We also have federal laws which require people to wait in line. Last week, I got three comments to my post entitled, “Sex Discrimination”. This post concerns S.424, The Uniting American Families Act. The dispute between me and those who commented center on whether the act really unites real families, or if it is all about encouraging people to engage in sinful behavior and giving them special privileges just because they do.
The bill would add “or permanent partner” after each instance that the word “spouse” is used in laws concerning immigration. The term “permanent partner” is defined in the bill as follows:
The term `permanent partner' means an individual 18 years of age or older who--
`(A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment;
`(B) is financially interdependent with that other individual;
`(C) is not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, any individual other than that other individual;
`(D) is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act; and
`(E) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual.
`(53) The term `permanent partnership' means the relationship that exists between 2 permanent partners.'.
The term “intimate relationship” clearly indicates that sexual activity is a requirement that one must complete in order for one to benefit from the privileges of this bill. Now, not only does the federal government, in enforcing this law, have to make judgment about whether or not the potential immigrant is really having sex with the “permanent partner”, it must also make a judgment about whether the quantity of sex and degree of intimacy is enough to be considered an “intimate relationship”. Such a subjective choice will nicely tie up the courts while matters of real importance are set aside. But even it’s worse than that! “Both individuals intend a lifelong commitment”. The federal government must able to read the mind of the applicant and well as the mind of the “partner”. This is a lawyer’s dream.
But the issue of the vagueness of the law is not nearly as important as the fact that it encourages and rewards sinful behavior (Jude 1:7, Leviticus 20:13). What if someone has homosexual tendencies, but because of religious upbringing and conscience chooses not to engage in sodomy? If the other requirements of “permanent partner” apply, then this individual is penalized for not becoming a sodomite! If people are desperate enough, they may lie and say that they are “intimate” with a U.S. citizen just to get into our country. This bill, if it passes, will tempt people to lie and break the law. Do you seriously think that law enforcement can actually prevent this without greatly violating people’s privacy rights?
I am not saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., but why shouldn’t they have to “get in line” just like everybody else? But what liberals call “equality” really means that sexual activity, the intention to have some undeterminable amount of sex in future, and lying are rewarded while people who don’t want to sin against God are discriminated against. Homosexuals are made “equal” with heterosexuals at the expense of virgins and those without a “partner”.
If anyone knowingly supports such an idea which encourages sin in this way, that person deserves death and is condemned to hell (Romans 1:26-31) just as the one who actually engages in the sinful behavior itself (1 Corinthians 6:9). I don’t expect the liberals to believe what the Bible says, so I will end this discussion now. I have probably already thrown too many “pearls before swine” with these two articles.