The Uniting American Families Act

[Chuck Bao]

I promise to respect everyone’s opinion. I promise to not get emotional or personal. I promise to laugh at everyone’s jokes.

Good gawd, I just realize that takes all of the fun out of it. Okay, I promise to get really emotional and angry and take everything as personal and heap disdain at everyone's jokes. Better?

With that being said, I have a few tasteless alien probe jokes, but I'm waiting to get really upset by what you think first.

So, what do you think? Do you really want gay Americans to be inviting their foreign life partners over to be your neighbors? To share in this global “village”. To sit next to you in church?

This is a Washington Post editorial from two days ago. The comments are worth reading in my opinion. But, we can probably do better than that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031501669.html

Separation Anxiety
Gay couples should be allowed to stay together in the United States.

THE UNITING American Families Act would allow gay and lesbian Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the United States. The bill, introduced last month in the Senate by Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and in the House by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), would add "permanent partner" and "permanent partnership" after the words "spouse" and "marriage" in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If passed, it would right a gross unfairness.

Under the proposal, a "permanent partnership" is defined as a "committed, intimate relationship" with another adult "in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment." The couple must be financially interdependent and not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone else. And the partners can't be related. The benefit comes with the same immigration restrictions and enforcement standards that apply to heterosexual couples. Fraudulent permanent partnerships face the same penalties as fake marriages: up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

"Under current law, committed same-sex foreign partners of American citizens are unable to use the family immigration system, which accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the United States," Mr. Leahy said upon introducing the bill. "The promotion of family unity has long been part of federal immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones." According to the most recent census, he added, about 35,000 binational, same-sex couples are living in the United States. The new legislation would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to gays and lesbians.

The strain of the status quo on gay and lesbian binational couples should not be discounted. Because their relationships are not legally recognized by the United States, some couples have resorted to illegal marriages where the foreign nationals marry Americans to get green cards that allow them to stay in the country permanently. In other cases, Americans have exiled themselves to be with their partners. Sixteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom, allow residents to sponsor same-sex permanent partners for legal immigration. American gays and lesbians should not have to choose between their country and their partners.

[OUDoc]

It makes no difference to me, however, I doubt that will be the general consensus here.

[Chuck Bao]

It makes no difference to me, however, I doubt that will be the general consensus here.

Oh man, you hit the key push bottom, I mean button. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!??!!!

While we are talking about equity: socialized medicine now! It is a travesty that drug companies charge US people mutliple times more than that charged to developed countries because our insurance pays for it and our insurance pays for it because we pay them to. Doctors are just drug dealers.

[Chuck Bao]

Man, that came across as way too harsh. But, OUDoc the whole I don't have an opinion is the toughest of the conclusions. We live in a bright new world of a global community and there is not escaping it if you have a TV.

This is way, way outside my original point. But, I really think Americans should start asking the major pharmeceutical companies why their prices differ so much between the US and outside the US. Talk about patriotism and charity at home. IT is a very good question that is NOT being asked.

As far as the US doctors being drug suppliers. These are miracle drugs.

[OUDoc]

"It makes no difference to me" does not equal "no opinion".
My opinion is that it won't make any difference to me.

[Chuck Bao]

"It makes no difference to me" does not equal "no opinion".
My opinion is that it won't make any difference to me.

That's cool. There is something about the nazis coming for my neighbor thing, but that surely doesn't apply.

I do not want ever to appear overly harsh again, so I'm trying to have fun and support the non importance view. And that view is like it just really doesn't matter to me, which is honest and that's that.

[47straight]

Man, that came across as way too harsh. But, OUDoc the whole I don't have an opinion is the toughest of the conclusions. We live in a bright new world of a global community and there is not escaping it if you have a TV.

This is way, way outside my original point. But, I really think Americans should start asking the major pharmeceutical companies why their prices differ so much between the US and outside the US. Talk about patriotism and charity at home. IT is a very good question that is NOT being asked.

As far as the US doctors being drug suppliers. These are miracle drugs.

There are several good reasons why prices differ between the US and other places for drugs. And this is common with any good that is priced mostly on the intellectual property represented in the good, and not the cost of production.

Software, pharmaceutical drugs, heck, even songs on iTunes are priced by the national market.

In addition, sometimes it costs less in other countries because they don't respsect the right of the companies to make back their profit as much as the US. The drugs may cost more here, but guess what? Most of the drugs get developed here (or for this market) because there is enough of a carrot to justify the R&D into making those new drugs.

So, you've got a fancy new drug that you spent millions and millions developing for the US. You charge a ton in the US to recoup those R&D bucks, and to fund research into other drugs. Then you see Developing Country X over here, and they can use the drug too. But they can't afford it at $50 a prescription. It costs you, in sheer costs-of-goods, a buck to make it. Why not then sell the prescription for $2 in Developing Country X, which is what the market will bear in that country? You still make money, the sick people in that country get the drug... it seems to me like everyone wins.


Sorry to threadjack, but you pretty much opened it up as such.

[Chuck Bao]

There are several good reasons why prices differ between the US and other places for drugs. And this is common with any good that is priced mostly on the intellectual property represented in the good, and not the cost of production.

Software, pharmaceutical drugs, heck, even songs on iTunes are priced by the national market.

In addition, sometimes it costs less in other countries because they don't respsect the right of the companies to make back their profit as much as the US. The drugs may cost more here, but guess what? Most of the drugs get developed here (or for this market) because there is enough of a carrot to justify the R&D into making those new drugs.

So, you've got a fancy new drug that you spent millions and millions developing for the US. You charge a ton in the US to recoup those R&D bucks, and to fund research into other drugs. Then you see Developing Country X over here, and they can use the drug too. But they can't afford it at $50 a prescription. It costs you, in sheer costs-of-goods, a buck to make it. Why not then sell the prescription for $2 in Developing Country X, which is what the market will bear in that country? You still make money, the sick people in that country get the drug... it seems to me like everyone wins.


Sorry to threadjack, but you pretty much opened it up as such.

Oh yeah I did. I was just starting to think I was the worst troll in the history of the internet. Please now tell me that Chna can't afford these expensive new drugs for its people. That is besides the fact that they have so many high-powered politicians working for them in Washington.

If we could bring this topic back to gay Americans allowed to move back to their land of birth with their life partners, I'd get in a much less bitchy troll mood and we have all determined that I'm not very good at that.

[Chuck Bao]

I probably derailed this one myself.

Okay, I can think of a few good reasons why gays should be allowed to bring their life partners over to the US.

Gays aren’t likely to reproduce.

Gays could adopt a few kids and give them a good home.

Gay people tend to be a little more affluent, that is if they aren’t adopting kids.

Gays tend to be more educated and tend to have more professional qualifications.

Gays have more fashion sense.

Gays turn urban blight areas fashionable again and raise property values.

The pink dollar is still a dollar.

What gay people do in the privacy of their own home isn’t anything that straight men wouldn’t want their wives or girlfriends to do.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Since I'm against gay marriage in the first place (but not civil unions or shared benefits if the employer allows it)...I'm not in favor of this latest item.

[OUHOMER]

Since I'm against gay marriage in the first place (but not civil unions or shared benefits if the employer allows it)...I'm not in favor of this latest item.

I didnt see gay marriage any where in the bill?

Under the proposal, a "permanent partnership" is defined as a "committed, intimate relationship" with another adult "in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment."

such as civil unions..

I dont have a problem with it all.

[Rogue]

Well, I'm actually for the proposal and for gay-marriage.
Unlike Doc, I think it does affect me. I have friends and neighbors who are oppressed by this modern discrimination that is sanctioned and popular. I see it as a fairness issue that is out-of-balance toward the "unfair" side right now and I don't think it's right. So I feel an obligation to right a perceived wrong. Or, if faced with overwhelming rational evidence, reconsider my position.

Yes I want gay and lesbian folks shopping at my supermarket, working in my shop, and living next door. As long as they're not *******s. Same as the way I want straight folks, folks who dress funny, and folks that listen to music I don't understand doing those same things.

Frankly Chuck, all of the rationalizations in your last post about gays being more affluent, less likely to reproduce, be more affluent, etc is off the mark for me. Pointing out those things only obfuscates the issue of fairness by attempting to show the benefits of having well-dressed gays who drive nice cars in the neighborhood. The real issue, IMO, is that there are gays like you who can't come home unless you leave your life partner behind. Or gays like my lesbian friends who live down the street that are in a healthier long term relationship than most couples I know but they both have to pay for health insurance as single women because they're honest. The current systems in place encourage gays to be dishonest if they want to enjoy the same benefits as us heteros. It ain't right I tell ya.

To understatedly refer to Doc's suggestion, I doubt this will be the concensus on here either.

[JohnnyMack]

What Rogue said.

[Chuck Bao]

Well, I'm actually for the proposal and for gay-marriage.
Unlike Doc, I think it does affect me. I have friends and neighbors who are oppressed by this modern discrimination that is sanctioned and popular. I see it as a fairness issue that is out-of-balance toward the "unfair" side right now and I don't think it's right. So I feel an obligation to right a perceived wrong. Or, if faced with overwhelming rational evidence, reconsider my position.

Yes I want gay and lesbian folks shopping at my supermarket, working in my shop, and living next door. As long as they're not *******s. Same as the way I want straight folks, folks who dress funny, and folks that listen to music I don't understand doing those same things.

Frankly Chuck, all of the rationalizations in your last post about gays being more affluent, less likely to reproduce, be more affluent, etc is off the mark for me. Pointing out those things only obfuscates the issue of fairness by attempting to show the benefits of having well-dressed gays who drive nice cars in the neighborhood. The real issue, IMO, is that there are gays like you who can't come home unless you leave your life partner behind. Or gays like my lesbian friends who live down the street that are in a healthier long term relationship than most couples I know but they both have to pay for health insurance as single women because they're honest. The current systems in place encourage gays to be dishonest if they want to enjoy the same benefits as us heteros. It ain't right I tell ya.

To understatedly refer to Doc's suggestion, I doubt this will be the concensus on here either.

I stand corrected. I'm a lousy troll and I'm not doing that again. Thanks.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Suppose Jacque from France is a great guy and Jill wants to marry him and bring him to the U.S. via marriage-based petition. The law generally permits it.

But if it were Jill's brother, Jack, who wants to bring Jacque via marriage-based petition the law presently does not permit it. That discriminates based on gender. The only relevant difference between Jack and Jill is gender.

I support the bill.

[soonerboomer93]

makes no difference to me as in

"if the gays want to get married, go right ahead"

[Crucifax Autumn]

I think people should be free here.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a lib/con issue...it's an American issue and on all levels everyone should be equal.

Period.

When it comes to religion or non government related entities, fine...But the law should always come back to the basic tenents of equality. Be it race, gender, birth status, sexuality, etc.

In this country we are all equal and all have the same rights.

[JLEW1818]

Just imagine if your parents were 2 men, or 2 women. Just saying for the future. Talk all you want about everybody should have the same rights, but if you had 2 of the same sex parents, your life would be screwed up. just saying.

That's the main reason I'm against gay marriage or partners or whatever, give somebody something, and more is to come.

I'm just supporting children.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I dunno...If I had 2 dads I can't see me thinking any less of the poon!

[JLEW1818]

lol, but who knows... i just feel a child needs a male and female... so that's why i don't think America should start changing things now....