Monday, July 5, 2010

Immigration and the Gays

A recent issue I have become passionate about over the past few weeks has to deal with immigration policy. A post by a blog that I subscribe to...not that I agree with them, I just want to know what the religious nutjobs are saying...commented about the proposal currently in congress on the Uniting American Families is found here.

I for one love the title...

Immigration Reform = National Same-sex Unions

Illinois congressman to add right for homosexuals to claim foreign spouses to President Obama's comprehensive immigration reform plans
This for one shows the true prejudice behind the Christian Rights denial of gay people civil rights. In no way is the Uniting American Families act forcing states to accept gay marriage, or even institute gay marriage...the institution that Christians claim to go hoopla over. All this bill is doing is allow couples to sponsor each other so that they might be together, instead of the American having to be exiled from their country because of whom they love. Its as simple as that. It allows the U.S. government to recognize that there does exist a class of people who have partners with whom they are either married to or in stable relationships, and yet cannot be together because of immigration policy. All this bill does is allow them to be together...yet reading the CR (Christian Right) version, you would think that the gays are going to start infiltrating the nation. Yea right, the CR's bigotry is slowly showing its face, as it is starting to have no arguments to back its position. 


  1. That line . . .
    "Illinois congressman to add right for homosexuals to claim foreign spouses to President Obama's comprehensive immigration reform plans"
    . . . is essentially the same as what the Miami Herald article (from which the blog was excerpting). So, your disagreement is with the reporters of the Miami Herald.

    As for the blog title . . .
    "Immigration Reform = National Same-sex Unions"
    . . . that's an interpretation taken, again, from the Miami Herald article.

    When you look over the articles on that blog, you see that it's not an opinion blog, but rather is a reflection of mainstream media.

  2. Though it may not be an opinion blog per say...the word nuances that they use turn a non-negative piece into a more negative tone.

    From Miami Herald -
    A recent immigration reform measure proposed by an Illinois congressman would give gay U.S. citizens the right to claim foreign spouses for green cards.

    From Culture News -

    Illinois congressman to add right for homosexuals to claim foreign spouses to President Obama's comprehensive immigration reform plans

    You see...the Miami Herald title is very non-confrontational. When it uses the word "right" the context insinuates the ability too, rather than a special ability. The culture news blog instead insinuates that the homosexual community is being given the "right" to something that is not supposed to be theirs...hence the word add.

    Also within the Miami Herald article, I could find no reasoning which would give the logical interpretation that the UAFA would lead to National Same Sex Unions...when clearly the Herald Article says this is not the case.

    "Proposals would modify immigration law, adding a permanent-partner option. The change would define a permanent partner as an individual 18 or older in a committed, intimate relationship with another adult in which both intend a lifelong commitment."

    To a CR audience, the term National Same Sex Unions speaks of something like gay marriage...which the Herald article says nothing about. Though you and I might be able to see the difference, to the average CR reader, it is seen as gay marriage.

    Thus, I stand by my original post. Though they are subtle nuances, words are dangerous, and the original intent of this "informational article" from Culture News is not neutral.

  3. Well, it could be argued that the MH reporters (prompted by who? the congressman??) were using long phrases to mask the intent of the proposed law, and that the "CR blog" is merely "calling a spade, a spade."

    MH: "Proposals would modify immigration law adding a permanent-partner option."

    CR: amendment to add a right

    Is not "an option" the same as "a right?" Both terms empower a person to do something at their choosing.

    MH: ". . . define a permanent partner as . . . a committed, intimate relationship . . . intend a lifelong commitment.

    CR: Same-sex union

    Gee, I don't see any difference, except that the CR is being much more concise.

    Question: Do you know how you can tell when a lawyer is lying?

    Answer: When he/she is communicating in oral or written form :-)

  4. Though I do see where you are coming from, I think you are still confusing what I was getting at in my reply. Though the language is similar, the tone is not similar at all. CR is aimed at putting this issue in a more negative light. Though CR might be calling a"spade a spade" or possibly even being more "concise" as you put it, the tone of voice, word order, and word usage, are much more combative than the MH article. That is what I was attempting to communicate in my reply.


Related Posts with Thumbnails