NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Reacts to President Obama’s Immigration Proposal

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 31, 2013

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), released the following statement in regards to President Obama’s immigration proposal:

"This is yet another example of the President playing politics rather than enforcing our nation’s laws and offering a true, workable solution. First, his Administration threw in the towel and refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Then, he came out of the closet on gay marriage. Now, he is apparently proposing a direct violation of DOMA, currying added favor with gay activists, many of whom have lavished contributions on his reelection campaign. Our nation has a lot of serious issues to resolve concerning immigration policy, but providing a safe haven for gays and lesbians from foreign countries in violation of American law is not one of them. Responsible immigration reform includes protecting America’s borders, providing access to needed workers, keeping terrorists out of our country and determining what to do with the millions of people already here illegally. This proposal from President Obama concerning homosexual immigration is not serious immigration reform."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

17 Comments

  1. Garrett
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    I'm hardly in a financial position to be "lavishing" contributions on anyone's reelection campaigns, but ending discriminatory deportation practices will provide stability to my marriage to my (Colombian national) fiance who is an active and contributing member of American society, employing his Ph.D. in Biochemistry to make scientific advances that will protect our crops and our health (regardless of whether you recognize our relationship). Because my husband has an advanced degree, we have it easier than a lot of bi-national same-sex couples when it comes to getting citizenship, but even then it's a much more difficult and time-consuming road than a straight couple would face.

    While I'm not surprised that Brian doesn't consider my family's stability worthy of "serious" immigration reform, I want to remind him that our politicians and government are (or, at least, should be) able to accomplish more than one thing at a time. Recognizing the validity of same-sex relationships during immigration/deportation proceedings doesn't take any resources or time away from the other elements of the President's proposed reform.

  2. Chris
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Brian,

    Please elaborate on exactly why you wish to deport gay and lesbian immigrants.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Same-gender sex partners are of no value whatsoever to society; they only seek to enrich themselves at the expense of societies future - our very survival and existence.

  4. Chris
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Randy E King,

    That's awfully judgmental of you to say, Rand E. King. Please, elaborate as to why gays and lesbians have no value to society and why this means they should therefore be deported.

    Secondly, please tell me how you are able to hold this position without harboring any animus towards gays and lesbians.

  5. Randy E King
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Chris,

    Firstly: Same-gender constructs contribute nothing of lasting value for society within the parameters of their arrangements; such as bringing fourth the next generation

    Secondly: There is no such thing as a "Gay.

    Bastardizing language in order to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity only makes you look desperate.

    Additionally: I am contemptuous of anyone that would seek to impose their depravity on other peoples children; let alone a horde of decadents seeking to create willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes committed against them.

    You have declared war on the right of conscience and free exercise thereof; freedoms source.

  6. Chris
    Posted January 31, 2013 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Randy,

    I don't think I need to further contribute to this discussion; you have proven your animus and shown that NOM's dedicated base is motivated by it's disdain for gays and lesbians using such phrases as "depravity", and correlating teaching tolerance as "imposing". Good day sir.

  7. Stefan
    Posted February 1, 2013 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    Randy, The Chris's and Garrett's of the world contribute a hell of a lot more to society than a simpleton like yourself. You are truly one of the most ignorant, disingenuous people I've ever been exposed to. What on earth will you do in the event marriage rights are extended to same sex couples? What will poor Randy do. You are a pathetic individual and I really feel sorry for you. Impose their depravity on other peoples children. You really believe that. Why does homosexuality disturb you so much? It's as natural as heterosexuality and has been around forever. That's right Randy, they're no different than me and you.

  8. Bobby
    Posted February 1, 2013 at 12:54 am | Permalink

    Thank you for trying, Chris. Too many NOM supporters are beyond hope. The SPLC is most accurate in the way they have depicted NOM. What most troubles me as a Catholic is that NOM could easily be the Westboro Catholic Church. But most Catholic I know do not subscribe to NOM's goals. Goodnight.

  9. Posted February 1, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Garret at least stays on topic - immigration. But animus is not illegal, and might be self-deserved from how SSm is being pushed on the citizenship.

    Garret's argument is that a partner offers contribution to our society. Well, there are hundreds of thousands standing in line waiting for immigration visas - many of whom are anxious to contribute to our society. What's the difference?

    There is a point: One of the potential benefits of civil marriage at the federal level is that a spouse can apply for visas and also Permanent Residence for the other spouse, with quick turn-around. As with almost everything government processes, slow turn-around time is a critical factor. But there are other ways of obtaining these visas or immigration status.

    I disagree with marriage being a 'route' to Permanent Residence and citizenship because it can so easily be abused, now that divorce is so easy to process ($400 to $800?), and lawyers make lots more per divorce, and hardly any per marriage. . . SSm advocates can also see it as an unfair advantage for married couples, because, as Garret expresses: as far as they are concerned, they believe their close friendship is 'equivalent' to a marriage (not equivalent to a close friendship) - and he would claim it is 'equal' to marriage for civil purposes - and then he would point out an inequality in treatment under the law. He believes in this genuinely, no doubt about it. (We always believe what is in our best interest, no doubt about it).

    But, again, we come face to face with the difference between the legal status of civil MARRIAGE and the (federal) lack of status of a non-registered FRIENDSHIP or association (civil, because a couple can get 'married' before God without even a preacher or a witness, but this is religious marriage, and they don't need anyone's approval, and they can be even more loyal to their vows than those getting a marriage license). The bottom line is 'benefits'. If respect is not gained, at least benefits - pay-up!

    For immigration purposes, even if the FRIENDSHIP was registered as a civil union or an RBR (Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationship), it cannot sponsor visas or Permanent Residency as easily as MARRIAGE. But a FRIEND can indeed sponsor a person to obtain visas, depending on financial details.

    So, should we vote to offer the Permanent Residence to all FRIENDSHIPS? S. Koreans don't have immigration quotas (limited # of visas)? Other countries do. Why? It's very complex, and quite unfair. Stand in line, if you'd like. But America is no longer the destination of choice for workers, as before.

    Ultimately, marriage is granted immigration visas easily, again, for the sake of the children that may be engendered by the marriage. Once again, just the 'potential' for engendering children, is the rational basis for immigration benefits at the federal level, because Congress can make it so, perfectly constitutionally, per a Public Purpose.

    Note there's a strong feeling in the US that illegal immigrant blood-related families be able to stay together, if possible. It is a humane feeling, not a law. Once people are in trouble, they ask for clemency. Again, this has to do with assisting the blood-related family, preferentially.

    Again, there are hundreds of thousands (people) in queue waiting for their application for a work visa or Permanent Residency. People who have a degree or money savings, and already work in the US legally, have advantages at getting Permanent Residency. That is based on merit, not marriage.

    Marriage is not the only way to gain immigration status. In my opinion, marriage should ONLY gain a work permit, and never be a route to Permanent Residency - it is begging for abuse. IF only this would be considered, the immigration problem would disappear. But tempt illegal aliens with citizenship, and you get more of the problem.

    As is, one can get a pretty, curvy, Philippine (for instance) bride for $30,000 or less. But once she gains citizenship, she probably divorces you, and by that time she has already sponsored several family members for work visas, etc. All, in the name of 'marriage'. Not good. Just give out work permits.

  10. Posted February 1, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Bobby: That solves the problem -- know very few NOM catholic supporters, and that gives you a feeling most Catholics either don't know or don't support NOM. Far from it. What a naive statistical analysis!

  11. Bobby
    Posted February 2, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Little Man - You can infer whatever you wish from my comments. I never claimed to be introducing statistical data. I know Catholics who support marriage equality and some who are torn by the idea and want to have recognition for gay couples but are hesitant about the term marriage. I can understand where they are coming from and I try to talk through the issue with them. We are talking about civil marriage and so we render to Caesar. As for false claims that churches will have to perform same sex marriages, I tell people the Catholic Church will not marry divorced persons even though civil divorce is legal. The Church also refuses to ordain women even though sexual discrimination is illegal in this country. Yet the Church is not being sued for its positions on these matters. I don't know many Catholics who subscribe to the vehemently anti-gay agenda that NOM supports.

  12. Mikhail
    Posted February 3, 2013 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Bobby, Im afraid they are not real "catholics", just like people who eat pork are not real muslims

  13. Posted February 5, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    As our President, Mr.Obama, you have made some really bad choices and mistakes. First of all, homosexual marriages are an abomination unto God. Leviticus 18: 22-29 thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. For whosoever shall commmit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore, NO, two men or two women shall lie down with each other and call themselves married. this is an abomination. So, you as our President has done an injustice to normal marriages in say that two men and two women can be married and treated as equals. That is deceitful, and an abominable unto God's laws. And, there is no such thing as marraige between 2 same sex people, they are unequally yoked. And concerning our boys and girl scouts of America, there should be some boundaries, our children are in the organizations to make good people and honorable young people of them, girls into real women and the boys into real men. If the homosexuals want to be scouts let them form their own organizations. Why should they tare down what families have started to enrich their children in morals, ethics and righteousness. To bring them up to follow God's laws for them, that they will grow to become real men and real women, someone that God and their parents can be proud of. And now you and these unnatural people want to take away our children's dreams and hopes to be wholesome, healthy and happy children; trying to make a diffference in growing up normal and righteous. We vote NO to homosexual and lesbian marriage and certainly NO to them invading The Boys and Girl Scouts of America, If we stand for nothing then we will fall for anything. Make a difference, stand up for righteousness, you know the difference. How would you like it if your children came to you and said they wanted to marry the same sex. maybe it would make you pleased to have them live this sinful nature. I hope that you will teach them to be righteous, wholesome and honorable, with natural nmorals and ethics. Then we as a whole people and natural people hope you will shut this foolishness down NOW!!!!!!! May God bless you to make the right and honorable decisions, with moral and ethics.

  14. Chairm
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    The SSMers here need to take a step back and be objective.

    Rand referred to sexualized partnerships in which the participants are of the same sex.

    Then Chris and others jump in to protest on behalf of the gay identity group.

    The partnerships. Focus on that. If you focus on the individuals, then, you are not dealing with the SSM issue that is clearly beneath the proposed reform to the immigration process.

    If you insist on focusing on the individuals, partnered or not, then, you will have to show some intellectual and civic discipline in refraining from demanding special treatment based on the supremacy of gay identity politics.

    If you cannot do that, then, your emotional reactions to the immigration issue explain your emotional reactions to Randy's focus on the sexualized partnerships of persons of the same sex.

    In other words, you want same-sex sexual behavior to be rewarded with this change in the immigration process. Now, justify that or throw your hands up and resort back to the supremacy of gay identity politics and be forthright about that instead.

  15. Chairm
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    When the pro-gay commenters display bigotry, somehow we are to be very, very, very tolerant of their foolishness. But when their bigotry is met forthrightly, they stomp their feet and spit at us.

    Look, SSMers, if you want the discussions here to deal with the actual disagreement, rather than with your hyper-emotional outbursts, good, get back to the substance.

    If not, your foot stomping is going to drown out any other SSMer who actually has substance to add to the discussion. You are getting in their way. Think about that as you pout.

  16. Jane J.
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    No true Catholic supports gay "marriage". Bobby and his ilk need to head on over to the corrupt Episcopalians. They accept anything in their church.

  17. Posted February 6, 2013 at 2:22 am | Permalink

    Bobbie: Well, i'll try to understand what it is you are saying, if not presenting your statistical analysis of your PERSONAL view of R. Catholics (you know personally).

    Seems like your goal is to get votes for civil SS'marriage', though the Pope is likely not to agree with your project. And he knows lots more R. Catholics than you do.

    But then you turn to an internal issue within the R. Catholic church regarding the ordination of women (which is protected by the 1st amendment in the USA, and so it is indeed also a civil matter in that sense).

    you are looking for analogies within the R. Catholic church policies to SSm, but you admit SSm is a civil matter, yet try to find analogies or exceptions within the R. Catholic church's domain, decisions which are protected by law, for its own use.

    --------
    But here's the clinch. You say, contradicting yourself :

    "What most troubles me as a Catholic is that NOM could easily be the Westboro Catholic Church. But most Catholic I know do not subscribe to NOM's goals."

    So, if you don't know many, why would it trouble you?
    Because you are just trying to find a way to discredit NOM, and cannot find a way. I can guarantee NOM has lots and lots of R. Catholics who not only subscribe to NOM's goals, but also DONATE towards NOM's goals.

    Maybe you should start being 'troubled' . . . because, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you are losing lots of votes.

    (I know, now you are going to state your purpose is not to look for votes)