Thursday, January 21, 2010
By Dave Root

How far out of touch with reality are women legislators anyway?

That’s exactly the question being asked by citizens (women and men) regarding a proposed bill in the Maryland General Assembly, that would restrict men’s rights to use dating sites to meet foreign women and will likely spur copycat legislation in other states.

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio , Vice President of the women’s caucus is leading 35 other delegates (all women) on a campaign for passage of HB 65, that would shockingly require Maryland men to submit their fingerprints and other background information before they can initiate communication with a foreign woman if they use an “International Marriage Broker”.

A close examination of the fine print reveals the bill is littered with false, misleading, and inaccurate information. Nobody is being traded or sold as the title, “Regulation of Marriage Brokers”, deceptively implies. The truth reveals these are merely dating sites that provide names, addresses and phone numbers so that a Maryland citizen can initiate communication (as in saying “hello”) with a foreigner.

Punishment for violations of the law include $12,000 fine and or up to one year imprisonment.

The drama that has unfolded since the controversial bill was introduced reads like a war script. The attack was announced on January 4, 2010, in a AP news release , “MD lawmakers push for restrictions on mail order brides”.

“The battle for Maryland, round 2” has begun, stated “Bronxman” who posted his comments along with a chilling image of a fingerprint on the website “Online Dating Rights”, a group opposed to the law.

Almost immediately, the controversial law caught the attention of WBAL (Baltimore) popular talk show host, Shari Elliker, who asked Delegate Jeannie Haddaway- Riccio to be on her radio program, January 6. During the program, the MD Delegate seemed to be reading from a script. After citing a few cases of foreign women abused and treated like commodities, a caller (David) cast doubt on her assertions by stating “ …You have anecdotal evidence that this or that might be happening , and I don’t believe anybody is actually purchasing a human being.” The host repeatedly criticized the bill, stating the government should not be regulating these types of things (dating and communication).

Meanwhile, Delegate Haddaway- Riccio continues to promulgate the law as a parrot for the same activists groups who successfully promoted the federal International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, a similar but less obtrusive law. The promoters of both the federal and state laws have made sensational claims that American men who date foreign women are rapists, wife beaters “many are premeditated torturers”, even though a 1999 INS study shows the abuse rate in International marriages is one seventh the abuse rate in domestic marriages.

Promoters also have suggested that American men are purchasing foreign brides through the Internet, another hoax.

The Maryland law requires male matchmaking clients to provide an array of personal and criminal information to a foreign woman, making them vulnerable to identity theft, blackmail and other crimes. Also, the law fails to protect American men from immigrant scammers who often file false charges of abuse so they can obtain citizenship.

So what exactly is the mindset of MD women legislators who are going after fictitious “marriage brokers” surreptitiously masking the reality of a law that regulates men’s communication, and could land them in jail for a year – just for writing a love letter?

Just like the National Organization of Women, the MD women legislators have their own self serving political agendas, absent the needs and concerns of average women and men constituents they are supposed to represent.

Well, the next logical step, if the Maryland law passes, would be for the taxpayer funded activist groups to mobilize a campaign to get similar laws passed in other states.

In the meantime let it be known that writing a letter- including a romance letter, is a legitimate activity and the government has no right to enact laws that place restrictions on relationships and communication occurring across international boundaries.