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and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.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.