So living in Brazil is "horrible"?

So bad that people might go gay to get to stay in the USA?

Let's tackle the big issues first, shall we Glenn?

Smoke a joint... get shot or go to prison for years.

And you expect a country like that to do what?

LOL!

Glenn,

Have to admit, that is just another example of something that a straight guy like me just would never think about.

I dated a girl from Brazil for a period and we spoke briefly about marriage. I take it for granted that I will encounter no problems if we had decided to get married.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

I hope in a few years (if not sooner) we will look back at this period and say, "what were we thinking?"

via the faith based fraud?

As President Obama prepares to unveil his version of President Bush’s faith-based program and introduce a new advisory council for it, there is little indication that he will deliver on his promises to remedy its inherent constitutional problems in a timely way. "Changing two words in the name does not make this a new program," said Ron Millar, acting director of the Secular Coalition for America. "It still begins with 'faith-based' and it still ends up giving taxpayer dollars to religious institutions."

The Secular Coalition for America lobbied for closure of President Bush's White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives on the grounds that providing federal funds to religious institutions is a violation of church-state separation and a threat to individual religious liberty. Faith-based funding under the Bush administration: privileged religious groups by giving them special access to federal dollars; failed to monitor whether funds were used to evangelize or convert recipients of social services; and failed to ensure that organizations receiving federal dollars did not discriminate by hiring only those individuals who share their religious views.

So far, President Obama has offered no specifics on how and when he will address these constitutional problems he himself has identified in the sprawling, multi-agency program. What is known is that he will give it a new director, appoint an advisory council to oversee it, and order a legal review of hiring practices. "Giving the same, flawed program a new name and new personnel is not the change we need," said Millar. "Not another taxpayer dollar should be spent until all the constitutional and civil rights concerns are addressed."

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m2d5-Secular-Coalition-responds-to-Obamas-faithbased-funding-plans

So living in Brazil is "horrible"?

Yes. That was the point of what I wrote. You have a very impressive ability to really get right to the crux of the matter.

There was actually a time when the comment section to my blog wasn't drowning in abject stupidity of this sort.

Among the litany of legal inequalities to which gay Americans are subjected, the denial of immigration rights for their foreign partners is among the most blatantly unjust, destructive, and outright punitive.

I have a dear friend in the same predicament, having met his partner in another country, but is unable to live in the States with him because our laws will not allow the man to immigrate to our country as my friend's permanent partner. Yet, another friend of ours had absolutely no trouble marrying a Ukrainian woman and winning her a green card relatively quickly. (They have since divorced while my friend and his partner are still maintaining a strong long distance relationship.) The double standard is a disgrace and reflection on American sexual immaturity and needless fear. All American citizens should enjoy the right to marry and have children with whomever they choose, and the fact that sixteen other countries have seen fit to allow their own citizenry the legal right of immigration for their same sex permanent partners only highlights the enduring problem of American homophobia.

for you and the thousands affected by narrow-minded immigration laws.

Kudos to Brazil for getting it right. The only ideology we should recognize is that of what's good for humanity, and I don't mean just the majority, I mean all of it.

Congress, take note. If Brazil can do it, we can, too, regardless of any hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that may emanate from social conservatives. Do what's right for a change. Pass this bill.

Glenn, I don't think there is any reason to be dispassionate. You've been doing a great job reporting how well 'dispassionate' media is doing with any number of issues. We need people who actually care and show it.

I met my Cuban born partner 10 years ago and we fought for his ability to stay and work here for virtually all of that time. I know it's supposed to be easier for Cuban nationals, but only if you come directly from Cuba to the states. Stop in a third country and all bets are off.

American immigration is a convoluted process that insults the most basic human standards. Because legal immigration is made difficult if not impossible, it makes criminals out of those who would otherwise be law-abiding taxpayers. Immigration law needs serious reform on every issue, especially when dealing with the rights of gay and lesbian families.

The good news is that last December my partner became a U.S. citizen.

There was actually a time when the comment section to my blog wasn't drowning in abject stupidity of this sort.

Drowning? I prefer to think we're treading the noisome water of stupidity - although one can hardly blame you for firing off such a categorical dismissal in this instance.

So you you are saying that drugs have been decriminalized in all nineteen of those countries on the list Glenn mentioned?

Will is a native New Zealander. We met here in the U.S. and the hoops we had to jump through in order for him to stay, we thought, were absurd. We retained an immigration law team which included a former immigration official. It was expensive, but the peace of mind was worth it.

Will has mentioned several times over the years that, had we been a gay couple, our story would not have ended so well. We probably could have been together in New Zealand, but I would have been forced to choose between my partner and my children in that case, as their father understandably did not want them moving 8,000 miles away.

You are absolutely right in calling this a humanitarian issue. I understand why you refrain from bringing up issues that affect you so personally, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. But I'm really glad you publicized this. There are many people in your situation here in the U.S. who do not have your influence; you are not only speaking for yourself, but for them.