Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The PPIA

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Efforts to curb expressions of outlaw sexuality "” especially crackdowns on "public sex" "” demand a MILITANT response. Gays need to oppose the trend of gay "assimilation," because it nullifies the sexual outlawry that is central to gay culture.

    LOTS OF ANONYMOUS GAY SEX IS THE ANSWER TO "THE TYRANNY OF THE NORMAL" TO BUTTRESS ANTI-GAY ARGUMENTS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE OUT TO SUBVERT THE MORAL ORDER.

    ANONYMOUS SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS, WHILE HAVING AS MUCH SEX AS POSSIBLE, AND AS PUBLICLY AS POSSIBLE IS THE CORNERSTONE OF REAL GAY LIBERATION.

    The harassment and forced closure of private sex clubs which do not otherwise disturb community peace, and police entrapment in gay cruising areas, are blatant abuses of state power. Police entrapments, closures of commercial sex establishments and encroachments on public sex areas have as underlying force the class-based battles over massive corporate land-grabs and the concentration of wealth creating vast economic disparities. That's the real issue that needs to be addressed.

    Comment


    • #32
      Wow! Clear as crystal here..

      Comment


      • #33
        **** The United States of America!

        Comment


        • #34
          Looks like "public" gay sex is a political statement as well, not just for fun...not sure though howm many (gay) guys consider it like that, I mean, being aware that while having fun they're making a statement as well...although now that I think that's not the important thing...

          Comment


          • #35
            This thread started as a discussion of the immigration benefits to be extended or not to foreign domestic partners of American citizens...why it deviated to discuss in so much detail gay public sex, I don't get it...

            Comment


            • #36
              Though it is too soon to predict with any certainty how Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage,

              http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge...?storyline=235

              will play out in the United States, same-sex American couples who travel to Canada to marry will return to a legal thicket of conflicting laws and jurisdictions. "Couples who marry in Ontario and return to the United States seeking the same rights, responsibilities and obligations that heterosexual married couples receive should be aware that discriminatory laws in this country remain a problem," said Elizabeth Birch of the Human Rights Campaign."

              Most legal experts say it will only be a matter of time before gay Americans married in Canada press to have their unions recognized, though the range of possible circumstances surrounding any single challenge are so broad, the end result is wildly unpredictable. Some note that Canadian visitors to the United States may also press the legal boundaries forward. If a gay married person is involved in a car accident while driving in the U.S., a court may be compelled to "recognize" his or her uninjured partner as the legal spouse with the right to file a wrongful death suit or make medical decisions. The legal possibilities, it seems, are endless. An understanding of the dangers inherent in pressing for recognition under the wrong set of circumstances prompted a coalition of gay civil rights groups to issue an unusual joint advisory. It asked that gay couples wishing to press for recognition of their Canadian unions in American courts should first contact national organizations with experience in pressing such cases.

              "Couples should absolutely not race across the border just to set up lawsuits; the wrong cases could set us back for years," the statement read. "We will be strongest if we work together." The crazy quilt of jurisdictions and case precedents belies one unassailable fact: that only with rare exceptions have courts in the U.S. not recognized marriages that are valid where they were performed -- a concept called "lex loci contractus." U.S. and Canadian officials said this week they know of no treaty that requires states to honor Canadian marriage licenses, although they always have done so, and that fact could produce a challenge under the equal-protection clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "It's not a question of a test case," said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. "It's not a chess game. These people now are legally married. Their marriages may be discriminated against when they come to the United States. . . [but] they are married."

              The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act makes federal law clear on the issue. Marriage is to apply only to persons of the opposite sex. As it relates to income taxes, Social Security, immigration and other federal activities, Canadian same-sex marriages would not be recognized. But marriage remains an institution regulated by the states. Apart from DOMA, the federal government could do little in the face of Vermont's legalization of civil union. The Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause says that one state will recognize the public acts and rulings of another, though many have since passed their own state versions of DOMA to get around the constitutional constraint.

              The legalization of gay marriage in Canada leaves lawyers to seek other precedents. Until now a principle of "comity" has applied to the recognition of marriages performed in other countries. Americans recognize foreign marriages and may expect their own to be accepted abroad. Thirty-seven states have adopted DOMA-type restrictions, but many large states such as New York and Ohio have not, making them likely testing-grounds for future legal action on the issue. "The trend is going to be a little bit of chaos for a while," Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal told The New York Times. "It's very exciting. They're calling it the Canadian earthquake."

              Comment


              • #37
                By WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer

                WASHINGTON - The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states. "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually "” or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."

                "And I'm thinking of "” whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home "” ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern." Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do. "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between "” what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined "” as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."

                Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled. As drafted, the proposal says:

                "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

                To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds. "Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions "” with the local norms, the local mores "” are being able to have their input in reflected. "And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts."



                http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gay_marriage_4

                Comment


                • #38
                  Wow, was about to post the same artical....How do these people get into power, I thought that these "lawmakers" were supposed to keep peoples rights in mind, seems all these people want to do is take them away...

                  I say this fool needs to resign, he has made way too many discriminative remarks to remain leader of the house...

                  What a fool........

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    So much for Land of the free is all I can say, America needs to take a look at it's self and reconsider some of it's moto's...

                    It certainly is NOT land of the free for EVERYONE....

                    It certainly does NOT offer justice to EVERYONE...

                    It's government IS full of of backward thinking morons...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      By comparing what some Western European countries give to gay people to what America offers them, it sure looks like America is way behind the other civilized countries of the world in this respect...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "Yea Really"

                        You hit the nail on the head.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Just wanted to acknowledge that, in light of recent events, my personal theory that same *** marriage is years away looks like it could be very, very wrong. Just wanna state for the record that I will be happy if I was wrong on this issue (tho I myself am straight.)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hey, that's funny, it blanked out one of the words in my message, and I was not even trying to be dirty . . . anyway, I think you know what I meant . . . .

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              What Dat?:

                              Can you mention which recent events have adjusted you're theory? Are you talking about the Texas case?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                So the *** catholic priest can get married as well?..hmmmmmmm...something is wrong here.

                                Comment

                                Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                                Home Page

                                Immigration Daily

                                Archives

                                Processing times

                                Immigration forms

                                Discussion board

                                Resources

                                Blogs

                                Twitter feed

                                Immigrant Nation

                                Attorney2Attorney

                                CLE Workshops

                                Immigration books

                                Advertise on ILW

                                EB-5

                                移民日报

                                About ILW.COM

                                Connect to us

                                Questions/Comments

                                SUBSCRIBE

                                Immigration Daily



                                Working...
                                X