DOMA Repeal by Congress looking less and less possible

Key sponsors of RFA, Rep. Jerry Nadler and Rep. Jared Polis have expressed doubt about RFA being debated anytime soon. According to Rep. Nadler, the discussion probably won't start until (imagine how eager the President would be to bring up the gay issue so close to his reelection), and Rep. Polis said DOMA repeal won't be likely until we have + states offering marriage equality. Right now gay marriage is legal in only five states. New York, the most likely State No. 6 to allow gay marriage, saw that opportunity vaporized as the GM bill got voted down by the NY Senate last week. So to get 10+ states with marriage equality, we're talking about 5 to 10 years.

Of course, by 2013 we should learn the result of the marriage lawsuit, and whatever Congress decides to do by then would be irrelevant.

On the other front, Rep. Nadler is working to get UAFA included in the upcoming Immigration Reform, which would be another uphill battle.

Shutting down the gAyTM

AmericaBlog has launched a donor boycott of the DNC today. Last time the boycott of a DNC gay donor event gained us incremental benefits for federal employees. Obviously we're talking about something much larger in scale this time:

We are asking voters to pledge to withhold contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.

Let's see how the Dems respond this time.

LGBT friendly amendment included in Health Care bill

The Health Care reform bill passed by the House yesterday included an amendment by Representative Jim McDermott (D-Washington) will eliminate the taxing of domestic partnership health insurance benefits offered by companies.

From the New York Times:

Supporters of gay rights have long been trying to change the tax treatment of health benefits provided by employers to the domestic partners of their employees. In effect, such benefits are now treated as taxable income for the employee, and the employer may owe payroll taxes on their fair-market value.

Under the bill, such benefits would be tax-free, just like health benefits provided to the family of an employee married to a person of the opposite sex.

Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, who proposed the change, said it would “correct a longstanding injustice, end a blatant inequity in the tax code and help make health care coverage more affordable for more Americans.”

Although the bill was passed by the House, its fate remains uncertain in the Senate. But I still see this as an important step towards removing one of the many "gay taxes", one that most of us can benefit from, speaking as someone who's been paying that gay tax for a while.

Now the question becomes: Are the Democrats gutsy enough to include UAFA in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

The Delay of the Health Care Reform and Its implications

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that the Senate might not be ready to vote on health care reform this year.

Asked if he could pass health care this year, Reid said: "We're not going to be bound by any timelines. We need to do the best job we can for the American people. We want quality legislation, and we're going to do that."

The results from yesterday's elections no doubt would make Democrats nervous about pushing another controversial issue. It'd be sort of a double-whammy for the anticipated Comprehensive Immigration Reform. One, the delay of the health care vote would cut short a tiny window of opportunity for immigration reform, making a difficult task next to impossible. Losing NJ and VA would also make the Democrats more squeamish about introducing another hot potato to turn off even more independents.

Cue the Mission Impossible music now.

The Day After

I was in Chicago a year ago on Election Day. My heart was filled with joy as I watched people stream into Grant Park in anticipation of Barack Obama's election. That was probably one of the happiest nights of my life.

My excitement was greatly tempered the next morning when I learned the results of Prop 8. Keep your chin up, I told myself, Barack Obama will be president soon and he's promised to work tirelessly on gay rights. Things will be better despite Prop 8.

A year later, another Election Day, another heartbreak. But this time I have no illusion about President Obama being the Savior of gay people. As many times as he has repeated the promises he made before the Election, he has done next to nothing for us. The fact that Organizing for America, his former campaign arm, sent out a message before Election Day to urge Mainers to support the governor race in New Jersey, while failing to mention the fight in Maine that's on everyone's mind, speaks volume about the President's avoidance on gay issues.

Andrew Sullivan says it best:

I am heart-broken tonight by Maine, and I'd be lying if I said otherwise.
Somehow losing by this tiny margin is brutalizing. And because this is a vote on my dignity as a human being, it is hard not to take it personally or emotionally. But I also know that the history of civil rights movements has many steps backward as forward, and some of those reversals actually catalyze the convictions that lead to victories. A decade ago, the marriage issue was toxic. Now it divides evenly. Soon, it will win everywhere.

I know for many younger gays and lesbians, this process can seem bewildering and hurtful. But I'm old enough now to be able to look back and see the hill we have climbed in such a short amount of time, and the minds and hearts we have changed. Including our own.

Know hope.

NYT Article on Prop. 8 Lawsuit

The article argues that it's too early to bring a gay marriage lawsuit to the Supreme Court, that Loving vs. Virginia was possible because most states had done away their ban on interracial marriages by the time the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So basically the Supreme Court just follows public opinion and wouldn't make a decision that'd be vastly unpopular among the majority. The majority of course, is against gay marriage.

On HRC

Queerty has a great article on HRC's insistence on Hate Crime Bill being above anything else in LGBT rights.

This piece was inspired by Andrew Sullivan's blog post.

Hate Crime Bill passed, what's next?

This past Wednesday President Obama signed the Hate Crime bill law, which will no doubt be touted by his administration as a significant achievement. All that good will is negated today by another filing of the Justice Department seeking to dismiss Mass. Attorney General's lawsuit against DOMA.

Attention is now being turned to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (EDNA), another relic from the early gay rights movement. If that passes, Congress is likely to move on to the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO) and Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT).

Then would it be the Respect for Marriage Act's turn? Neither Sen. Harry Reid nor Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ever mentioned repealing DOMA as one of their priorities, if anything they were trying to kick the ball right back to the White House.

Silence of course, does not bode well for the RFA. Rep. Nadler said a while back he was confident a companion bill would be introduced in the Senate in the near future, yet there's no sign that's happening any time soon.

Will CIR include UAFA?

According to Melanie Nathan, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand hinted that Sen. Chuck Schumer might include UAFA language in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill he'd be introducing by the end of the year.

After asking the pertinent question about the passage of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and its relationship to comprehensive Immigration reform (CIR) , the Senator spoke specifically of an integrated approach. Privy to this information through my advocacy on behalf of this particular couple I was told- “Meeting with Sen. Gillibrand was great; she’s indeed a great advocate for the LGBT community. She seems a very authentic person, genuine, kind and responsive, sensitive to all matters regarding LGBT issues. The Senator referred to Sen. Schumer who is writing the bill. She also said that CIR and UAFA should be on the table by the end of this year, so it can be passed by spring. She stressed the fact that it is important to have things dealt with before March. They’re going for an integrated approach.”

Of course, the prospect for CIR is at this point shaky at best. But what Sen. Gillibrand said in terms of timeline is similar to what Rep. Luis Gutierrez told NPR, that if CIR is not passed by March, it's basically dead, for a long time.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez gave it until end of March, a slightly bigger window of opportunity compared to the "before March" estimate of Sen. Gillibrand:

And so that's why I believe our window is very small. That is to say, you do health care, you get the energy bill passed in the House and the Senate. Get both of those bills signed by the president. That should bring us to about the beginning of February and that's the window, I think you have that window of February and March. And once you go into April, you really have a diminishing opportunity because you do have the midterm elections getting closer and closer.

Another sad story

Tim Coco, had been on a rather lonely crusade to be reunited with his husband, Genesio "Junior" Oliveira, until Senator John Kerry intervened. However, even that was not enough, as the Justice Department denied Oliveira's asylum request.

Many bi-national couples have turned to political asylum as a last resort with little success. This case just proves that without legislative actions, there's really very few things we could do to keep our families together.

Sad, but true.

Congressional hearing on immigration included same-sex couple

Steve Orner testified before congressional staffs in a closed door hearing on immigration reform, the Advocate reports.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this perspective from Senator Bob Casey.

Another cosponsor of immigration equality for gay couples, Sen. Bob Casey, said he'd prefer to see a bill passed separately -- to give it a better chance of passage, given that wholesale immigration reform proved a tough sell last session and may do so again. Mr. Casey, who supports gay civil unions, believes that it "makes no sense" to deport people who meet the requirements of this bill.

"We're saying to tens of thousands of Americans, in effect, 'Sorry, we understand you're in this relationship and are committed to each other and to this country, but you have to leave.' "

And when the deportee's education was paid for with U.S. tax dollars, "that's particularly disturbing," he said.

Senator Casey is one of the so-called "Blue Dogs" in the Senate. His center-right social leanings are noted by his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Most recently he had expressed reluctance to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Even with Sen. Casey's support, UAFA is still far away from the 51 votes required in the Senate for passage. You can keep track of the Public Whip Count of UAFA via ActOnPrincipals. Click here for the House Whip Count, and here for the Senate Whip Count.

It remains to be seen whether UAFA would be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jerry Nadler have penned an op-ed calling for UAFA's inclusion in the CIR. But even with Healthcare Reform edging closer to the finish line, there are still other priorities ahead of CIR: climate change ("Cap and Trade), financial reform, etc.

Up and down

A new poll shows Maine voters are split on Question 1, with 48% against a gay marriage repeal and 48% for. A previous poll has shown the "No" votes leading by several percentage points.

This almost mirrored the Prop. 8 polls leading up the election. Most of the time it was neck-and-neck, but we lost on Election day by several percentage points, leading some to believe that some "yes" people lied to pollsters to hide their bigotry. Would the same story play out this time in Maine? Let's hope not.

My personal opinion is that we win no matter we win in Maine or not. If we win in Maine, that's a clear sign that public opinion is turning to our favor. If we lose, it'd galvanize the community even more, just like Prop. 8 did.

Just look at the young faces at the National Equality Match. That's an entire generation awaken by Prop. 8.

Activists not giving up on RFA

First, David Mixner called on the LGBT community to stop giving money to Democrats who refuse to co-sponsor the RFA.

Then, some really smart and action-oriented folks started a new website Act on Principals , listing positions taken by each lawmaker on RFA. According to their current count, there are 192 yes/leaning yes votes (counting the co-sponsors), 187 no/leaning no votes and 56 unknown positions. 218 votes are required for a bill to be passed by the House.

Of course, the more difficult battle lies in the Senate, where 51 votes are required.

Hats off to these guys, with grassroots movements like this, HRC is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day.

Is 2013 the year?

Since various Washington insiders (Barney Frank the first among them) have put the chances for the Respect for Marriage Act at zero, the legislative path for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act appears dead in the water. Many believe the best hope of repealing DOMA lies with the Supreme Court, through the lawsuit filed by GLAD challenging Section 3 of DOMA.

Legal experts have put the chances of GLAD winning the lawsuit at good. But there is one major problem with the GLAD lawsuit. Even if DOMA is founded to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it would only benefit the people living in the states where gay marriage is legal. In other words, for someone living in Alabama, a state expected to be among the last to grant same-sex marriage rights, getting married in Iowa would not entitle them to the 1000+ federal rights enjoyed by married couples, such as the ability to sponsor their spouse for a greencard.

It'd still be a great victory to the LGBT community, but a limited win at best.

But there is a wild card.

Ted Olson and David Boies, the famous duo known for the Bush vs. Gore recount, have filed a lawsuit to challenge state constitutions (Prop. 8) banning gay marriage. A federal judge has set the court date in Jan. 2010. Like the Glad lawsuit, the Prop. 8 suit is expected to take three years to reach the Supreme Court. That will put the Supreme Court hearing very likely in 2013, the same year GLAD's lawsuit would be heard.

While most legal experts agreed the GLAD lawsuit again DOMA stands a very good chance of winning, opinions are split when it comes to the Prop. 8 lawsuit filed by Olson and Boies. Many believe it's either premature or lacks legal footing. The New York Times hosted a lively discussion on the topic.

So if all the stars aligned and we won both cases in the Supreme Court the marriage and equal rights issues would be settled once and for all. That is, of course, the best case scenario. The facts remain that the Supreme Court is currently center-right, with Judge Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote. Judge Kennedy is considered a conservative but appears to be sympathetic to LGBT causes. It still would be extraordinary for him to cast a favorable vote in both cases.

Yes, it's basically a pie-in-the-sky kind of thing, but a little bit of dreaming wouldn't hurt, right?

My thoughts on HRC

Lately HRC President Joe Solomonese has come under more fire from LGBT activists for giving the White House a pass after the underwhelming speech President Obama gave at the HRC annual dinner. Joe didn't help himself when he sent out an email asking us to wait until 2017 before passing judgement on the President's record on gay rights.

I have to say I'm more than disappointed by HRC and Solomonese's actions. When HRC launched their DOMA Repeal campaign, I thought I should stop bitching about them and do something to show my support of the more sensible approach. So I opened my wallet and donated.

Now I'm starting to wonder if the whole DOMA repeal is just a temporary measure by HRC to placate their critics, with no true intention of getting their weight behind it. One thing is for sure: despite their high-profile campaign to repeal DOMA, HRC has not put any pressure on the White House to act on it. Was this a secret deal struck during one of their "strategic" meetings with the Administration?

And Joe, don't expect to see another penny from me. I gave you the benefit of doubt, your action however, showed you're unworthy.

Latest poll from Maine shows 52% would vote to keep gay marriage legal

Obviously winning in Maine would signify an important milestone in the gay marriage fight. This is the first poll I can remember that shows the "No on 1" opinion leading the opposition.

More at Politico.

They finally told the truth

Someone at the White House finally came out and said it. For those who still harbor hope that President Obama meant what he said, time for a reality check.

An anonymous White House advisor relayed the following message via NBC's John Harwood:

Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.

For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

More at AMERICAblog and Pam's Houseblend.

The President's speech: Same old same old

As expected, President Obama broke no new ground on LGBT issues during his HRC speech tonight. It was basically the same old "Oh how I love you gay people". Then, sure enough, he dangled the Hate Crime Bill bone, earning applauses from the well-dressed audience.

And his gay best friend and future Secretary-of-HUD-to-be Barney Frank continued his assault on the grassroots, trashing the National Equality March interview after interview.

Oh Barney, your future boss thinks you're likable enough already, don't you think you're trying a little bit too hard to kiss up to him?

Public opinion on Homosexuality

Not immigration/DOMA related but very interesting read: Basically support for Civil Union has grown ever so slightly (57% support, 37% oppose), whereas support for gay marriage continues on an up and down trend (53% oppose, 39% support), with little significant change over the past 6 years.

President Obama has stated that he wants to establish Federal Civil Union so gay and lesbian couples can enjoy all the federal rights. Since taking office though, he has said very little on the issue. The problem is that Federal Civil Union would very likely piss off the left as much as it would the right. Those who favor marriage would see this as an insult to the community, and that President Obama just wanted to throw us a bone and get us out of his way. The Right wouldn't be happy either because to them anything remotely resembling marriage is an abomination.

So I guess that proposal is permanently off the table now.

Barney Frank is mad as hell

...at other gay people?

First he made it clear that he will not co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act because it's destined to fail, now he's saying the National Equality March is useless:

Barney Frank believes the march this weekend and rally on the mall are "useless" and don't put pressure on the White House. "I literally don't understand how this will do anything," he said. "People are kidding themselves. I don't want people patting themselves on the back for doing something that is useless." Besides, he says, "Barack Obama does not need pressure." He says we should model ourselves as lobbyists on "the National Rifle Association." He says people should not come to Washington and should stay home and lobby their members of Congress. "Nobody in Congress even knows they're there, he says, and he is not attending the March: He is going to California to raise money for himself and other Democrats.

Many seem puzzled by his vocal opposition to causes dear to the community, although few has expressed the same level of outrage when Rep. Frank excluded transgender people from the EDNA.

But the reason behind all of this might be simple: As reported by the book Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman , Frank is looking to cap his political career by becoming the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which would make him the first openly gay cabinet member. It's unlikely that Frank would make his ambition public unless he was 100% sure he'd get the job, which means the Obama Administration probably has assured him that the job will be his.

And there are signs that Rep. Frank is "in" with the White House too. President Obama recently singled him out for praise at an event, probably because Rep. Frank has been very protective of his administration, to the point of defending the indefensible DOMA Brief filed by the Justice Department.

We should have known then that he is no longer interested in being our advocate, if he ever was one.

Another gloomy assessment of RFM from a gay Dem operative

Steve Hildebrand, former deputy campaign manager for President Obama and recent critic of the Administration's handling of LGBT issues, does not think Congress would ever have the guts to repeal DOMA:

"I don't believe Congress will ever have the courage to repeal DOMA," said Hildebrand, who himself is gay and advising gay San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty on his 2011 mayoral bid.

Asked by the Bay Area Reporter about Frank's opposition to the bill, Hildebrand acknowledged that without the powerful lawmaker's support the bill's prospects are dim.

"I don't pretend to understand everything that goes on in Congressman Frank's head. He is a wickedly smart guy but he has a lot on his plate with the banking crisis," said Hildebrand. "He is a leader who inspires many gay Americans and we need to have him be one of our best advocates. He has a lot of clout in that Democratic caucus.

"Even if an issue like repeal of DOMA doesn't have all the votes, it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight like hell to get it passed," added Hildebrand.

House Comprehensive Immigration Bill

Rep. Luis Gutierrez has announced that he will introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill on Oct. 13th. Windy City Times reported that LGBT groups are lobbying him to include in his bill languages similar to the Uniting American Families Act.

Rep. Gutierrez is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and sits on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. He's also a co-sponsor of the UAFA.

However, aside from not knowing if UAFA would be included in his CIR bill, what's also unclear is whether Rep. Gutierrez has the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had stated in the past that she would not start on comprehensive immigration reform unless the Senate first acts on it. It appears that Rep. Gutierrez is acting on his own without the blessing of Speaker Pelosi, much like Rep. Jerry Nadler and others introducing the Defense of Marriage Act Repeal despite knowing it's not on Pelosi's priority list.

It'd be nice if Rep. Gutierrez could include UAFA in his CIR bill, but ultimately, the fate of Comprehensive Immigration Reform lies in the hands of the Senate, as it has been always. Senator Chuck Schumer is expected to introduce the senate version of the CIR bill, which is where I think we should focus our energy on.

A Great Game of Kickball

This post from Daily Kos does a really good job of summing up how dysfunctional the democrats are when it comes to gay rights:

And so the game of kickball continues -- Robert Gates said they were going to "push that one down the road a little bit," Dick Durbin claimed they're just too busy in the Senate (doing what, he didn't say), while Harry Reid has gone from saying they're working on it to crying for help, and now another "too busy."

They're like a bunch of drunks arguing over who's going to be the designated driver.

At least they're talking about DADT. The President has yet to acknowledge the Respect for Marriage Act, despite repeatedly saying that he wants to see DOMA repealed. His unofficial LGBT spokespersons (aka John Berry, Barney Frank) have kicked the ball to another long-shot receiver-the Supreme Court.

Whatever the rhetorics, action (or lack of) always speaks much louder.

President Obama to give keynote address at HRC dinner

On the eve of the National Equality March, high-profile democrats finally start to take notice. First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the steering committee announcing his support. Then came the news today that President Obama will be addressing the audience at the HRC dinner on Saturday, a day before the march is to take place.

It's certainly a nice gesture, but I'm not holding out hope the President would be breaking any new ground in his speech. Yes, we'd probably hear the same I-am-your-fierce-advocate type of rhetoric, but that's about it.

Piecemeal approach on immigration reform?

The AP has an interesting interview with Thomas Saenz, the head of the nation's leading Latino legal advocacy group, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Here's what he had to say:

...he fully expects work on rewriting immigration law to begin in Congress next year.

But if Democratic leaders delay, because of elections and a hostile political climate for immigrants, Congress should take up the issue gradually and in smaller ways, Saenz said. Lawmakers could address the need for foreign agricultural workers, provide legal status to high school graduates brought to the country illegally as children, and create equity for same sex partners who want to come to the U.S. or get green cards.

Traditionally, the Hispanic pro-immigration groups have resisted the piecemeal approach, insisting that any immigration reform must be bundled up with a path to legalization/citizenship for illegal immigrants. It's good to see them finally becoming more flexible on the issue.

The caveat is that even if Congress decides to take the piecemeal approach, the passage of the Uniting American Families Act is far from assured. For one thing UAFA is still not on congressional leaders' priority list. For another, "fraud" would continue to haunt UAFA if it ever made it to a floor vote. Many in our community have dismissed the "fraud" argument as a baseless attack by social conservatives, but look at what the "death panel" argument has done to the health care reform debate. The point remains that it doesn't have to be a valid argument as long as it manages to stir people's emotions. We ignore it at our own peril.

Berry: No hope repealing DOMA through Congress

John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management today repeated what Rep. Barney Frank has said before:

"I will tell you personally I believe that I think the courts will strike this down before Congress will have to repeal it legislatively," he said. "And thank goodness because, in this case, the backbone is not there in Congress."

Because he's the highest ranking openly gay official in the Obama Administration, Berry has served as the White House's unofficial spokesperson on LGBT issues. It's interesting that his talking points mirror those of Rep. Frank, whose close association with the President is also very clear.

Let me get this straight. When President Obama was put on the spot after DOJ released the disastrous DOMA brief, he reiterated his support for DOMA repeal but said Congress has to act on it. When Congress answered his call and introduced a DOMA Repeal bill, his associates then called it hopeless. Now they say our only hope is the Supreme Court, which of course is a convenient thing for the White House since the social conservatives can't blame him if DOMA is repealed through the Court.

Can't say I'm surprised.

Congressman predicts a 50% chance to repeal DADT or DOMA in this congress

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, who wrote an article on the Huffington Post explaining his vote for DOMA in 1996 and his current support of the RMA, tells the AP that he thinks there's a 50% chance for this congress to repeal either DADT or DOMA.

Jeana Frazzini, the executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, said Blumenauer's 50-percent prediction might not be that far off.

"It's just a very different climate than it was 10 years ago, so I think it's completely do-able for this congress to repeal 'don't ask don't tell' or the Defense of Marriage Act," Frazzini said.

Note that Rep Blumenauer used "either or" but not "and", and clearly DADT Repeal is ahead of RMA in congressional leaders agenda. So even if the 50% is real, it would probably only apply to DADT Repeal.

Rep. Jared Polis on DOMA Repeal chances

In an interview with David Thielen at the Huffington Post, Rep. Polis stated that we'd need 25 to 30 states allowing gay marriage to get Federal recognition.

We discussed the Defense of Marriage Act also (hey, I do know those two) and he think we will have to get to 25 to 30 states recognizing gay marriage and then the federal government will recognize it.

Activists not happy with RMA leaving out civil unions and domestic partnerships

Activists, especially those on the West Coast, are not happy that the Respect for Marriage Act does not cover civil union or domestic partnership.

The president has said all couples should have access to the 1,000-plus benefits and rights and privileges of marriage, so I do not know why Congress wouldn't put that on his desk. I would like to see Nadler's bill include all legally recognized unions. The president has asked for it.

Air American Interviews Rep. Nadler

Pam's Houseblend has posted a transcript of the interview. Rep Nadler mentioned that a bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate soon. He also said the bill will have to get in line behind other LGBT legislations.

Supporters and Opponents speaking out

Those supporting RMA, and those against are already speaking out. I find the article from Rep. Earl Blumenauer the most moving as he expressed sincere regret for having voted for DOMA in 1996.

It'd be interesting to see how many have had a change of heart.

I suspect we would not see any Republicans.

It's Here

The bill is called the Respect for Marriage Act.

The HRC has more information on various aspects of the bill. Basically its goal is to accomplish two things: to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to make sure Federal rights are portable (also known as the Certainty Clause), meaning that same-sex couples married in states that allow gay marriage would be able to retain their federal rights even if they moved to another state that doesn't recognize their relationship as legal.

At its introduction the bill has 91 co-sponsors.

In an interview with the Bay Windows, Rep. Barney Frank reiterated his opposition to introducing the bill, saying that it has zero percent possibility of passing, in light of the inclusion of the "Certainty Clause".

And why is he so vocal about this bill being bad?

But doesn’t Frank’s refusal to co-sponsor the bill, even as a starting point for discussion, essentially kill the bill before it’s out of the chute?

"It does send a message that it’s a bad idea," says Frank. "But I want to send a message."

So far Rep. Frank has been a lone voice in the LGBT community against the bill, as prominent gay leaders point out the need to start the debate according to the Advocate.

Congressman Polis didn’t blink when asked about the wisdom of the strategy.

"Whether this takes a year, six months, three years, what we're accomplishing here today is getting the ball rolling," Polis said at the press conference.

More co-sponsors signing on to the DOMA Repeal Bill

Politico's story earlier this morning has it at 69, AFP provided a later count at 75, and the latest from AP puts it at 76.

Obstacles remain even as the number of co-sponsors grows. Glenn Thrush reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) aren't backing the bill, which seeks to roll back DOMA restrictions on federal benefits and partnership rights for gay and lesbian couples, opting to press other anti-discrimination bills first.

According to the AP, even supporters of the bill acknowledges that this is not an easy task:

Ilan Kayatsky, spokesman for Nadler, said the repeal was being introduced now primarily "to gain support and momentum and educate people." Nadler chairs a Judiciary subcommittee that would consider a repeal.

The president of a gay advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, said Frank's disagreement was about tactics, not the goal of repeal.

"We're making a case for an ambitious bill, and I don't have any illusions that it will be easy or happen overnight," added the group's president, Joe Solmonese.

Other gay leaders have a more optimistic view:

Still, gay leaders say the bill is a necessary first step. “We're obviously strongly supportive of the bill, and we're very grateful that Congressman Nadler has introduced it,” said Mary Cooley, president of Lambda Independent Democrats, a gay political club in Brooklyn.
“To have Congress repeal DOMA I think is very viable,” said Ron Zacchi, executive director of Marriage Equality New York, an all-volunteer nonprofit advocacy group that formed in 1998. “Both political parties have said that government on the federal level shouldn't be involved in marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act is [Washington] taking a stance on marriage. Letting states decide for themselves is something both parties have said they support.”

I still think Rep. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi's EDNA->DADT->DPBOA approach reflects politics of a bygone era, where we were craving for nothing more than bread crumbs. Keep in mind that even if Frank's prediction is true, that the GLAD lawsuit prompts the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA in 2013, without the "Certainty Provision" that Rep. Nadler is proposing, it would only benefit a very small LGBT population that is lucky enough to live in states where same-sex marriage is legal. For the vast majority, it'd be meaningless.

One interesting thing to note is that Barney Frank has recently indicated he'd retire from Congress after 2011 and is interested in becoming the secretary for Housing and Urban Development. That might explain, in part, why he went from criticizing the Obama Administration for filing the infamous DOMA brief to defending the decision. Could it be that his lack of interest in the DOMA Repeal bill is just another way to make his future boss' life easier?

Politico agrees with Barney Frank on DOMA Repeal

Politico's Glenn Thrush echoes Frank's conclusion that the DOMA Repeal bill has no hope of passing in this Congress:

Even if Nadler's bill passes the House, it is likely to have a tough time in the Senate, despite the apparent support of Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) who says DOMA needs to go.

One unknown factor is President Obama. If he's determined to get it through, he can certainly play a pivotal role in repealing DOMA. Even if Blue Dogs such as Senator Nelson refuses to support the bill, there are still GOP moderates such as Senator Collins and Snowe to be won over.

Of course, it all comes down to whether or not President Obama has the will to get it done. So far he's doing his best to steer clean of the issue.

Same-sex couples and the Census

2010 will mark the first year that same-sex couples will be accurately counted in the Census. It's already creating a storm of sorts, according to the Washington Post:

Particularly at the state and local levels, gay advocacy groups say census data on income for same-sex couples will show the need for more protections against job discrimination. Statistics on households with children will help them challenge laws limiting gay adoptions and legal guardianship. With raw numbers to illustrate the need, it will be easier to demand services, they say.

But conservatives say the tally could just as easily support their position that most gay people aren't looking to get married. They say they will oppose attempts to make policies more gay-friendly.

"It seems homosexual activists use these various markers as ways push their agenda, to force people to go along with whatever they demand," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which promotes "biblical values." "Regardless of what the numbers are, they're going to exaggerate the importance of it and claim all of society must change in order to comport with their demands."

When the raw data is released in 2011, it will no doubt show the number of same sex couples far exceeds all the "guestimates", giving us momentum to push for more gay-friendly legislations.

And I have already in a small way, become a part of it. Our household was selected by the Census Bureau to complete the American Community Survey, which I have filled out and returned. I look forward to getting the "real deal" next year.

Barney Frank NOT signing on as co-sponsor of DOMA Repeal Bill

Apparently, Rep. Barney Frank, considered the most influential gay congressman, is not signing on to the DOMA Repeal bill due to his "strategic differences" with supporters of the bill. From the Washington Blade:

Frank said in an interview Friday with the Blade that he's not a co-sponsor of the legislation because he has a "strategic difference" with people supporting the repeal legislation.

"It's not anything that's achievable in the near term," he said. "I think getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and full domestic partner benefits for federal employees will take up all of what we can do and maybe more in this Congress."

Frank also said that advocacy for the "certainty provision," as described by Nadler, would create "political problems" in Congress.

"The provision that says you can take your benefits as you travel, I think, will stir up unnecessary opposition with regard to the question of are you trying to export it to other states," he said. "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term."

It's not the first time Rep Frank expressed pessimism on LGBT bills. He had made very similar comments on the Uniting American Families Act, saying that Congress is not ready for it.

Basically he advocates doing things the old way: bread crumbs here and bread crumbs there. Anything beyond that is way too ambitious.

In fact, he believes DOMA Repeal's best hope lies with the lawsuits filed by several organizations, such as GLAD and the State of Massechussetts:

Frank said the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders lawsuit against DOMA, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, stands a better shot of overturning DOMA than congressional action. The lawsuit specifically targets the portion of DOMA that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

"That's very thoughtful, very well done," Frank said. "That's the way we'll win this."

Keep in mind GLAD doesn't expect the Supreme Court to consider their case until the year 2013, which is a loooooong time.

Now, Rep. Frank is often considered to have the best knowledge of the inner workings of Congress and I respect him for what he has accomplished for the community. But times have changed and it's time to do things differently. Rep. Nadler said it best:

Mr. Frank knows better than anyone that our opponents will falsely claim that any DOMA repeal bill 'exports marriage' in an effort to generate fear and misunderstanding," Nadler said. "But the dishonest tactics of our opponents should not stop us from aggressively pushing to end this horrific discrimination now, as is the consensus of the nation's top LGBT groups who all support this approach.

More on the pending DOMA Repeal bill

Kerry Eleveld from the Advocate has more details:

The Advocate has learned that Democratic representative Jerrold Nadler of New York will be introducing legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next Tuesday. A Democratic aide confirmed that a press conference to announce the bill will be held September 15 at 11 a.m. at the House Triangle.

The source said the bill currently has just over 50 cosponsors, but Congressman Nadler’s office has not yet officially circulated a letter to his fellow House members.

Mark your calendars folks. Let's hope the number of co-sponsors will grow much larger after Nadler circulates his letter soliciting support.

Once it's introduced, the President no longer has any excuse NOT to act on DOMA.

DOMA Repeal Bill to be introduced next week

From Politico's Ben Smith:

At a busy legislative moment, foes of the Defense of Marriage Act are re-starting the campaign against it. Rep. Jerry Nadler is, I'm told, expected to introduce a bill that would repeal the legislation next week, and today Human Rights Campaign is delivering a survey of 50,000 gay and lesbian members and supporters to Congress, intended to convey the concrete harm the bill does them.

The survey results stress the mundane benefits of marriage -- first among them, Social Security survivor benefits.

HRC also officially launched their DOMA Repeal push by delivering the surveys results of 50,000 LGBT people on DOMA to Congress. In their announcement, they also confirmed timing of the DOMA Repeal bill, to be introduced by Nadler.

As part of the campaign, HRC launched a national action alert, an interactive website, RepealDOMAnow.org, and delivered to Congress nearly 50,000 survey responses showing the concrete harms DOMA brings to the lives of LGBT Americans and their families. A bill is expected to be introduced in the U.S. House as early as next week.

The fact that 50,000 people completed the survey is an encouraging sign in and of itself, showing how much people care about the issue. And with HRC trying to win back support they will no doubt work to push it to front and center of the LGBT legislative agenda. Only a fool would believe that the community would be happy with bread crumbs like EDNA and the Hate Crime Bill.

Of course, multiple challenges remain:

• The health care reform stalemate. Congress is unlikely to take on any other issue until a health care reform bill is passed.


• The lack of a senate sponsor. A while ago it was reported that HRC is lobbying Senator Russ Feingold to be the senate sponsor of the DOMA Repeal bill. Sen. Feingold is pro gay marriage and serves as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution under Committee on the Judiciary. There has been no word on whether or not he's willing to push for the DOMA Repeal bill.


• President Obama's avoidance of the LGBT issues. While he has repeated stated his objection to DOMA, President Obama has yet to take any substantial action against it.


• Expected outcries from social conservatives. Looking at how the republicans created outright lies such as "death panels" to derail the health care reform, I would be surprised if they don't do the same to DOMA Repeal should it appear on the congressional agenda.

The road ahead would be treacherous. It won't be accomplished in a day. But until we start on this journey, we'd never get there.

Politico confirms pending introduction of DOMA Repeal Bill

Reported by Glenn Thursh:

House progressives are preparing a legislative assault on the 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, even with the White House sending mixed signals on the issue.

I'm told that liberals, led by Jerry Nadler, who represents Manhattan's West side and chairs the Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, are working on a repeal bill that could be at the "Dear Colleague" stage within weeks. It's likely to garner dozens of co-sponsors.

But it's not clear if the move, which comes at a time when leadership's plate in cracking under the weight of other blockbuster issues, has the backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has said she supports rolling back the controversial law.

History has overtaken the 1996 law, which prevents federal recognition of gay unions and bars Social Security survivor payments and other government benefits. A half-dozen states have legalized same-sex marriage and advocates have mounted a series of [thus-far unsuccessful] legal challenges to DOMA.

Obama called for repeal during the campaign -- but his gay and lesbian backers were bitterly disappointed after DOJ lawyers filed papers defending the statute earlier this year. In an attempt to calm the waters, the White House issued a memo extending some benefits to federal employees with same-sex partners.

If nothing else, DOMA repeal bill will put Obama on the spot.

Apparently Politico writers pride themselves as Beltway insiders by using a lot of congressional jargons. If you're like me and do not know what "Dear Colleague" Stage means, here's a lengthy explanation. Basically it refers to the stage prior to th formal introduction where members of Congress persuade others to either support or oppose the bill.

This piece confirms what other LGBT press have been reporting, that Rep. Nadler will be introducing a DOMA Repeal bill after the August recess. If the Politico piece is right we could see the bill sometime in October.

With Congress dragging its feet on health care reform, it's unlikely this bill will be debated on this year-Nadler himself said so. Nevertheless, I agree with Politico that this bill will at least put President Obama on the spot. If he continues to be wishy washy about it, or publicly announcing his support but privately doing nothing to push Congress to pass the bill, he'd have a hard time explaining himself.

It'd be nice if the bill could be introduced in late September or early October to coincide with the National Equality March.

Most Promising DOMA Lawsuit

Here's an article from law.com explaining why among all the DOMA lawsuits, the one filed by GLAD is considered the most hopeful in winning the argument against DOMA in front of the Supreme Court.

While GLAD might not have as high a profile as, say, Ted Olson, they were the ones that brought us gay marriage in Massachussetts. This lawsuit is evidence that GLAD is the expert in picking the right battles.

Do keep in mind though, that GLAD does not expect the lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court until 2013 at the earliest. That's a good four years from now. I certainly hope we'd have a legislative solution to DOMA by then.

One can only hope.

HRC & DOMA Repeal: Should We Give Them a Second Chance?

Apparently, HRC's "No Excuses" campaign was met with considerable skepticism from the LGBT community. Not only did they fail to raise a mere $200K for the campaign, they couldn't even find enough people to fill out their DOMA survey.

I can understand why so many people have given up on HRC-after all, they've been around for decades with few visible accomplishments under their belt, unless you count the number of galas they've had.

When words came out that HRC secretly asked Congress to NOT prioritize some of the more controversial gay rights issues such as DADT, there was a huge backlash against them with many elite members withdrawing their support. Hence the birth of the "No Excuses" campaign attempt to reverse HRC's image of inaction.

I belong to the camp that's willing to support this initiative with a healthy dose of skepticism. Yes, I donated money to the "No Excuses" campaign and dutifully filled out the DOMA survey. It's a good thing that HRC is changing direction under pressure, and I hope something good will eventually come out of it.

Another Perspective on DOMA Repeal

This article is a few weeks old but a good read nonetheless. It's always good to have another perspective, especially when the author is an attorney.

Justice Department Files Another DOMA Brief, Albeit in a Different Tone

The Justice Department sought to dismiss another DOMA challenge today, using a set of language completely different from its previous brief:

This administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal.

Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.

The White House also put out a statement saying:

Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

We should really feel warm and fuzzy about this, no? Well not really. All the nice words aside,the action they're taking is the same: They will defend DOMA until it's repealed by Congress.

But didn't the President say that he's "working with Congress to repeal DOMA"? To that I'd say I haven't seen any evidence that the President is really doing anything to push Congress on DOMA. We have seen how visible the President is in the health care reform debate, prodding lawmakers from both sides to reach a deal. He has done multiple townhalls to address that very issue.

So has he met with any senator or congressman and pushed them to pass a DOMA repeal bill? Absolutely no evidence of that. Instead, his staff at various occasions have made it clear the LGBT community should push congress, not the White House. In other words, If anything they are trying to stay out of it.

So my gut feeling is, when Rep. Nadler introduces the DOMA repeal bill, the President will say some real nice things about it, then kick the ball to Congress and wash his hands clean of bill. Don't expect him to be out there advocating for our cause.

Obama sees early 2010 start on immigration reform

From the AP:

President Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Congress to overhaul the country's immigration system, an issue that fires up emotions on both sides of the political divide, by "early next year."

With health care reform hitting one stumbling block after another, it's no surprise that comprehensive immigration reform will not happen this year. The question is, how good are the odd for it in 2010?

The president certainly left a way out for himself:

Asked if an immigration bill would have enough votes to pass Congress, Obama said he did not know. He also noted as a further complication that next year is an election year.

The reality is, the Democrats must introduce CIR to fulfill their promise to the Hispanic community, whether they still have the political power or will to pass it or not.

My personal opinion is that CIR would be a tougher sell than DOMA Repeal. It's getting harder and harder for the GOP to motivate their base using wedge issues such as gay marriage, and they're becoming increasingly wary of doing that. But CIR would provide them with another opportunity to attack the Dems. Imagine a TV commercial that says:"While millions of Americans are without jobs, the Democrats decide to grant job-stealing illegal immigrants citizenship..."

Yes, it will make the GOP's effort to appeal to their Hispanic constituents all the more harder, but I think they've basically given up on that.

ENDA and DOMA Repeal

ENDA was introduced to the Senate yesterday, and according to the Advocate, might become law this year.

Earlier, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee, making it ready for a floor vote.

Both items are on Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi's priority list, which is incredibly out-of-step with grassroots LGBT needs. Basically, DOMA Repeal won't be considered until both legislations pass in Congress. It's very likely that Congress will take up ENDA first, then DPBO, which has President Obama's backing.

But then what? Are they going to take on DADT first, or the DOMA Repeal? During a hotly contested midterm election both of these could be potential hot potato issues. More likely than not the Democrats are going to lose seats, making the 112th a more hostile place for LGBT rights.

Unless Congressional Democrats abandon their baby steps approach and take bold actions on LGBT rights, it's hard to see them taking on both DADT and DOMA next year.

For now, we can only keep our fingers crossed.

HRC:DOMA must go!

After urging their members to talk to their lawmakers about the LGBT agenda (DOMA Repeal chief among them) during the August Recess, HRC has followed with a survey intended to show congress the damage DOMA is doing to LGBT families.

Why a survey? If you or someone close to you is married to a same-sex partner, you probably know all about DOMA’s discriminatory effects. But there are still far too many people – including our lawmakers – who don’t know how DOMA is harming families every day. Your answers to this survey will help show them how important this issue is.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve helped build unprecedented momentum to repeal DOMA. But President Obama has yet to take action against DOMA, and Congress still isn’t getting the message. We need to keep up a constant stream of pressure if they’re going to act.

Like many others in the community, I have always been skeptical of HRC in their ability and willingness to speak for the grassroots. But if this time they truly put their weight behind the DOMA repeal, I'm more than willing to open my wallet and donate money. Joe Solomonese can have as many galas as he likes if my family can enjoy some real rights.

More Democrats the Better?

The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld has some interesting observations on the Blue Dog Democrats and their decisive role in the current health care reform debate. Kerry then examined the record of the Blue Dogs and concluded that even though most Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives, most of them have pretty gay-friendly voting records-if they are NOT from the South, that is. On the other hand, quite a few Republicans from the Midwest to the Northeast are also friendly to gay causes. She wrote:

But it does demonstrate another point for those who are specifically interested in pushing LGBT rights forward -- swelling the Democratic majorities by electing more Heath Shulers in the South does little to advance LGBT equality. The community would be better served, in fact, by letting Democrats lose some of those Southern seats while focusing on electing some pro-LGBT Republicans in the Midwest and Northeast. In fact, that would be particularly helpful in the Senate. The only caveat is that the movement certainly has an interest in keeping Democrats in the majority.

Personally, I care more about a lawmaker's voting record than their party affiliation. If a Republican is gay-friendly, what's the point of replacing him/her with a Democrat, who would produce an exact same vote?

Besides, the reason why Congress has not acted on major LGBT legislation such as DOMA Repeal is not the lack of Democrats/votes, but the lack of courage. Those on Capitol Hill are just not keeping up with public opinion, unfortunately.

HRC Lobbying Senator to Introduce DOMA Repeal

From Southern Voice:

Allison Herwitt, HRC's legislative director, told the Blade on Friday that her organization has been communicating with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to introduce DOMA repeal legislation that would complement a similar bill expected in the House.

Feingold is an interesting choice since Wisconsin will have a limited domestic partnership law in place by October, but his constituents won't be able to benefit from the DOMA Repeal as it will only recognize marriage, but not civil union/domestic partnership. So I don't know how enthusiatic he'd be in pushing a DOMA repeal. Granted, it may allow people living in states where gay marriage is not legal to get married in states where it is and enjoy federal benefits. According to this article:

Herwitt noted that Nadler said a "certainty provision" in the bill would allow gay couples living in a state where marriage is not recognized to go to another state to marry and qualify for federal benefits when they return home.

"You could, if you lived in Oklahoma, travel to Massachusetts, or one of the other [five] states get married and [go] back to Oklahoma," she said. "The state would not have to recognize your marriage, but federal benefits would flow."

But the article also confirms my worse fears, that DOMA Repeal is not possible in this congress.

Despite these developments, Herwitt said she didn't think DOMA repeal would happen during this congressional session.

Now, if it doesn't pass in this session (2009), I don't see how it can get picked up by the next session, where midterm election will be on everyone's mind and controversial topics are avoided at all costs.

But we should take comfort in the fact that progress is happening, albeit at a much lower pace than we'd like. That's the political reality.

Uphill Battle

The Bay Area Reporter has another article on the uphill battle gay immigration legislations face. Most of it is basically a rehash of past articles but a good summary nonetheless. It also provides a perspective on Rep. Mike Honda's Reuniting Families Act:

Nadler said he doesn't know what will happen in the Senate but is hopeful that the House will pass Honda's bill and the pro-gay language "will be in the negotiations for the overall bill" that gets sent to the White House. President Barack Obama has signaled that he supports ending the discriminatory policies toward LGBT binational couples.

Honda has lined up 67 co-sponsors as of this week for his legislation, far short of what is needed to pass it out of the House. At the HRC dinner he said that 34 members of Congress who received 100 percent scores on the national LGBT lobbyist group's congressional scorecard are among those who have yet to sign on to his legislation.

A check this week by the B.A.R. between the listed co-sponsors of Honda's bill and the HRC scorecard for 2008 found only 32 current House members who had perfect scores but had yet to sign on as co-sponsors. The discrepancy is likely due to the resignations this year of both California Representatives Hilda Solis (D-El Monte) and Ellen Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek) for posts in the Obama administration.

Honda's decision to include UAFA in the Reuniting Families Act has raised the ire of the religious groups, who have traditionally been advocates for immigrants. Many speculate that at the end of the day, Congress is unlikely to include pro-LGBT components in the final CIR in fear that it'd kill the overall legislation.

Thoughts on Alan Chambers

Different people have different quirks, mine is listening to Christian radio (usually when the other stations are not playing the music I like). It always fascinates (or amuses) me to hear their point of views, which are of course completely opposite to mine.

My local Christian Station had Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, on their Primetime America program to promote his new book, "Leaving Homosexuality". He sounded like a real genuine guy, openly admitting to the fact that he still struggles with his attraction to men on a daily basis, which he said is more common than not among the "ex-gays".

He talked about how he keeps his "demons" in check, by always traveling with another person and having the hotels turn off their onDemand movies before he arrives.

Whether he realizes it or not, Chambers is basically refuting with himself as the example the evangelical argument that sexuality is a choice, or a different "life style" that hedonistic people indulge themselves in out of moral corruption. After all, if it's indeed as simple as that, a good Christian like Chambers would have "snapped out of it" long ago. But sadly, the conversation never went there. Not once was he asked, "Were you born gay or did you choose to be gay?"

So basically what Chamber preaches is not the change of a "lifestyle", but rather the suppression of one's sexuality to achieve "christian standards". In other words, he advocates celibacy from gay sex, but doesn't guarantee that one would be free of it.

Listening to him talk I really feel for the guy, for not being able, in this day and age, to accept the fact that being gay has nothing to do with morals. But I don't count on him coming around soon. After all, had he not become a part of the "ex-gay" movement, Chambers would just be a regular gay guy doing whatever makes him happy. Now, he's president of a well-known organization making a bunch of money writing books. Maybe from his perspective it's all worth it. And as long as he's miserable and unfulfilled in love, might as well make sure he's in plenty of company by selling this ridiculous idea of "ex-gay".

HRC Finally Grew a Pair

Risking irrelevance in the face of brave grassroots movement such as the Dallas Principles , HRC has finally come around. They just announced the launch of the "No Excuses" campaign, urging members to meet with lawmakers in their districts to push pro-LGBT legislations. From their website:

OUR DEMANDS:
Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which denies legally married lesbian and gay couples more than 1,000 federal protections.
Outlaw workplace discrimination by passing an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to protect our national security.
End the painful separation of families by recognizing permanent same-sex couples under immigration laws.
Provide health benefits equally to millions of federal employees, including same-sex domestic partners.

It's interesting that HRC elevated DOMA Repeal to the top of their list, which in the past had always fallen behind EDNA and DADT on their public agenda. This was done probably in anticipation of the DOMA Repeal bill to be introduced by Rep. Jerry Nadler. HRC is probably counting on this new agenda to win back supporters who have been disappointed by their lack of action so far.

The agenda didn't mention UAFA by name but it's No. 4 on the list. HRC has always been vocal in their support of the legislation, so it's not surprising.

It remains to be seen how effective this campaign would be. With HRC's damaged reputation, people are probably going to view this campaign with skepticism. It's hard to motivate people when they no longer believe in you.

Still, I regard this as a very positive step, and something HRC should have done a long time ago. Now let's wait and see if they can deliver.

More on DOMA Repeal

It's going to be a full repeal, according to the Bay Area Reporter.

A full repeal is impossible at this stage since the wingnuts would go crazy over it, even moderates/independents would be put off by the repeal of the provision that allows the states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

This legislation will face tremendous resistance and is next to impossible to pass. Oh well, all that waiting for nothing.

DOMA Repeal Bill Will Be Introduced Soon, with Little Hope of Passage

It is much different than what we were expecting, in that:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler has told the Bay Area Reporter that the Defense of Marriage Act repeal bill will only recognize married same-sex couples, not those in a civil union or domestic partnership. But the proposed DOMA legislation will be a wholesale repeal of the act.

"It will not include domestic partnerships or civil unions. It is going to be just marriage," said Nadler, who will be the lead sponsor of the bill and chairs the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Section 2 of DOMA allows states to disregard same-sex marriages that have been legally performed in other states, and Section 3 prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. According to Nadler, his bill would repeal both sections.

But even with the repeal of Section 2, legal scholars say the bill would not require hostile states to recognize same-sex marriages for state-law purposes.

"While repealing the 'full faith and credit' portions of the Defense of Marriage Act is very important for a number of reasons, it will not have the dramatic and far-reaching effect of 'imposing' same-sex marriage upon other states, as many on both sides of the debate often assume," writes Tobias Wolff, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania.

Nadler said "the time for dumping DOMA is long overdue" but added that he did not know what type of support the legislation would garner. "We have to see what reaction we get. It won't pass this year."

Nadler expects to introduce the bill either this week or after lawmakers return from their August recess.

I have serious doubts that this bill will pass. I am really disappointed that this is not the "DOMA Partial Repeal Plus" that the Advocate reported a while ago, which would only repeal Section 3 but recognize any "marriage like" arrangements registered with the local government.

This, although disappointing, is not unexpected. Recent news articles have reported that LGBT activists differ on how this legislation may look, with many worrying that the "DOMA Repeal Plus" bill would only serve as a counter argument for gay marriage.

I guess that's it then. CIR is basically DOA because the health care debate is taking too long and using up President Obama's political capital. The partial DOMA repeal that I had hoped for is just not going to deliver.

All political realities considered, we're not going to see a solution to the gay immigration debacle until President Obama's second term.

Real bummer for the day.

President Obama's Dwindling Political Capital and What It Means for CIR and Gay Rights

No one said it was going to be easy, but six months into President Obama's term his approval rating has dropped below 60 percent, with more people disapproving his handling of the economy and deficit than not. From his recent pressers and speeches, it appears that President Obama is going to spend the bulk of his remaining political capital on health care reform, a signature issue during his campaign.

With President Obama going "all in" with health care, what does it mean for the other issues, such as comprehensive immigration reform and gay rights?

Well, it's apparent that he'd like to push gay rights further to the back burner, until his second term. As to immigration reform, Congress must pass health care by Labor Day to even have a shot at CIR. Right now with the American public losing faith in President Obama's heath care reform bill, all the stars have to align for it to happen before Labor Day.

Even if health care is taken care of by then, it's not clear if Democrats would still have the stomach to take on an even thornier issue, not with the GOP waiting with glee for the Dems to over-extend themselves.

So most likely the Democrats will try to placate the Hispanic community by introducing CIR, but take their sweet time and drag in on until it's too late for any action.

As for gay rights? Well, Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi hope you're happy with the Hate Crime Bill and EDNA and forget about DOMA altogether.

Where Are We Now?

A lot happened during my two-week vacation, the most encouraging being that the State of Massachusetts filed a suit against the Federal Government to overturn DOMA.

Congress, on the other hand, is still lagging behind. I was expecting to see the Partial DOMA repeal legislation on the table when I returned from my vacation, but apparently disagreements over what form the legislation should take are slowing things down. From the Bay Area Reporter:

HRC has yet to take a position on what a DOMA repeal bill should press for, said Solmonese.

"We are having an internal debate in the community," over what form the legislation should take, he said. "There are a lot more people who might support conveyance of federal benefits rather than the portability piece."

But he said others are arguing that "if you convey benefits, why not do it to states with marriage plus those with some form of relationship status," such as Washington, Oregon, and California where LGBT couples can enter into domestic partnerships. "Then you would do a DOMA-plus bill."

Solmonese said some have cautioned that pushing a so-called DOMA-plus bill would compromise efforts in California and other states to undue same-sex marriage bans. Should the federal government extend full marriage rights and benefits to domestic partners, it could hinder efforts to repeal Prop 8 next year.

"It takes away the catalyst for these states to move toward marriage," pointed out Solmonese. "It is a valid point to consider. Look at what the California court decision said, it spoke out against a separate but equal solution."

It goes back to the whole benefits vs. name debate, which I addressed in this earlier post. Sadly the LGBT community, diverse as it is, can rarely reach an united front on anything. And congressional leaders, hoping to avoid controversial topics such as gay marriage and DOMA, are more than happy to take advantage of that. While they often speak passionately about the hate crime bill and EDNA, neither Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi has shown any intention or interests to take on DOMA. Even though Harry Reid recently endorsed a DADT memorandum bill proposed by Senator Kristen Gillibrand, it doesn't appear that he is willing to go any further than that.

All of that left us with a disheartening timetable. It's vague, and it differs depending on who you are talking to.

But Polis also suggested that DOMA repeal would not come anytime soon. The need for Congress to act will only grow stronger, he said, as the list of states with full marriage equality grows.

"Repeal of Prop 8 next year certainly would be helpful in repealing DOMA. There is no doubt about that," said Polis.

And according to Rep. Jackie Speier, another pro-gay congresswoman:

As for federal recognition of same-sex marriages, which Speier supports, she predicted it would take several years before LGBT couples received all the same rights and privileges as those granted to heterosexual couples.

"This will happen, I think, in less than 10 years. Now having said that, I fully appreciate that is not fast enough ..."

Of course, the heavyweight of all remains POTUS, who has said more than once that the LGBT community "will be very happy by the end of my term". Many people interpret it as the end of President Obama's second term. That's eight years from now, folks.

There you have it, so according to the politicians, DOMA Repeal will happen in the next eight to ten years. New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn summed it up the best:

“And he said not to worry and that by the end of his term I would be happy with him,” Quinn told everyone.

“He kept saying, ‘Don’t worry. By the end of my term, you’ll be happy.’ Well, it’s not actually about being happy. And I’m not going to wait till the end of anything,”

That's what happens when we wait for action, not push for it. Unless we light a fire under every politician who claims to be pro gay rights, reward those who stand by us and swiftly punish those who don't, no one is going to act on our behalf.

As FDR once said, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." We need to stop fighting over details and work together to make them do it.

Despite Protests, Plenty of Gay Dollars for DNC

The DNC gay fundraiser, despite being boycotted by high profiled gay activists, still managed to pull in almost $1 million, exceeding 750K raised last year. All it took was VP Joe Biden repeating President Obama's campaign promises to repeal DOMA and DADT. Of course, no timeline was mentioned as always.

I was disappointed to say the very least. Like David Mixner has said, if we keep forking out money to those who give us nothing but empty promises, how do we expect them to take us seriously? Heck, they might even think the controversy resulted in more doughs for them.

The White House will have a low-key meeting with gay activists next Monday, but I suspect it'd be nothing more than a reiteration of the President's love for the LGBT community, in hope that it'd be sufficient to quiet down the uproar.

There have been many speculations as to why President Obama is moving so painfully slow on gay rights even though society has made great strides. One is that 3/4 of the Obama cabinet are old timers from the Clinton Administration, who have been forever scarred by the early stumbles President Clinton made trying to address gay rights. The other being moderate Democrats in Congress are still reluctant to touch the gay issue. These people have one thing in common: They're still living in the past when the mere mention of the word "gay" would get you into a political mess.

And why bother when the gay community keeps opening their wallets after all these broken promises?

Everything Gay Rights, Just NOT DOMA

According to Roll Call, Nancy Pelosi met with Rep. Barney Frank, Jared Polis and Tammy Baldwin yesterday to map out the House's strategy on gay rights.

According to sources, the Members discussed workplace discrimination, health care benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees and a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bars gays from openly serving in the military. The lawmakers also discussed how to help the Senate pass hate crimes legislation that has already cleared the House.

Notice something amiss? Oh yeah, they didn't mention DOMA, the one piece that has caused some much grief in the LGBT community. Somehow, despite all the outcry, DOMA Repeal still hasn't been picked up by their incredibly outdated radar.

My other disappointment was that apparently they didn't invite Rep. Jerry Nadler, a champion of gay rights, especially for bi-national couples. Not to mention the fact that Rep Nadler will be introducing a much anticipated DOMA Repeal bill.

Are they ever going to listen to us?

More Conflicting Signals

The mixed signals are getting people all confused.

Before today's White House meeting on immigration, Politico had this piece:"Immigration 'debate' to begin, later", indicating the diminishing prospect of an immigration reform bill this year. Shortly after the meeting concluded and President Obama gave his presser, Politico then said "A start on immigration: Movement by early next year promised" .

Then there's this bit from the Chicago Tribune:

The meeting is happening, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said Thursday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, because "the votes aren't there."

Rahm's management rule: When you have the votes, you don't need a meeting.

And Nancy Pelosi chimed in and said the House is ready to vote on immigration if a Senate bill is passed.

Perhaps this AP article will help clear things up a bit, it quotes Senator Chuck Schumer as saying that Obama told the lawmakers that an overhaul bill had to happen by the end of this year or the early part of 2010.

But the same AP piece also contains some dire warning:

Several lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — said after the meeting that this year is the last chance to try again, perhaps for decades.

"We've got one more chance to do this," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "If we fail this time around, no politician is going to take this up in a generation."

My head is about to explode. Probably yours too. But hang on. Because the best analysis comes from the Oh Law Firm. I've followed their "Breaking News" section for quite a while now and consider them to be pretty insightful.

Disappointing news are all over in the media after the summit was over this afternoon. Reportedly, the President even brought up the target date of CIR this year or "early next year." The problem with this schedule is that everyone knows that year 2010 is the election year and history tells that the election years are the worst year to consider CIR. We reminded readers of this reporter's analysis on this issue during the last few days.

What are the "real" sources of problem? Current environment including the economic recession and terrible unemployment rate is inducing the political leaders to act "low key" for fear of being labelled as "alien" amnesty advocates. At the same time, they cannot afford losing the Hispanic constituency and they have been acting "pushed" by the politcal motives rather than "spearheading" the reform. For the reasons, CIR has lately turned into a soccer ball which every political leader wants to kick around to place blame of failure on someone other than himself or herself. News is abound now that the House leaders do not want to act unless the Senate moves and pass a bill first. Republican leaders claim that it is the President who should come forward with a specific bill and they will not act first without the President showing "real" leadership in the CIR. The White House is down playing the chance of CIR in 2009 advancing a theory that there are not enough number of supporters of CIR in the Congress, but advances a position that the legislators in the Congress must first come up with a bill. The Senate majority leader keeps spinning that the CIR is "do-able" in 2009, but is not willing to take it up until "fall" because of the two higher priorities in health care reform and energy reform. Politics abound.

When it comes to the blame for "inaction," every single of them should share a slice of the "sour" pie. Before they kick a soccer ball around to blame eveyone other than himself or herself, they should prove themself to the public and the system that they can "initiate" themselves by proposing and introducing CIR bill. Current problem is that no one wants to "initiate" any specific proposal or legislative bill! When it comes to the word "initiate," each of them points a finger at others. This reporter wants to ask the President whether he brought a proposal to the summit. This reporter wants to ask the legislative members of the summit whether each of them brought any proposal or a draft of a legislative bill. The details of the today's summit discussion has yet to be disclosed, but the indication is "probably not." Next week, we celerate the Fouth of July which will quickly move into the Congress' August summer recess. This year's CIR game shows a phenomena which is distinctively different from previous two or three years. In previous years, the legislators were eager to be prominent in CIR and active in initiating and introducing their CIR proposals and bills. Not this year!? Hmm..........................................................................................................................!

With that I conclude today's update on CIR.

Don't Cry for Him Argentina

Another "Defender of Marriage" bites the dust.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford resurfaced today only to reveal that he wasn't hiking in the Appalachian Trail as his aides had indicated, but was in fact in Argentina, with his mistress.

Let's check his conservative "family values" credentials, shall we?

Opposition to civil union? Check.

Define marriage as between one man and one woman? Check.

Voted to ban gay adoption in DC? Check.

Membership in a secretive Christian fellowship on Capitol Hill, known as “C Street”? Check.

Firing a staff who advertised South Carolina as a gay tourist destination? Check.

And of course, chastising and asking for resignation from fellow politicians who can't keep it in their pants? Check.

John Ensign must be so grateful now.

But Gov. Sanford, don't feel bad. Should your wife divorce you and you decide to marry your mistress, you can easily do so and sponsor her for a greencard with no questions asked.

We, on the other hand, are not so lucky.

More on CIR

According to Politico, Sen. Reid believes he has the floor votes to pass an immigration reform bill-the problem is there isn't floor time to do it.

But the real challenge, according to LA Times, is in the House, where Democrats from conservative/swing districts see CIR as a liability:

The biggest obstacle to speedy passage of a citizenship plan, according to interviews with lawmakers and Capitol Hill strategists, is the House. Democrats hold a wide majority there, but at least 40 members represent moderate or conservative swing districts with few Latino voters where legalization plans are unpopular and often derided as "amnesty" for lawbreakers.

"This a very, very difficult issue," said Rep. Jason Altmire, a Democrat elected in 2006 from rural western Pennsylvania. "The Democratic Party is doing everything they can to capture this very fast-growing community, and I understand that. But I'm not in that camp. I made it clear that I was going to take a very hard line on this, and my district takes a hard line."

As it won't be a smooth sail in the Senate either, even though Sen. Reid insists that he's got the votes:

But prior efforts have failed in the Senate. And with the measure's long-standing champions, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), no longer taking the lead, strategists say that success is possible only if Obama steps in.

So the more reasonable timeline is still 2011, when President Obama will need Hispanic support in swing states such as New Mexico and Nevada. Most likely the White House will start the converstation on Comprehensive Immigration Reform this year and end with just that. The Senate might even introduce a CIR bill, but eventual passage this year in both the House and Senate is a tall order.

Another Update on Partial DOMA Repeal

The Detroit News today confirms that Rep. Nadler is about to introduce an anti-DOMA bill:

What does gay-friendly Rep. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on civil rights, need voters to do to help him pass the anti-DOMA bill he'll soon introduce?

"Call your representatives. Meet with them. Pressure them," Nadler told me.
Nadler hopes to quickly get a Senate companion bill.

What's more interesting is this bit:

Gay Rep. Tammy Baldwin says pushing other bills will illuminate the path to repeal.

The House could vote by summer's end on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- banning bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity -- and the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, extending health and pension benefits to federal workers' partners.

"If we do get a roll call vote on ENDA and the domestic partners bill, we are going to get a sense about what this body is thinking about our families and our right to be free from discrimination. That will an indicator we don't currently have on repealing DOMA." Baldwin told me.

The number of gay-friendly lawmakers is rising. The more calls and letters, the more change.

So basically what's holding the White House and Congress back on repealing DOMA is that they don't know whether there's support behind it, and they're hoping ENDA will serve as an indicator.

Because the Democrats have a large majority in the House, the moderate Democrats will hold the key to a Partial DOMA Repeal. I don't think the so-called "Blue Dogs" would have any major issue with a Partial DOMA Repeal, as most of them represent moderate districts where support is strong for gay rights, even though gay marriage is still frowned upon.

Let's get ready to bombard Congress with calls, faxes and emails and make sure they hear us.

Conflicting Signals on CIR

Just after the White House conceded that Comprehensive Immigration Reform is unlikely to happen this year, RollCall reported today both Senator Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer indicated they intend to introduce CIR legislation before the end of the year:

But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reiterated his call for doing a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.

“We have to finish health care and climate change, but being third on the list is pretty good,” Reid said, predicting that he could muster up the votes for a bill later this year.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the immigration subpanel, will deliver an address on immigration at Georgetown University on Wednesday and is expected to outline “the principles that will guide legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate later this year,” according to a release.

Facing a tough reelection and coming from a state with a large and increasing Hispanic population, it's no surprise that Sen. Reid is the most vocal and optimistic member of the Senate on immigration reform. Whether he has the clout to pull it off or it's merely political posturing on his part to get votes remains to seen.

The White House is meeting with several lawmakers on Thursday to discuss immigration policies. The timeline issue will definitely be part of the discussion and hopefully the picture will clear up a bit then.

Senator Chris Dodd Now Supports Gay Marriage

Politico notes how times have changed: gay marriage support used to only come from politicians with no hopes of higher office, now it's a way to drum up support for a difficult reelection campaign. You can read Senator Dodd's letter here.

HRC reports:

Senator Dodd also let us know that he was committed to ensuring that federal rights were portable, so that a same-sex couple married in Connecticut would receive the federal benefits of marriage even if they relocated to a state without marriage equality.

This confirms what the Advocate reported back in April. They listed Dodd as one of the several congressional leaders working on a partial DOMA repeal. We can only hope "soon" means "by the end of the year".

Confirmed: White House Says Immigration Reform Unlikely in ’09

From Roll Call:

The White House on Monday acknowledged that immigration reform is unlikely to move in Congress this year.

“I can see the president’s desire for it to happen but understanding that currently where we sit the math makes that real difficult,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Obama will meet with a bipartisan group of lawmakers Thursday to discuss the issue at the White House.

Gibbs added that Obama hopes that “later this year that we can have the beginning of formal debate on that.”

Obama has consistently put other priorities — including energy and health care reform — ahead of an immigration bill, hoping to have both approved in 2009.

Since 2010 is the mid-term election year it's highly unlikely the Democrats would bring Comprehensive Immigration Reform to the table. So we're looking at 2011 at the earliest.

Now that the gAyTM is no longer spitting out money for the Dems, let's hope they wise up and not wait on repealing Section 3 of DOMA. 2011 is simply not acceptable.