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.
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). There are currently 96 cosponsors of this bill in the United States House of Representatives.
The UAFA was introduced in the United States Senate on February 12, 2009 by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). There are currently 17 cosponsors of this bill in the United States Senate.
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.
- 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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, MDReply
Keith Almli said
April 28, 2009 at 10:24 am Free speech, quit wining.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.
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
Leave a Reply