Not only does Maryland's HB65 deny Americans all such protections, it unilaterally transfers them to foreigners. What would George Washington say? -- Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®
Annapolis, MD (PRWEB) March 5, 2010
Buckeystown, Maryland -- Maryland businessman Michael Parrotte was outraged to learn that, in January 2010, his state, in pursuit of big-government control, had trampled the US Constitution with Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65. He discovered that these unconstitutional twins, birthed by feminists, were intended to restrict "romantic" contact between Maryland men and foreign women. Ironically, by couching the misandrist legislation in gender-neutral language, Maryland lawmakers stomped on all American women in Maryland who date foreign men. Parrotte provides details at http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.
The Maryland bills, as originally proposed, would have required each American citizen, before beginning any communication with potential foreign paramours -- even anonymous communication through a dating Website -- to provide them fingerprints, criminal and sex-offender records, and a complete marital history. Not only are foreigners, even those located in the US, not required to reciprocate their personal info to Americans, they are free to disseminate and publicize the Americans' information on the Internet.
According to Michael Parrotte, the Maryland businessman trying to defeat these bills: "I can't believe this pernicious government intrusion into private lives and total disregard for American rights. When will it end? This is yet another example of politicians buckling to radical feminists. Our lawmakers were so politically correct that they unwittingly rushed through an unconstitutional monster that will equally punish women. And, when women learn of this, these politicians will become unemployed in the next election."
The bill's chief author, Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio (R), ostensibly modeled it after the federal International Marriage Broker Act of 2005 (IMBRA), which, according to many, is unconstitutional. Apparently, IMBRA isn't invasive enough -- its background-info requirement isn't triggered until the foreigner invokes it. HB65's requirement for personal information from Americans, on the other hand, is always active.
Senator Alex X. Mooney (R), who was instrumental in delaying the passage of SB129, is curiously in support of unilateral protections for foreigners. In a letter to Michael Parrotte, he wrote: "I was not prepared to support or offer an amendment to require foreign countries to provide similar records when contacting a United States citizen through these services."
Marc H. Rudov, globally known author, radio/TV personality, and men's rights advocate, opined thusly: "The US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, confers upon American citizens certain protections from tyranny: presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from self-incrimination. Not only does Maryland's HB65 deny Americans all such protections, it unilaterally transfers them to foreigners. What would George Washington say? The sole purpose of Maryland's nonsense is to help radical feminists bash men who prefer non-American women. The solution is to kill these bills, period. Not dilution, not modification, not amendment. Just kill them altogether."
For more information about killing Maryland's SB129 and HB65, go to http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.