American dollars is plunging: NO MORE TRAVEL!

Hernandez wrote in message ws.com...
I just got back from Belgium last week following a 3-month stay in Germany
and I must say I would be better off without showing my US passport. The
nice folks of Europe would treat me for who I was...until they learn that I
was an American. Yes. It's true that that the positive image of the US has
been tarnished by the arrogance and boastful attitude projected and
enforced by the US president George W. Bush.

Great going George!

Hmmm... One thing for sure, George Bush II is not the person behind
the invasion on Iraq, nor the invasion of Afghanistan, nor 9/11, and
so on.

He didn't have the brainpower nor the political power to do so.

Though I agree he was used to pronounce these events, but he didn't
planned them.

Really... Today, the president of the USoA (or most if not all
official governments in the world) is only a mere puppet. Don't hate
the puppet, it's what 'they' want.

In article
1g6obt1.1oycshe2sbw29N%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk,
(David Horne) wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article ,
"Sjoerd" wrote:

"lh" schreef in bericht
...

Why would you not be allowed to live with your partner of 9 years if
you
lived in the USA?

Because I have been offered a job in the US where the employer would
arrange
the work and residence permits for me. Had I been married to a woman,

How long have you been 'married' to your partner ?

Why the sneer quotes? Dutch law gives the same status to same sex
couples as mixed sex. I don't know if Sjoerd is married or not, but if
he is, it's a marriage.

Not by any historical or current version of any dictionary I have seen.

It frustrates me that gays can not get equal rights and access that
heterosexuals do. But that should not be called marriage by the
government. For too many, this is the fight... rather than the actual
rights they deserve.

jay
Sun, Dec 28, 2003




she
would have received a residence permit almost automatically. But no
chance
to get such a permit for a same-sex partner.


You tried ?

That suggests you think it's possible. Believe me, it isn't, and you
don't need to try in order to find that out.

David

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Go Fig wrote:
It frustrates me that gays can not get equal rights and access that
heterosexuals do. But that should not be called marriage by the
government. For too many, this is the fight...

What I don't get is, why does anyone care enough to object? It's just a
word. People use words like "music" and "art" to describe things that I
wouldn't use those words for, but I'm not about to try to get a
constitutional amendment passed to prevent it.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

"nobody" wrote in message
...
pmlt wrote:
There's a big difference between having religious faith and showing
that faith in the public schools.

There is also a difference between having school and curricula which is
secular, and prohibiting students from dressing as they wish.

And if they do pass that law in France, it isn't only head scarves and
jewish
hats that would be banned, but also, technically, christmas trees, easter
eggs
and anything related to christian festivities. Will christmas holidays be
banned from schools because they are not religion-neutral ?

As long as they don't ban Christmas pudding as Oliver Cromwell did.

Go Fig wrote:

Not by any historical or current version of any dictionary I have seen.

Interestingly, there are actually quite a few online dictionary
definitions which don't specify that the marriage has to be between
different genders. Find the definitions for yourself. OK- that's _that_
canard blown out of the water. What you haven't addressed, and I don't
expect you to, is the legal definition of marriage in the Netherlands,
which is the same regardless of the gender mix.

It frustrates me that gays can not get equal rights and access that
heterosexuals do. But that should not be called marriage by the
government. For too many, this is the fight... rather than the actual
rights they deserve.

I don't think you really have a clue on this issue, and I seriously
question the motivation behind your sneer quotes- which were gratuitous.

It's true that many countries have legislated in this way without using
the word "marriage"- the UK is going to be doing this soon by using the
term "civil partnership." Yes, it keeps the homo haters and religious
bigots happy too, sometimes. So?

LGBT folk have been fighting for their rights for decades, and I find
your assumption of what they/we want a little presumptive. Maybe you
listen to too much talk radio?

You tried ?

That suggests you think it's possible. Believe me, it isn't, and you
don't need to try in order to find that out.

If you're not going to respond to this- and I wasn't expecting an
informative answer, at least have the sense to edit your follow-ups.
You're hardly a newbie.

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:19:07 +0000,
(David Horne) wrote:

wrote:

If you knew what you are talking about, you would know that
these are state issues. They decide not the Federal government.

Sorry m8, you're the moron here. Immigration policy is controlled at
_federal_, not state level, and it's _federal_ understanding of what
consitutes a marriage, _not_ state, which dictates how this affects
immigration. If states like Vermont or Massachussetts did go the full
hog and grant same-sex couples the full rights of marriage, it would not
for one minute mean that same-sex couples from another country would be
recognised for immigration purposes.

Don't take my word for it- educate yourself on US immigration policy,
then come back and start talking. At the moment, you're looking like a
fool.

David

You're the fool. This was about marriage not immigration policy, and,
like I said, there is no US marriage. It is completely controlled at
the state level, just like I said. I can't help it if you can't read
before opening your yap. What immigration decides to do about
recognizing a marriage is hardly the same thing.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:06:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:06:36 +0000,
(David Horne) wrote:

lh wrote:

I wonder if you would have the same
immigation problem if you were trying to get a residence permit for a woman
to whom you were not married.

The couple would have exactly the same problem, unless they were
planning to get married. But, at least in that case they _could_ get a
legally recognised marriage, from the US standpoint. At the moment, the
US will not recognise any kind of union, whether legally sanctioned by
another country of not, if it involves a same sex relationship.

David

That's because there is no such thing as a US marriage or same sex
one. If you knew what you are talking about, you would know that
these are state issues. They decide not the Federal government.

There is federal marriage in the District of Columbia.

But I believe there is also a federal law defining marriage as
between two people of the opposite sex. While marriages are
largely a state matter, the federal government does have an
interest in defining it because some federal functions are
dependent on it, such as spousal Social Security benefits. And
the issuance of visas to spouses of US citizens and nationals.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article
1g6p32l.kx2m171gf7k6wN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk,
(David Horne) wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

Not by any historical or current version of any dictionary I have seen.

Interestingly, there are actually quite a few online dictionary
definitions which don't specify that the marriage has to be between
different genders. Find the definitions for yourself. OK- that's _that_
canard blown out of the water.

Really, this is quite a low standard of proof you have introduced now,
if its any at all... certainly not on the 4 corners of this page no
proof was found.



What you haven't addressed, and I don't
expect you to, is the legal definition of marriage in the Netherlands,
which is the same regardless of the gender mix.

What you haven't addressed is the other 190+ countries and their
policies... but I didn't expect that.


It frustrates me that gays can not get equal rights and access that
heterosexuals do. But that should not be called marriage by the
government. For too many, this is the fight... rather than the actual
rights they deserve.

I don't think you really have a clue on this issue, and I seriously
question the motivation behind your sneer quotes- which were gratuitous.


Let me make it very, very clear: I object to the *******izations of the
word marriage. That is my objection, as well gay adoption... but that
certainly isn't a right.


It's true that many countries have legislated in this way without using
the word "marriage"- the UK is going to be doing this soon by using the
term "civil partnership." Yes, it keeps the homo haters and religious
bigots happy too, sometimes. So?

LGBT folk have been fighting for their rights for decades, and I find
your assumption of what they/we want a little presumptive. Maybe you
listen to too much talk radio?

Pathetic.


You tried ?

That suggests you think it's possible. Believe me, it isn't, and you
don't need to try in order to find that out.

If you're not going to respond to this- and I wasn't expecting an
informative answer, at least have the sense to edit your follow-ups.
You're hardly a newbie.

Strange, where you pick your battles, how bout Sjord's lack of response
to my question.

Why did you cut the line I was directly responding to (top of page)..
not good.

jay
Sun, Dec 28, 2003





David

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Go Fig wrote:

In article
1g6p32l.kx2m171gf7k6wN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk,
(David Horne) wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

Not by any historical or current version of any dictionary I have seen.

Interestingly, there are actually quite a few online dictionary
definitions which don't specify that the marriage has to be between
different genders. Find the definitions for yourself. OK- that's _that_
canard blown out of the water.

Really, this is quite a low standard of proof you have introduced now,

No, not really. You're the one that said "Not by any historical or
current version of any dictionary I have seen." That's _you're_ proof,
and it's pretty easy to deflate.

if its any at all... certainly not on the 4 corners of this page no
proof was found.

uh-huh.

What you haven't addressed, and I don't
expect you to, is the legal definition of marriage in the Netherlands,
which is the same regardless of the gender mix.

What you haven't addressed is the other 190+ countries and their
policies... but I didn't expect that.

Sjoerd, last time I checked, didn't live in those 190+ countries. You're
the one sneer quoting marriage, and I'm pointing out that where he
lives, it's not an issue.

Let me make it very, very clear: I object to the *******izations of the
word marriage.

I object to the basdardisation of *******isation. The word has many uses
already- think William Blake. OK, scratch think.

That is my objection, as well gay adoption...

Uh. Keep digging- you're doing great.

but that
certainly isn't a right.

Too much talk radio- I'm serious. I always knew you were right of
centre, but homophobic right of centre- that one's just too easy.

LGBT folk have been fighting for their rights for decades, and I find
your assumption of what they/we want a little presumptive. Maybe you
listen to too much talk radio?

Pathetic.

Manifestly.

If you're not going to respond to this- and I wasn't expecting an
informative answer, at least have the sense to edit your follow-ups.
You're hardly a newbie.

Strange, where you pick your battles,

edinaI'm _interested_./edina

how bout Sjord's lack of response
to my question.

The red herring is over ---- there. In any case, he hasn't been in the
newsgroup yet AFAIK. But like I said, there's a whole bucket of red
herrings...

Why did you cut the line I was directly responding to (top of page)..
not good.

It didn't change the context, that's why. Add it if you want- it makes
no difference.

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

wrote:

You're the fool. This was about marriage not immigration policy, and,
like I said, there is no US marriage. It is completely controlled at
the state level, just like I said.

Not as it affects immigration policy.

[]

What immigration decides to do about
recognizing a marriage is hardly the same thing.

It's _exactly_ what the post you responded to was about. For goodness
sake, are there no intelligent conservatives out there today?

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk