Visas Are Now Available For Same-Sex Couples

Among the clear winners in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor are bi-national same sex couples who had heretofore been unable to get visas for the non-U.S. spouse and often faced having to move abroad to stay together.  Yesterday, the State Department announced that effective immediately same sex spouses would be treated equally and have the same visa rights as heterosexual couples.  We can expect flying spittle and hyperventilating among the Christofascists in reaction to this development.  Metro Weekly has details:

In a policy change announced Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States will begin processing visa applications for same-sex couples effective immediately. 

"If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world," Kerry said during an appearance at the U.S. embassy in London.

The announcement is the latest repercussion following the Supreme Court's June decision striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Now, as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then that marriage is valid under U.S. immigration laws, and every married couple will be treated exactly the same, and that is what we believe is appropriate," Kerry added.

According to Freedom to Marry, sixteen countries permit same-sex marriage — Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay and Britain — while certain regions of the U.S. and Mexico also allow same-sex couples the right to marry.

The new State Department policy will also impact the children of the foreign national spouse by considering them "step-children" of the parent who is a U.S. citizen.

"Today, the State Department, which has always been at the forefront of equality in the federal government, I'm proud to say, is tearing down an unjust and an unfair barrier that for too long stood in the way of same-sex families being able to travel as a family to the United States."

What Does DOMA's Demise Mean for Gay Couples?

My activist friend John Becker and his husband at the Supreme Court

Many are asking the question of: what does the striking down of DOMA do for married same sex couples?  The answer is that depends on (i) where you live, (ii) where you were married, and (iii) what federal benefits are you talking about.   It will be complicated sorting it all out and, as one Harvard law professor said, much litigation will still need to take place to gain fully equality for all legally married couples.  In the interim, couples will need to see how marriage may benefit them.  More on this issue will follow, but here's a brief overview via the Washington Post:

“The effect is going to vary based on which of the thousand-plus statutes or regulations are affected.”

There are some clear-cut cases. It seems pretty clear that legally married same-sex couples where one member is employed by the federal government are entitled to spousal benefits, just the same as any other married couple. For other legally married couples who don’t live in states where same-sex marriage is recognized, there’s some question as to whether the “state of celebration” or “state of residence” matters. Usually, the former is the standard used, meaning a marriage is valid if it’s valid in the state it was celebrated. That would mean most legally married same-sex couples, regardless of where they got married, are entitled to spousal benefits.

Other areas, like tax law, may require additional rule-making before same-sex couples are treated equally. “Some operate just based on policy, without getting into a regulation or statute, so those can be modified very quickly,” Tara Borelli, an attorney at Lambda Legal who was also a counsel in Golinski. ”Others require rule-making.” And others require statutory changes. Borelli notes that Social Security will probably have to be changed by Congress for same-sex couples to be treated equally.

This does open the door for  bi-national same-sex couples to be treated equally under the law. That means that comprehensive immigration reform probably need not include a provision specifically tailored to making sure bi-national partners of same-sex couples can get visas automatically, the same as opposite-sex partners. As Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block and arguably the leading gay rights litigator in the country (he won Lawrence v. Texas, overturning state bans on gay sex), told me, “My understanding is that the elimination of DOMA would by itself mean that all bi-national married couples would have the same rights, whether same sex or not.”

DOMA's Hopeful Demise and Bi-National Same Sex Couples

While DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, harms all LGBT Americans, no one experiences a worse plight than American gays married to citizens of a different country.  Unlike heterosexual couples who can immediately have the non-US secure US residency as the spouse of a US citizen, DOMA bars such residency for gay couples.  It is part and part of DOMA's overall goal of stigmatizing and making life Hell for gays in general.  DOMA's yet another example of "Christian love" in my view.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at what the pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling my mean for these bi-national couples.  Here are highlights:

The outcome of the court's DOMA decision will impact LGBT Americans and their families in a multitude of ways. However, one group that arguably has the most to gain from a favorable decision is binational same-sex married couples. Not only are such couples denied the general range of federal rights and benefits associated with marriage, but they also deal with the additional stress and trauma of having to find ways to physically stay together in the same country.

There are thousands of binational same-sex couples currently residing in the U.S. (and thousands more living outside the country) in which one of the partners is a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident. Due to DOMA, neither a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. permanent resident can sponsor a same-sex spouse for immigration, as this falls under federal law. 

Binational same-sex couples in the U.S. (both married and non-married) have historically been forced to pursue extreme measures in order to maintain their relationships:

1. Seeking temporary immigration status for the non-U.S. partner via a temporary visa (e.g., tourist, work, student visa categories) has helped some couples stay together physically in the U.S. for a defined and limited period of time. However, this has often come at considerable financial cost. Additionally, it has been accompanied by the stress of still having to find a permanent solution  . . .

2.  Some non-U.S. citizens who have not been able to successfully apply for a temporary visa have elected to stay in the U.S. without legal status so as to maintain their same-sex relationship with an American spouse. This causes immense stress to the couples involved due to the uncertainty and anxiety associated with residing in the U.S. without legal immigration status.

3.  Many binational same-sex couples have elected to leave the U.S. when the non-U.S. partner has been unable to obtain a temporary visa. Some couples have migrated to third-party countries in which neither partner is a citizen. Others have moved to the country of the non-U.S. partner in instances where this has been possible. Thankfully, over 30 countries provide immigration benefits for same-sex couples (married or not)  . . . 

It is my sincere hope, both on a personal basis and for LGBT people generally, that the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Section 3 of DOMA. Such action would finally bring to a close the discrimination against binational same-sex married couples that has caused such pain and distress for thousands of U.S. citizens and their partners over many years. It is truly outrageous that so many Americans have been forced to choose between their homeland and their spouse. No one should ever be forced to make such a choice.

If the Supreme Court issues a DOMA decision that favors equality, the U.S. would then join a growing list of nations that recognize same-sex marital relationships for immigration purposes. Not only would this bring obvious relief to those couples impacted by such a change in law, but it would also enhance America's international reputation as a nation that honors the human rights of LGBT people.

 There is much more to the article that deserves a full read.  Once conclusion from the article is that gays have a strong reason for walking away from religion.  Religious based bigotry and hate are the force behind DOMA.  

Marco Rubio: Firing People for Being Gay Should be Legal

Marco Rubio - Anti-Gay Asshole

The more I see of Marco Rubio, the more I despise the man.   Now Rubio says he doesn't support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because he thinks it should be perfectly legal to fire employees if they are gay.   Apparently Rubio is (i) so bigoted, (ii) so stupid, or (iii) so eager to whore himself out to the white supremacist base of the GOP that he hasn't figured out that his approach to gays is identical to that of white racists who think it should be fine to fire Hispanics.  If Rubio is the future of the GOP, that future is somewhat frightening.  Think Progress interviewed Rubio where he enunciated his contempt for LGBT citizens.  Here are highlights:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is touted as a top GOP presidential prospect in 2016, thinks it should be legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation.

ThinkProgress spoke with the Florida Senator at the opening luncheon of the annual Faith and Freedom Forum on Thursday and asked him about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill to make discrimination against LGBT individuals illegal across the country.

Though Rubio bristles at the notion of being called a “bigot,” he showed no willingness to help protect LGBT workers from discrimination. “I’m not for any special protections based on orientation,” Rubio told ThinkProgress.

KEYES: The Senate this summer is going to be taking up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which makes it illegal to fire someone for being gay. Do you know if you’ll be supporting that?

RUBIO: I haven’t read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I’m not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that’s established law.

KEYES: But not for sexual orientation?

Workplace discrimination is an all-too-frequent reality for LGBT individuals. Two out of every five openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual employees have reported discrimination at their jobs. Among transgender workers, that figure rises to nine out of ten.

Though other Republicans have applauded Rubio’s so-called “middle ground” on LGBT issues, his record of late tells a far different story. In addition to opposing ENDA and marriage equality, Rubio also said today that he would walk away from his own immigration bill if it includes protections for gay couples.

LGBT workers aren’t asking for “special protections,” as Rubio would have people believe. They’re asking to be treated like everyone else and be allowed to do their job without fear of being harassed or fired for who they are.

The reasons to not be a Republican just seem to keep on growing.  Having been fired for being gay myself, few things enrage me more that this kind of bigotry.

Senate Immigration Bill Advances; Senator Leahy Files Gay Couples Amendment

Today the so-called "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill advanced and received a wide thumbs up vote in the U. S. Senate.  Politico describes it this way:

The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly agreed to launch a major effort to rewrite U.S. immigration laws, setting the stage for weeks of debate on securing the nation’s borders, legalizing undocumented residents and modernizing the country’s immigration system.

Senators voted 82-15 to move forward on the Gang of Eight immigration bill; 60 votes were needed for passage. All 15 votes against the motion were from Republicans. The bill cleared a second procedural vote later Tuesday.

The overwhelming bipartisan vote gives the Gang of Eight room to negotiate, but finding an acceptable approach to tightening border security is emerging as major challenge for the bipartisan coalition.

Part of the negotiation process will be about including same sex bi-national couples with the same immigration rights as married heterosexual couples.  To make sure this happens, Senator Patrick Leahy filed an amendment for this purpose.  Here are highlights from Politico on the ammendment:

 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is trying again on immigration and gay rights.

The Vermont Democrat filed an amendment to the Gang of Eight immigration bill on Tuesday that would allow gay U.S. citizens to petition their foreign spouses to become permanent residents. He had withdrawn the measure after an emotional debate during the committee markup, after several Democrats said they would vote against his amendment in order to preserve the overall bill.

Seeking equal protection under our laws for the LGBT community is the right thing to do,” Leahy said in a statement Tuesday. “I withheld my anti-discrimination amendment during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup. As the entire Senate turns to debate the immigration bill, the fight for equality must go on.”

It is unclear whether Leahy’s proposal will get a vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have yet to reach an agreement on amendments.

And the political dynamics for Leahy’s amendment are different on the floor. In the committee, the amendment would have required just a simple majority for it to pass. On the floor, it will almost certainly need 60 votes.

If Democrats do not support the Leahy amendment, in my view, they need to pay a price in terms of votes and money.  I seem to be on every national level Democrat committee donor mailing list known to man and I am now routinely reply to ask for money with a statement that (i) no money will be forth coming until gays are covered under the immigration reform act and Obama signs an ENDA executive order for federal employees and (ii) please remove me from the mailing list.   The boyfriend and I are supporting state level candidates - a McAuliffe staffer has been living in our home for a month now - but the Democrats at the federal level can kiss my ass until they put blather into actual action.  They don't get it that "support" is a two way street.

Will GOP Use Guns and Gay Rights to Derail Immigration Reform?

Let's be clear about something: despite the half-ass GOP blather about wanting to court the Hispanic vote and enacted needed immigration reform, most in the GOP - especially those in the white supremacist filled base - do not really want any reform.  They oppose anything that might increase the number of minority voters.  Likewise, they oppose anything that might enable bi-national gay partners ot gain green cards and they oppose aspects of proffered gun control vis-a-vis immigrants.  As Politico reports guns and gays among other issues may well be resurrected in the immigration reform fight and used by the GOP to kill any reform.  Here are highlights:

As the Senate prepares to consider immigration reform next week, two powerful issues dividing lawmakers could be resurrected on the floor: guns and gay rights.

But debate over amendments to restrict gun ownership for illegal immigrants and to provide foreign-born gay partners with U.S. citizenship would reopen old wounds that both parties would rather see closed — even if those measures ultimately fail.

Here is POLITICO’s list of five issues to watch in the immigration floor debate:

Guns
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of the Senate’s most ardent gun control advocates since the Newtown school shootings in his home state, is looking at offering a pair of amendments aimed at restricting immigrants’ access to guns.

One amendment would broaden an existing ban on certain immigrants buying guns to those who came into the U.S. on visa waivers. The other would require the attorney general to notify Homeland Security officials if undocumented immigrants or immigrants on temporary visas try to buy firearms, which is illegal.  After lively debate, a recent Senate push failed to impose background checks on commercial gun sales.

Gay rights
The most emotionally charged debate over the immigration bill came in its final moments, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) put forward — and ultimately withdrew — an amendment to extend immigration rights to gay partners.

Gay-rights groups will continue to pressure lawmakers as the bill heads to the floor. Democrats may introduce the amendment there, where a 60-vote threshold would be harder to meet but senators could go on the record for or against it.

Complicating matters, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal statute that states marriage is between a man and a woman. If the law is struck down, gay couples may be able to petition for green cards, and a legislative fix could be unnecessary.

“The amendment would be a critical insurance policy for binational couples if a ruling has not yet been handed down before the final vote,” said Steve Ralls, the communications director for Immigration Equality, which advocates for immigration rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. “If we have a bad ruling from the court, the amendment becomes especially critical.”

Taxes and benefits
In committee, the Gang successfully lured Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) — a key swing vote — by adopting certain changes that the Utah senator demanded on high-tech visas.  They’ll have to work to keep him.

Hatch has now turned attention to his four amendments on taxes and benefit provisions, which he says must be included in order to win his support on the overall bill. For example, Hatch wants to require undocumented immigrants to prove they have paid back taxes

But immigration advocates have raised concerns that the substance of Hatch’s amendments could dramatically affect the ability of immigrants — particularly those who are poor — to apply to become legalized.

Border security

Border security will be a key test of whether reform can pick up a slew of Republican votes considered in play for the overall bill.

Guest workers
The delicately-negotiated compromise between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions on lesser-skilled workers could be the target of changes during the amendments process.

In the current legislation, the number of low-skilled visas starts at 20,000 in the bill’s first year, followed by 35,000 in the second, 55,000 in the third year and 75,000 the following year. The bill also includes wage and labor-friendly requirements for businesses.

Changes to the guest-worker program that yanks it too far to the right or left could upset the deal between the two powerful interests that have major influence in reform’s success.

Major Gay Donor Cuts off Democrats Over Immigration Bill Betrayal

In 2009 it seemed that Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats went out of their way to piss off members of the Democrat base and to give the impression that nothing was being accomplished legislatively.  The consequence here in Virginia was that the Democrat base stayed home on election day in November, 2009 and Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli were swept into office.  Fast forward to 2013 and we are again witnessing Obama and national level Democrats doing a reprise of what they did in 2009.  Except here in Virginia the GOP statewide slate is even more insane than the one in 2009.  Will Obama and the Congressional Democrats give the Virginia governorship to a far right Republican yet again?

Some in the LGBT community are over this batshitery and indifference from Obama and his Democrat cohorts in Congress.  And they are showing their displeasure where it most elicits national Democrats' attention: they are cutting off donations.  After the Democrat betrayal of the LGBT community in the U. S. Senate, I have already stated on this blog that Congressional Democrats will not get a penny from me in donations and I have begun asking that my name be removed from donor lists.   That's not to say I won't be supporting state level candidates, but Congressional Democrats can kiss my ass.  I'm not the only one pissed off and, in fact, I am in good company.  Today, gay Democratic Party donor Jonathan Lewis (pictured above) - he's the son of the founder of Progressive Insurance - announced that he is cutting off the money spigot to the Democrats.  Hopefully, other big donors will join suit and a clear message will be sent and hopefully understood.  Namely, Democrats take us for granted at their own risk.  Terry McAuliffe needs to call Obama and some of his U. S. Senate friends and ask them "WTF are you doing?"  The Washington Blade looks at Lewis' action and the rumblings coming from other donors.  Here are highlights:

Prominent gay Democratic Party donor Jonathan Lewis is pledging to cut off funds to the party over his disappointment that bi-national same-sex couples were excluded from the immigration reform bill.

In a statement provided to the Washington Blade on Tuesday, the Miami-based philanthropist said he’s turning off the tap for Democrats and urging others to do the same over the immigration issue and President Obama’s reluctance to issue an executive order barring LGBT workplace discrimination.

“During the immigration reform debate Senate Democrats had the opportunity to reverse some of the harm caused by DOMA and they buckled under pressure, essentially taking LGBT families for granted,” Lewis said. “With the president failing to deliver on his promised federal contractor executive order and with Senate Democrats caving to Republican threats, now is the time to stop investing in Democratic cowardice and stand proud by withholding donations until we see our friends’ actions and deeds align with their rhetoric — I will be withholding my donation and asking all of my friends and family members to do the same until such time

Lewis, who provided money to fund LGBT groups such as Freedom to Work and GetEQUAL, provided the maximum amount of $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee and the maximum amount of $2,500 to President Obama’s re-election campaign in the last election cycle. His fortune comes from his family, founders of Progressive Insurance.

Neither the White House nor the DNC responded to a request for comment on Lewis’ statement.

[O]ne LGBT advocacy group that worked to include UAFA is saying Lewis’ sentiment is shared by others who’ve supported the Democratic Party.

Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said he’s heard from Democratic donors that they’re “rethinking the political contributions and priorities” following the exclusion of the amendment for gay couples from immigration reform, although he wasn’t immediately able to provide names.

“I can assure you that in private conversations, significant Democratic donors have had with our executive director and with other people working on this said they were very disappointed in what happened last week, and they’re looking at where they invest their donations moving forward,” Ralls said.

“There is palpable anger among the LGBT community in social media, in conversations that we’ve had with supporters,” Ralls said. “I do think there will be a political price for senators to pay.”

As an aside, Lewis provided a significant part of the funding for the December 2008 LGBT Blogger Summit I attended in Washington, D.C., and for that I want to say "Thank you!"

Too Many Democrats Still See Gays as Less Than Fully Human

The betrayal of bi-national sames sex couples by Democrats in the U. S. Senate ought to have sent a strong and troubling message to LGBT voters:  Democrats like our money and our votes, but when push comes to shove, we are viewed as different and deserving of being thrown under the bus.  I for one am tired of it and have been unsubscribing to many Congressional Democrat e-mail lists and when they call asking for money, they are getting a piece of my mind - and not a red cent.  I'm sick of fair weather friend Democrats who speak out of both sides of their mouths on LGBT issues.  While they may despise us less than those in the GOP, it is best to remember that our friends in the Democrat side of the aisle are most members of "the party of what's in it for me" when it comes to LGBT issues.  A column in The Advocate looks at the problem and its underlying root cause.  Here are excerpts:

In an unusually reflective moment a couple weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters  that his niece is a lesbian and that he is considering bringing the Employment Non-discrimination Act to a vote this year.

Then, noting that ENDA might not have enough support to pass, he mused: “It’s hard to comprehend that we haven’t done a better job.” Agreed. The idea of providing basic workplace protections to gay employees was first introduced in Congress in 1974 and today 90% of Americans believe those protections already exist.

But just one week later, during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s deliberations over immigration reform, Reid’s colleagues – led by Sens. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein — demonstrated why the Senate hasn’t done a better job. All three implored the committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, not to offer a provision that would have helped equalize immigration law for LGBT Americans by allowing them to sponsor their partner for residency. It would doom the bill, they said, too many people were against it.

Here’s the subtext of what they were saying: Not only do these senators seem to believe gay Americans are a separate class of citizens, they believe gays are a separate class of humans. We may be immigrants, but our gayness is entirely incidental to that identity. We may love, but that love isn’t worthy of recognition. Indeed, LGBT families – which include children, by the way – are not families at all. They are some aberration in the eyes of these senators. If that were not true, they would have insisted that immigration reform address these binational families – because being separated from the one you love based on the fact that they are a foreign national is an immigration issue, not a gay issue.

Republicans said they would abandon the bill because Democrats never challenged them not to say it. It’s that simple. And the more Republicans said it and the more strident they got, the more true it became. Why would including families kill the bill? Because they said it would — i.e. self-fulfilling. 

If Democratic senators had stood up for families at the very beginning of the negotiations – if they had said to Sen. Lindsey Graham, “Don’t make an issue of it because this bill must address all families or we can stop talking right now” ­– Graham might have chosen not to draw that line in the sand.

Democrats bargained away our humanity at the outset. They capitulated on including families in their immigration principles; then they capitulated on including families in the base bill; then they capitulated on taking a committee vote. Every step of the way, they emboldened Graham .  .  .  .

Sens. Schumer, Durbin and Menendez – the Democrats who crafted the bill with Republicans – helped create the self-fulfilling prophecy. They chose to negotiate with Graham, they chose to signal weakness on this issue, they chose to let Graham grandstand on it – first in their private talks and then in public.

So just as quickly as the Dems had stampeded toward equality while the issue was in the courts, they ditched it when it came time to legislate.

I'm not saying to sit out elections or never support Democrats.  But I am saying to let these folks know that their every move is being watched and that they are fools if they think they can take our money and votes for granted.   They are for the most part shameless opportunists.  They are not our friends.

Quote of the Day: The American Government’s Persecution of Its Own Citizens

Senator Chuck Schumer

As noted in a post yesterday, a Senate Committee has vote out a comprehensive immigration bill that removed gay couples from being covered under the new immigration reform.  Those voting for approval so that the bill can proceed before the full U.S. Senate included a number of Democrats (including Chuck Schumer pictured above) who pretend to be LGBT allies.  Actions, of course speak louder than words and many of us now know exactly where we stand with these supposed friends.   Andrew Sullivan is directly on target when sums up the attitude of the U.S. government - and the Democrat senators who betrayed us - towards LGBT citizens.  Here are the key quotes:

We saw the still-enormous gap to overcome yesterday as gay couples were removed from being covered under the new immigration reform. The reform tries to include everyone trapped in immigration hell or limbo (and sometimes, trust me, purgatory), but it explicitly excludes only one group of people: gay and lesbian Americans who have taken up the responsibilities of civil marriage.

These people are not immigrants; they are American citizens forced to choose between their country and their spouse. No heterosexual would see that exclusion as anything other than what it is: the American government’s persecution of its own citizens, even as it seeks to ease the plight of its resident non-citizens. And breaking up families or forcing them to move abroad to stay together is more than discrimination. It’s cruelty. It doesn’t get clearer than that. Gay citizens are regarded as less worthy than straight non-citizens by their own Congress.

The quote of the day was from Lindsey Graham: “You’ve got me on immigration. You don’t have me on marriage. If you want to keep me on immigration, let’s stay on immigration.” There are things I would want to say to Butters that only human decency prevents. I wish he’d treat Americans like my husband with a scintilla of such respect.

 As noted in my response to an e-mail ask for money today from the Democratic Senate Campaign, it will be a cold day in Hell before these folks get another dollar from me.  They want our money and they want are votes, but in the final analysis, they don't give a flying f*ck about us.  We need to never forget this sad reality.

On a different note, in 2009, Obama and the Democrats did little to energize the party base.  The result in Virginia was clean sweep by Republicans.  Here we are in 2013 and I am getting the feeling that the national Democrats may be about to repeat 2009 and hand Virginia to the most extreme GOP slate in the state's history.  It makes m feel physically sick. 

 

Will Gay Couples Find Protection in Immigration Bill?

Both the child rapist enablers in the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy and the anti-gay hate groups - e.g., Family Research Council - who seemingly are now the authors of GOP social policy are adamant that they want no coverage of bi-national same sex couples in the immigration reform bill now struggling to make its way through Congress.  Their agenda (as is always the case) is to keep LGBT individuals stigmatized and as inferior under the law as possible even as they claim the don't "hate anyone."   With "love" such as theirs, one truly doesn't need an enemy.  The bill as introduced contains no coverage whatsoever for bi-national couples who have found themselves in many cases having to leave America in order to remain together.  Now, there is a push by some Democrats to add protections for such couples into the bill.  The New York Times looks at the issue.  Here are article highlights:

An 844-page bill introduced in the Senate in mid-April by a bipartisan group of eight lawmakers includes measures to make legal immigration easier for highly skilled immigrants, migrant farmworkers and those living here illegally. It has no provisions that would help foreigners who are same-sex partners of American citizens to become legal permanent residents. 

[I]n the lengthy closed-door negotiations that produced the overhaul proposal, the four Republicans in the bipartisan group made it clear early on that they did not want to include such a hot-button issue in a bill that would be a challenge to sell to their party even without it, according to Senate staff members. The Republicans are Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona, and Marco Rubio of Florida. 

Many Republicans in both houses of Congress oppose any recognition of same-sex unions. Now, with the immigration bill scheduled to advance next week toward a vote in the Judiciary Committee, Democrats are in a quandary about whether to offer an amendment that would give green cards to same-sex partners. 

Republican sponsors of the overhaul warned on Tuesday that such an amendment would sink the entire measure.  “There’s a reason this language wasn’t included in the Gang of Eight’s bill: It’s a deal-breaker for most Republicans,” Senator Flake said. “Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues.”

Senator Leahy’s bill does not seek to legalize gay marriage. Instead, it would allow an American citizen to petition for a green card for a “permanent partner.” Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, is a co-sponsor of that bill. “Our legislation would simply update our nation’s immigration laws to treat binational, same-sex permanent partners fairly,” she said on Tuesday.  She and Senate Democrats are looking to Mr. Leahy to decide whether to attach that measure as an amendment to the larger bill. He has not yet tipped his hand. 

But in an interview Tuesday with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Senator Rubio was blunt in his assessment of the impact of any same-sex amendment. “This immigration bill is difficult enough as it is,” he said. “If that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail. It will not have the support. It will not have my support.”  

Rubio may be trying to cast himself as a new kind of Republican but in truth he's just another lap dog for the Chrisofascists who have made "Christians" best known for their hate and bigotry towards others.  The Gospel message has no place in their hate and fear infused version of Christianity.   It's one reason why I no longer typically describe myself as a Christian.  Who wants to be identified with hate, bigotry and racism.

DOMA's Deliberate Insidious Harm to Same Sex Couples

Let's be clear about one thing.  The federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") has one true purpose: discriminating against same sex married couples.  It has nothing to do with "protecting marriage" or the "sanctity of marriage" despite whatever lies and disingenuous claims that bloviating cows like Maggie Gallagher or child rapists protectors in the Catholic Church hierarchy may claim.  When enacted almost all of the testimony and posturing by politicians in Congress spoke of religious beliefs on marriage and disapproval of LGBT couples and individuals who fail to conform to Christianist religious beliefs.  Discrimination, disparate treatment and punishment of gays were and are the sole basis for DOMA.  Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.   DOMA goes against everything the First Amendment and its promise of religious freedom and the Equal Protection Clause stand for.   While the harms experienced by legally married same sex couples - ten states now allow same sex marriage - are many, the situation of bi-national couples is perhaps the most glaringly egregious as they face the prospect of deportation because of DOMA regardless of their talents and merits.  All because of one religious based law.  In contrast, with few restrictions the U. S. citizen half of a straight married couple can immediately have his/her spouse granted permanent residency.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the hate based bigotry that continues under DOMA.  Here are excerpts:

Kelly Costello and Fabiola Morales had a storybook wedding in the summer of 2011, with 12 bridesmaids and matching white gowns. Their fathers gave them away at a Unitarian ceremony in the District, and both extended families were on hand for dancing and champagne afterwards.

But because of a law that denies federal rights and benefits to gay spouses, the Potomac couple could soon be forced to live 4,000 miles apart. Morales, a registered nurse with two U.S. academic degrees, is a native of Peru. If she were a man, Costello could automatically sponsor her for a green card. But because they are both women, Morales could become deportable as soon as her student visa expires next year.

Morales and Costello, 30, an elementary school teacher of English as a second language, are among a growing number of binational gay couples who are caught between state laws that allow them to marry and federal laws that bar the U.S. citizen spouse from sponsoring the immigrant spouse for legal residency. Advocates estimate that more than 36,000 such couples are in the same situation. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, defines marriage as the legal union between and man and a woman. It denies gay spouses a long list of federal benefits, including access to pension and inheritance funds after their partner dies, as well as blocking their right to immigrate through marriage.

However, 10 states and the District have moved to legalize gay marriage since DOMA was passed. As the concept of same-sex legal unions has gained more public acceptance, a legal and political movement against DOMA has grown. Lawyers for the Obama administration have found that portions of the law are unconstitutional, and federal courts in eight cases around the country have agreed.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments on the law’s constitutionality this spring, based on a challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union in which Edie Windsor, a widow whose same-sex spouse died, was forced to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes that a husband would not have had to pay.

If the high court rules in favor of Windsor, it will wipe out the same section of DOMA that denies immigration rights to gay foreign spouses.

“This law hurts same-sex couples in many ways, and immigration is one of the cruelest,” said Ian Thompson, a legal adviser at the ACLU in Washington. He noted that when DOMA became law, it was mostly symbolic, because no states allowed same-sex marriage. “Today, you have thousands of couples whose legal marriages are not recognized by the federal government,” he said. “Now the harms are tangible.”

Supposed "orginalists" like Justice Antonin Scalia - who veritably drip with anti-gay animus while pontificating against gay marriage - ignore the violence they do to the Founding Father's intent for true religious freedom.  Thomas Jefferson summed up those like Scalia and those who voted for and continue to support DOMA well in the Preamble to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which remains a part of the Code of Virginia, although it is utterly ignored by the Virginia  GOP:

[A]ll attempts to influence it [religious belief] by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time .  .  .  . 

The remainder of the stautues states in part as follows:

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. .  .  .  .  .   the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

DOMA makes a mockery of these principles.  Jefferson summed up the motivations displayed in DOMA: hypocrisy and meanness.