I married young, at 19, bright-eyed and hopeful, and in a few months, we will celebrate our 29th anniversary. Like all marriages, we have had our share of happy and sad, growing together as the years passed us by. My husband is my best friend, a wonderful father, a hard worker, a great provider, treats me like a queen, and loves me unconditionally. He is my soul mate in many ways. My husband is also gay. I had no idea when I married him. I was a virgin on our wedding night and had never had any type of physical relationship prior to my husband. Having nothing to compare it to, I thought our sexual intimacy was normal. It was fun, sexy, enjoyable. My husband was a giving partner, and I almost always experienced orgasm. But as the years went by, the frequency of our sexual activity became less. It was not unusual to go months without sex — not for lack of trying on my part. We rarely fought, but we would fight about the growing lack of intimacy. I often wondered what it was about me that made my husband not want to have sex with me.  And then one day, shortly after our 25th anniversary, I found gay porn on his computer.  At first he denied everything, but finally, through tears, he confessed that he’d had these same-sex attractions as long as he could remember. In his teens, a church counsellor had told him marriage would “cure” him. Feeling as though I had just been punched in the gut, I was heartbroken. I felt betrayed, confused, angry, sad, and yet, miraculously relieved.  There was nothing wrong with me — I was just not his type. The emotions flew through me leaving my head and heart confused. What now? I loved this man with every fibre of my being. We had a good life together, sex aside, and had built a family. We were happy. I did not want a divorce and neither did he. Question: After the end of this story, the author is probably: Options: - the man's type   - still relieved about her discovery   - not enough information   - still believes something is wrong with her === The correct answer is
still relieved about her discovery

WHITE HOUSE/BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS — A day after U.S. President Donald Trump reversed a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there is a plan to reunite the more than 2,000 children who have been detained apart from their parents. "We have a plan to do that," the secretary told reporters at an event in Washington Thursday morning. Shortly before she spoke, a VOA reporter at an immigration court hearing in Brownsville, Texas, said prosecutors dropped misdemeanor charges against 17 migrants. The migrants, who were separated from their children remain detained, but dropping the charges could be a means to reunite them and allow the families to be detained as units. David Bier, an Immigration Policy Analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said if government prosecutors are dropping criminal charges in similar cases across the immigration court system, it calls into question the Trump Administration's 'Zero Tolerance' policy towards immigration. It's "an even more clear signal that the whole purpose of bringing these prosecutions is to separate parents from children and not about enforcing the law." he told VOA. The administration's policy requires that anyone who crosses the border illegally face criminal charges. "If it continues to be the case that some of these cases or many of them are dismissed by courts – that should be the end of the policy," Bier added. The moves come as the House of Representatives prepares to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills that address the separations, as well as other issues that have divided the country's major political parties. Nielsen repeated her calls for lawmakers to act. "I want to be very clear on this. Congress has the authority and responsibility to make the law of the land and to fix the immigration system," the secretary said. "We have done everything we can do in the executive branch." The outcome of the votes is uncertain. One measure is more hard-line, while the other... Question: Why is the House voting on an immigration bill? Options: - To address the family separations   - To address the dropping of charges against the immigrants in Brownsville, Texas   - To address increasing the immigration quotas   - not enough information === The correct answer is
To address the family separations

U.S. President Donald Trump says he is considering tariffs, quotas, and retaliatory taxes on imports of steel and aluminum from countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea. The comments came during a wide-ranging trade discussion Tuesday between Trump and a bipartisan group of lawmakers at the White House.  The president said U.S. steel and aluminum industries are being "decimated" by the "dumping" of cheap imports of those materials into U.S. markets. Trump has long threatened what he calls "reciprocal" trade action to deal with steel, aluminum, and other imports.  But he has so far avoided taking any major steps, ostensibly out of fear of hurting the country's strong economic performance since he took office.  Several lawmakers on Tuesday urged Trump to be cautious when considering retaliatory trade steps, saying such measures could spark a trade war that leads to higher prices for U.S. producers and consumers.  "It's very, very much a double-edged sword," Trump conceded.  "I want to keep prices down, but I also want to make sure that we have a steel industry and an aluminum industry," he added.  The Trump administration is currently renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement with South Korea.  Trump called the U.S.-South Korea deal "very, very bad" and "horrible." He also said Canada has "treated us very, very unfairly."  Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department sent a so-called "232 report" to the White House, examining the national security impacts of steel and aluminum imports, and giving Trump 90 days to impose quotas or tariffs.  Under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the president can initiate a probe to determine if imports threaten national security.  "It's about our economy," Vice President Mike Pence during the meeting. "It's about our national security."  Trade was a major topic for Trump during the presidential campaign he vowed to impose a 45 percent tax on Chinese imports and a 35 percent tax on Mexican imports. Question: What does Trump think of the NAFTA Options: - He thinks it will endanger national security   - He thinks it will hurt the economy   - not enough information   - He thinks it is good business === The correct answer is
