OPW – Feb 26 – Maryland men who date or otherwise communicate with foreign women might need
to visit their local police station if House
Bill 596 is passed by the General Assembly. The Bill was recently
reintroduced. If passed, it would require online dating sites to
obtain a copy of police records for men who are citizens of Maryland
and disclose the records to female clients. The Bill will also require the
men to submit their fingerprints if they use the services rendered by
online dating websites internationally. The Bill itself was
introduced by Delegate Benson, who is closely aligned with various
women's rights groups. The Bill, originally proposed in 2008, did not
become law because it expired before the 2008 legislative session
halted. However, Maryland delegates are trying again.
In January of this year, one of the first
bills introduced was The Fingerprint Bill, otherwise known as House
Bill 65.
Violation or failure to comply with these bills could lead to a
misdemeanor. Conviction could result in a fine not to exceed $12,000,
imprisonment not to exceed 1 year, or both. Exchanging
names, phone numbers, addresses, photos, statistics, or otherwise
facilitating communication between a client and a recruit; or
providing a social environment for introducing clients to recruits in
a country other than the U.S.A., is considered to be a
violation. This could be very serious for the social
networking/online dating industry. Michael Parrotte, is one of few
Maryland locals attempting to fight the bill. Stacey Goodman, a Senior Policy Analyst working closely with
Senator Alex Mooney on the matter, told Parrotte that regardless
of how the current Bill is interpreted the intent of the Bill’s
sponsors is to “restrict or even prevent communication between
American men and foreign women for the purposes of dating and/or
marriage”. Parrotte is interested in speaking with anyone from the dating industry who is interested in
the legislation and can be reached at 301.695.8004.
I am 100% in favor of protecting the rights of women. There are some sleazy mail-order bride operations out there but this is a ridiculous bill that I cannot imagine will be passed. What about US men emailing Canada and Mexico?
I am 100% in favor of protecting the rights of women. There are some sleazy mail-order bride operations out there but this is a ridiculous bill that I cannot imagine will be passed. What about US men emailing Canada and Mexico?
Perhaps our American politician friends could realise (for once) that there is a world outside of the continental US that isn’t all terrorists and 3rd World poverty.
There are actually a lot of countries that are (shock!) rated better than the US in multiple ways, e.g. quality of life, longevity, infant mortality, education, life satisfaction, etc.
Heaven forbid that American men in Maryland converse with women from such places!;-)
Perhaps our American politician friends could realise (for once) that there is a world outside of the continental US that isn’t all terrorists and 3rd World poverty.
There are actually a lot of countries that are (shock!) rated better than the US in multiple ways, e.g. quality of life, longevity, infant mortality, education, life satisfaction, etc.
Heaven forbid that American men in Maryland converse with women from such places!;-)
This is why this legislation is really outrageous. It does not matter if the person you are writing has a PHD, makes $150,000 a year, and lives in Toronto, London, Sydney, or Paris. They still want you to be fingerprinted and have both a criminal records and sex offender check. I spoke to an attorney at who is a Senior Policy Advisor (Government Employee) and she actually was honests enough to admit that the feminist groups pushing this bill are really just trying to stop American men from even writing to foreign women, let alone date them or marry them!
Michael
Michael Parrotte
AGV Sports Group
Frederick, Maryland
This is why this legislation is really outrageous. It does not matter if the person you are writing has a PHD, makes $150,000 a year, and lives in Toronto, London, Sydney, or Paris. They still want you to be fingerprinted and have both a criminal records and sex offender check. I spoke to an attorney at who is a Senior Policy Advisor (Government Employee) and she actually was honests enough to admit that the feminist groups pushing this bill are really just trying to stop American men from even writing to foreign women, let alone date them or marry them!
Michael
Michael Parrotte
AGV Sports Group
Frederick, Maryland
Sam,
Read my post above!! You are right on target. This is not about protecting women from abuse it is a simple matter of supply and demand. They do not want American men to have and additional “options”. I may always have believed this before yesterday but when I was actual told this by someone on the inside it moved from belief to knowledge.
Michael
Michael Parrotte
AGV Sports Group
Frederick, Maryland
Sam,
Read my post above!! You are right on target. This is not about protecting women from abuse it is a simple matter of supply and demand. They do not want American men to have and additional “options”. I may always have believed this before yesterday but when I was actual told this by someone on the inside it moved from belief to knowledge.
Michael
Michael Parrotte
AGV Sports Group
Frederick, Maryland
Michael,
We live in an increasingly boundary-less world with the Internet. Even if this bill passes, how could it ever be enforced, even against dating sites based in the US?
It would be practically impossible to monitor, let alone, enforce. What – some spurned American woman is going to report a guy in Maryland who was writing to her, who then switched to a hot blonde based in Australia? How would she know who he was writing to besides her, in the first place?
Or, some MD gov’t bureaucrats with lots of time on their hands are going to scour dating sites, trying to get MD-based men to admit they are writing to foreign women?
Who dreams up such idiocy?
Sam
Michael,
We live in an increasingly boundary-less world with the Internet. Even if this bill passes, how could it ever be enforced, even against dating sites based in the US?
It would be practically impossible to monitor, let alone, enforce. What – some spurned American woman is going to report a guy in Maryland who was writing to her, who then switched to a hot blonde based in Australia? How would she know who he was writing to besides her, in the first place?
Or, some MD gov’t bureaucrats with lots of time on their hands are going to scour dating sites, trying to get MD-based men to admit they are writing to foreign women?
Who dreams up such idiocy?
Sam
Anyone actually bother reading the law? It says in big bold letters dating sites are exempt.
INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER” DOES NOT INCLUDE: 1
(I) A TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER THAT OPERATES ON 2 A NONPROFIT BASIS AND OTHERWISE OPERATES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 3 LAWS OF THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT OPERATES, INCLUDING THE LAWS OF THE 4 UNITED STATES; 5
(II) AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE 6 BASED ON GENDER OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TO ANY PARTY FOR THE SERVICES 7 PROVIDED; OR 8
(III) AN ONLINE DATING SERVICE.
Anyone actually bother reading the law? It says in big bold letters dating sites are exempt.
INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER” DOES NOT INCLUDE: 1
(I) A TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER THAT OPERATES ON 2 A NONPROFIT BASIS AND OTHERWISE OPERATES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 3 LAWS OF THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT OPERATES, INCLUDING THE LAWS OF THE 4 UNITED STATES; 5
(II) AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE 6 BASED ON GENDER OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TO ANY PARTY FOR THE SERVICES 7 PROVIDED; OR 8
(III) AN ONLINE DATING SERVICE.
Markus!
You need to read the ammended version where dating sites were struck out of HB65! Read SB129 and there is no exemption there!
The strike out does not copy!
SB129 says….
(2) “INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER” DOES NOT INCLUDE: 7
(I) A TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER OF A RELIGIOUS 8 NATURE THAT OPERATES ON A NONPROFIT BASIS AND OTHERWISE OPERATES IN 9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT OPERATES, 10 INCLUDING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; OR 11
(II) AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE 12 BASED ON GENDER OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TO ANY PARTY FOR THE SERVICES 13 PROVIDED. 14
(G) “MARITAL HISTORY INFORMATION” MEANS
Nothing about dating sites there!
Markus!
You need to read the ammended version where dating sites were struck out of HB65! Read SB129 and there is no exemption there!
The strike out does not copy!
SB129 says….
(2) “INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER” DOES NOT INCLUDE: 7
(I) A TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER OF A RELIGIOUS 8 NATURE THAT OPERATES ON A NONPROFIT BASIS AND OTHERWISE OPERATES IN 9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT OPERATES, 10 INCLUDING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; OR 11
(II) AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE 12 BASED ON GENDER OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TO ANY PARTY FOR THE SERVICES 13 PROVIDED. 14
(G) “MARITAL HISTORY INFORMATION” MEANS
Nothing about dating sites there!
Markus,
This legislation is being amended almost hourly. Regardless of what past version you may have read I assure you that as now written this new law WILL certainly cover online dating sites if they do any of the following.
1. Have profiles from members that are not US Citizens
2. Has any users in the State of Maryland.
3. Ever offers a different program, billing, or terms to anyone based on gender of location.
This means that if Match.com ever did a promotion of any type with different terms at all, even a weekend special, Valentine’s Day promo, etc. they would be covered, Match.com like all major sites certainly have profiles from foreign nationals and does business in the State of Maryland.
Under this law a Canadian is no different than a Ukrainian, Columbian, or Philipino.
I have had several well qualified attorneys study the exact wording of the legislation as it is now written.
Yes it is insane, but it is true!
If you would like further details please contact me.
Michael Parrotte
301-305-5050
michael@agvsport.com
Markus,
This legislation is being amended almost hourly. Regardless of what past version you may have read I assure you that as now written this new law WILL certainly cover online dating sites if they do any of the following.
1. Have profiles from members that are not US Citizens
2. Has any users in the State of Maryland.
3. Ever offers a different program, billing, or terms to anyone based on gender of location.
This means that if Match.com ever did a promotion of any type with different terms at all, even a weekend special, Valentine’s Day promo, etc. they would be covered, Match.com like all major sites certainly have profiles from foreign nationals and does business in the State of Maryland.
Under this law a Canadian is no different than a Ukrainian, Columbian, or Philipino.
I have had several well qualified attorneys study the exact wording of the legislation as it is now written.
Yes it is insane, but it is true!
If you would like further details please contact me.
Michael Parrotte
301-305-5050
michael@agvsport.com
This is a good move. All people who subscribe to dating websites (any website that allows people to search for others, which is also called “stalking”) should be subjected to a background check, determining criminal activity and marital status. This would be a good move to distinguish social networks such as MySpace and Facebook from the dating websites. Too much datefishing in places where many users do not desire it. If people want to datefish online, hold them to personal accountability.
This is a good move. All people who subscribe to dating websites (any website that allows people to search for others, which is also called “stalking”) should be subjected to a background check, determining criminal activity and marital status. This would be a good move to distinguish social networks such as MySpace and Facebook from the dating websites. Too much datefishing in places where many users do not desire it. If people want to datefish online, hold them to personal accountability.
“Under legislation scheduled for votes Thursday, people would be less likely to be hauled directly to jail for smoking marijuana, shoplifting, destroying property or committing one of a series of other misdemeanors. The matters would be handled with citations, with an expectation that the suspect would later show up for court.
“We wanted to look at the situation holistically,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), one of the lead authors of the legislation. “There are 170,000 to 180,000 people each year who are arrested in Maryland and not all of them necessarily need to be incarcerated.””
“Under legislation scheduled for votes Thursday, people would be less likely to be hauled directly to jail for smoking marijuana, shoplifting, destroying property or committing one of a series of other misdemeanors. The matters would be handled with citations, with an expectation that the suspect would later show up for court.
“We wanted to look at the situation holistically,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), one of the lead authors of the legislation. “There are 170,000 to 180,000 people each year who are arrested in Maryland and not all of them necessarily need to be incarcerated.””
This is a case of Maryland politicians wasting the taxpayers dime in pursuit of a feminist doctrine of hatred.
1. How is this even enforceable?
2. A law which only affects one group is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
3. The intent of the law is to restrict men from communicating and meeting women from foreign countries.
a. That’s a free speech issue.
b. Touches on unreasonable search and seizure.
c. Violates right to be secure in person and papers.
d. Restricts the human right to reproduction (for males).
e. Implies that a problem exists which does not. This in itself is a smear on men and attempts to blame all men for the actions of a few (if any).
f. Reveals the lie of feminism that women have no power or representation. Any male politician will put forth whatever sexist legislation that women want to look better in the eyes of women and out of fear of the opposite.
This is a case of Maryland politicians wasting the taxpayers dime in pursuit of a feminist doctrine of hatred.
1. How is this even enforceable?
2. A law which only affects one group is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
3. The intent of the law is to restrict men from communicating and meeting women from foreign countries.
a. That’s a free speech issue.
b. Touches on unreasonable search and seizure.
c. Violates right to be secure in person and papers.
d. Restricts the human right to reproduction (for males).
e. Implies that a problem exists which does not. This in itself is a smear on men and attempts to blame all men for the actions of a few (if any).
f. Reveals the lie of feminism that women have no power or representation. Any male politician will put forth whatever sexist legislation that women want to look better in the eyes of women and out of fear of the opposite.
will they call it the misandry bill? This is the most rediculous piece of rubbish I’ve ever read. Men in particular are more likely to be victims of online dating fraud, paternity and marriage for visa and immigration scams. Whoever the feminist fool is that wrote that should be removed from office never to touch a pen or keyboard regarding legislation again. Shame on ANYONE who supports this peice of misandry.
will they call it the misandry bill? This is the most rediculous piece of rubbish I’ve ever read. Men in particular are more likely to be victims of online dating fraud, paternity and marriage for visa and immigration scams. Whoever the feminist fool is that wrote that should be removed from office never to touch a pen or keyboard regarding legislation again. Shame on ANYONE who supports this peice of misandry.