we should be doing is getting the government out of the marriage business, since it's (as most Americans agree) a sacred matter, and thus religious.

Just as we should be exporting all illegals, without ceremony, without being nice about it.
As for the wall, we should eliminate the BATFE and put them to work building it, then manning it; further, a declaration that illegal entry into the country is viewed as an act of aggression and will be met with lethal force would be helpful.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

Oh, but with gays now allowed to marry in California as well, I'm sure it means that the 34-year marriage of my closest neighbor is going to dissolve. After all, there are people saying that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage.

I even saw it in black and white (even in the National Enquirer), on the TV news (CNN, Fox, etc.), and on the INTERNET, so it's gotta be true, right? I mean these commentators and writers are professionals, and obviously they HAVE to know what they're talking about...right?

Just look at the horrific collapse of the economies and national governments, recently, in places like Canada and Spain. All of the Canadian JUB members have disappeared, many of them killed by the roving hordes of pirates and bandits which have overtaken all of society there. It's entirely the fault of gay marriage, of course.

All the predictions have come true. In the past three days alone, at least 73,000 Californians have married farm animals, household appliances (with marriages to vacuum cleaners being particularly common), or favorite trees. Yosemite National Park, which had never been married in the past, has now gained 133 spouses this week. Polygamy is alive and well!

The Acopalypse happens a week after this coming Tuesday.

***********************
If I should ever leave out of Illinois, it will almost surely be to a place where gay marriage is in effect, or has an excellent chance of eventually being legal.

 

[Chalchalero]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

First let me say you are aware actions and words are different? NCLR has supported the Mccain- Kennedy bill that the US people stopped. Let me give you some parts of this bill that NCLR supported.

Under Section 601(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or "MS-13"), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a "renunciation of gang affiliation."

The Senate's bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for many illegal aliens' lawyers. Under current law, illegal aliens are not eligible for federally funded legal services. Section 622(m) of the bill would allow millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture to receive free legal services. Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense. This provision alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The bill would effectively shut down the immigration court system. Under Section 601(h)(6), if an alien in the removal process is "prima facie eligible" for the Z visa, an immigration judge must close any proceedings against the alien and offer the alien an opportunity to apply for amnesty.


The bill would make it extremely difficult for the federal government to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill would allow the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or terrorist.

Title VI of the bill grants amnesty to virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. This amnesty would dwarf the amnesty that the United States granted—with disastrous consequences—in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens.


NCLR CALLS ON BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO CEASE IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN CALIFORNIA INTERIOR
Washington, D.C. – Raul Yzaguirre, President of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights organization in the U.S., called on the Bush Administration to put an immediate end to immigration raids being conducted far from the border in southern California. “NCLR is alarmed at the raids and neighborhood sweeps being conducted in southern California targeting Latino residents,” stated Yzaguirre. “These raids are terrorizing large communities which include immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens. We’re hearing that many in our community are fearful of leaving their homes, school attendance in several schools is down, and health clinics report that patients are fearful of venturing out to keep their appointments for health services.”

So we are told that latinos are in fear? If you are legally in the country what do you have to be afraid of? Also being in the country illegally is ILLEGAL. If raids and deportations are how things have to be then thats how they have to be. You forget we have already been down this road and the US people are not going to let it happen again.

In 1986 citizenship was given to 2 million illegal immigrants with promise from our government the border would be enforced and interior laws would be enforced. Phoenix, Arizona, Houston, Hazelton prove that if the laws are enforced the illegal immigrnats leave. So what is NCLRs problem?

Finally you do not support gay marriage? Cool. So you do not support equal rights for those in a relationship?

First let me say you are aware actions and words are different? NCLR has supported the Mccain- Kennedy bill that the US people stopped.

Poor you. The bill was actually sponsored by Arlen Spector. While McCain and Kennedy were co-sponsors, they were joined in co-sponsorhip by Senators Brownback, Graham, Hagel and Martinez. I would not, therefore, call it the McCain-Kennedy bill.

Under Section 601(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or "MS-13"), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a "renunciation of gang affiliation."

The Senate's bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for many illegal aliens' lawyers. Under current law, illegal aliens are not eligible for federally funded legal services. Section 622(m) of the bill would allow millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture to receive free legal services. Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense. This provision alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The bill would effectively shut down the immigration court system. Under Section 601(h)(6), if an alien in the removal process is "prima facie eligible" for the Z visa, an immigration judge must close any proceedings against the alien and offer the alien an opportunity to apply for amnesty.


The bill would make it extremely difficult for the federal government to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill would allow the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or terrorist.

Title VI of the bill grants amnesty to virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. This amnesty would dwarf the amnesty that the United States granted—with disastrous consequences—in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens.

You do not fool me. I have read that same stupid "fear factor" article at Human Events.com (for those people interested in fear-based right wing conservative BS drivel it is located at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20950)

I have also read the text of the bill. For those people actually interested in being informed and not spoon fed your information by Fox News and the like, the location is http://www.maldef.org/pdf/Senate.Immigration.Bill.pdf

It is 628 pages, so make sure you reserve yourself some time.

There is absolutely NOTHING that you have cited actually present in this bill. I repeat, there is NOTHING. Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe because you get all of your "news" from right wing fanatics who make things up simply to build up hatred and fear amongst the populace and you are all too happy to sing along...I don't know, just a guess.

So we are told that latinos are in fear? If you are legally in the country what do you have to be afraid of? Also being in the country illegally is ILLEGAL. If raids and deportations are how things have to be then thats how they have to be. You forget we have already been down this road and the US people are not going to let it happen again.

So you would not be afraid if there were government agents invading your home on the simple "suspicion" that there might be a reason for doing so? I really do not believe that.

And if you had the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty, you would be able to see why this is a problem. But there are those (and I am not saying you are one of them...) whose bigotry, xenophobia and hatred for Hispanics clouds their ability to see anything objectively. I do not believe that you are one of these people of course.

I am unaware of the "road" to which you refer, and could use a tiny bit of enlightenment on the matter, if you would be so inclined. Thank you in advance.

In 1986 citizenship was given to 2 million illegal immigrants with promise from our government the border would be enforced and interior laws would be enforced. Phoenix, Arizona, Houston, Hazelton prove that if the laws are enforced the illegal immigrnats leave. So what is NCLRs problem?

I did not know about this issue of 1986, as I had only arrived in this country a year or two before then, but I would like to know (again) what you are referring to with regards to the references you mention. Please be specific. Not everyone lives in your little corner of the universe, you know.

Finally you do not support gay marriage? Cool. So you do not support equal rights for those in a relationship?

What I said was that I do not believe gay marriage to be necessary. If gays were accorded the same civil rights as anyone else, then they would be respected as would their relationships in any context at any time, just like straights. I believe the fight should continue on a more fundamental and basic level, and that focusing on marriage is a red herring that leaves too many other important issues behind.

And if you are asking me do I believe in equal rights for the privileged rich white gays who tend to be the ones fighting so hard over gay marriage, then of course I do. Just not anymore than I believe in the equal rights of every other gay person as well. Something the country club set of HRCF and their ilk do not seem terribly concerned about, as far as I can see.

 

[oak999]

Re: Gay marriage--my take on it

Poor you. The bill was actually sponsored by Arlen Spector. While McCain and Kennedy were co-sponsors, they were joined in co-sponsorhip by Senators Brownback, Graham, Hagel and Martinez. I would not, therefore, call it the McCain-Kennedy bill.



You do not fool me. I have read that same stupid "fear factor" article at Human Events.com (for those people interested in fear-based right wing conservative BS drivel it is located at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20950)

I have also read the text of the bill. For those people actually interested in being informed and not spoon fed your information by Fox News and the like, the location is http://www.maldef.org/pdf/Senate.Immigration.Bill.pdf

It is 628 pages, so make sure you reserve yourself some time.

There is absolutely NOTHING that you have cited actually present in this bill. I repeat, there is NOTHING. Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe because you get all of your "news" from right wing fanatics who make things up simply to build up hatred and fear amongst the populace and you are all too happy to sing along...I don't know, just a guess.



So you would not be afraid if there were government agents invading your home on the simple "suspicion" that there might be a reason for doing so? I really do not believe that.

And if you had the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty, you would be able to see why this is a problem. But there are those (and I am not saying you are one of them...) whose bigotry, xenophobia and hatred for Hispanics clouds their ability to see anything objectively. I do not believe that you are one of these people of course.

I am unaware of the "road" to which you refer, and could use a tiny bit of enlightenment on the matter, if you would be so inclined. Thank you in advance.



I did not know about this issue of 1986, as I had only arrived in this country a year or two before then, but I would like to know (again) what you are referring to with regards to the references you mention. Please be specific. Not everyone lives in your little corner of the universe, you know.



What I said was that I do not believe gay marriage to be necessary. If gays were accorded the same civil rights as anyone else, then they would be respected as would their relationships in any context at any time, just like straights. I believe the fight should continue on a more fundamental and basic level, and that focusing on marriage is a red herring that leaves too many other important issues behind.

And if you are asking me do I believe in equal rights for the privileged rich white gays who tend to be the ones fighting so hard over gay marriage, then of course I do. Just not anymore than I believe in the equal rights of every other gay person as well. Something the country club set of HRCF and their ilk do not seem terribly concerned about, as far as I can see.

First of all you are wrong on many fronts the first being YOU HAVE THE WRONG BILL. Mccain sponsored the Bill Spector is not even on it seen here

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01033:@@@P

Again poor you. The bill is "S.1033" not "S.1348" Please get the right bill you find all the things I said in it.

Your words "So you would not be afraid if there were government agents invading your home on the simple "suspicion" that there might be a reason for doing so? I really do not believe that. "

Has to be one of the most unreal things I have heard. No one has said ANYTHING about going house to house. Again these people do NOT have a right to be in the country. If through the daily process of police workplace raids illegal immigrants are deported great. I do not understand the problem.

I am 27 so I do not remember the amnesty of 1986 that well either. But it was done. When you give citizenship to those that have broken the laws to come here you get more people comming in illegally with the thinking they too will in time be rewarded for comming in the USA without permission.

On to the point I was making. Here is a email seen here http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2008/06/hispanic_news_jon_garrido_disses_gays.php

Because the City of Phoenix is very very much against illegal immigration as has been seen by laws they have passed this guy has a better shot at going to Mars then winning a seat on the City board. But please notice his remarks to a Dr. Karma Chavez, Ph.D at ASU. I will copy it here too.

[FIRST STRING, sent out as a mass e-mail by Jon Garrido]

From: "Jon Garrido Network"
Date: June 12, 2008 10:25:03 AM MST
To:
Subject: Letter to Chavez, Ph.D., ASU, Latina AND lesbian from Hispanic News
Dr. Karma Chavez, Ph.D., ASU, Latina AND lesbian,

We have a 750,000 national email directory for Hispanic News.

This includes 25,000 in the Phoenix area.

Later today, the 25,000 Phoenix area distribution list will get a copy of this email sent to you.

For your edification, my email is about 400 to 1 supporting what I wrote yesterday about Napolitano. This includes "progressive Latinos." Then there are probably many more who did not write but still read Hispanic News because we address discrimination toward Hispanics and especially we are critical of Joe Arpaio and those like Napolitano who support him by approving Napolitano's and Pearce's bill requiring verification of social security numbers to work in Arizona.

The displacement of undocumented workers to me is what is important.

It appears the undocumented are of no concern to you.

My biggest group of supporters are those that think like I do about Joe Arpaio. If you want to position yourself with Arpaio, then go for it but in the end, some day Arpaio will be gone.

As for the issue of homosexuals, 98% of Hispanics think like I do; however, long ago I came to accept homosexuals have equal rights and as such have the same civil rights we all have. Even if I personally can not accept gay marriage, I have included this group in my civil rights advocacy.

I admire you for your convictions and for your public acknowledgement you are homosexual.

With Napolitano, there is a line in the sand she refuses to cross over and that it is to admit she is a lesbian.

I believe if a person in public office elected by the people lies about a small thing, they are capable of lying about big things.

Napolitano deceives Arizona voters by lying about being a Lesbian. I believe Arizona voters have a right to know who they elect because they may change their vote if they have additional information.

I think those that support Napolitano know she is a lesbian but these supporters know if the general public knew she was a lesbian, then conservative (and mainstream Hispanics hold conservative moral values) voters would not be voting for her.

So the lesbian label is secondary and not the reason for wanting her to go away and not further up the food chain.

I think Napolitano is responsible for giving Arpaio a tool to arrest migrants and this paints all of us with “brown faces” as less than others with “non brown” faces and it is this that I deplore and can not accept. (I assume you do not have a brown face.)

Arizona has turned out to be a “racist territory” much like the Alabama in the 1960s.

All that have a hand in any of this should not be representing us in public life. To me Napolitano is no different that Arpaio.

It is unfortunate you have begun your crusade against me. It is unfortunate there is a hot bed of people like you at ASU. Most of my friends are concerned about ASU.

Fortunately, those like you are not in the mainstream of the Hispanic electorate.

The upside to your crusade against me is more people in Arizona will come to know Janet Napolitano is a lesbian. Thank you for helping me get this message out to Arizonans and out to a national audience.

Your crusade against me when my Phoenix City Council campaign really gets going will make Napolitano an issue and I am certain she will be most appreciative of you.

Calvin Coolidge had you in mind when he wrote: The world is full of educated derelicts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karma Chavez [email address: Removed by Moderator]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:19 AM
To: The Jon Garrido Network
Subject: Re: REMOVE FROM THIS LIST

Dear Jon,

I see that you are running for city council in my district. I want you to know that I plan to print copies of your homophobic email response and distribute it to all of my neighbors, as well as publish your response in all major publications in the Valley. I have already forwarded your email response to numerous progressive Latinos/as in the Valley.

Dr. Karma Chavez, Ph.D., ASU, Latina AND lesbian

[SECOND STRING, sent to me by Prof. Karma Chavez]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Jon Garrido Network
Date: Jun 11, 2008 8:25 PM
Subject: RE: REMOVE FROM THIS LIST
To: Karma Chavez
Chavez, Ph.D., Latina AND lesbian
How sad!
Jon Garrido
JonGarrido.com
[phone number: Removed by Moderator]


-----Original Message-----
From: Karma Chavez [email address: Removed by Moderator]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:45 PM
To: Jon Garrido Network
Cc: [email address: Removed by Moderator]
Subject: REMOVE FROM THIS LIST


I am absolutely APPALLED by the homophobia and discrimination that the following quotation from your last email demonstrates:
"Napolitano is reportedly a gay lesbian and this goes against moral values American Hispanics feel strongly about. The Catholic bishop of Phoenix has forbidden Janet Napolitano from attending Catholic churches of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix."
I am Latina AND lesbian, and you are a disgrace to your people. I want nothing to do with your organization any longer. Maybe you should think about the discrimination "hispanics" face and think about what others go through. I cannot believe you are that ignorant.
Dr. Karma Chavez, Ph.D., Latina AND lesbian

I also want to bring in a report that supports a lot of what I was saying. Remember. The latino community not all but most are for open borders and violating the USA its borders and laws. But when it comes to equal rights for gay----well we can not have that now can we?

Hispanics Oppose Gay Marriage

[Quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

Source Link: (added by moderator): http://ustimes.us/hispanics_oppose_gay_marriage.htm