Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Senator Gillibrand Wants To Prioritize Marriage Equality Going Forward

Posted by: Bridgette P. LaVictoire on January 17, 2011.

01/17/11-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
One of the top priorities for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand going forward is going to be marriage equality. The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is vital to that process, and should it be repealed, it would be a major step forward for getting marriage equality spread across the nation. Of course, this is one of the things that scares the Right. They are terrified that President Barack Obama is deliberately throwing the cases that are out there against DOMA. Unfortunately for them, the reality is that their position has no real defense under the law except for the usual bigotry and hot air.

Here is Senator Gillibrand on The View:

Matt Baume over at Stop8.org also has a video out regarding the fear mongering that the Right has done about Obama not defending DOMA tooth and nail. He states in his video:

Obama’s relationship with LGBTs: it’s complicated. Things got rocky this week when the Justice Department continued protecting the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban that prevents gay couples from getting married.

But what’s interesting is the reason they gave for doing so. According to Justice, DOMA’s only necessary because laws differ from state to state, and the ban ensures some federal uniformity.

That’s bad news for the National Organization for Marriage. They’ve made millions of dollars by arguing that gay couples are inherently inferior to straight couples, and they wanted Justice to make the same arguments, as it did under the Bush administration.

According to NOM, Obama is secretly trying to lose the case. He’s already said that he wants it repealed, and the theory goes that by throwing the case, he may be able to get rid of it without taking any big political risks.

After all, they already think he’s a Muslim Kenyan terrorist anti-christ socialist from space. It won’t help if people are like, “and now he’s gay.”

And that’s this week’s comment bait: do you think Obama’s trying to lose the DOMA case? And is it a good idea? And is he gay? Share your thoughts in the comments.

It’s been a bad week for NOM. Up in New Hampshire, House Republican Leader DJ Bettencourt announced that the GOP will not challenge marriage equality this year. According to Bettencourt, the party has more important issues to take care of.

It’s worth pointing out that Bettencourt is young. He’s just twenty seven, even though he does dress like a grandfather.

We know that young people favor marriage equality, and it’s only a matter of time before they start occupying leadership roles, even in the Republican party.

But that day’s still not here in Iowa, where Presidential candidate Fred Karger has been locked out of a debate sponsored by the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition. Because nothing says faith and freedom like telling someone, quote, “I will work overtime to help ensure that your policial aspirations are aborted.”

They seem nice.

And finally, there’s been a telling silence out of Imperial County, which had a secret meeting this week to decide whether there was any point in trying to defend Prop 8 after the 9th Circuit decisively shot them down. And what have they decided? They’re not going to talk about it. The case is on hold, says the county lawyer, before changing the subject.

This week’s Action Item takes us to Rhode Island, where the National Organization for Marriage launched a TV blitz attacking gay couples. You can watch our rebuttal by clicking here, and you can do your part to help.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island — MERI — needs phone volunteers. Visit CallForMERI dot org to sign up for phonebanks. You can participate from anywhere in the world. This is a perfect volunteer opportunity for friendly outgoing folks who love chatting with new people. So if that’s you, sign up and get to work. And if you’re shy, just follow MERI on Tumblr. They’re at CallForMERI dot tumblr dot com.

That’s it for this episode — don’t forget to leave your comments, subscribe to the channel to get the next update in one week, and if you need to get caught up, watch some of our previous episodes.

We’ll see you next time.

Unfortunately, the video cannot be embedded, just the transcript. If you would like to see the video, it can be seen here: Obama Throwing DOMA Case?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Share This Post

Gif-animated

10 Responses to Senator Gillibrand Wants To Prioritize Marriage Equality Going Forward

  1. Janice Reply

    January 19, 2011 at 10:56 am

    LGR does focus on a lot more than just one issue, and that’s what makes this website unique. Many other LGBT organizations do not, and that’s what a lot of us are unhappy about.

  2. Nicole Reply

    January 18, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Can the GLBT community focus on two issues at once? It seems that we usually only tackle one at a time and that being what is most favored by privileged white, wealthy, cis, able bodied people.  I am not sure if that is lack of money to fight on multiple fronts, that splitting attention would just lead to two weak efforts, or what.

    If we could fight for both employment discrimination legislation and marriage equality that would be great. I am full behind that. My main issue though I probably do not convey it well is the focus that has been put on marriage equality to all exclusion. 

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      January 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm

      LGR does try to focus on more than just one issue at a time. Unfortunately, that is not always easy. I agree whole heartedly that we need to focus on more than one issue and push hard to get it all done. By and large, anyone who is not white, wealthy, cis-gender, able bodied and male tends to have trouble. By and large, of lesbians and gays, lesbians face more discrimination than gay men, though they are less vocal about it. Typically, that discrimination gets wrapped up in the same discrimination all women experience. The discrimination is multi-faceted, and the response should be too.

  3. Nicole Reply

    January 18, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    “First of all, neither your comment nor mine were deleted. ”

    Ah you are right sorry. I got the email notification for your reply but I couldn’t see any comments on this page for some reason so I assumed it was deleted.

    “ Secondly, I live in a state where I cannot be fired for being trans, arrested for using the bathroom, and can get married.”

    Congrats! You are one of the 40% of Americans who enjoy that first privilege. 

    “Let us say that we get DOMA taken down and you get married. Guess what, the entire issue of immigration disappears since the Federal government will be forced to recognize those marriages as equal.”

    Yeah I figured it might though that won’t help us out much when we are unable to get jobs which I believe are a requirement of sponsoring a partner.

    “Right now, focusing on getting court cases through that will degrade and destroy DOMA is about all we can focus on. ENDA? Do you think that you will be able to get that Tony-Perkins-butt-kisser John Boehner to actually allow a vote on ENDA at all?”

     I realize it is unlikely anything is going to go through our Congress currently but all the focus is seems to be on marriage. No mention of employment discrimination at all. Yeah we might not be able to pass it now but work can be done to build up support for it in the interim. It is kind of like DADT, back in 2009 Pelosi talked about passing ENDA which seemed like a popular and relatively  easy thing to pass compared to DADT but then everything became about DADT. Which of course didn’t effect trans service members, which I don’t think anyone expected it too, but still had rhetoric around it that completely forgot trans people or at times demonized them. And thats from our side.

    “Gillibrand can help push marriage equality in New York, and the more states that join that, the easier it will be to overturn DOMA in the courts.”

    But a lot of these states don’t even have employment protections for trans people. New York for example passed SONDA in 2003 after dropping gender identity and expression with the GLB community telling trans people “We will come back for you”. Eight years later and we are still waiting but the fight seems to focus on marriage instead. Why can there not be a focus on employment discrimination as well in the states if we can not pass it currently nationally?

    With DADT there seemed to be widespread rhetoric against any incremental or delayed efforts towards repeal because the longer it took the more of a negative impact it could have on service members. Every day of delay meant someone losing their livelyhood. So why is there not that sense of urgency of ENDA which effects a much wider population?

    “Incidentally, in Texas, expect a fight over marriage even after GRS because you will still be considered male by a lot of people who claim that you are what your genes say you are.”

    I know, I referred to it a little in that long confusing spiel I had. Trans people realize that our marriages and our legal identities are at the whim of the cis gods. And we are always working to have our identities  respected. But as far as I have seen the majority of the trans communitys focus has been employment discrimination because of things like this. http://transequality.org/Resources/NCTE_prelim_survey_econ.pdf

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      January 18, 2011 at 12:47 pm

      Nicole,

      I know it is frustrating to be in this situation. Trust me. I know all too well. There are a lot of people who do not. When Pelosi made the decision to push DADT instead of ENDA, I was vocal about doing both. It has not helped that we often do not have transpeople who are willing to explain without rancor or derision what it is that their community needs and wants, and to do so without going “but this is more important” without explaining why. LGR is in desperate need of a writer who can explain trans related issues because, Lady knows, I haven’t got a clue!

      A lot of lesbians and gays do not understand transsexuality, and there are still far too many who think transpeople as either interlopers or traitors. Unfortunately, we don’t have people explaining it properly. Most of the time, we just get people who scream at us for not getting it.

  4. Nicole Reply

    January 18, 2011 at 1:10 am

    Huh my comment and the reply I got were deleted before I could reply. So I guess I will just have to make it look like I am making up a conversation.

    “Guess what, luv, you can’t get married either.”

    Do you mean me individually or trans people in general?

    Cause me particularly I know that. Being a lesbian trans woman in a long term relationship with an amazing pansexual genderqueer trans woman with a complicated citizenship status, at weird stages of transitions, in Texas my ability to get married is extremely complicated.  Right now we are legally regarded as a male couple. Cannot marry. Since I am likely to get GRS sooner there is a chance we will be legally regarded as a hetero couple. Which maybe can marry? The whole thing is currently a matter of the courts currently in Texas. But then I think her presenting as a woman would really help us on that. And if she got GRS too then would be legally a lesbian couple which is incapable of marriage.

    So there is all that and her legal status and trouble getting a visa which means she can get a deported which would probably make marriage harder though I guess we could get married in Mexico City and then figure out how to get her back to the states. Except we need immigration equality passed with immigration reform cause I can’t  sponsor her in a queer relationship. And I have heard that trans hetero couples have some trouble too.

    So yeah, marriage equality would be great for me and I really would like to see it happen soon. But even if I had a great job in a super queer friendly environment, which I don’t, I would still say ENDA is more important for the GLBT community to focus on first. Because it really isn’t about what will benefit me but what will benefit the community. Marriage equality is relatively limited to queer people who want to get married. Sure there are tax benefits and stuff but as far I have seen, those are more beneficial if you have money.

    ENDA effects pretty much everyone who has a job and/or wants a job. While I would say job discrimination disproportionately effects trans people (especially trans women of color), it also effects cis GLB people too. Even cis straight people would benefit if they are not gender conforming. The ability to get a job and keep it has a major impact on a persons quality of life which I imagine I don’t really need to go over.

    So yeah thats my long yammering rant. Did you mean trans people in general though? Cause that varies location to location.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      January 18, 2011 at 9:31 am

      Nicole,

      First of all, neither your comment nor mine were deleted. Secondly, I live in a state where I cannot be fired for being trans, arrested for using the bathroom, and can get married. Let us say that we get DOMA taken down and you get married. Guess what, the entire issue of immigration disappears since the Federal government will be forced to recognize those marriages as equal.

      Right now, focusing on getting court cases through that will degrade and destroy DOMA is about all we can focus on. ENDA? Do you think that you will be able to get that Tony-Perkins-butt-kisser John Boehner to actually allow a vote on ENDA at all?

      It is not so much, right now, about what is or is not more important, but what we can focus upon. Gillibrand can help push marriage equality in New York, and the more states that join that, the easier it will be to overturn DOMA in the courts.

      Incidentally, in Texas, expect a fight over marriage even after GRS because you will still be considered male by a lot of people who claim that you are what your genes say you are.

  5. Nicole Reply

    January 17, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    I am glad the GLBT rights movement is going after marriage equality now that we have the trans inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I mean, it would be ridiculous for us to put all our efforts towards the relatively small impact of marriage if we weren’t making sure they were protected from discrimination in jobs.  Plus it would look like the GLBt movement was once again focusing on GLB wants while ignoring something trans people really need and that would be bad.

    …Oh wait.

  6. Janice Reply

    January 17, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    If I didn’t already love this woman, I certainly would love her now!

    I am glad that she didn’t allow the subject to be changed by Sherri Shepherd’s “I want to change it up a little” about Harry Reid’s comment about her being hot. Shepherd’s always doing that, and often when it’s LGBT issues that the guest is talking about.

    Thank you Senator Gillibrand. Without people like you, we would be pushed aside again and again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>