Civil Union back on the table?

When asked about what he would do about to allow gay marriage and ensure same-sex couples are entitled to same benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, President Obama avoided answering the first part of the question but made the following comments on the latter:

Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you're obeying the law, if you're following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. (Applause.) I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples. So at the federal level, one of the things that we're trying to do is to make sure that partnerships are recognized for purposes of benefits so that hospital visitation, for example, is something that is permitted; that Social Security benefits or pension benefits or others, that same-sex couples are recognized in all those circumstances.

So does that mean Civil Union is back on the table? In any case, we should not get too excited. This is definitely not something President Obama would touch during his first term.

Is Immigration Reform dead?

Pretty much, according to Newsweek and others who read the tea leafs from President Obama's State of the Union address. The President, save for one brief sentence at the end, barely said anything about immigration in his speech.

However, during the same speech, he made a commitment to work with Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, which was followed by another announcement today by the Pentagon that they're actively working on it. In the meantime, we were also told that ENDA is probably dead for the year, which means DADT repeal is as far as the President will go this year, and based on his record so far, he never throws more than one bone at any particular dog, so we should pick it up and get out of his way.

As much as I disagree with his handling of LGBT related affairs, it still saddens me to see the man, who one year ago was full of hope and the desire to do right, only to be significantly weakened a year into his presidency. President Obama is a smart guy, and I have no doubt he'll learn from his mistakes from the first year and become a better president. But I'm not sure this pragmatic man would follow his heart and do the right thing, instead of worrying about pleasing everyone. He came in thinking and telling us he could change the system, but the system soon devoured him.

Looking at him, I barely recognized the man who once served as a beacon of hope for people around the world.

Relecting on MA

It's hard to believe how quickly President Obama's support has eroded over the past year. No one expected it to be easy, but no one could have foretold that merely a year into office, he would lose support in arguable the most liberal state of America.

A weak economy and high unemployment is no friend to any president, but most would agree that the President's poll numbers would be higher had he not decided to tackle healthcare in the current environment. Even if a bill was passed, it would not please anyone: those who are for it would find it lacking, those who are opposed to it would use it as ammunition against the President.

I wonder what conclusions the President is drawing from his mistakes. His strategy has long been "ruling from the center", but just because you're ruling from the center does not mean you would please both sides of the political spectrum. If anything it's proven to be the opposite. He failed to bring in the Right while disappointing the Left. The Middle could abandon him as fast as they once embraced him.

Gay rights has also become a victim of this "rule from the middle" philosophy. The "fierce advocate" who never shied from talking about gay rights during the campaign went missing as soon as the job in the White House is secured. In the Prop 8 courtroom, the President's words are being used to justify discrimination against the LGBT community, yet he has not uttered a word of objection. His silence, as David Mixner put it, is hurting us, big time. Mr. President, if by ruling from the center you mean giving up your principals and letting the political machine, the very machine you ran against, dictate your agenda, then you shouldn't be surprised by how people are questioning their support for you.

People voted for what you stand for, only to find out you don't really stand for anything.

Hope for CIR?

An interesting article from Politico detailing the power struggle between Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. John Kerry over whose pet project should get to the Senate floor after the Health Care bill.

Schumer is quietly spreading the word within the immigration community that he has the White House’s support to pass a bill by April.

Now that the Dems are in danger of losing their 60th vote, they're rushing the Health Care bill to avoid a possible Scott Brown victory jeopardizing it. If Brown wins and gives the Republicans filibuster power, immigration reform would no doubt face a major obstacle.

Can CIR really happen this year?

Some have speculated that the timeline for CIR probably looks like this: Sen Chuck Schumer introduces a bill in February or March, Senate debates it for several months, then maybe, after the mid-term elections, musters the courage to vote on it.

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, CIR comes after climate change, financial regulatory reform and a permanent estate tax extension.It's hard for one to believe that after a widely expected bruising mid-term election, the Dems would bring on another controversial topic that's bound to invite more criticism.

I'm not very optimistic.

More from Ted Olsen on gay marriage

What a beautifully written article.

Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to "wait their turn" and to "be patient." Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are "ready" for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.

Since we can't count on politicians in DC (President Obama included) to stand up for our rights, it's ironic that a conservative icon should become our next big hope.

You go Ted. Win or lose, at least you have the guts to stand up for a persecuted group of people at the risk of your reputation and standing with your own group, which is more than I can say for those who have called themselves our "fierce advocate" and yet shy away from the gay issue as soon as they're in power.

Will UAFA become the "public option" of CIR?

As UAFA supporters watch how health care reform debate became a battle between liberal and conservative Democrats (the Blue Dogs), with the Blue Dogs eventually getting their way in killing the public option and imposing harsh restrictions on abortion coverage, many have started to wonder if UAFA would get the same treatment during the upcoming comprehensive immigration reform debate.

But let's back up a little. The following is how CIR is supposed to work:

1. Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that the House won't vote on CIR until the Senate has acted and passed a bill;

2. A Senate version of any bill is expected to be much more conservative than the House version;

3. House Democrats passed a much more liberal health care reform bill, only to quietly accept the much restrictive Senate bill without putting up any fight;

4. Given these, it's very unlikely the House would draft its own version of CIR. They're probably just going to accept the Senate version with minor changes;

5. So if UAFA is not in the Senate bill, chances are it wouldn't be in the final bill either. Rep. Nadler has indicated that he'd try very hard to get UAFA in the CIR bill, but if liberals (after threatening multiple times "no public option no deal") can swallow a health care reform bill without the public option for the sake of passing the bill, UAFA stands very little chance since it doesn't even have the kind of passionate support the public option enjoys, so it'd be easy for liberal Democrats to turn the other cheek.

So it all comes down to this: what's the likelihood of UAFA being included in the Senate version of CIR? Probably very low. For one thing, UAFA's lead advocate in the Senate, Sen. Pat Leahy, is not drafting the CIR, Sen. Chuck Schumer is. Although he has signed on as a UAFA sponsor and recently declared his support for gay marriage, Chuck Schumer has never been front and center in any gay right fight. For a long time Sen. Schumer was shadowed by other high profile senators such as Hillary Clinton, CIR would be his chance to shrine, so above anything else, he'd want a CIR bill to be part of his legacy. So it's very unlikely for him to include something that might add to the complexity of a CIR bill, especially if such a component would only please a minority of people in a minority group.

A second and maybe even more negative factor is that Sen. Chuck Schumer is working with Republican Senator Lindsay Graham on the CIR bill to make it sound more bipartisan. Democrats are elated Sen. Graham is willing to work with them on immigration, so they'd definitely try everything to accommodate his requests just so he'd put his signature on it, which means the final CIR bill would be MORE conservative. Sen. Graham has taken a lot of flack from the right for wanting to work with the Dems, so a gay component would probably not please him. Additionally, Sen. Graham, a life-long bachelor, has long battled rumors that he's gay. Imagine the social conservative wrath that would come his way if the final CIR bill included clauses to "import homosexuals".

So the prognosis is not so good, unfortunately.