UAFA in CIR: What does it mean?

I haven't updated this blog for a while, partially due to personal circumstances, partially due to my belief that nothing was going to change for a while.

But things did change. Hope was reignited when the CIR framework released by Democratic senators included languages similar to UAFA, allowing LGBT citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their partners for a greencard.

While the inclusion was certainly a big step forward, we were soon reminded how toxic the issue of CIR is, with President Obama hinting that CIR is unlikely to be passed this year. He still insists that CIR be introduced, but it's clear that he is reluctant to touch the "third rail", as defined by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sure enough, today Senator John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled the Senate Energy bill.

One may ask, what does that have to do with CIR? Well, a couple things:

1. The Energy/Climate bill has been competing with CIR for the next spot after the Senate is done with Financial reform. The fact that Democrats only have a framework for CIR while Energy/climate now has a BILL basically says CIR has lost that next spot to Energy;

2. The lone republican who's willing to work with the Dems, Senator Lindsay Graham, voiced his displeasure when President Obama and Senator Harry Reid indicated that work might begin on CIR before the climate bill. Introducing the climate bill first means the Dems still want to retain Graham's support;

3. There's little doubt that CIR is considered more "toxic" than the climate bill, with the GOP gearing up to retake the House in the upcoming midterm election, the Dems are not willing to hand them "red meat", even with the anti-immigrant law in Arizona putting more urgency to CIR.

Call me a pessimist, but I'm not sure if CIR can be passed in the next couple years. Let's face it: If the Dems couldn't bring CIR to the table with a huge majority in both the House and the Senate, then the odds of CIR being passed in a diminished majority (or even a minority) is next to zero.

So my prediction is basically this: Dems will bring up CIR this year, debate it a little, then let it die after the mid-term election. They might bring it up again next year as a talking point, but don't expect passage any time soon.

Chuck Schumer, As Predicted.

He's NOT going to include UAFA in CIR. I would have loved to be proven wrong by him, alas, he's a politician.

Not that it's too much of big deal, since CIR has little chance of being passed anyways. The Senate would probably introduce it, debate it, then let it die before the Mid-term Election.

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.

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.