Comments on: Ellison urges support for binational same-sex couples

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:33:33 +0000

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Two loving people should be, at the very least, allowed to remain together.

This cause is truly one of Love. It offends no religion, no church will be forced to look at immigration petitions (and Amen to THAT!) It’s not about tax benefits, employment benefits or inheritance rights. It simply is a measure to allow two loving people to remain together.

Love sees no border. Love sees no gender either. Love is also above any attempt of oppression in the name of religion.

By: erin

erin — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:23:40 +0000

THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE ELLISON! I’m one of the 36,000+ people who are effected by archaic immigration laws in this country. Your support of UAFA’s inclusion in comprehensive immigration reform makes me proud to be Minnesotan. My partner and I live in MN, where we pray every day for my ability to sponsor her for residency. Hoping change comes soon.

By: Gillian Kendall

Gillian Kendall — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:31:52 +0000

Dear Mr. Ellison and to everyone who supports UAFA,
THANK YOU. You are speaking for perhaps 40,000 Americans who are in the same situation as I am: sharing lives with same-sex partners who happen to be non-American. I have lived in Melbourne, Australia, for the past 9 years as a result of the U.S.’s immigration laws: I want to return to the USA with my partner, and live there legally. Thanks for asking that our families and our rights be included in immigration reform.

By: Phil McKinney

Phil McKinney — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:24:07 +0000

Thank You Thank You THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! You do not know how much this could potentially mean to me and my partner of 4.5yrs. At this point I am having to contemplate closing my business of 13yrs to move to Brasil to be with my partner. I am truly torn about what to do – part with the one I love – or close my business which would ultimately lead to the loss of jobs for an incredible group of very dedicated, loyal and long time employees who have helped me build this business since my age of 26. It is very difficult – at this point straddleing both countries – but it just does not seem to make a whole lot of sense – and certainly has somewhat crippled me financially. But if those in “Our” community continue to remond me and divide “Our” community into “Yours” and “Mine”. I am afraid I can no longer continue this dysfunctional relationship. I am confident that the government, through city/ state/ and federal taxes (let alone the benefits have gainfully employee individuals) , benefits and generates more income from my business than I could ever possibly hope to. I am also a very very giving individual that donates to any and all causes with a clear mission that benefits my community. But as I stated earlier – it is painfully obvious at this point that I am not apart of “community”. I have certainly reconsdiered my donations for the upcoming year. However, thanks to you – I have enough faith to hang in another year or so before I make the permanent move out of this country. Thanks Again – I still have a little hope of being able to remain in my country without completely walking away from what has been a lifetime of dedication and achievement.

Phil McKinney
Urban Earth Design Studios
New Orleans, La 70130

By: Nachman

Nachman — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:18:40 +0000

“Uniting American Families Act of 2009 – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include a “permanent partner” within the scope of such Act. Defines a “permanent partner” as an individual 18 or older who…”

The definition is inclusive of marriage.

“Please stop with the religious platitudes — save that for the legalizing marriage fight — that is a completely different fight…”

You’re wrong. It’s the same fight. And they’re not platitudes.

Next.

By: Nachman

Nachman — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:15:49 +0000

The definition in inclusive of marriage.

Next.

By: Sandy

Sandy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:37:21 +0000

Nachman –

UAFA does not even use the word ‘marriage’!!! You are just trying to be inflamatory by bringing religion into the discussion because you can’t justify the discrimination any other way! UAFA talks about ‘permanent partnership’ — not marriage! It does not legalize, does not recognize same-sex marriage — it cannot because DOMA says marriage is between a man and a woman — this is a whole other discussion, which this article and the principles discussed do not address. This is not a religious discussion… we are talking about two people who love each other being forced to live in different countries or to move to a country that recognizes their relationship in some form — sometimes marriage sometimes civil unions or just as … ‘permanent partners’!!! Please stop with the religious platitudes — save that for the legalizing marriage fight — that is a completely different fight and I’d be happy to argue that one with you when it comes up, but for now the discussion is about UAFA and how this country should not be forcing one of its citizens to choose between the person they love and their country.

By: kitkat

kitkat — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:03:34 +0000

i wish one day you find that your sons or daughters are gay and then you might understand.

By: Nachman

Nachman — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:33:28 +0000

Therefore, A normative marriage between a man and a woman and a normative same sex “marriage” is inherently unequal.

By: Nachman

Nachman — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:30:23 +0000

“UAFA does not legalize marriage”

It does, however, legitimize foreign same sex “marriages”. Same sex marriages, whether foreign or domestic, are fake marriages.

“40 years ago a black man could not marry a white woman, and vice versa”.

That’s a black MAN and a white WOMAN or a white MAN and a black WOMAN. Loving v. Virginia is inapplicable.

If members of the same sex want to enter into a life long relationship, they are free to use the Contract Clause of the Minnesota or United States Constitutions. The push for legitimacy of same sex “marriage” has more to do with the hatred and repudiation of Judaism and Christianity – or your side would have used the Contract Clause long ago.

The purpose of marriage is the recognition of the biological imperative of a man and a woman to reproduce, form a family unit, and raise their offspring. That a minority of men and women who marry cannot reproduce or will not does not change the definition. The exception does not make the rule.

To reiterate: Marriages between a man and a woman usually result in procreation. Members of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage and can NEVER reproduce.