MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT DEFEATED!!

[JackofTrades]

Seems that the fems are really really pissed...

INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT OF 2003 DEFEATED

http://gopetition.com/msg.php?categoryid=&msgid=127258

INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT OF 2003 DEFEATED The opposition lobby effort claimed that the bill was an infringement on personal privacy rights and an over burdensome restraint on business. The bill required that every man who wished to write an email or letter to any woman (not meet, just to write) must first submit a full background check to every woman and every woman had to sign a written release to have her contact information made available. This was actually the hallmark of the bill and without it, the bill had no real power. This provision would have also curtailed those overseas matchmaking "parties" (where women vastly outnumbered men) since every man would have to have permission from every woman and the organizers of the parties had no real way of tracking every woman who would attend. The provision would also put most of the matchmakers out of business due to the cost of implementation. The opposition made a clear case that this provision is an infringement on privacy and a restraint on citizens who simply wish to write to a person from another country. Also, committee members did not understand how merely writing letters or emails prior to knowing a man's background is harmful to women. Another attack was on the bill's provision that expressly exempted Match.com and other large dating sites from the law. It was argued that this exclusion was unfair due to the fact that the larger firms have very high numbers of foreign woman and American men can easily meet them through these services. The writers of the Marriage Broker Act either did not want opposition from these well-heeled firms or were strategically targeting websites considered offensive to American women and women everywhere. In either case, the writers of the Act were not seen as being genuinely interested in protecting women as much as being interested in targeting the small foreign matchmaking websites themselves. The defeat of the bill is very unfortunate. The writers of the bill spent countless hours crafting language that would accomplish their goals and result in a bill with the greatest chance of passing. They needed to find a way around the issues of privacy infringement, freedom to merely correspond with women, restraint of marriage, and unfair competition between matchmaking companies WHILE having a negative impact on the entire web-based foreign matchmaking industry.

[FLonewolf]

... in response to MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT DEFEATED!..., posted by JackofTrades on Sep 3, 2005

Greetings all, I'm a long time reader, first time poster. This bit of "legislation" p*ssed me off the first time I heard about it. I'm ecstatic that it was given a resounding thumbs down by the powers that be. And yes, after following the link provided by Jack, I could not resist rubbing a little salt in their wounds as well. My post:
The sentance "The writers of the bill spent countless hours crafting language that would accomplish their goals and result in a bill with the greatest chance of passing." speaks volumes on just how bad this legislation was and how blatently discriminatory it was intended to be. Legislation by nature needs to be clear and unambiguous if the preceived ill that it is intended to correct is to be addressed. This bit of intended legislatively enforced behavior management was not and could never be enforced simply by the fact of all the built in provisos that attempted to allow "approved" dating sites, i.e. ones that catered to alternative lifestyles, as opposed to those that specialized in hetro relationships, to continue doing business unfettered.
Our lawmakers, in a moment of clarity, saw through this travesty and recognised it as the product a very narrow special interest group who based on questionable research data were attempting to foist their anti-masculine agenda on the public by removing the constitutional right of a specific group of citizens to associate with whom they choose. This one is a victory for civil rights.

[Stephen]

... in response to MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT DEFEATED!..., posted by JackofTrades on Sep 3, 2005

JACK OFF TRADES:

The defeat of the bill is very unfortunate.

STEPHEN:

No, it's not unfortunate.  Government needs to stay out of people's lives.  Let people take care of themselves.

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT DEFEA..., posted by Stephen on Sep 5, 2005

No, you missed it. Jack was quoting the posting on the other board. It is Alice's (from the other board) opinon that it is unfortunate, not Jack's opinon.

[Stephen]

... in response to Re: Re: MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT D..., posted by Michael B on Sep 5, 2005

Opps.  Sorry about that.  Thanks Michael.

And my appologies to Jack.

I guess "I don't know Jack".

Stephen

[Keith NC]

... in response to MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT DEFEATED!..., posted by JackofTrades on Sep 3, 2005

That is great news!  Funny how this bill didn't include restricting lesbians contacting lesbians.  At least I don't think it did.  

One of my cousins is a Police Officer here in North Carolina.  He told me that he gets alot of calls where he has to deal with lesbians beating the hell out of their partner.  He said that it is usually the masculine looking one that he has to arrest in most cases for abuse.  

What a bunch of angry, bitter, ugly women.  Thankfully common sense was used considering this anti male bill.  I thought liberals were all about freedom of choice.  Maybe that only applies to their perverted lifestyle and killing of the unborn.

Keith

[Michael B]

... in response to MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT DEFEATED!..., posted by JackofTrades on Sep 3, 2005

I sent Alice a reply:

That's great. Good riddence to bad rubbish. How is it any of your business whom someone else marries? It's even less so whom they write to. How is it your concern to "have a negative impact on the entire web-based foreign matchmaking industry"? How is it your right to have a negative impact on ANY business? (unless you're the owner or manager of that business) Don't like a business? Don't like an entire industry? Fine, don't buy their product or service. You can even encourage your friends and acquantances not to buy from them. Telling others they aren't allowed to or placing severe prerequisits before they do is beyond your authority. Nobody died and left you queen of the world. Telling people in other countries what kind of parties they can have and whom they can invite is the height of audacity.....I find it hard to beleive that any sane person could support such a bill.

[Ray]

... in response to MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT DEFEATED!..., posted by JackofTrades on Sep 3, 2005

"The defeat of the bill is very unfortunate"

Yeah, unfortunate for the liberal lesbian feminists with a hatred of men... LOL!