And so it begins...

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: And so it begins...

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Husband - the 'hus' part is similar to 'house' in origin; and the 'band' is nowadays in 'bond' as in tied to or owner of. So etymologically 'husband' is someone who lives in a house.

Wife is from the Old English 'wyf' which means woman - I don't think it specifically implied (in OE) a married woman. Seawyf was an old term for a mermaid.

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: And so it begins...

Post by rubato »

In French, Spanish, and possibly other languages, the term for wife is "my woman" Ma Femme, (Mi Mujer). Which suggests that the woman is the property of her husband. Since there is no movement of which I am aware to switch to a non-sexist term I suspect that they will simply be reinterpreted to remove the sexist content. But we will see.
MajGenl.Meade wrote:"...
[[Excusing nothing in his action, he is correct in terms of language. There is no 'husband' and no 'wife' in a homosexual partnership, of either gender. Spouse, partner, significant other .... those are fair enough descriptors for all persons to be able to use. People are of course free to refer to themselves in whatever terms they wish, but others should not be required to concur.]]
Language evolves and changes. The usage of 'husband' for a spouse in a male homosexual marriage will be accepted as commonplace in a short while.


yrs,
rubato

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Big RR »

I don't know about French (although I have seen espous used), but in Spanish the term esposa (which I believe derives from the same root as spouse) is ordinarily used for wife (and esposo (or sometimes marido) for husband). I do not doubt that the term "mi mujer" can be used for wife, but it is not common in modern Spanish.

edited to add: Now that I think of it, I recall my father in law (who was from Puerto Rico) referring to my mother in law as "mi vieja", which roughly translates to my old lady--something that at one time was used in English for wife as well (if the older films are correct).

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Scooter »

BREAKING: House Appropriations Republicans Adopt “License to Discriminate” Amendment

By Nick Morrow July 11, 2018

Today, HRC blasted House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee for adopting a discriminatory, anti-LGBTQ amendment to a funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. If it remains in the final bill, the amendment would grant a “license to discriminate” in the provision of child welfare services, allowing child welfare placing agencies that receive federal government funding to turn away qualified prospective parents based on the agency’s religious beliefs. The vote in the committee was 29-23, along party lines, with Rep. Scott Taylor (R-VA) the lone Republican to vote against the amendment.

This amendment, introduced by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), would have a sweeping, harmful impact in child welfare services by enabling discrimination against LGBTQ people, same-sex couples, interfaith couples, single parents, married couples in which one prospective parent has previously been divorced, or other qualified parents to whom an agency has an objection. The biggest barrier to placing children with families is a lack of qualified prospective parents; having the government give contractors and subcontractors a license to discriminate, thereby limiting the pool of prospective parents for no legitimate reason, is unconscionable and an unacceptable use of taxpayer dollars.

“Any Member of Congress who supports this amendment is clearly stating that it is more important to them to discriminate than it is to find loving homes for children in need,” said David Stacy, director of government affairs at the Human Rights Campaign. “Congress should be focusing on ways to help children in the child welfare system find homes rather than creating needless obstacles for prospective parents, effectively shrinking the pool of qualified folks who want to provide children with a loving home. HRC urges Congress to reject this discriminatory amendment in the final appropriations bill.”

HRC recently released a report, titled Disregarding the Best Interest of the Child: License to Discriminate In Child Welfare Services, detailing the harms of efforts to write anti-LGBTQ discrimination by child welfare agencies into law. Statistics suggest that an estimated two million LGBTQ adults in the U.S. are interested in adoption, but the LGBTQ community often remains an untapped resource when it comes to finding families for children and youth in foster care.

Research consistently shows that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the foster care system, as many have been rejected by their families of origin because of their LGBTQ status, and are especially vulnerable to discrimination and mistreatment while in foster care. This type of amendment will only exacerbate these challenges faced by LGBTQ young people.
What kind of diseased mind would put the right of bigots to discriminate over the right of children to have safe, loving homes?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Guinevere »

21st century Republicans, that’s who.

Religion as a basis to refuse to properly take care of children. Once again the GOP proves it’s all about control of women and their bodies, and they have no actual interest in the welfare of children.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13923
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Joe Guy »

Although I agree that the law is wrong, I wonder what difference it would make. For example, an LGBTQ couple would not be likely to go to Catholic Charities Foster Care Agency if they want to be foster parents and/or adopt children.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Sue U »

Joe Guy wrote:Although I agree that the law is wrong, I wonder what difference it would make. For example, an LGBTQ couple would not be likely to go to Catholic Charities Foster Care Agency if they want to be foster parents and/or adopt children.
Actually, Catholic Charities bills itself as a non-discriminatory organization. I know that applies to faith and creed, not sure whether it extends to sexual orientation, but I don't see why it wouldn't. The CC director in this diocese says "We don't help people because they're Catholic, we help because we are."
GAH!

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Scooter »

Trump has declared war on LGBTQ rights. Here’s everything he’s done so far.

We’re a year-and-a-half into Donald Trump’s presidency, and it’s easy to become numb to the barrage of crazy tweets, racist dog whistles, and almost comically flagrant corruption that characterizes the current administration.

Trump runs the White House as if it were the setting for a reality show; where being outrageous is all that really matters. He knows that the press is easily distracted by bright shiny objects, and he’s gleefully willing to oblige because he controls the narrative.

But what gets the most attention isn’t what’s most important. In fact, fuming about Trump’s outrageous behavior obscures what really matters: Trump has instituted a sustained war on LGBTQ rights.

It’s not as if every attack has gone unnoticed. However, looking at each episode individually dilutes the collective impact. When you put them all together, the pattern is clear.

Despite the lingering myth that Trump really isn’t anti-gay, he is more determined to roll back the clock on LGBTQ progress than any of his predecessors.

Unfortunately, many of Trump’s anti-LGBTQ policies and decisions will impact the community long after he has left office.

Here’s a list to put into perspective all the destructive steps that Trump has taken against LGBTQ people – so far.

Appointed the most homophobic Cabinet in history. Trump’s cabinet is a veritable who’s who of anti-LGBTQ politicians. Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, Tom Price, Jeff Sessions – the list goes on and on.

As scandals engulf individual members or they fall out of favor, Trump often replaces them with someone worse.

Mike Pompeo, with a history of anti-LGBTQ politics replaced Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Trump’s replacement to run Veterans Affairs, Robert Wilkie, began his career working for Sen. Jesse Helms, the most homophobic member of Congress ever.

Anti-LGBTQ extremism is almost a requirement to join the Trump administration.

Choose a vice president who built a career attacking LGBTQ people. Mike Pence is a darling of the religious right – and with good reason. He made his name as a Congressman dedicated to opposing LGBTQ rights.

He then moved on to become governor of Indiana, where he signed a religious liberty law designed to remove protections against discrimination. The law was so unpopular that Pence’s career seemed over until Trump rescued him. Now Pence is one of the most powerful men in Washington.

Turned the GOP over to the religious right. Trump rewards loyalty, and no one has been more loyal to Trump than conservative evangelicals. As a result, Trump caters to his base’s every whim, whether its political appointments or religious freedom summits.

The press talks about how Trump has taken over the GOP, but in reality it’s the religious right that is now controlling the party agenda, with all the attendant attacks on LGBTQ rights.

Made the Supreme Court hostile territory again. One reason the religious right loves Trump so much is that he’s delivered the Supreme Court to them.

Starting with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy, which threatens to erode the gains that Kennedy was most responsible for.

Turned the federal judiciary against us for years. While most of the focus has been on the Supreme Court, Trump has been stocking the rest of the federal courts with ideologues who will be opposing LGBTQ progress decades after he’s has left office.

According to Lambda Legal, at least one-third of Trump’s nominees have extensive anti-LGBTQ track records. Moreover, those courts are the pipeline for future Supreme Court justices.

Targeted trans and HIV-positive service members. In one tweet, Trump personally reversed the military’s policy of allowing trans military personnel to serve their country (as it turns out, Mike Pence and religious right leader Tony Perkins were architects of the policy).

The ban keeps running into roadblocks in the courts, but that hasn’t stopped Trump from expanding his war against LGBTQ people to include HIV-positive service members, whom he now wants to boot from the military.

Threw the power of the government behind the right to discriminate. Trump has made the federal government a primary proponent for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people by backing religious liberty.

The biggest example was the government’s decision to side with the homophobic baker in the Masterpiece Cake suit before the Supreme Court, reversing the Obama administration’s position. But that’s not the only one.

Trump has also created an entire division within Health and Human Services dedicated to allowing health care workers to opt-out of providing care on religious grounds. The impact will fall heavily on transgender patients and people with HIV.

Made schools less safe for transgender students. Trump took away protections for transgender students that the Obama administration had put in place, allowing students to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify with most.

The Department of Education also no longer accepts discrimination complaints from transgender students.

Opened the way for employers to discriminate. The Trump administration has actually argued in court that employers should be able to fire gay employees. It went one step further for transgender employees, rescinding an Obama-era ruling that existing federal gender nondiscrimination protections applied to trans workers.

Marginalized HIV issues and paved the way to make it a pre-existing condition again. Trump has shown so little interest in HIV that he fired his entire HIV/AIDS council without explanation. To make matters worse, his administration is eviscerating Obamacare by, among other things, allowing for some health plans to consider HIV a pre-existing condition again. That means higher premiums at a minimum, if you’re even able to get coverage.

To add insult to injury, he took money away from AIDS programs to fund his heartless policy of separating children from their parents when they tried to enter the U.S. as asylum seekers. That issue is still ongoing.

Put the lives of of LGBTQ asylum seekers at risk and destroyed families. Trump hates almost all immigrants (except those from Norway), so it’s not surprising that he is trying to send LGBTQ immigrants back to their homelands, where they would face violence and even death.

He has unleashed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), resulting in same-sex married couples being separated after years of living together and contributing to their communities.

Bolstered a viciously homophobic Russia. Whatever the reason for Russian president Vladimir Putin’s hold on Trump, the result is the same: an emboldened Russia that knows it faces no consequences for its often violent oppression of LGBTQ citizens.

Pointedly refused to acknowledge Pride. After years of the White House celebrating June as Pride month, Trump has made it clear to the LGBTQ community that he would rather be celebrating National Ocean Month.

While his refusal acknowledge the LGBTQ community is largely symbolic, it also shows how hostile a work environment the federal government has become for LGBTQ workers. Some gay staffers are now removing their wedding rings before coming to work out of fear of retaliation by political appointees.

Without question, this list will grow as Trump feels less constrained with time. But the pattern is clear: the Trump administration is engaged in willful destruction of LGBTQ rights on every possible front. The next time anyone tries to tell you otherwise, just remember this list.
I'm sure that wes will find some way to spin this all as proof that Trump is the most LGBTQ-friendly president you've ever had.

I keep begging all of my LGBTQ American friends to get out before it's too late, before the camps open and the tattooing begins. Several are already in the process of leaving the gay-hating nutcases controlling your government behind. Most are looking to wait and see, hopefully they don't take too long or it will be too late.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Econoline »

I hope they at least stick around long enough to vote in November.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Burning Petard
Posts: 4048
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Burning Petard »

And if they don't stick around, apply for absentee ballots.

snailgate.

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: And so it begins...

Post by rubato »

" ... turn away qualified prospective parents based on the agency’s religious beliefs. "
I didn't know an agency could have religious beliefs? Will there be agencies in heaven?


yrs,
rubato

Burning Petard
Posts: 4048
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Burning Petard »

Sure they can Rubato. After all, the Supremes have declared that corporations can have religious beliefs.

I am eagerly awaiting a pronouncement by the Supremes on whether of not a corporation can go to hell.

snailgate

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Guinevere »

Hobby Lobby does not get enough credit for being one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the last 50 years. It is a huge step away from the protections of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Last edited by Guinevere on Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Scooter »

The U.S. Government Says It’s ‘Religious Freedom’ When African Countries Kill LGBTQ People

Remember the U.S. Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, the three-day meeting led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “to combat religious persecution and discrimination”? (The one that’s helping find funding for anti-LGBTQ hate groups.) Yeah well, at the Ministerial, Mick Mulvaney (pictured above), Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that America will no longer pressure African nations to repeal their anti-LGBTQ laws. This is a win for anti-LGBTQ evangelical missionaries in Africa and will worsen national security.

In his speech, Mulvaney said, “Our U.S. taxpayer dollars [were] used to discourage Christian values in other democratic countries. It was stunning to me that my government under the previous administration would go to folks in sub-Saharan Africa and say … ‘We know you have a law against gay marriage, but if you enforce that law, we’re not going to give you any money.’

“That’s a different type of religious persecution that I never expected to see,” he said. “I never expected to see that as an American Christian, that we would be doing that to other folks.”

Mulvaney is deliberately misrepresenting the issue. Only one country in Africa has legalized same-sex marriage (South Africa) and the U.S. government has never demanded that other African countries legalize same-sex marriage as a precondition for receiving aid.

The truth is that the Obama Administration only ever withheld foreign aid to African countries in response to those countries passing laws punishing sexual activity between consenting LGBTQ adults. These are the “religious freedoms” that Mick Mulvaney wants to reward with U.S. funding.

To date, 37 countries in Africa have criminalized male same-sex sexual activity (largely thanks to British colonialism). While these laws reportedly aren’t enforced in four African countries, in 33 others, the penalties against homosexuality range from fines and public whippings to imprisonment and even death by stoning.

These laws are crafted in part by American evangelicals. The fact that the Trump administration has said that denying services to LGBTQ people is an expression of “religious freedom,”Mulvaney’s comment provides insight into just how much anti-LGBTQ violence America will permit in the name of “religious freedom.”

Hell, Tony Perkins — president of the Family Research Council, a hate group attending the Ministerial, who himself was also recently appointed to a U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom — recently said that he’d like America to return to a time when same-sex sexual relationships in America were illegal too.

So while one can debate whether Obama’s denial of aid helped improve life for LGBTQ Africans, criminalizing LGBTQ identity worsens the continent’s HIV epidemic and destabilizes African countries making them ripe for violence, terrorism and war.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: And so it begins...

Post by rubato »

It is what they would do here if they could.



yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Scooter »

State Department Revoking Trans Women's Passports

The State Department has refused to renew the passports of multiple transgender women, even though documents identifying them as female have already been approved, reports Them.

Danni Askini, whose documents have read "female" since she transitioned in 1998 at age 16, was denied the right to renew her passport because "failed to disclose” that she was transgender, she told the site.

She said the U.S. Passport Office told her in June that after 20 years of having a passport that matched her gender identity, she needed to provide proof of gender transition.

After Donald Trump's administration put the term "transgender" on its banned word list for certain documents from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and sought to disqualify trans people from serving in the military, these incidents are further evidence of the administration's hostility to trans citizens.

For transgender Americans to obtain a passport that matches their gender identity, they must provide an ID and photo resembling their current appearance along with medical certification that indicates the transition has occurred.

The passports of people who have completely physically transitioned are valid for 10 years as long as they've had "appropriate clinical treatment," and for someone still transitioning, documentation would be valid for two years.

“Make no mistake, this was an intentional action by the State Department to withhold recognizing my gender,” said Askini, who is executive director of the Gender Justice League.

She said she needed to flee her hometown of Seattle after receiving several death threats on anti-trans platforms and from local alt-right groups. Because her most recent passport was 10 years old, it was up for renewal.

After U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal's office put direct pressure on the passport agency, Askini was granted a temporary two-year passport that allowed her to fly to Sweden.

Askini is not alone. Janus Rose, a transgender technology researcher, said she has had a passport identifying her as female since November. Her name change was recently finalized, and she sent in paperwork along with her current passport to renew it with her new legal name.

Then she received a phone call from a South Carolina passport processing center. A staff member there “basically told me that even though the government had changed my gender marker in the last year, that was a mistake,” Rose told Them.

She said the passport official stated that the State Department should have never allowed her to change her gender on her passport because the medical documentation she provided in November was invalid.

“This letter is something my clinic has been using as a boilerplate for years for so many people,” Rose told Them. “The clinic says I’m the first person to get a rejection.”

“It seems pretty clear that even if the policy hasn’t changed, something has changed in terms of guidance on how to enforce this — because it’s being enforced differently now,” Rose said. Her letter was from a nurse-practitioner at her clinic, which told her it's never needed a letter written by a physician instead.

When asked for comment, a State Department official told Them, “When a passport applicant presents a certification from a medical physician stating that the applicant has undergone or is receiving appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition, a new passport will be issued with an updated gender marker."

“Every applicant who applies for a U.S. passport undergoes extensive vetting of their identity, claim to U.S. citizenship and entitlement to a passport,” the official said, "Sexual reassignment surgery is not a prerequisite for updating the gender marker in a passport and documents proving sexual reassignment surgery are not required.”

While Askini and Rose have physically transitioned, many transgender people do not do so due to its prohibitive cost, and some do not desire a physical transition.

However, Rose believes the vetting has become much more rigorous for transgender applicants.

“I spoke to someone the other day, a cis person, who had their legal name changed and it was fine,” she explained. “There was no asking for additional documentation or proof. She literally did the same thing just the other day. That’s what this is about. A cis person can go in and make this simple change, and a trans person cannot.”

Askini was shocked that the State Department even knew she was transgender. She feels the rejection had its roots in hostility to trans people.

“None of my documentation would disclose my trans status,” says Askini, whose transition was granted by a judge when she was still a minor. As a safety measure in relation to a sex trafficking case, all of her child welfare records were sealed. “No databases that are local, state, or federal should note my gender as anything other than female.”

“I believe that the Trump administration or someone in the Seattle Passport Office has targeted me politically and politicized the process for obtaining passports,” said Askini, noting that she is well-known as a trans activist.“Their actions and statements are not consistent with the actual letter of the code related to trans people.”

Rose agreed. “I think there’s an internal policy change to make it as difficult as possible for trans people,” she said. “The goal is to create friction. They can’t change all these laws right away, but they can make it really hard.”
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Scooter »

Trump administration halts visas for same-sex partners of diplomats, UN employees

President Donald Trump's administration began denying visas to the unmarried, same-sex partners of foreign diplomats and officials and employees of the United Nations this week — making marriage a requirement to be eligible for a visa.

The policy was made effective Monday.

It comes despite the fact that the majority of countries do not recognize same-sex marriage and many same-sex couples face prosecution in their own countries.

The shift was detailed in a memo circulated at the United Nations' headquarters in New York last month but unveiled in July, according to the State Department.

The policy shift gives the same-sex partners of foreign diplomats and U.N. workers until the end of the year to get married or leave the country.

The State Department said in a briefing Tuesday that the policy will affect about 105 families in the USA, 55 of which have links to various international organizations. It was not clear how many foreign diplomats and U.N. employees with pending U.S. posts will be affected by the policy change.

Twelve percent of the 193 U.N. member states represented in New York allow same-sex marriage, according to Samantha Power, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who served under President Barack Obama.

The Trump administration said the new policy is more consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage. The heterosexual partners of foreign diplomats and U.N. employees are also not eligible for U.S. visas.

Critics of the move argued the policy would create hardship for gay couples from countries that ban same-sex marriage or offer only civil unions. Those who marry in the USA to secure their visa status could face criminal proceedings once they return to their home nations.

"Those not yet in the country will need to show they’re married to secure a visa, potentially forcing those living in countries without marriage equality to choose between a posting at UN headquarters or family separation," Akshaya Kumar, deputy U.N. director at Human Rights Watch, wrote in a blog post.

UN Globe, which advocates for non-discrimination of LGBTI staff at the United Nations and in its peacekeeping operations, said it was an "unfortunate change in rules, since same-sex couples, unlike opposite-sex couples, have limited choices when it comes to marriage."

Power, the former ambassador, described the policy in a tweet as "needlessly cruel and bigoted." The State Department said the rule change would promote equal treatment. It said it recognized that not all countries permit same-sex marriage and it was prepared to work with individual cases to find a solution for those not able to marry.
Next - those whose visas are denied/not renewed will be "accidentally" outed to their home countries where they will be jailed or executed upon their return.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: And so it begins...

Post by Lord Jim »

Well, this:
The heterosexual partners of foreign diplomats and U.N. employees are also not eligible for U.S. visas.
would seem to indicate that this particular policy is not so much aimed specifically at gay people as it is a part of this Administration's petty, mean-spirited effort to reduce the ability of foreigners to get US visas in general...

ETA:

And this bit of mean-spirited pettiness seems particularly boneheaded as well, since anyone who comes over here as the unmarried partner of someone in diplomatic service (gay or straight) isn't going to be taking a job away from anybody, certainly won't be using any social services money, and are probably the least likely to illegally over-stay a visa...(since presumably the vast majority return home when their partner does)

On the other hand, they're probably very likely to be pumping a fair amount of money into the local economy...

:loon
ImageImageImage

Post Reply