en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/758850 Comments by unattendedbag https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/tent-cities-in-haiti__trashed/#IDComment69998553 Ok I got stuck on the pedicure thing. I understand that there's not much else to do because everything's been destroyed, but really, a pedicure? I'm SURE there are better ways that money could be used. It has to be hard to give up some of the luxuries you used to be able to indulge in, but couldn't that money be used for food and other necessary supplies? I guess I expect that when people are trying to recover from a natural disaster they're using every penny they have to survive, but maybe that's just the ideals of someone who's never gone through anything even close to this magnitude. I was just kind of surprised by this. Can anyone offer any insight or do you have a theory as far as why they're spending money on things like this? Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:24:19 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/tent-cities-in-haiti__trashed/#IDComment69998553 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/300000-whats-it-mean-to-us__trashed/#IDComment69993858 I think people's reaction to the situation in Haiti is because they don't have a direct connection to it. Its hard to comprehend a loss of life on that scale so most people kind of do the minimum (get bracelets, give a little money, etc.), but then they move on. You really can't expect people to do more than that when they don't feel a pull to do more. A lot of it may have to do with the fact that we've been exposed to a lot of devastation in our generation--9/11, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, etc.--and we may have just become desensitized, like it's just another day to us. And it seems like stuff is happening so often now that if you do choose to go the extra mile and donate your time to one cause, how do you choose which one to do? What makes one disaster more deserving of your attention than another? So maybe it's just easier for people to do the minimum for everything that way you have no guilt and you do a little something for everyone. Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:10:03 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/300000-whats-it-mean-to-us__trashed/#IDComment69993858 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-health-care__trashed/#IDComment69990210 The new healthcare system should be open to U.S. residents and citizens. Why should people who are here illegally benefit from the same things as legal people living in the U.S.? I understand that most of these people come to the U.S. to have a chance at a better life and that they are often escaping oppression, wars, famine, and other problems in their country, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do things, and sneaking into the country illegally is definitely the wrong way. If illegal immigrants can receive the same things as U.S. citizens then what would motivate anyone else to become residents or citizens? A lot of people go through a lot of trouble and hardships to become legal citizens or become legal residents and they do it so that they can receive all of the benefits that this country has to offer, but if there are other people coming into the country through illegal means, what's the point? If people know that they can come in and get healthcare without having to do the paperwork and the other things, I guarantee we will see a huge increase in illegal immigration in the next few years. I don't want people to get confused with what I'm saying. I don't have anything against illegal immigrants. They do a lot for our country's agricultural economy as far as increasing the amount of produce that is available to send to market. A lot of people complain that they are taking money away from Americans that could use the jobs, but do you really think that companies didn't initially try to give those jobs to Americans? We're a proud group of people and there are a lot of jobs that we won't do. It seems that working out in the sun all day picking fruit is one of those things that people aren't willing to do. That seems more like a work ethic problem in citizens than it sounds like an illegal immigration problem. If they want to be here and are going to be productive members of society, then I don't really have an issue with them. I just think there needs to be some limitations as far as the things they can take part in while living here under an illegal status, and healthcare is one of those things. It may sound selfish to want them to work here to benefit our economy, but not help them if they're injured or sick, but I promise you that is not my intent. I just believe that some things need to remain options for only legal residents and citizens. Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:58:04 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-health-care__trashed/#IDComment69990210 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/women__trashed/#IDComment68454097 Honestly, I'm not sure what you've been watching from Hollywood that portrays "all women". There are very, very few women with average body types on TV and even when they are on TV, they're either in smaller roles or their weight or "averageness" is written into the show as something for them to overcome. One example is Ugly Betty. America Fererra, who plays Betty, is probably one of the few women on TV with a "normal" body shape and they're always tossing in jokes about her weight or how she doesn't look like everyone else. They even poke fun at her being Latina in some of the lines. And as for the "voluptuous" women, do they usually have the serious, main lead actress role? No. they play the slutty mistress or the bad girl in school or something along those lines that plays up their sexuality. Maybe don't watch enough TV, but I really haven't seen anything that shows average women in a positive way. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:11:22 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/women__trashed/#IDComment68454097 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/the-tyranny-of-radical-muslims__trashed/#IDComment68453166 I feel bad for her husband and the other Muslims who have to deal with these generalizations. I think a lot of it is the media's portrayal of the religion. You never hear anything about the peaceful messages in the Qur' an or about the correlations between The Bible and The Qur' an. The only passages you ever see are the ones talking about" waging war against the infidels". Unfortunately, this is what the majority of the public sees and what the majority of Muslims who are peaceful are subjected to. The best I can say to her husband is that it's ok, we don't all see Muslims that way. I know it must be hard on him to have to see images like that and to see his people portrayed that way. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:01:53 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/the-tyranny-of-radical-muslims__trashed/#IDComment68453166 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68452265 Ok so I thought about this while I was "a Muslim, in my seat in my college in the Middle East." Sam mentioned that we (as Americans) should understand that all Muslims aren't radicals, the same way Christian radicals aren't a representation of all Christians. So why isn't the same true for Muslims living in Iraq and other areas? Why are they allowed to watch youtube videos and make the wrong assumptions and we can't? Not that I'm saying we should all take youtube videos at face value, but more along the lines of why isn't it their personal responsibility to understand that radicals represent the minority as far as Christians go too? I know that it's hard to look at people in a positive light when you feel like you are being invaded by them, but it's a necessary part of tolerance and understanding. I know a lot of people struggle with looking at Muslims without some kind of resentment toward them because of 9/11. I never really had any of those feelings after the attack. I guess I understood that it was only a select few, who had decided to take certain passages from the Qur'an and misconstrue the message. But how do people even know what a Muslim looks like? Are you REALLY good enough to be able to identify someone from the Middle East? Because there are a lot of other people who "look like Muslims" and aren't from the areas where the people responsible are from. Do people even take into account that a lot of people from the Middle East are Christians? And what does a terrorist even look like? There are terrorists in many societies that don't look anything like the people who committed the 9/11 attacks. So how can you justifiably dislike a certain group of people when you can't even accurately identify them and you don't know anything else about them? I was kind of surprised that Sam didn't bring up 9/11 in the lecture. I think it would have been an easy way for us to understand the connection between the "Christian invaders" and the ""Muslim radicals". I know it was hard for a lot of people to put themselves in the seat of a Muslim college student in the Middle East. Maybe it would have helped if we could have stayed American college students and used 9/11 as a catalyst it would have been easier to make a connection. Besides, Sam did say he was going to provoke us in this lecture, so I was expecting something of that magnitude. It's possible he didn't because some people would have put there emotions first and then we wouldn't have gotten anywhere in the discussion. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:53:06 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68452265 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/i-really-want-to-know-also__trashed/#IDComment66915025 I think some people confuse what Sam is doing with trying to change your mind or make you see things his way. That's not the point. His job is to get you to think about things from a different perspective or bring topics to you that you had never heard before. It's up to each of us to take what he says and do as we will. There are going to be some people in the class who are going to listen to the things Sam says and go home and change something about what they do and there are others who are going to think about it and decide that what they're already doing is how they want to stay. Both of those are acceptable options as long as you take the time to THINK about what it is he's saying. You can agree, disagree, be offended, be angry, be sad, be whatever you feel just as long as you take the time to figure out WHY you feel that way. There is nothing wrong with being content with the way your life is and how you see things--stay inside of your bubble. But you need to look through the clear exterior of that bubble at the world around you. Most likely, whatever you do in life is going to put you in a place that is different from where you grew up and it could help to be able to see things from other people's perspectives. I think a lot of your reception of the class topics has to do with how you grew up. If you've never experienced any of these things first-hand or don't know anyone who has been through these things, then you may not be open to the discussions and the emotions that come along with them. You can't help where and how you grew up and it's good that you never experienced discrimination, but for the people that have, these topics hit home and it's hard to understand why people aren't more interested in trying to do something about it. So to those who have had these experiences, try to understand what it must be like for those who haven't had your experiences. It's hard to build emotions and a desire to make changes when all you can base things off of is an hour long lecture. It's just your job to see what the issues look like from the outside. I think we all have different roles in this class and what you take from the lessons is up to you and your willingness to expand your knowledge. Just think about it. That's all Sam can ask of us. Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:43:54 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/i-really-want-to-know-also__trashed/#IDComment66915025 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-women-issue__trashed/#IDComment66882824 Honestly, no it doesn't change my mind about affirmative action. Maybe it was just my perspective, but I never really felt like affirmative action affected me or anyone I knew so I never had a reason to support it. I find it interesting that this question was posed to the Black and brown people as opposed to the whites. Wouldn't it be better to ask THEM if it changed their opinions about the program? Every time admissions come up I always hear at least one person say something about "They probably only got in because of affirmative action. It's not fair. I'm sure there was some White person that didn't get in because they took their spot." Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I'm not saying that ALL white people say these things, but I have heard it before. So what I want to know is what happened that led people to believe that this mainly benefited Black and brown people? Why isn't it known that it benefits white women? And so what if it did benefit an inner city Black kid? Would it really be so bad to give them an opportunity to get higher education and get them out of a bad living situation? Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:01:42 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-women-issue__trashed/#IDComment66882824 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-happens-to-multiracial-people__trashed/#IDComment63095316 With as many mixtures of races as there are in the world, I think it would be doing to much to try to address all of them, even in class. I know it doesn't seem fair to "force" people who are mixed to choose to identify with either white or black/brown, but I don't think anyone's doing that. Honestly, I think that people of mixed race have some of the best insight into what it is to be either group because they have seen it from both sides. One of my friends is half black and half white and when we've had discussions about race, she has been able to speak from both perspectives and I really appreciate her input. I think it's up to each person and how they identify themselves. Do they see themselves as a part of a single group? Or can they provide insight from multiple perspectives? It's up to them what they choose to do. But I think it's unfair to expect Sam to be able to cater to everyone. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:06:39 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-happens-to-multiracial-people__trashed/#IDComment63095316 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/does-this-rudeness-thing-cut-both-ways__trashed/#IDComment63093028 To answer the question posed with with post: yes this rudeness does go both ways. There is no need for these types of rude and stereotypical comments in that forum, especially in a class like this. This class is about race relations and trying to understand and bridge he gap between different races. Why are you even in this class if you're not open to making a change? This goes for both White and Black/Brown people. As for the question posed by the guy in this clip. I have noticed the same thing. But the same way that Black/Brown people verbalize their feelings toward these comments, Whites are free to do the same. I'm not sure why people have kept silent or choose to retaliate by chastising the person on the forum. But just do whatever feels right to you. If you're offended, do something about it. Don't just sit there and take it. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:59:18 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/does-this-rudeness-thing-cut-both-ways__trashed/#IDComment63093028 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63090084 She brings up an interesting point. We already know that history is written by the victors, so the stories that we are told in history classes about groups such as the Native Americans always seem to be a desensitized version that justifies what was done as being "for the good of the nation" (at least it does to me). I know history class isn't necessarily the place for emotion, but it always seems like we're just given the cut-and-dry version of what happened. I have to wonder if this isn't some form of 'white guilt'. If it wasn't, wouldn't more of the true suffering and hardships people faced be talked about instead of just brushed under the rug? So in some sense, I think it was removed from the history books is some sense. Before people get their panties in a bunch over this, understand that this has happened for other events in history too. If we hadn't won the Revolutionary War do you think it would be romanticized the same way in our books? The same goes for the Mexican-American War and other events in U.S. history. It makes sense to edit things so that you don't look like the 'bad guy'. After all, who would be sadistic enough to write about themselves in a villainous manner? Now of course you can't just go and completely erase certain events from history without causing an uproar. At least not as long as there are still people who know the oral history of what happened--the knowledge of what was passed down from family members. But who knows what things will be like in the future? Maybe there won't be enough Native Americans left to object to the removal of their past from the history books. Or maybe there will be some major events that will happen in the future that will overshadow what happened back then and it will be removed from the books to make room for these new events. There's no way to know right now, but it'll be interesting to see how the history books change in the years to come. Maybe this is part of the reason why Whites cannot fully comprehend the experiences of people of color and why they are so passionate about the struggles they face. If you haven't grown up in a place where you were readily exposed to people of a different culture, then the only other place you make seek references from may be history. But you can't know the real, complete truth from the books. What's in the books is only a small portion of what really happened. Yes, it's made clear that what was done was wrong, but it doesn't even begin to do justice to the true suffering people have faced. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:48:36 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63090084 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/a-long-long-way-indeed__trashed/#IDComment59969559 Yea ok so I feel like it needs to be said that people like Beyonce and Jay-Z, and yes even Alicia, are not doing anything for the Black community. They make money by singing and rapping about frivolous things. You don't see people who talk about real issues like Talib Kweli, Lupe Fiasco, and Erykah Badu topping the charts with their music because they are talking about real life issues and who wants to hear about that? The people you see on MTV are just music industry fabrications. Going back to your original point, I think that at first slave owners would be astounded at the fact that Blacks have made it into such public and successful positions, but after being a part of our society for some time and learning the innerworkings of it, I think they would say that those people are nothing but Sambos. Maybe if you gave examples of Black congressmen, Black CEOs, or Black poets (especially since Blacks weren't allowed to learn to read or write in those times) it would change my feelings about your statement. But that's just my opinion. Who knows, maybe Bey and Jay would suffice? Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:41:00 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/a-long-long-way-indeed__trashed/#IDComment59969559 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59967564 Why is she receiving death threats? She's not making any unwarranted assumptions, not demanding the closure of all Hollister stores, so why is she being threatened? They told her point blank that she was going to be fired because of her scarf, even after she explained that it was for religious purposes. CLEARLY, Hollister is in the wrong. That is blatant discrimination. Essentially, they are baring anyone who wears anything on their head for religious purposes from being hired. But why? I've been in Hollister and I have to admit that the pungent odor of recently showered perfume throughout the store and the 'fresh off the beach' look of the employees doesn't appeal to my taste. And I can see how her hijab wouldn't fit that style, but what's she supposed to do? She has to wear it (or chooses to, whichever you prefer). They know from day one that she would be wearing it to work so why was she even hired then? Not hiring her probably would have had the same negative result for the company, but they brought it on themselves. What's the point of making such a big deal about seeking diversity and trying to better understand the customers if you're not going to hire certain people that match part of your demographic? It's all just ridiculous and I can't say I'm surprised. Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:19:56 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59967564 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment59966028 Maybe it's just me but doesn't it seem like Ms. Philips is trying to get the people she's interviewing to 'admit' that it does change the whole situation because the people who engaged or encouraged these actions are minorities? She basically asked that question twice, just rephrasing it a little each time. What difference does it make if the students were minorities? *On a side note, women are a minority. So if the person who admitted to participating in the noose incident was referring to that fact when she said she was a minority, it negates any assumptions that she should get a 'pass' for what she did* It just shows that there is a problem on the cmapus. Maybe it's not the expected 'white vs. black' situations most people have come to expect when they hear about racist incidents, but they were still actions that were seen as offensive by a large population of students. Maybe it's even a greater problem because it involved minorities. Has our society really become so insensitive that the struggles people faced and the stereotypes placed in different groups have become jokes? Are we really so ignorant as to think that no one would be offended by such actions? If so, then this isn't a problem with one person, or one school. It is a problem that needs to be addressed by our society as a whole. It wouldn't be an easy task and the results wouldn't be seen immediately, but I believe there are some simple things we can do to start a change. Expanding discussions like the ones in the Race Relations Project and SOC 119 out into the community could be a start. I know that the people who come to these types of things are the ones who are willing to listen and have something to say and there are always going to be those people who are not willing to do either. So then it is our responsibility to take what we've learned form each other and share it. Eventually, regardless of whether or not they agree with what you have to say, people will listen--and that's the first step toward the change we need to see. Also, I have to say that I'm disappointed that he left the teach-in. He's right, a two hour teach-in is not enough to fully address the issues on campus, but it shoes the administration cares and that they aren't just trying to brush the issues under the rug. Shouldn't he be proud that the school took measures to make the issues known to the public and is taking a proactive step towards making a change? He should have stayed, especially as the leader of the Black Student Union. It is his responsibility to take what is said at and learned from the teach-in back to his membership so that they can decide if a more appropriate course of action is needed. But because he was not there, he does not know what was discussed and what, if any, progress was made. And who chose him to speak for the entire student body anyway? What has he done in the community to warrant this? Also the Black Student Union is not the only group affected by these issues. Why not have a panel of several minority organizations and even some non-minority groups. Only having him makes this seem like a 'black thing', when really it affects everyone on that campus. Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:04:14 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment59966028 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment58905847 This is great for this tribe, but it only benefits THIS tribe. I'm left to wonder if this tribe will share any of its new-found riches with any of the other tribes across the country. Even a few thousand dollars to one tribe could mean the difference between having cold water or hot water at home, and even having any running water at all. I'm not saying that in any way it is their responsibility to give to the other tribes, but I think it would be a responsible way to spend some of that new-found wealth. I pose the same question to all tribes that have found wealth through oil, casinos, or anything really. Again, it's not a responsibility, just a responsible thing to do. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:21:04 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment58905847 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/inequality-class-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58904328 I have to ask if it's fair to even put this on white people? Black people do the same thing. We constantly size each other up and make blind assumptions each other. Unless I'm wrong, what you're implying is that when Whites do it, it's because of racism. What makes it okay for Blacks to do this? Isn't anyone making an unjustified judgment of a person wrong? Why should the color of the person making the assessment matter? I don't think this is ever going to stop. It is not within most people's comfort zones to go up to someone they've never met and ask them about themselves and most people would think there was something wrong with a person if this was done to them. So instead, we assume. And I'm sure you've done it a few times yourself too. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:06:36 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/inequality-class-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58904328 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/when-do-we-do-or-say-something__trashed/#IDComment58901625 Before I really get into this, I want to say that I can see the point of view of the guy who made the initial comment about it not being his place to say something because his parents taught him to respect people and their property. But I think that he could easily say something, but do it in the right way. Instead of yelling and cursing at the store owner, he could calmly explain how his denial or service and comments offended him similar to the way the older gentleman did. Getting your point across to someone doesn't always mean that you have to yell and scream and stamp your feet. Sometimes a calm and well articulated dissent is more effective. Now into how I really feel about it. I think that people like that who would sit back and do nothing are the reason why the world is the way it is today, with so much open bigotry and hatred. The fact that there are so many people willing to just sit back and watch fellow human beings be treated that way really bothers me. I think we are so complacent with the way our individual lives are that we are unwilling to take a step out of our comfort zone and step into the world of activism, even on such a tiny scale as standing up for a single person in need. Now going back to the suggestion I made to the student who said he wouldn't do anything. I do feel that yelling at someone like the store owner is unproductive. All it's going to do is turn into a shouting match. The points that you try to make will come flying out of your mouth and immediately fall to the floor. None of it will reach the person you are trying to change. Most likely no matter how you present your opinion, the person is going to continue going about their life the same way they always have, but maybe you can have enough of an impact on them to reconsider why they feel that way. Lastly, not to beat a dead horse, but how would you feel if you were in that woman's place and you were being denied service for some unvalidated reason? What if the man had assumed you were Jewish and in his store Jews were not served, but in fact your were Christian. This is essentially the same thing that had happened to that woman. An assumption was made that this woman was a terrorist because she is clearly Muslim. At one point the store owner even said "how do I know you don't have a bomb in that box?" Is that really the way an American citizen, or any person for that matter, deserves to be treated? At the end of the day, each of us must make a decision as to what we would do. But I could not sit back and do nothing. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:37:19 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/when-do-we-do-or-say-something__trashed/#IDComment58901625 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment57715229 Honestly, I feel like most people in my generation don't even know what it truly means to be Democratic/Republican or Liberal/Conservative. I'm glad Sam hit on this topic in lecture because I'm so tired of people sitting around campus having empty arguments about the economy or taxes or healcare or whatever the major issue of the day is. They don't even know all the details and only spout whatever it is that they heard on CNN or the news last night. Few of them have managed to have an original thought. It really became apparent to me in the last presidential election. People voted one way or another for basic reasons like "Look what the Republicans have done to our country in the last 8 years. Let's give the Democrats a chance." What kind of twisted logic is that? Is that really what you're going to base who you vote for off of? I think it's great that our generation has taken an active interest in political issues and has increased voter registration, but what's the point if you're not going to be a positive contribution? Coming out to vote isn't enough. You need to understand what it is that you are really voting for, or else our country is better off without your vote. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:28:01 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment57715229 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment57714070 I definitely agree with what you said about political figures not watching what they say. Honestly, it's not like they go into these speeches/town halls/whatever without consulting with people about what they are going to say. I can IMAGINE that anyone said "Yeah go ahead. That animal analogy is perfect. It'll come across great." Not a chance. Somewhere along the line that analogy should have been scrapped. Maybe he thought that it would be okay to say something like that to the specific audience he had, but he had to know that he would be in the national spotlight when he's trying to take over Mark Sanford's position. It's just irresponsible and I'm tired of these half-ass public apologies. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:13:52 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment57714070 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/another-reason-why-gay-marriage-matters__trashed/#IDComment57711532 This is one side of the fight for gay right I had never thought of before. It had never occurred to me that some of the couples would be international, but I'm sure that there are a number of couples that are comprised of one or more international person. It's already hard to get your citizenship, but it must be impossible if you are in a gay/lesbian partnership. As Jay said, immigration laws don't recognize gay marriage. I assume this is because the US government does not recognize gay marriages. Although same-sex marriages are granted in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont. However, because these marriages are not recognized by the US, they cannot be used to apply for citizenship. What happened to this family is so sad. You can see that their children are still traumatized by what happened to their mother. Of course it's going to affect a child to see their mother taken away in handcuffs with no explanation. I have to ask if that was really necessary. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to send Shirley a subpoena saying that she had to appear in court for her illegal immigration? I doubt they feared that she would flee. Why would a woman with a partner and two young children run away? Or if they did feel the need to go to her house, why couldn't they have just explained to her that she was in violation of immigration laws and that they needed her to accompany them? They handcuffs seem like overkill. It's terrible that the government treats families like this. True, they may not be legal immigrants and they do not live a "conventional" lifestyle, but they are still people and they deserve to be treated with some respect. It's terrible that a woman who has been through so much is subjected to this when she thinks she has finally escaped all of her problems. This woman had escaped from the Phillipines where her mother and sister had been murdered. The man who had killed them was constantly being released from jail and she didn't feel safe. She thought she could come here and start a new life, and she did for some time, until the government came into her home and threatened to tear her and her family's lives apart. The Uniting American Families Act is designed to get rid of the discrimination against same-sex couples in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would allow permanent partners of US citizens and lawful permanent residents to get permanent resident status in the same way as everyone else and penalize immigration fraud made in connection with permanent partnerships. The bill would also provide the offspring or stepchildren of the foreign-born partner. I hope this bill gets passed. I hate that people who do not have citizenship, but are positive contributions to our society cannot live here in peace. So what if they're from another country? They deserve a fair chance to succeed like the rest of us. If you remember, we're all from different countries. The only ones who truly belong are the Native Americans. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:55:03 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/another-reason-why-gay-marriage-matters__trashed/#IDComment57711532