A surprising victory in New Hampshire made my day. The New Hampshire Senate approved the gay marriage bill after some last-minute wrangling, the question now is whether Governor John Lynch, a Democrat will veto it or not. Although Lynch has stated that he does not support same-sex marriages, many expect him to neither sign nor veto the bill, essentially allowing the law to go into effect.
Maine's Judiciary Committee also demonstrated its strong support for gay marriage by voting 11-2-1 to repeal the state's gay marriage ban. A full vote will follow soon and is expected to pass the bill. Governor John Baldacci's stance is the same as New Hampshire Governor John Lynch, a veto by him is also unlikely. Social conservatives are expected to initiate a "people's veto", sort of a Maine version of Prop 8. However, with public opinion changing every day and more and more people supporting gay marriage, the social conservatives will be facing a very different landscape by the time they make this move. Even today, the public opinion is split 50/50.
With New Hampshire and Maine poising to recognize gay marriage, the three moderate Republican senators, Judd Gregg, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe will be more likely to support granting federal rights to same-sex couples sanctioned by their states.
I'd say, the more, the merrier.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter's Defection and Partial DOMA Repeal
With Arlen Specter switching to the Democratic Party, the Republicans can pretty much cross out the word "filibuster" from their political dictionary. That bodes well for the upcoming Partial DOMA Repeal, as the filibuster option is no longer on the table.
The outcome of the Partial DOMA Repeal would probably be similar to that of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006, albeit in a reverse manner, with most Democrats supporting the measure and most Republicans against. Democrats might lose a few Blue Dog votes (i.e. Ben Nelson), and moderate Northeast Republicans such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Judd Gregg would cross party line again as they did for the FMA. By my calculation there will be more than enough votes to pass the measure, as long as the Democratic leadership stands firmly behind it.
All that's left now is for the Democrats to introduce it.
The outcome of the Partial DOMA Repeal would probably be similar to that of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006, albeit in a reverse manner, with most Democrats supporting the measure and most Republicans against. Democrats might lose a few Blue Dog votes (i.e. Ben Nelson), and moderate Northeast Republicans such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Judd Gregg would cross party line again as they did for the FMA. By my calculation there will be more than enough votes to pass the measure, as long as the Democratic leadership stands firmly behind it.
All that's left now is for the Democrats to introduce it.
Arlen Specter Now a Democrat
This is all over the news. Today Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party, getting the Democrats one step closer to a filibuster-proof sixty seat majority. Since the seating of Al Franken in the next several months is widely expected, the Republicans have pretty much lost their last bargaining chip.
Of course, the Republicans brought it on themselves. The social conservatives have a tight control over the party, leaving little breathing room for the moderates. Even as people like Megan McCain and Steve Schmidt start speaking out against their party's intolerance, the leadership has remained eeriely silent, unwilling to confront the one element in the GOP that brought them where they are today. A recent poll demonstrates their dilemma: even though republicans inside the Beltway are increasingly wary of wedge issues such as gay marriage, the rank and file GOP members outside the Beltway have no intention of moving away from their "3Gs": God, Guns and Gays.
Anyway, as much as I dislike the current GOP, I hope Specter's defection would serve as a wakeup call for them. For those who are still dreaming about imposing their conservative ideology on America, they should probably read this poll on the nation's changing attitude towards gay marriage.
Of course, the Republicans brought it on themselves. The social conservatives have a tight control over the party, leaving little breathing room for the moderates. Even as people like Megan McCain and Steve Schmidt start speaking out against their party's intolerance, the leadership has remained eeriely silent, unwilling to confront the one element in the GOP that brought them where they are today. A recent poll demonstrates their dilemma: even though republicans inside the Beltway are increasingly wary of wedge issues such as gay marriage, the rank and file GOP members outside the Beltway have no intention of moving away from their "3Gs": God, Guns and Gays.
Anyway, as much as I dislike the current GOP, I hope Specter's defection would serve as a wakeup call for them. For those who are still dreaming about imposing their conservative ideology on America, they should probably read this poll on the nation's changing attitude towards gay marriage.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Gay Marriage Fight Update
Positive:
Maine had its first hearing on gay marriage. Supporters far outnumbered opponents. Public poll shows a tie. Still unclear is whether or not there are enough votes for the legislation to pass. We'd probably know by the end of April.
Neutral/Unclear:
After a high profile press conference announcing the introduction of a gay marriage bill, New York Governor Paterson has deterred it to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who is rumored to have a no-gay-marriage agreement with several anti-gay Democratic senators to ensure his majority leader position.
Meanwhile on the Republican side, gay rights organizations are withholding support for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's reelection campaign until he secures republican votes for the gay marriage bill. The Log Cabin Republicans reportedly have talked Republican senators to "vote their conscience" instead of toeing the party line and vote against the bill.
Negative:
New Hampshire Senate Committee voted 3-2 Thursday against a gay marriage bill that passed the House last month. Committee Chairwoman Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat, said she doesn't think New Hampshire is ready for gay marriage. I wonder where she got that conclusion from.
Maine had its first hearing on gay marriage. Supporters far outnumbered opponents. Public poll shows a tie. Still unclear is whether or not there are enough votes for the legislation to pass. We'd probably know by the end of April.
Neutral/Unclear:
After a high profile press conference announcing the introduction of a gay marriage bill, New York Governor Paterson has deterred it to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who is rumored to have a no-gay-marriage agreement with several anti-gay Democratic senators to ensure his majority leader position.
Meanwhile on the Republican side, gay rights organizations are withholding support for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's reelection campaign until he secures republican votes for the gay marriage bill. The Log Cabin Republicans reportedly have talked Republican senators to "vote their conscience" instead of toeing the party line and vote against the bill.
Negative:
New Hampshire Senate Committee voted 3-2 Thursday against a gay marriage bill that passed the House last month. Committee Chairwoman Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat, said she doesn't think New Hampshire is ready for gay marriage. I wonder where she got that conclusion from.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Dueling Activists
To the small and passionate community deeply affected by the issue of gay immigration, the gay marriage activists have not always been their BFFs. The two sides hold very different views. For the former, most don't care what the government calls their relationship as long as federal rights are granted to them. In fact, the Uniting American Families Act was painstakingly crafted to avoid any mention of marriage, so as not to offend the religious right. And it's not asking much either, just one right out of the 1000+ will do.
For the latter, they will not settle for anything less than marriage, even if it's in name only. In the early days of the gay marriage fight, there were few mentions of rights or benefits that come with marriage, the obvious reason being that the other side could easily push back by offering domestic partnership or civil unions which would afford the same rights. Many moderates do use this argument against the gay marriage push: we will give you all the rights enjoyed by married couples, why can't you just take them and leave? So the belief is that talks of rights or benefits would only hurt the gay marriage agenda.
So the fact that the "call-us-anything-you-want-as-long-as-you-give-us-the-rights" group and the "I-don't-want-your-damn-rights-if-it's-not-called-marriage" group do not always see eye-to-eye shouldn't come as a surprise.
I'd argue that it's time the two sides lay down their difference and work towards a common goal: Full rights and full recognition, in locking steps. The two goals can be achieved in parallel, but we should be flexible and achieve as much as the current political climate would allow. If we can grant a gay couple living in Alabama federal rights NOW, let's not ask them to wait until gay marriage is available in their state in 2020. If Maine is ready for gay marriage today, let's not ask them to wait because the religious right might use this as an excuse to erect a gay marriage ban in Indiana.
The Partial DOMA Repeal would be a perfect example of how the two sides can work together. For the "Rights" group, let's be bold and ask for not just one, but all the federal rights we're entitled to. And let's not forget a partial DOMA repeal would not have been possible had it not been the recent victories in Iowa and Vermont. For the "Recognition" group, yes, the momentum is on our side, but let's not forget there are states that are still years away from allowing gay marriage, gay couples living in these states need legal protection NOW.
We will not reach the finish line if we keep pushing and shoving each other along the way.
For the latter, they will not settle for anything less than marriage, even if it's in name only. In the early days of the gay marriage fight, there were few mentions of rights or benefits that come with marriage, the obvious reason being that the other side could easily push back by offering domestic partnership or civil unions which would afford the same rights. Many moderates do use this argument against the gay marriage push: we will give you all the rights enjoyed by married couples, why can't you just take them and leave? So the belief is that talks of rights or benefits would only hurt the gay marriage agenda.
So the fact that the "call-us-anything-you-want-as-long-as-you-give-us-the-rights" group and the "I-don't-want-your-damn-rights-if-it's-not-called-marriage" group do not always see eye-to-eye shouldn't come as a surprise.
I'd argue that it's time the two sides lay down their difference and work towards a common goal: Full rights and full recognition, in locking steps. The two goals can be achieved in parallel, but we should be flexible and achieve as much as the current political climate would allow. If we can grant a gay couple living in Alabama federal rights NOW, let's not ask them to wait until gay marriage is available in their state in 2020. If Maine is ready for gay marriage today, let's not ask them to wait because the religious right might use this as an excuse to erect a gay marriage ban in Indiana.
The Partial DOMA Repeal would be a perfect example of how the two sides can work together. For the "Rights" group, let's be bold and ask for not just one, but all the federal rights we're entitled to. And let's not forget a partial DOMA repeal would not have been possible had it not been the recent victories in Iowa and Vermont. For the "Recognition" group, yes, the momentum is on our side, but let's not forget there are states that are still years away from allowing gay marriage, gay couples living in these states need legal protection NOW.
We will not reach the finish line if we keep pushing and shoving each other along the way.
Faces of UAFA
Back in March, Sen John Kerry wrote about the plight of a bi-national couple, Tim Coco and his husband Genesio "Junior" Oliveira. Shortly after, many major news outlets carried the story of Shirley Tan, a lesbian mother about to be deported because her partner is unable to sponsor her for permanent residence despite their bona fide relationship. With the help of Sen Diane Feinstein, Shirley will be able to stay through 2010, a happier albeit short-term ending compared to Tim and Junior, who are forced to live apart.
I also found out the story of Britta, who is currently detained by ICE. Her partner Carla is working frantically to help her avoid deportation. However, Britta faces the same dilemma as Junior and Shirley before her: because her relationship is not recognized by the Federal Government, the only case she can make for immigration is political asylum, which is extremely difficult if not impossible since she's from Germany, a country that is fairly progressive on LGBT issues.
These stories demonstrate the urgency for gay immigration right because thousands of gay couples are struggling with this issue every day. For many of us, the clock is ticking or has already run out.
We need equal immigration rights NOW.
I also found out the story of Britta, who is currently detained by ICE. Her partner Carla is working frantically to help her avoid deportation. However, Britta faces the same dilemma as Junior and Shirley before her: because her relationship is not recognized by the Federal Government, the only case she can make for immigration is political asylum, which is extremely difficult if not impossible since she's from Germany, a country that is fairly progressive on LGBT issues.
These stories demonstrate the urgency for gay immigration right because thousands of gay couples are struggling with this issue every day. For many of us, the clock is ticking or has already run out.
We need equal immigration rights NOW.
The Tide is Against the Social Conservatives
With Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling both the Senate and the House, the once powerful social conservatives no longer have a strong voice in the government. After the ruling in Iowa and legislative action in Vermont, the social conservatives' outcry against gay marriage has been limited to right-leaning news outlets, or the comments sections of news articles.
The other factor that's playing a big role is the economic crises. As clueless as they have been, republicans know better than to take up anti-gay crusade again when all people care about these days is the economy. Chuck Grassley, Iowa's senior Republican Senator first refused to comment on the court ruling legalizing gay marriage. It was not until days later, probably after numerous calls from his wingnut friends, that he finally made some vague statement about gay marriage being a long-term fight.
Unfortunately, the Republicans apparently despise Rudy Giuliani too much to send him the memo on gay marriage. Or maybe it did make it to be desk but was buried under all the earlier conservative manifestos he was trying to immerse himself in. The once moderate republican all of a sudden believes the only way to get another elected office is to run as a social conservative, by opposing gay marriage no less. Even some social conservatives wonder if they really want to embrace a thrice-married, cross dressing former mayor as the defender of "traditional marriage". Oh Rudy, I truly feel sorry for you.
On the other hand, moderate republicans who had been afraid to speak out in the past finally made their views clear: continuing to hang out with the social conservatives will doom the GOP. Jon Huntsman, the younger and more enlightened version of Mitt Romney, voiced his support for civil unions despite being governor of the most conservative state. And miraculously that position hasn't hurt his approval ratings at all, which is more than one can say for Sarah Palin.
Even some of the most well-known social conservatives have started to distant themselves from their past anti-gay stance. Dr. Laura Schlessinger and the Rev. Rick Warren now want gay people to think they have never been homophobic after all, despite their past comments. Can you imagine Dr Laura using words like "beautiful", "healthy" to describe gay relationships?
Oh, we can hardly handle all the love that's coming our way.
The other factor that's playing a big role is the economic crises. As clueless as they have been, republicans know better than to take up anti-gay crusade again when all people care about these days is the economy. Chuck Grassley, Iowa's senior Republican Senator first refused to comment on the court ruling legalizing gay marriage. It was not until days later, probably after numerous calls from his wingnut friends, that he finally made some vague statement about gay marriage being a long-term fight.
Unfortunately, the Republicans apparently despise Rudy Giuliani too much to send him the memo on gay marriage. Or maybe it did make it to be desk but was buried under all the earlier conservative manifestos he was trying to immerse himself in. The once moderate republican all of a sudden believes the only way to get another elected office is to run as a social conservative, by opposing gay marriage no less. Even some social conservatives wonder if they really want to embrace a thrice-married, cross dressing former mayor as the defender of "traditional marriage". Oh Rudy, I truly feel sorry for you.
On the other hand, moderate republicans who had been afraid to speak out in the past finally made their views clear: continuing to hang out with the social conservatives will doom the GOP. Jon Huntsman, the younger and more enlightened version of Mitt Romney, voiced his support for civil unions despite being governor of the most conservative state. And miraculously that position hasn't hurt his approval ratings at all, which is more than one can say for Sarah Palin.
Even some of the most well-known social conservatives have started to distant themselves from their past anti-gay stance. Dr. Laura Schlessinger and the Rev. Rick Warren now want gay people to think they have never been homophobic after all, despite their past comments. Can you imagine Dr Laura using words like "beautiful", "healthy" to describe gay relationships?
Oh, we can hardly handle all the love that's coming our way.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Why Partial DOMA Repeal Is Our Best Hope
According to the Advocate, congressional leaders are crafting legislation that would repeal Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), essentially granting same sex couples the 1000+ federal rights currently denied to them. This legislation, on the surface at least, looks much more aggressive than the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which is only seeking 1 out of the 1000+ federal rights: immigration.
So why am I more optimistic about this legislation than UAFA? Well, a couple reasons.
First off, this legislation decouples gay rights from immigration, two very controversial topics in the current political environment.
In addition to that, "Potential for fraud" can no longer be used as an excuse, since the bill would only recognize contracted same-sex relationships, which were not available when UAFA was written.
Last but not least, a Partial DOMA Repeal would have much broader support among, yes, the gay community. Let's face it, for the gay community at large who are not impacted by the immigration issue, they have a hard time understanding the plight of those who are in the bi-national situation. We're either seen as detractors from the "bigger fight": marriage equality, or we get chastised by activists working on CIR as shameless free riders.
On the other hand, any gay person would have no difficulty understanding the benefits of a Partial DOMA Repeal, especially for those who live in states where they enjoy equal rights at the state level, but none at the federal level.
As much as I dislike compromises, Partial DOMA Repeal is much less controversial than a full repeal, which congressional leaders such as Barney Frank have acknowledged as difficult if not impossible to achieve in President Obama's first term.
As a result I expect Partial DOMA Repeal to have much stronger congressional support than UAFA, giving it a better chance of passing. That is not to say it's a done deal. Factors such as number of states getting gay marriage, White House support, and preventing Republican senators from fillibusting the bill will decide the fate of this legislative effort. More analyses on that later.
So why am I more optimistic about this legislation than UAFA? Well, a couple reasons.
First off, this legislation decouples gay rights from immigration, two very controversial topics in the current political environment.
In addition to that, "Potential for fraud" can no longer be used as an excuse, since the bill would only recognize contracted same-sex relationships, which were not available when UAFA was written.
Last but not least, a Partial DOMA Repeal would have much broader support among, yes, the gay community. Let's face it, for the gay community at large who are not impacted by the immigration issue, they have a hard time understanding the plight of those who are in the bi-national situation. We're either seen as detractors from the "bigger fight": marriage equality, or we get chastised by activists working on CIR as shameless free riders.
On the other hand, any gay person would have no difficulty understanding the benefits of a Partial DOMA Repeal, especially for those who live in states where they enjoy equal rights at the state level, but none at the federal level.
As much as I dislike compromises, Partial DOMA Repeal is much less controversial than a full repeal, which congressional leaders such as Barney Frank have acknowledged as difficult if not impossible to achieve in President Obama's first term.
As a result I expect Partial DOMA Repeal to have much stronger congressional support than UAFA, giving it a better chance of passing. That is not to say it's a done deal. Factors such as number of states getting gay marriage, White House support, and preventing Republican senators from fillibusting the bill will decide the fate of this legislative effort. More analyses on that later.
Options on the Table
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal Government does not recognize same-sex couples, even if they're married in a state where gay marriage is legal. Without federal recognition, same-sex couples are denied the 1000+ federal benefits, one of which is the ability to sponsor their foreign partners for permanent residence, commonly known as the green card. As a result, thousands of same-sex couple face a difficult choice: separation from the love of their lives, or self-imposed exile.
Efforts are under way to address this issue. Let's look at the three options that are currently on the table.
Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)-As a Standalone Bill
The UAFA basically seeks to modify the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to replace "spouse" with "permanent partner" , thus enabling U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their partners for immigration.
UAFA was first introduced in 2000, several years after DOMA was enacted. On Feb. 12, 2009, UAFA was introduced for the sixth time, and as of today has 112 sponsors in congress.
As a standalone, UAFA will have to be recommended by the congressional immigration subcommittee for a floor vote. Despite having been introduced in every congress since 2000 and garnering 100+ co-sponsors, UAFA has never made it out of the committees. Many in congress cite "potential for fraud" as the reason they do not sponsor the bill. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton made the same argument when they were running for the Democratic Nomination during the 2008 election.
Some argue that with the Democrat control of Congress, and with Barack Obama as president, UAFA now stands a much better chance of being passed by congress.
UAFA as Part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)
CIR failed back in 2007 despite having support from George W Bush and several prominent Republican senators. Congressional leaders and the White House have talked about reintroducing CIR in 2009. The hope is to insert UAFA into the CIR, riding the momentum and support behind CIR to victory.
Partial Repeal of DOMA
Under this legislation, Section 3 of the DOMA will be repealed, granting all federal benefits currently available to married straight couples to the following group:
1. Married Same-sex couples;
2. Same-sex couples who entered into a civil union or domestic partnership.
Note that under this legislation, one does not have to be a resident of a state that recognizes contracted same-sex relationship to receive these federal benefits. E.g. a couple living in Alabama would be able to get married in Iowa and enjoy these benefits, even though their home state does not recognize their marriage.
So far it's still unclear if this bill will recognize contracted same-sex relationships from other countries, say civil union in the UK or marriage in Canada.
What about people whose same-sex partners are not in the US, you may ask?
Well, among these 1000+ federal rights, there's something called a "Nonimmigrant Visa for a Fiance(e)", a.k.a. the K1 visa, which is issued to the fiance(e) of a US citizen. Here's the wiki on the K1 visa: "A K1 visa requires a foreigner marry his or her US citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or leave the US. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States."
To avail of this visa, In general, the two people must have met in person within the past two years.
Efforts are under way to address this issue. Let's look at the three options that are currently on the table.
Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)-As a Standalone Bill
The UAFA basically seeks to modify the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to replace "spouse" with "permanent partner" , thus enabling U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their partners for immigration.
UAFA was first introduced in 2000, several years after DOMA was enacted. On Feb. 12, 2009, UAFA was introduced for the sixth time, and as of today has 112 sponsors in congress.
As a standalone, UAFA will have to be recommended by the congressional immigration subcommittee for a floor vote. Despite having been introduced in every congress since 2000 and garnering 100+ co-sponsors, UAFA has never made it out of the committees. Many in congress cite "potential for fraud" as the reason they do not sponsor the bill. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton made the same argument when they were running for the Democratic Nomination during the 2008 election.
Some argue that with the Democrat control of Congress, and with Barack Obama as president, UAFA now stands a much better chance of being passed by congress.
UAFA as Part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)
CIR failed back in 2007 despite having support from George W Bush and several prominent Republican senators. Congressional leaders and the White House have talked about reintroducing CIR in 2009. The hope is to insert UAFA into the CIR, riding the momentum and support behind CIR to victory.
Partial Repeal of DOMA
Under this legislation, Section 3 of the DOMA will be repealed, granting all federal benefits currently available to married straight couples to the following group:
1. Married Same-sex couples;
2. Same-sex couples who entered into a civil union or domestic partnership.
Note that under this legislation, one does not have to be a resident of a state that recognizes contracted same-sex relationship to receive these federal benefits. E.g. a couple living in Alabama would be able to get married in Iowa and enjoy these benefits, even though their home state does not recognize their marriage.
So far it's still unclear if this bill will recognize contracted same-sex relationships from other countries, say civil union in the UK or marriage in Canada.
What about people whose same-sex partners are not in the US, you may ask?
Well, among these 1000+ federal rights, there's something called a "Nonimmigrant Visa for a Fiance(e)", a.k.a. the K1 visa, which is issued to the fiance(e) of a US citizen. Here's the wiki on the K1 visa: "A K1 visa requires a foreigner marry his or her US citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or leave the US. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States."
To avail of this visa, In general, the two people must have met in person within the past two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)