Join the Conversation at Our New Home on Facebook!
We’ve recently re-launched Immigration Equality’s Facebook page! Click here to visit us, become a fan and join the conversation! We’ll also be adding regular updates about our work . . . actions you can take to help our families . . . and the latest news.
Log on now, make new friends, and join the growing Immigration Equality family online.
Nice one, folks.
Re LGBT issues & the “fierce advocate” adminstration (stole that bit from Rachel Maddow, you gotta love this girl!): John Barry, the highest-ranking openly gay official in the government gave an impressive and very moving speech today to fellow members of the Department of Justice. The link to the Advocate’s summary and reprint is here:
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid89581.asp
This gives me some hope after all the stalling and hemming & hawing of late that some people in the high ranks do give a shit about our rights. Berry is in a good position to make himself heard by the powers that be.
Comment by Tim — June 11, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Anyone know what’s happening in the NY state legislative body? How will it affect the NYS vote for gay marriage?
Comment by Joe — June 12, 2009 @ 5:41 am
Rumours are that they will vote on it next week, Joe.
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 5:48 am
I read yesterday that the new senate president wants to put on the senate floor next week, but I think the new “majority” wants to kill the bill then. And I am pretty sure the whole “push” was about that.
Comment by tom — June 12, 2009 @ 6:09 am
NY, I don’t know what is going to happen there because they are in the midst of a coup, 2 democrats have supposedly left the party to join the republicans.
I’ve written Sen. Menendez, NJ, he is a co-sponsor of UAFA but I don’t think he has it included in his version of immigration reform bill. Sen. Honda does include UAFA it in his … I’m confused on how this works, are all the reform bills on the table when they discuss immigration reform??? And how do we get included in his version? I’ve written him several times and just get his standard … he supports UAFA, but is very vague on how it applies to his bill.
Comment by bkbzipper — June 12, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Thanks Tim (3). Just want to know if I’m still wanted in my state (NYS) or not. I saw a local (NY channel 1) TV show last night showing 29 legislators Against and 20 In favor, of Gay Marriage for the State (NY).
Comment by Joe — June 12, 2009 @ 8:34 am
does anyone know how long it takes how the congresman or his staff to respond on the email
Comment by robert — June 12, 2009 @ 8:38 am
What do you all think of this: http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
Comment by Jude — June 12, 2009 @ 8:48 am
wtf is wrong with obama, i think it is time to go march in dc, and fight for our rights.
i can not belive this article is truth yet, omg.
Comment by robert — June 12, 2009 @ 9:02 am
I don’t know what to make of the article Robert linked to. If true, I’m absolutely appalled. I’m still hoping this is some kind of hoax by the GOP but if other sites report the Justice Department defending DOMA as well, then Obama can kiss his LGBT community votes goodbye for 2012.
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 10:16 am
I have read the entire brief filed by Obama’s Department of Justice. Folks, let me tell you, Obama does not just defend DOMA, he defends DOMA SO vigorously that it will turn your stomach! This is it. Obama is a proven “fierce advocate” against gays and against equality. One has to wonder how come someone, a product of interracial marriage, who would never have come into personhood but for Loving v. Virginia, has grown so ironic and prejudicial.
We cannot turn a blind eye to Obama’s active promotion of hatred and discrimination against LGBT community. But today, let us celebrate Loving Day. The video presentation (and music) is so beautiful and profound that it should make a mutt like Obama ashamed of himself for his stance on DOMA and marriage equality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzUEqjvORJc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstoryonly%2F2009%2F6%2F5%2F738705%2F%2DWGLB%2DPresents%3A%2DMaking%2Da%2DFederal%2DCase%2Dout%2Dof%2DUsPerry%2Dv%2E%2DSchwarzenegger%2D&feature=player_embedded
Comment by Rick — June 12, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Change.org have also got the rightup re Obama’s views on gay marriage http://gayrights.change.org/ How does this effect the UAFA bill? so frustrating to read articles like this after all the good work that has been done by everyone towards progress for equal rights!
Comment by Kathleen — June 12, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Lest we forget, DOMA is the reason why legislation like UAFA is needed in the first place. This is very bitter indeed but it also highlights why it is so important to get the Hate Crimes Bill passed this year. It would establish the LGBT community as a suspect class and could help to form a basis on which to file a lawsuit against DOMA and DADT again. Make no mistake though folks: this is a serious breach of trust from the “fierce advocate” and could do irreparable damage to his standing in the community. Even his biggest critics wouldn’t have seen this one coming.
Quote from the Advocate: “What is disappointing about it, is that it’s not a sophisticated finely-tuned argument made after examining the president’s prior statements,” says Richard Socarides, a New York lawyer who served as an advisor to President Bill Clinton on LGBT issues.
Socarides said the scattershot nature of the brief suggested that it had not been reviewed at “the highest levels” of the department. While he called that “inexcusable,” he found a glimmer of hope in the spokesperson’s remarks.
“The legal brief is more aggressive than I’d like to see,” he said. “But the DOJ statement, which references the president’s stated desire to see the law repealed, seems appropriately calibrated. They are in a tough spot. It’s made all the more difficult by inaction on the legislative front. A DOMA repeal bill should have been introduced in January.”
This probably leaves GLAAD’s lawsuit against DOMA dead in the water.
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 11:47 am
i just hope and pray it is just politics, he did not shy away from our money when we donated for his campaing, he better not forget that
Comment by robert — June 12, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
More coverage of UAFA and a wee poll on marriage equality:
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-liimmi1112856456jun11,0,1384415.story
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Re the DOMA defense: I now read some law experts say the case by the Californian couple was badly presented by their lawyers and that the Obama administration’s response to the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management filed by GLAAD will be the one to watch out for. They have to file their response by June the 29th. Even so, reading the DOJ’s response to this current case chills the blood.
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
At least Bush was up-front about his homophobia. This? Is preposterous. Doing nothing was bad enough; actively calling our relationships invalid and saying gay marriage would be a DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY after bailing out the auto industry, banks, housing… I feel physically ill. I didn’t expect miracles from Obama, but I sure didn’t expect an outright slap to the face.
Comment by Kai — June 12, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
yea even cheny is ok with gay marriage, what a shame for obama, comes 2012 i would rather vote for sarah palin then him
Comment by robert — June 12, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
@Tim. How would hate crime legislation establish gays as a suspect class. Does it also need to be recognized as such by courts? Also, although the Smelt case is not backed by major players and may be poorly presented, it invokes the same equal protection principles as the GLAD’s suit in Boston. So I don’t see any reason why Obama would not use the same false arguments against GLAD.
Comment by Rick — June 12, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Do you think that we could be jumping the gun here about Obama? has there been an offical press relese? untill IE have commeneted on this matter I think we should wait and see! I might be wrong who knows? but I thought this might be interesting to view http://www.365gay.com/uncategorized/a-friend-in-the-white-house/
Comment by kev uk — June 12, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Finally HRC is getting more vocal about Obama’s lack of LGBT support: ““We call on the President to send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese
WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, issued a statement today regarding the Obama Administration’s decision to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a gay couple who married in California. Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who were married in California on July 10, 2008, filed a suit in federal court in December challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Administration responded yesterday.
“The Administration apparently determined that it had a duty to defend DOMA in the courts. The President has just as strong a duty to put his principles into action, and end discrimination against LGBT people and our families,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We call on the President to send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress,” he added.
Since taking office in January, President Obama has taken bold steps to deliver on principles and promises he articulated during his campaign. In just his first six months in office, President Obama has signed the Lily Ledbetter Act into law, paved the way for life-saving stem cell research, eliminated barriers to women’s health and reproductive care abroad, expanded insurance coverage for millions of children, ended the torture of detainees, and called for the notorious prison at Guantanamo Bay to be closed. However, this community is frustrated by the Administration’s silence, until today, on a critical matter that the President voiced support for during his campaign—repealing DOMA.
“President Obama must see that this extraordinary record of commitment to the public good at last be extended to end discrimination against LGBT people,” said Solmonese. “Mr. President, you have called DOMA ‘abhorrent’ and pledged to be a fierce advocate for our community. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, it is time for you to use your leadership to translate these principles into meaningful action.”
HRC also has grave concerns about the arguments that the Administration put forth in this case, arguments that simply do not reflect the experiences that LGBT people face or the contributions that they make. The Administration’s brief claims that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental. The brief further claims that DOMA is a “neutral” federal position on same-sex marriages, and permits the states to determine on their own whether to recognize same-sex marriages. The most alarming argument, grounded neither in fact nor in law, reads as follows:
[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage. DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.
“Same-sex couples and their families are not seeking subsidies,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We pay taxes equally, contribute to our communities equally, support each other equally, pay equally into Social Security, and participate equally in our democracy. Equal protection is not a handout. It is our right as citizens,” he said.”
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
LGBT Legal And Advocacy Groups Decry Obama Administration’s Defense of DOMA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 12, 2009
Contact: Paul Cates, ACLU
We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.
We disagree with many of the administration’s arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.
We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be “neutral” with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states. There is nothing “neutral” about the federal government’s discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of “neutrality” ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive. It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA. For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality.
When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.
Signed,
ACLU
GLAD
Lambda Legal
NCLR
HRC
NGLTF
Comment by Rick — June 12, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
and it is official we have another bigot for president,
we need to march people to dc enough is enough.
Comment by robert — June 12, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
and they call him a leader of the free world, the world where we have no rights.
wow wow what a freedom leader
Comment by robert — June 12, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
Strongly worded and very appropriate statement from Lambda Legal et al – if this is, as rumoured, a strategy to win over moderate and GOP voters for the healthcare reforms, it could backfire terribly on this administration. I’ve given up on Obama at this point but believe and hope that at least some people in the government have some decency and principles left instead of using the LGBT community as a pawn in feeble political games. Wish I could take part in the march when it happens; I think with this development it’s now only a question of when it happens and not if.
@kevuk, the “friend in the white house” video is the excerpt from the NBC interview in which the “fierce advocate” just reiterated his equal but separate stance. His words were phony then and they are even phonier now. Do yourself a favour mate and look to other people in the administration for true principles (Nadler, Leahy, Abercrombie, Paterson etc). Obama is a two-faced liar.
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
I couldn’t agree more, Tim. I used to feel such a sense of pride and (dare I say it, hope) when I saw President Obama on the TV over here in England because I felt like FINALLY the US was going to enter the 21st century with regard to civil rights for ALL. Now whenever I see him, I feel the same way I used to feel about George W Bush whenever he appeared on the tv. In fact, I feel even worse because at least you knew where were with the Republicans. There is nothing worse than being betrayed by someone you considered a friend.
Comment by Jude — June 12, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
@Tim, just to clarify, Nadler, Leahy, et al. are not a part of the administration (unless they’ve quit their jobs in the last few hours and gone to work for Obama). Administration refers to the executive (presidential) branch of the government.
Comment by Rick D — June 12, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
I am so disappointed in Barack Obama. Enough said.
Comment by Ben Gardent — June 12, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
@Rick, my bad. Thanks for pointing it out
Wonder how our UAFA supporters in the Democratic party took the news. Anyhow, folks, I’m off for tonight. Trying to get my mind off that depressing news.
Comment by Tim — June 12, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
@Tim, talk about a deja vu. Didn’t DOMA came about the same way? Clinton administration move to pass a larger bill, in an effort to do so, passed DOMA to gain support of the Republicans? But you know what, we’ll keep on fighting that’s all I can say.
Comment by Alex. A — June 12, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
It is certainly disappointing to hear the official briefing from Obama adminstration about DOMA. But hey, don’t lose hopes, guy. The existence of DOMA is what makes the existence of UAFA. DOMA affects gay American couples. We must not be discouraged, we should be realistic, I have a feeling that the worst part is coming from the Obama administration, i ceratainly have started to lose hope and my faith in Obama, I still keep trying to justifify his silence on gay issuuse, and I am ready and prepared for Obama’s true color on gay issues. Anyhow, and again, don’t get discouraged, we are fighting for UAFA, and imagine when UAFA is passed, we can only get to the same level as those gay American couples’ status, which is free of fearing being deported and torn apart from our American partners. Forget about the Obama adminstration. It is a long shot for DOMA to be repealed, unfortunately, but UAFA does have a chance to be passed. Keep your hopes up, don’t give up!!
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 12, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Don’t lose hope I mean, sorry! Grammatical mistake
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 12, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Before you lose hope with the Obama adminstration. I think we should all calm down and be realistic, it is certain disappointing to have read the 50 page briefing on DOMA, but we have to realize that the only way to repeal DOMA is to introduce a bill that overturns the DOMA, just like UAFA, I think at this point, it is very hard to chanllege the federal court in a attempt to argue the constitutionality of DOMA since DOMA is a federal law now. I am not trying to justify the Obama adminstaration, but I do believe it does have certain logical aspects attached to it. The spokesman of the Department of Justice said in the following interview:
““As it generally does with existing statute, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books,” said Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler. “As you know, the president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of DOMA, but until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it’s challenged.”
I guess what the spokesman is saying is that the administration is being respectful to the exisiting DOMA fedreal law until the advent of a bill that will overturn DOMA”. So guys, maybe we should not jump to the gun to quickly and say Obama is a bigot because it is unrealistic to expect Obama to implement an excutive order to repeal DOMA, we know it is just impossible and it is a fanstay to think about that possibility. The repeal of DOMA will probably go through the same procedure as other bill, like UAFA, it will have to be introduced, and it will have to gain momemtum and sponsorship, and of course, one adventage we have is that Obama has said he would repeal DOMA, and we have to hold him accountable on that promise. So realistlically speaking, the passage of UAFA seems to be more practical and real than the repeal of DOMA, which so far affects gay americans. Let’s be hopeful and real about DOMA, but at the same time, UAFA’s passage is probably more contructive and realistic at this point, and again, do not lose hope while being realistic.
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 12, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Chung, I agree with you. I hope there’s a congressman will introduce a bill to repeal DOMA.
Comment by Dennis — June 12, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Yeah, when could that happen I wonder?? I am so tired of waiting,,
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 12, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Bill Maher is right. Obama is a TV star now. Every time you turn on your tv, you can see Obama walking his dog, spending time with her wife and daughters. It’s a actual Presidential family show.
Comment by Dozel — June 12, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
This is a moment of clarify for LGBT community. It’s not just Obama’s decision to defend DOMA that raises grave concerns. Obama’s unbridled condemnation of gays in federal court is so vile, so hateful, and so chilling that it should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that he is a “fierce advocate” against equality and a public “enemy” of LGBT community. Let’s keep it real: Obama has passed the point of no return with LGBT community.
Comment by Rick — June 12, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
For us at least, even more disappointing than the Obama Administration’s stance on DOMA is Obama’s strategy on immigration. For a second time now, Obama has indefinitely postponed WH talks on immigration reform. It doesn’t look good good for CIR this year.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-puts-off-immigration-meeting-indefinitely-2009-06-12.html
WTF is going on?
Comment by nola — June 12, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
No immigration meeting, no suprise. What’s new with Obama? The same broken promise one after another. But you know what, being the political whore he is who has defrauded voters, he will not be easily let off the hook by so many latinos who put him in the White House.
Comment by Rick — June 12, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
@nola, doesn’t the article actually say “The White House had planned the meeting for June 8 originally and rescheduled it for June 17. It is being rescheduled for next week, according to a White House official.
“The meeting will happen soon and a new date is being set,” the official said.”
If it is confirmed that immigration talks are postponed indefinitely, you can bet that the Latinos won’t take kindly to it. But let’s remember: they still have half a year to introduce the CIR bill and I feel it’s key that this still happens in 2009. Someone else, I think it was Kathleen, asked if the defense of DOMA had any influence on UAFA and other immigration bills: I don’t think it will have any bearing on our bill so I wouldn’t panic about this.
Oh, just noticed the quote from the spokesman here: “(…) but until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it’s challenged.” This confirms that they will also say no to the GLAAD case. It also proves that Obama is trying to play this both ways: keeping the moderates and GOB voters happy by defending DOMA and hedgeing his bets by saying that Congress will introduce a DOMA repeal bill at some point. It’s the same strategy with DADT, i.e. both policies will continue until the repeal is in place. I agree with Rick that yesterday’s news and the certain defense of DOMA in the GLAAD case will have been the tipping point for many in the community. The frustrating thing is that he has also made it that much harder for aspiring Democratic candidates in future elections to earn the trust of the community even if they may be genuine in wanting to help gays and lesbians in America. If John Kerry were to run again, my partner and I vote for him. He definitely has a proven LGBT rights track record. I’d need to see more of the positive action that Hillary took lately before she fully convinces me that she means business.
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 4:25 am
Have a look at this folks: this interview with Lawrence Tribe about the DOJ defense of DOMA makes for interesting reading.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid90000.asp
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 4:49 am
Thanks for the update Tim.
Comment by Kathleen — June 13, 2009 @ 6:43 am
CNN – Michael Honda debates the Reuniting American Families Act:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seJ5qku5ICw&feature=channel_page
Comment by osman — June 13, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Yes Tim (40, 41) Thanks! This sentence from that article, to me, is particularly sobering and instructive: “The important point here is that the solicitor general traditionally seeks to dismiss lawsuits against federal laws whenever there is a plausible basis to do it. A lot of the outcry about the administration’s position doesn’t take that institutional reality into account”. The way I see this issue (DOMA) NOW, it is in a very gray phase, and Pres Obama hasn’t engaged himself YET. The current activities are propelled by the “Obama administration” without his (Pres. B. Obama, PBO) actual and full attention and intention. But that is my tendency, to give him (PBO) the benefit of the doubt, AT THIS TIME. Of course I’m open to counter arguments.
I think it would be more productive for us (this IE group) to be writing to allies (like John Barry) to thank them for their attention and support and urge them to keep it up, rather than to feel dismayed that we’ve lost PBO’s personal support. That would only paralyze us into doing nothing in our own eventual interest.
Comment by Joe — June 13, 2009 @ 10:12 am
@ Osman (42), thanks. Hhhmmmm…Wow, the video highlights the courage of Rep M. Honda in including our UAFA in his bill. No need to say how much we should be grateful to him, but more important to say that we should all write to him as well as write to our friends and family, especially those from Rep. Honda’s bailiwick (District 15 in Calif, Sta. Clara County, from Milpitas to Gilroy near San Jose) to send him emails and letters of support and thanks.
Comment by Joe — June 13, 2009 @ 10:25 am
@Joe, I agree we need to focus on getting UAFA passed in whichever form. DOMA’s defense by the DOJ won’t likely impact the chances of the bill.
But going back to the administration’s defense of it in the Smelt vs the US case: on dailykos, another lawyer, Lars Thorwald, explains the government has to defend the statute if there is a legal basis to defend it. Which, I imagine, will make the GLAAD case quite interesting in that word is that it has been extremely well-prepared and stands on much better foundation than the Smelt case. In other words, GLAAD’s lawyers have apparently been able to prove that DOMA IS unconstitutional. At the very least, the DOJ is going to have a much harder time to cook up arguments in defense of DOMA on this one. This makes me wonder whether there is a possibility in the GLAAD case that the government may not have a legal basis to defend DOMA in which case they’d have to NOT defend the legislation in this instance. This is all just speculation on my part, of course. What doesn’t help is that there is contradicting statements on the net as to whether the government has a duty to defend the statute or has the choice not to. I’m going to try and get a definitive answer if I can.
In any case, it doesn’t let Obama off the hook. The brief was signed by the White House and the language and argumentation in it was appalling. Apparently a former Bush lawyer and a Mormon at that wrote it. I have a hard time believing that Obama and other big shots in the administration were not aware of the content of it. What angers me most is that it’s a fucking goldmine for Maggie Gallagher, her cronies at NOM, Pat Robertson et al. Whichever way you cut it, Obama is still responsible for this.
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Well, first of all, has Obama ever said he supported Gay Marriage? The answer is NO. So, while still very disappointing, since he could have just shut the f*ck up instead of defending DOMA, we knew and know he will not support Gay Marriage. But like I always say, he’s said he is for Civil Unions instead (of course, now I wonder if he really is…). So, if Civil Unions give us the same rights, why worry? It’s just the SAME thing, different name! If keeping DOMA will keep the GOP happy, and we still get Civil Union, we’re all happy. Of course, we gotta get Civil Union to be equalled…
In Argentina (and I think it’s the same most everywhere), when you get married (straight… since there’s no gay marriage at federal level here), you go to the Civil Registry Office, where you get the “legal” marriage, which is nothing but a civil union. Then, if you want, you can get married in Church too. So “marriage” is just a term, a word, with no legal value, and no different from civil union. So, once again, we shouldn’t be worrying too much about it now. Let’s face it, Federal Gay Marriage will not happen in the US anytime soon, but Federal Civil Union may…
That said and clarified, we should still focus on UAFA. We have good chances of passing this bill, and we shouldn’t be distracted by other issues. Let’s have the rest of the GLBT community, which is not really involved in UAFA (and some are even against it, believe it or not), deal with marriage or civil union. They are, anyway, one step ahead of us, since at least they can live together as partners… so let’s first be on their same level, and only then join them against DOMA.
Amen! LOL
Comment by Diego — June 13, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Amen!! indeed…LOL!!
UAFA!! in need…ROFL!!
And for those who want to follow this all the way to the US supreme court from the (near) very start, you may find this article as intriguing as I have: http://www.nolanchart.com/article6496.html
These 2 people (Boies and Olson) are either the ultimate champions of our civil liberties, or…the ultimate demons in perverting profound causes…I tend to believe the former.
Comment by Joe — June 13, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
I totally agree there with you Diego.I am Brirish, living in US, and in UK we have civil union(Gay marriage,its same thing as hetero marrige,same rights,but different name).And I personally think “MARRIAGE” is a hetero concept any way!!
So long we get UAFA passed ,we’ll winn a big step towards gay equality rights..
Lets hope,work hard,and keep fingers Xd,that It’ll be soon.
Comment by meeran — June 13, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
I agree with the disappointments so far, but lets really work on keeping up pressure to pass UAFA or RFA… we really need to step it up and be heard… and try to get more and more support from anyone that will help us.
Comment by bkbzipper — June 13, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
Let’s be clear: the reason why Obama’s defense of DOMA is so damaging is that DOMA directly affects bi-national couples like us here. What if CIR fails? Then getting rid of DOMA would be our plan B. That’s why Obama’s unqualified support of DOMA makes me so mad!!!
Comment by Rick — June 13, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
@Diego and meeran, guess I’ll have to disagree on whether the term marriage matters or not. Yes, marriage is a civil contract first and foremost and no one can get married in a church without signing that little piece of paper first. That is something the folks who cry about marriage being a religious affair really ought to remember. But anyway, even if civil unions in the US afforded gays & lesbians the same rights and benefits that straight married folks receive (and you are right, civil unions here in Britain are legally marriage in all but name, quite a unique situation in the world actually – nowhere else are civil partnership laws so comprehensive) it is still not true equality. Language does matter, but I’ll get to that in a minute. The point is, if you go as far as giving gays and lesbians all the rights & benefits that heteros receive, then a) why stop short of calling our civil unions marriage or at least civil marriage and b) why insist on denoting a different term to LGBT unions? I have yet to hear a compelling answer from the President among others why there has to be a semantic distinction between the two. What it creates is a segregation between two kinds of people in society and it suggests that we are not deserving of the term marriage or even civil marriage. Then there is the issue of the term marriage being so universal that everybody instantly understands the meaning and weight of it. This is not the case with civil partnerships, and I reckon not even here in Britain has the education on civil partnerships being strong enough to ensure that people understand that civil partnerships and marriage are the same (in Britain anyway). It may not be that much of a problem in Britain (interestingly, on NHS papers, they put you down as M for married even if you are in a CP) but it evidently is in the US. In early April, a gay man was told by a nurse in one of Oregon’s most progressive hospitals that he couldn’t go back into his partner’s room after he needed emergency treatment, literally a life or death situation. The poor man had to phone his lawyer to rectify the situation. The hospital and nurse apologised profusely for the error but the disturbing question remains, if even the most progressive hospitals can’t guarantee that all their staff fully understand the meaning of a civil partnership what does that say then about the rest of the country? True equality includes equality in the linguistic definition of a relationship. It still annoys me that here in Britain they even chickened out of using the word “civil marriage”. If marriage is the acceptable term for two people of different skin colours, why should a distinction be drawn for sexual orientation? Pro-creation is not an argument because straight people have had children out of wedlock before and will continue to do so.
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
I don’t know how new this is? but I checked Thomas list and see a new co-sponsor, we have 109:
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 6/12/2009
Comment by bkbzipper — June 13, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
darn, that should have read “has the education on civil partnerships BEEN strong enough” – need to proofread more..
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
@Diego #46
Why should anybody from the LGBT community be against UAFA?
Comment by Kessha — June 13, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
@Diego, just to reinforce the point: nowhere except the UK are civil partnerships identical to marriages in terms of federal rights and benefits. Even France and Germany strip LGBT couples of some of the benefits that heteros receive (for example, two friends of mine from Glasgow and Dunfermline have moved to Berlin but unlike back home they are forced to file separate tax returns in Germany). If even more progressive countries in Europe don’t guanrantee you the full 1000+ federal rights of marriage, that just goes to show you that evidently most governments don’t consider civil unions on an equal footing with marriage. Even my country, Britain, only comes 8th best in the world after the seven countries who have true marriage equality (hello Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Belgium and the Netherlands). The only compromise I’d be willing to accept is the term “civil marriage” since there is no guarantee that education on civil partnerships would be thorough enough.
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Tim @51, I absolutely agree with you. I DO know that while civil unions would give us the same benefits, it would still be segregating us. But I think we need to take one step at a time. You don’t expect to go from DOMA to Federal Gay Marriage in just one step. That is just something that would never happen in the US, a country where just until a couple years ago gay sex was prohibited in some states! So my message is, let’s take what we can get for now, because if we want to get it all at once, we won’t get anything… that means, if we go for Gay Marriage, we won’t get neither that nor civil union. So once again, while I totally agree with you, I am also realistic and I see what can and cannot be achieved for now. If UAFA fails, then plan B could easily be Civil Union, not marriage. If you are “civil unioned”, your partner becomes your spouse, then gays could sponsor their foreign same-sex spouses under the current legislation.
As far as people not understanding what a civil union is, you got a point there too, but then again, it’s better to have civil union and people not understanding it, than not having it at all…
Comment by Diego — June 13, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Thanks to Mike Honda, Patrick Leahy, Nadler, and all the supporters of UAFA and URA, I have to say we would not even have had a slight chance if it wasn’t for those wonderful politians. Just watched the clip of the RFA debate on CNN. I must say it just makes me sad to see that no matter how valid and good Jason Chaffetz UAFA and RFA are, you can’t win with the fucking Republicans. The opponent, such as the congress man from Utah on CNN said UAFA would redefine the definition of marriage, that kind of statement is just blantanly an excuse that is created to hammer and jepordize gay people’s federal rights and benefits. The opponents of gay marriage keep saying they are fine with civil union, but they just want to protect the santity of marriage, if that was the case, why do people like Jeff Sessions or others keep saying UAFA will leed to the redefining of gay marriage? It is obviously an excuse, a blatant cop out for them to create such a ridiculous reason to stop gay people from gaining federal benefits and rights of any kind. They are wrong already to think the marriage is supposed to be between and man and woman already, and now, they can’t even have a slightest empahty and rationale to think that all we want is to be with our American partners, just like the heterosexual married bi national couples. Republicans and the conservatives can’t not be bargained with or reasoned with, they always justify, they always have an excuse to be anti immigration and anti gay rights in preserving the “WHITE AMERICAN” race. I am so fucking sick and tired of Repblicans. Those assholes always think the same way, they always have the same excuses to be anti UAFA. Green card fraud,leading to gay marriage, etc. UAFA is designed to stay away from gay marraige, but those conservative assholes will just keep trying to link UAFA to gay marraige, so UFAA could be defeated. Let’s keep aiming at the moderate repblicans and all democrats, tell them our stories, and keep writing and calling. The battle will never be easy, but I do believe we have a pretty good chances this time.
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 13, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Correction.
I wrote: ” I must say it just makes me sad to see that no matter how valid and good Jason Chaffetz UAFA and RFA are, you can’t win with the fucking Republicans”
I meant how valid and good UAFA and RFA are,, not the fucking Jason Chaffetz from Utah, he is obviously a staunch republcan congressman who is anti everything except whites and Mormons.
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 13, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Keesha @54. I’ve been actively contacting gays about UAFA, educating them about it, asking them to contact their congressmen and media to support it, and asking them to join Out4Immigration Yahoo Group for help on contacting the Reps and Sens. I send emails to over 10,000 peoeple, and (while very few), I did get emails back from gays requesting me not to send them those emails anymore. Main reason is because they are against Immigration. So, while they are gay, they are against Immigration as a whole, therefore against UAFA. Stupid, I know, but that’s an unfortunate fact. Hey, I also know gays that are against gay marriage, because they are Christians and believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman… go figure!
Comment by Diego — June 13, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
@Diego: actually, that brings up a good question here. In order for us to have civil unions, that would necessitate the repeal of DOMA first since DOMA explicitly forbids the federal government to recognise LGBT relationships of any kind. My very real concern is that this administration won’t move on the introduction of civil unions until DOMA is repealed. If immigration reform does not include UAFA or if it doesn’t pass on its own, can you imagine the horror scenario of waiting yet more years (say three, five) until, maybe, in his second term the “fierce advocate” can be bothered to grant us our overdue rights? I’d love to hear some answers from the administration how they’re going to deal with civil unions if DOMA is still in place? Logic dictates they have to get rid of the damn thing first. All the more reason to support Lamba Legal, HRC and co in their call for an immediate introduction in Congress of a bill to repeal DOMA. We should especially write to people known to be sympathetic to our cause: I’m thinking of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
It is sad and makes me sick to stomach to see reactions like those from our gay brothers and sisters. Just because they are gay, doesn’t mean they are on ourside. I blame gay people like that who fail to realize the importance of unithy and coming together as an ultimate entity to fight for our rights and equality. It is bad and tough enough that we are numbered by the fierce heterosexually dominated society, and we still have gays who are anti immigration??? No wonder we keep getting defeated over and over and over again. It is embarassing to compare ourselves to African’s American’s civil rights movement, we simply just can’t unify and pull our acts together. I remember when Prop 8 passed, everybody was so angry, they went to the city hall, they went to downtown LA to rally,holding signs and all that, and how long did it last???? 2 weeks, 3 weeeks?? I remember before Prop 8 was passed, there were signs and few people who had their signs and stickers that said Vote No on Prop 8 in fucking West Hollywood. Who cares, what was the sense of makkng a statement in West Hollywood, it was pointless, and loosely organized. On the other hand, look at the opponents rallying records, i remembers, there were something like 30000 religious nuts that got together to rally for the passage of Prop 8, those religious nuts and bigots were not outnumbered, and yet, a gather like that just goes to tell you how strong they were when it comes to influencing the public, and look what happened. I would say one thing, the gay commmunity had it coming, we are outnumbered, we are misiunderstood, and we keep losing battles one after another. It is the gays like what the post 59 mentioned who are anti immigartion, who don’t know any better, who don’t know the importance of unifying all gays and lesbians in the gay community that are responsible for our defeats. If gay community can’t come together as an ultimate and unifying entity, we will keep being discrimnated against indefinately. Shame on those gay americans who are anti UAFA. Shame on them.
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 13, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Chung @61. Unfortunately, that’s what we’re facing… we even have some gays against us. So it’s a difficult fight, and as such, there’s gotta be a strategy.
@Tim, maybe I am mistaken, I didn’t think DOMA would prevent Civil Unions. I thought it was just “Marriage”. I don’t know, I’m in doubt now. But anyway, I was taking a shower and thinking about all this, and somehow a Rolling Stones’ song came to my mind… “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes well you just might find you get what you need”. (thank you Mick!)
BTW, I know (and been told by a Dem. politician friend) that neither Civil Union nor Gay Marriage will pass federally during Obama’s first term (same had Hillary won). If it was passed, many people would vote against him in 2012, while if it’s not passed, and he keeps promising it, he would get votes both from the conservatives (because he didn’t pass it) and the gays (because we’d be hoping he would pass it). You know politics is full of BS, and we are playing that BS game.
Please, once again Tim, don’t take me wrong, I agree with every word you said, but I know where we stand.
Comment by Diego — June 13, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
I think part of the difficulty of getting the gay community to stand up and unify is the fact that we’re a smaller community and many of us are forced, either by threat of being fired at work or getting beaten up on the street, to be “out.” The black civil rights movement didn’t have that same “will I, won’t I” struggle, or at least not to the same degree, because skin color isn’t something you can hide the way you can hide your sexuality. I think it’s disheartening to see so few people show up at Philly pride events, at rallies, etc; it’s like the average Joe Gay can’t be bothered to take the time out of his busy schedule to fight for his own rights. I find it comforting that there are so many wonderfully outspoken people posting on here; it gives me real hope, even when our president tries to take that hope away. What’s so brutal is how the majority of Americans are against gay rights and certainly gay immigration rights, and that our government won’t stand up and take care of a minority when that minority clearly has voiced its need. The statistics for suicide and assault among young queer people are staggering, and yet the government still tells us that being gay is a choice.
Comment by Kai — June 13, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
The Federal DOMA won’t prevent civil unions. Lots of states have state-level DOMAs (Washington, Nevada, etc.) or even constitutional amendments (California), but offer full domestic partner benefits that are 99% equivalent to marriage.
Comment by Matthew — June 13, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I agree here with cheng fang,Diego & Kai. I dated some one Awhile ago who thought that obama administartion should concentrate primarily on cripling economy than gay equality rights.Its disheartening to see that our own community is against our rights…I am not even sure there’s enough work been done to educate them about UAFA,DOMA etc..
And yeah lots of gay people work for federal governament, and are afraid of loosing their jobs if they openly come out..its so frustrating..we’re going here in circles… ;-(
Comment by meeran — June 13, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
@Diego, I don’t think for a second you’re against me, so no worries there mate. Unfortunately, as I said before, DOMA forbids the government to recognise LGBT relationships in any form on the federal level so that includes civil partnerships unfortunatey. So, yes, Obama will have to get rid of DOMA first before they can grant us federal rights. It stinks to the heavens of course but that’s the damage DOMA has done. I’d have to agree, sadly, that it looks as though federal rights, whether they be unions or marriage equality, won’t be happening until after Obama gets re-elected and even then it’d be dependent on how strong the Democratic majority in Congress is. That’s the crux gays & lesbians find themselves in, in America, with it being a two-party system and the GOP so hostile that it leaves the community vulnerable to being used by the Dems for political gains.
On the positive side: while DOMA repeals and the introduction of federal marriage/civil unions is very unlikely to happen in the first term, it’s fair to say that immigration reform is still doable. That, and the Hate Crimes Bill and ENDA.
Comment by Tim — June 13, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
@Kai (63): Awesome point about “closeted gays” compared to proud Afr-Americans fighting for their human/civil rights. But may I request another gay guy other than Joe in your “..It’s like the average Joe Gay can’t be bothered….bla bla bla”…LOL!!!
Comment by Joe — June 13, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
To all today (7-65): Facts are enlightening but the tone is self-defeating. Sounds a bit like a HS grad whining “why should I go to College if I won’t be able to get a job in this economy anyway when I finish”. We should just continue doing what we’ve been doing. IE and we have come pretty far with our efforts, with or without Obama, right? (BTW, in my mind his heart is in the right place on this cuz he said it in his own words from his own lips on inauguration day…”Gay or Straight”, but that is not my point right now). Who knows how much farther we can go. But to despair by trying to divine the threads of Obama’s heart is completely self-defeating, and paralyzing.
BTW, YES!!! Charlie Rangel (NY district 12) has joined us.
Comment by Joe — June 13, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Excellan point. I think it is understandable that the frustrations that we have now, but I would not deny my emotion goes up and down with doubts, hope, optimism and pessmism. DOMA doesn’t really affect UAFA for now! What is more important now is to fight for UAFA to be passed. I think many gay Americans underestimate how important UAFA is, it will be the first FEDERAL bill that benefits gays in this country, it is way more constructive than DOMA or gay marriage. Let’s be more positive and constructive. As to Obama administration, let’s just wait patiently for now and see what happens.
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 13, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
bkbzipper @52 – Yes! That is new. Rep. Rangel was listed as a co-sponsor of the Reuniting Families Act this week. I called and spoke with his Legislative Director and asked why he wasn’t a UAFA co-sponsor as well. He said he’d call Rep. Nadler’s office right away and sign on. We will have more co-sponsors next week…
Comment by Tom — June 13, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
@bkbzipper (69): Wow…remarkable that all it took for Rep C. Rangel was one determined person like you calling and reaching his office and then so quickly getting results….that is an important lesson to us all to keep emailing, keep writing keep on bla bla bla!!!
Comment by Joe — June 13, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Great News on Rep. Rangel. Excellent idea to target the cosponsors of the RFA that have yet to cosponsor the UAFA. I compared the RFA and UAFA cosponsor list. The following Representatives have cosponsored the RFA, but have yet to sign onto the UAFA:
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43]
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37]
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP]
Comment by nola — June 13, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
@nola, thanks for the heads-up. I *think* Baca may have cosponsored UAFA in the past but am not sure. Either way, it makes perfect sense to compare RFA’s and UAFA’s sponsor list and to ensure there is as much overlap as possible. We should do the same for the Senate. Even if there is no UAFA included in the Senate version of the RAF bill, I think that any senator who supports the RAF would do the same for UAFA on principle. And again, I think if we reach 130, we should push very hard for a floor vote in the House. The ratio of Congressmen voting to Congressmen sponsoring a bill usually tends to be 3:1. If that still holds true and we get 130 sponsors in the House, we should be more than safe re a floor vote. We also need keep working on Senators Snowe and Collins; and Arlen Specter should make his support official on the list.
Comment by Tim — June 14, 2009 @ 2:27 am
@70, Tom made the call I just noted that I saw Rangel sign on. Way to go Tom! thank you! I appreciate all the lists of potential supporters, I’ve written so many notes/emails, it’s nice to the direction. thanks nola as well. It’d be great to write to republicans that might sponsor to pull some over, like Snow and Collins… If the republicans were smart they’d vote for us, they could really change their voter base if they opened up… esp. since we’re seeming to be ignored by the pres. right now. We could use it to our advantage if we could play the voting card from both sides. I see McCain already say he would have looked at DADT if he were elected (yeah, right…) are they starting to pander for our vote?
Comment by bkbzipper — June 14, 2009 @ 5:46 am
For those of you who have not seen this video of Obama’s promises please watch:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001841/
Wish there was a way for this to be played to the public!
Comment by InExile — June 14, 2009 @ 6:53 am
@InExile(74): Thanks! A brilliant contribution to us all at an important time to remind us that it is abundantly clear he is on our side. This president is a good president (for us)at a difficult period.
@Tim, bkbzipper and Nola: Thanks for this list and awesome idea. We should all dedicate our Sunday morning to writing emails to (at least) these Reps and Sens. In addition, I will post these ideas and lists at the group email of “Out4Immigration”/”loveexiles”. That way, our concerted efforts will likely be even more effective.
Comment by Joe — June 14, 2009 @ 7:31 am
Great diary entry at the dailykos about the rift between our community and the Dems: please read this.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/13/742094/-The-Democratic-LGBT-Rift
Comment by Tim — June 14, 2009 @ 9:30 am
To bkbzipper, Tim, nola & Joe – please e-mail me! tptierney@gmail.com
Comment by Tom — June 14, 2009 @ 10:01 am
@71 – nola – THANK YOU for posting these names of members of the House that are RFA co-sponsors but not UAFA co-sponsors! Their staffers will all receive a phone call from me tomorrow. Rep. Laura Richardson, Rep. Joe Baca and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. were all UAFA co-sponsors in the last Congress – they should be now as well. I will post the phone numbers to call here soon for anyone else that would like to call.
Comment by Tom — June 14, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Hi IE folks, this is my proposition to our friends at LoveExilesUK:
_________________________
Dear Cozie 1971: Congrats! So much of the efforts of your group has been effective. So many more US Reps, and a few Senators have signed up for UAFA. Over at Immigration Equality (http://immigrationequality.org/blog/?p=960#comments), we in the blogs have made every effort to coordinate efforts with your group here at “LoveExilesUK”.
But, new developments seem to call for new strategies. The RFA (Reuniting Families Act) by Rep Mike Honda (15th district of California) has been launched. Rep Honda has had the courage to add the UAFA in his larger bill. Some co-sponsors of the RFA who were not cosponsors of the UAFA, have quickly and readily signed up for the UAFA cosponsorhip when called, emailed or written to, simply because they were made aware of this (such as Rep Charlie Rangel of NY). So what I am proposing to your group (LoveExilesUK) is that we do this over the next few weeks, IN ADDITION TO YOUR CURRENT EFFORTS AND STRATEGY. We at Immig Equality are writing to US Reps who have signed up for the RFA and still have not signed up for the UAFA as cosponsors. I hope you will agree to join forces with this strategy.
To start off, here is a list prepared by a co-blogger (Nola) at Immigration Equality:
Great News on Rep. Rangel. Excellent idea to target the cosponsors of the RFA that have yet to cosponsor the UAFA. I compared the RFA and UAFA cosponsor list. The following Representatives have cosponsored the RFA, but have yet to sign onto the UAFA:
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43]
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37]
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP]
Comment by nola — June 13, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
And these is another relevant entry:
@71 – nola – THANK YOU for posting these names of members of the House that are RFA co-sponsors but not UAFA co-sponsors! Their staffers will all receive a phone call from me tomorrow. Rep. Laura Richardson, Rep. Joe Baca and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. were all UAFA co-sponsors in the last Congress – they should be now as well. I will post the phone numbers to call here soon for anyone else that would like to call.
Comment by Tom — June 14, 2009 @ 10:06 am
We welcome your response/comments/questions, Best, jmd/joe
_______________________
End of Email to Cozie1971
So IE folks, if you are interested in looking into what they are doing, they are in the Yahoo groups:
This is the route I use to get to their group at yahoo:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loveexilesUK/
Comment by Joe — June 14, 2009 @ 10:56 am
For the five Representatives who are Reuniting Families Act (RFA) co-sponsors, but not UAFA co-sponsors, here are their staffers’ e-mail addresses and the phone numbers for their DC offices. Please e-mail and call them and ask them to co-sponosor UAFA as well:
Rep. Joe Baca (CA-43)
202-225-6161
Staffer: Jenny Sarabia
jenny.sarabia@mail.house.gov
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL-2)
202-225-0773
Staffer: Charles Dujon
charles.dujon@mail.house.gov
Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
202-225-7924
Staffer: Daria Dawson
daria.dawson@mail.house.gov
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega (American Samoa)
202-225-8577
Staffer: David Richmond
david.richmond@mail.house.gov
Rep. Gregorio Sablan (Mariana Islands)
202-225-2646
Staffer: Arin Greenwood
arin.greenwood@mail.house.gov
Comment by Tom — June 14, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
For those of you still thinking President Obama is our friend, I ask you to read the following article on the brief filed regarding DOMA. This article and its links is more in depth than the sanitized AP version of the story.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html#disqus_thread
Comment by InExile — June 15, 2009 @ 6:00 am
Regarding the article on Americablog.com:
For those of you not familiar with Americablog, this blog was a fierce advocate for Barack Obama during the primary and general election season.
Comment by InExile — June 15, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Forget about Obama’s betrayal now. We should focus on getting UAFA/RFA passed. Without DOMA, ther would not have been UAFA anyway. We should not be distracted and dicouraged by Obama for now. After, he only signs bills into law. Let’s focus on UAFA
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 15, 2009 @ 9:12 am
you are right fang, it is all politics, and sooner or later he will suport us.
he has too.
but we have to be strong and play along.
nobody likes to be separate from the love ones, but we all have to endure.
and one day we will be telling stories to our kids of how hard is to be gay and fight for your rights.
Comment by robert — June 15, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Agreed, let’s not get distracted. Believe it or not, this can work in our favor, but we have to be quick about it.
Over the next 2 weeks let’s try and flood the on-line progressive media & blogosphere. We can raise awareness and help harness some of that anger towards actively supporting the UAFA & RFA. This DOMA uproar w/ stay in the spot light for a while – let’s smartly use it to our advantage.
BTW, if you can take the time to post a well thought out Comment here, (sometimes bithcing and moaning) – that same energy could have gone into posting something positive on a site that would make a difference. Just saying. WE need the support of all the LGBT community and this can help motivate.
(from huff post)
Last night’s “60 Minutes” reported that the Obama administration has simply suspended the policy of deporting foreign-born widows of U.S. citizens for two years pending review.
As a purely political matter, it is surprising that the new government hasn’t made a similar unilateral move regarding some of the unfair policies towards gays.
As Rachel Maddow put it last week
foreign spouses of dead straight Americans- 1
Foreign spouses of live gay Americans- 0
Comment by Rile2009 — June 15, 2009 @ 10:02 am
I agree. However difficult it may be right now, let’s all try and remain positive and focus on UAFA/RFA for the moment.
Comment by Jude — June 15, 2009 @ 10:43 am
The Administration brings out John Berry in a rather obvious attempt to divert attentions in this week’s news cycle from the disastrous response their shameful DOJ briefing on Friday got from the community. Berry, who I’m sure, is a decent guy as such, flat out contradicts himself by saying at first that the Hate Crimes Bill “may pass this week” only to state later in the SAME interview that “we do not have the votes for it”. Which one is it, mate? Folks, this is the WH trying to exercise some damage limitation and boy are they crap at that too.
Re UAFA: agree that now is an excellent opportunity to make ourselves heard. I’m still convinced that if Franken is seated and the Dems have 60 seats, if we can get up to 25 or more Senators and 130+ Representatives to sponsor the bill, UAFA may just have a chance of passing on its own, and wouldn’t that be fab?
Comment by Tim — June 15, 2009 @ 10:47 am
@Tom, thanks for sharing the list
forgot to link to this in the previous post but here’s proof that Obama and the DOJ did NOT have to defend DOMA in court:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
It will be very interesting how they now deal with the briefing for the GLAAD case come June 29th. They MUST be aware that using such inflammatory language in last week’s briefing has already caused huge damage to their standing in the community.
Comment by Tim — June 15, 2009 @ 10:56 am
from the gayrights blog at change.org:
“The Washington Blade notes that the legislation will likely be folded into the Travel Promotion Act, known officially as S. 1023. That bill will establish a national travel promotion program to communicate U.S. travel policies and to promote travel to the United States. Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes legislation. But attaching the hate crimes bill to this rather inocuous piece of legislation, at least in the minds of the Senate leadership and Majority Leader Harry Reid, will allow the bill to pass through the Senate much more easily than if a stand-alone vote were to happen on the measure.
The hate crimes bill passed the House on April 29, 249-175, which means that if the U.S. Senate passes it with the Travel Promotion Act, it will move on to President Barack Obama’s desk. He’s pledged to sign it, and given his reputation among LGBT groups right now, he ought to do so with as much fanfare as humanly possible.”
Comment by Tim — June 15, 2009 @ 11:07 am
U.S. Conference of Mayors Passes Resolution Supporting the Freedom to Marry & UAFA.
http://straighttalkonmarriage.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-conference-of-mayors-passes.html
Comment by Rile2009 — June 15, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Just seen that Joe Solmonese of the HRC has written a great letter to the President regarding the administration’s recent defence of DOMA, mentioning also binational same-sex couples’ inability to sponsor their partners:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/a-letter-to-the-president-from-joe-solmonese/
Comment by Jude — June 15, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Hi everyone, I’ve just read that the immigration summit is expected to take place on the 25th June.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/white-house-summit-back-on-the-calendar.html
Comment by Kathleen — June 15, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Also, thanks Jude just read the link you posted on HRC letter, I agree great letter!
Comment by Kathleen — June 15, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Re the letter Jude linked to: you know, I’ve been critical of Joe Solmonese in the past but this was a very, very good letter indeed. Particularly enjoyed his point for point rebuttal of the DOJ’s scattershot response to the Smelt case (allowing for the fact that the case itself was badly put together). If anything, the hurtful and deeply offensive language and content of the DOJ briefing has brought the community closer together and if the administration’s actions on Sunday are any indication, they seem to realise that they can’t hide behind fancy phrases any longer. All of us should hold the Dems and the “fierce advocate” accountable and make it very clear:
–> we want to see the passage and legislation of the Hate Crimes Bill, ENDA and omnibus immigration reform including us LGBT couples before the midterm elections in Nov 2010 or the Dems will see NO money and NO votes from the community.
I genuinely think these are reasonable demands that the Dems can, and have to meet (in fact, you could add DADT to the list, and also push them very hard to at least make active steps towards a repeal of DOMA before 2012). The administration may not realise it but with this briefing they’ve handed us the best incentive and opportunity yet to demand that action be taken now with no further delay.
Re UAFA: I’ve sent my emails to the reps Tom listed today.
Comment by Tim — June 15, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
I’ve heard conflicting evidence from my politically-savvy friends as to which representatives I should be calling. I’m in Philadelphia, zip code 19103. Are ANY of my representatives and senators co-sponsorts of either UAFA or RFA?
Comment by Kai — June 15, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
@97 – Kai – Email me. I can help. tptierney@gmail.com
Comment by Tom — June 15, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Obama finally broke the silence and said he would work with congress to overturn DOMA through the press conference of his signing an executive order to extend same sex benefits and rights to federal employees. I must say I feel a bit better after Obama verbally acknowledged his view on DOMA. This is better nothing. Here is what Obama said about DOMA, it is better than nothing so far, but I have a feeling he was forced to calm the angry gay community about the DOJ’s brief on DOMA. The following is what Obama said during the press conference:
” It’s a day that marks a historic step towards the changes we seek, but I think we all have to acknowledge this is only one step. Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it’s discriminatory, I think it interferes with states’ rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it.
We’ve got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally; to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms; and to bring about that more perfect union. I’m committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come.
Thank you very much everybody, and with that I am going to sign this executive order.”
I think that should make us feel a bit better, don’t you think? Finally, he verbally acknowledged that DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed, we just have to hold him accountable on this promise in the future, but we have to focus on the passage of UAFA first!!
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — June 17, 2009 @ 7:22 pm