Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

By Melanie Nathan, San Francisco, Febrruary 7, 2010- In today’s San Francisco Chronicle, the Matier and Ross column “outs” Judge Vaughn Walker, or so they think. But we all knew he is gay and it made no difference to us at all. Finally the chance without advance prejudice? Nope not even that, just a trust that Judges have integrity. However I imagine that the very insuations, albeit tacit and embedded in the Article, causes us as an unequal and oppressed minority to wonder if the same assumptions that the right will undoubtedly attribute to Walker, are true of the straight Judges when it come to LGBTQI issues, as well as in relation to other minority related issues.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. (SF Chronicle)

But who cares? We do not care here in San Francisco, mostly because we accept that being gay in high office is normal, being gay and abiding one’s oath is normal, being gay and applying law correctly and fairly is normal. As long as his religious views do not influence judgment, we do not care that Alito is a man, that Bader Ginsburg is a woman and nor do we care that Clarence Thomas is African America. We understand that their judgments are unlikely to be impacted by these facts. We also do not “out” Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a “straight women.”
“There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view,” said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.

I say to the expected barrage of right wingers, if you expect that the Judge rescues himself for this absurd reason, then every straight male should exclude themselves from rape cases, by way of example, just in case he does not get how the woman feels and then applies his male straight sexuality to his judgment.

If same –sex sexual orientation was included as a ‘minority’ worth of inclusion in the Civil Rights Act, none of this BS would be happening. All it is doing is derogating from our Court’s productivity.

Perhaps Judge Vaughn Walker is more qualified on Gay issues than Scalia on abortion issues, in terms of objectivity.

For those in the San Francisco legal community, this isn’t really much of a surprise at all. Vaughn Walker is not closeted, he just doesn’t talk about being gay because it is irrelevant in the same way as other Judges who are straight do not reflect on their sexuality at all. Who I choose for my wife or bed fellow will not impact my job tomorrow. Our sexual relationships do not feel unusual to us. I am sure Walker’s does not feel unusual to him. In the same way as I look at straight relationships and wonder what the big attraction is, I am not going to allow it to impact my thoughts as to the integrity of those straight people.

State Sen.Mark Leno D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,said that as far as he’s concerned, Walker’s background is a non issue. “It seems curious to me,” he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices’ sexual orientation “was never discussed.”(SF Chronicle)

Judge Walker was randomly assigned this case, and has been reasonable throughout. But that said its now with thanks to the piece in the SF chronicle that the right wing will have flavor to add to their fervor.

Melanie Nathan

By Melanie Nathan, nathan@privatecourts.com
www.privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• BREAKING: Prop 8 Judge Outed (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Prop 8 Trial Judge is Gay, and Media is Finally Talking About It (towleroad.com)
• Prop. 8 Trial Caught On Tape (Sort Of) (blogs.wsj.com)

Ny Melanie Nathan, San Francisco,   Unless there is a dramatic change in how the Gay and Lesbian (plus BTQI) minority perceives itself,   its political representatives, its leadership  and its part in its own fate, its existence will continue to be political scrap subject to constant pawn and barter of its uncertain future,’ ad infinitum.’

As a community, are we our own worst enemies?   Have we fallen prey to the slightness that has befallen our existence? I believe so; we have bought into our invalidity.  While our politicians assume back doors to our equality expedient and our advocacy organizations tread their furtive tightrope, we exacerbate our self administered nullity.

If the color of my skin were GAY, would I be asking to sit on a bench with “color straight” or would I be asking for full inclusion in “WE THE PEOPLE;” – friends WE ARE THE PEOPLE. Now is the time to let go of the shades and stand up for the Pride. Until such time as we stand up and say who we are and that we want it all NOW – we have nothing. Nothing! Nothing!

With that thought I present this example and in this instance it is based entirely on my own opinion, with an element of source information gnawing at my senses. 

Just this week I broke the news that Senator Schumer plans to exclude UAFA and hence same-sex spouses from inclusion in his about to be introduced Comprehensive immigration Reform Bill. (CIR)  It is obvious, given the Senators support of UAFA that he in fact does believe that same-sex spouses ought to have equal rights under the immigration laws. So why is he doing this?

Well there are only two logical reasons and perhaps a combination of both:  1. If I did not believe that Senator Schumer had LGBT interest at heart (and actually I do believe that does have our interest at heart) then I would say he is simply pandering to the Catholic Church’s threat to pull all support for the CIR Bill if the Senator includes gays and lesbians, especially given his record low ratings at this time; or 2. The good Senator has a plan and that is to introduce the Bill in a manner that pleases the masses of faith based ,  Latina immigrant communities and conservatives in the Senate to a point where he gets a sixty plus support,  and then ‘voooop’  under the radar,  plugs us in  at the committee stage of the Bill. 

This is indeed the perfect example of what we are allowing to happen. We are marginalized and ‘may’ be slipped in somewhere.   What will we do about it?  All the while we have binationals suffering dire hardship. Some are in exile, some are in hiding, some are away from their beloved spouses and/or families and others are being detained.  The airports are turning gays and lesbians away – those with visitor and other visas are being profiled at the airport and sent home, notwithstanding the validity of their visas.   New equal rights legislation, such as SB 54, in California is finding its hiccups in the gigantic anomaly created by the conflict between State and Federal law.

Now we must take responsibility for our part in this debacle of an existence; where we cannot marry here, but we can marry there; where we are married, but it means nothing where we live; where we cannot mention the name of our spouse when suffering an enemy bullet; where we must exile from our country to be with our foreign born partners, and where an employer can fire us for merely existing.   

It is now time to rise from the comfort of beneath radar strategies– and bring this all down to one simple cohesive position.   We can only be saved by extreme visibility and demanding the maximum, an Omnibus Bill – that imparts America grants full equality to and the LGBT community realizes its position as a minority with equal protection to sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Laws of the USA. Otherwise we will be rattling around at the discretion of a bunch of old buzzards until my four year old daughter, is President of the United States.

Instead of hiding behind piecemeal ‘tidily -bits’ and pats on the back – “yeah one more sponsor for UAFA!” or “ Whoopee  DADT got a hearing”  or “Don’t worry about Schumer’s exclusion -UAFA will be included in Committee..” or  Rep. Barney Frank’s “We must get DADT and ENDA, before I agree to Jerold Nadler’s repeal of DOMA legislation.”  This is crazy – it is all crazy. 

So are we not tired already of being THE political pawn; THE one who has to suffer someone else’s perspective wrapped in expedience? Any way you look at it – it is an impossible battle in the Washington D.C. of today.  We ARE THE PEOPLE- with an obstructionist Congress – a Democratic President –who cares about us- has breakfast with a bunch or crazies and zealots inciting gay hate in the most vulnerable places of this Earth and all the while we are expected to remain in our seats with our safety belts harnessed.

This is the vortex now is the time for a dramatic change – the change must be a fight for nothing short of full equality.  We, THE PEOPLE, must rise now and demand that our color be noticed; and included.  We are a minority and are no longer willing to fly to nowhere on the wings of nothing under the radar of prejudice. 

No civil rights have ever been attained without a comprehensive core theme, without anger, without a revolution.  Do you think apartheid would have ended in South Africa or Segregation in the USA if the oppressed had asked for one bench at a time?  How long should we sit around waiting for the perfect D.C. or some bright spark in a group to make a mark!   A few making decisions for millions of us – based on a little bit first and then maybe more later – what did that ever accomplish?  “We have made in -roads?” – Yes we have and so let us seize those outlets now instead of spending another 10 years making more in-roads. 

Are you willing to settle for what is politically expedient in the estimation of members of Congress?  Why are we being led by Congress and not by our own community?  Who are our leaders, may I ask reader who do you perceive to be your leader?  This is not to slight any of the advocacy groups or their amazing work, and without them we would be nowhere at all,  but rather to draw attention to the fact that we have indeed dived way too deep into the one piece at a time modality, by leaving it up to the groups who each subscribe to particular separate issues.

To add insult to injury, our Congress issues a resolution condemning Uganda’s Kill Gay Bill– I challenge congress with a simple question– what gives you a mouth to other nations when you barely give credence to your own gay citizenry?  Today President Obama mentioned at the Prayer Breakfast that the way Gays are treated in Uganda is unacceptable, but Sir I ask humbly, “what do you expect?” We came out of the most hateful and unlawful regime in terms of government and unless we show up for LGBT community in an all encompassing way, we will never get out from under the cloud we share with Uganda.

To lead the world on matters pertaining to human rights and basic civil rights, you have no legitimate voice until you clean your own house…. That means full equality for your own homosexual, gay, lesbian, LGBTQI community – an Omnibus Bill – “wow why didn’t I think of that,” said the chicken to the hen, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation.  Just imagine – we would not need ENDA, UAFA, repeal of DADT and DOMA will float away by virtue of its vulnerability.

 Not only have we all failed miserably to affect full inclusion, but this Country has created a milieu where American bred hatred is inciting universal abhorrence, with a professed “license to kill,” homosexuals.

When the USA Congress and laws validate the rights of Gays in America with full equality, your resolutions and reprimands will carry weight in the World.   Until such time our Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are actively participating in the discrimination and prejudice of our minority here in the USA thereby endorsing the relegation of Gays worldwide to ‘persona non grata.’  

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton asked Uganda to pull the Hate Kill Gay Bill.  Unfortunately the Secretary lacks credibility when Uganda can point the finger right back at the USA, asserting American influence. Scott Lively had the impertinence, fuelled by endorsements and support of Liberty Council, the Family et al, and empowered by an atmosphere here in the USA, conducive to their indiscretions, to incite and directly influence one of the worst legislative actions in modern history.

This brings me back to Now and us and our reason for being in this position. It is all a clear indication that nothing but all is acceptable.  This Congress  and this President must end the folly and the political ploys and the only way that is going to happen from our end of the responsibility is to change our thinking, take responsibility and all get involved as a movement that only stonewall knew.  We want an Omnibus Bill and we want it now.  Unless we try we will never know that we could not do it!  Much of my advocacy success has been because I have never been afraid to fail and if I am told “no” then I find another way until I can and yes I believe we can accomplish full equality, but only through an all round Bill that gives us absolute equality.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Schumer Immigration Reform News – Wake Up Call for Dallas Creating Change Conference (lezgetreal.com)

By Melanie Nathan, Private Courts, Inc.  Conflict resolution, Strategy Consultant,  Human Rights and Personal  Advocacy
www.privatecourts.com; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

Posted by Melanie Nathan  -    African Anti-Gay Hate is spreading rapidly-  When South Africa – “the new South Africa” starts spewing at its own all inclusive Constitution – purporting return to Africanism – and whose head is on the chopping block Mr. and Mr. Gay and Mrs. and Mrs. Lesbian – not to forget the rest -BTQI -!

Read this Press release below and then my prior piece about the SA appointee to UGANDA of an openly gay-Hating Ambassador - by President Zuma of South Africa. 

So while South Africa is touting an all inclusive constitution – they are barely behaving accordingly.  South Africa is a sports crazy country and this 2010 World Cup means everything to ALL of the people and politicians there.

“I am calling all my fellow Bloggers and Mainstream Press to Publish a Call for a BOYCOTT of the World Cup in SA until such time as Zuma withdraws his appointment of Ambassador Jon Qwelane; and rebukes comments made by PAC Youth League.  Stand up for the Gays Mr. Zuma or we will boycott South Africa for the World Cup……… Melanie Nathan.

Press release: SA GLAAD Condemns PAC Youth League and Leader for Homophobic hate speech and attack on the SA Constitution

SA GLAAD condemns in the strongest terms possible the statements made by Pan Africanist Youth Congress of Azania (Payco) leader Pitso Mphasha, in which the league said the SABC1 soapie Generations has “declared war with African cultures and practices” and that “Africa is not the home of gays and lesbians”.

We take very seriously the accusation that South African people have no right to call the land of their birth “home” simply because of the intolerance of a few malcontented individuals.

Mphasha’s statement implies that being gay or lesbian is “unnatural” and somehow alien to Africa and African people, which we believe is intended to isolate and target the pink community and incite hatred against us.

We take issue with the reference to people’s natural inborn characteristics and behavior as “practices”, which implies that gays and lesbians have any choice in being gays and lesbians, that there is anything wrong or unnatural in being gay or lesbian – and that these statements reduce our dignity and worthiness as people to nothing more than “promoting evil”.

This statement by Mphasha is a vicious attack on the SA Constitution which also grants these homophobic individuals equal rights to those of gays and lesbians.

This sort of blatant hate speech incites hatred and encourages violent acts against the pink community, particularly in the townships of South Africa, where victimization, murder and so-called “corrective rape” are daily features of the lives of Black gays and lesbians living there.

This sort of publicly expressed hatred is reckless and irresponsible and endangers the lives of innocent people for no reason other than the poorly thought out bigotry and prejudice of the sort which was responsible for Apartheid.

SA GLAAD would like to point out to Mr Mphasha and the PAC Youth the hypocrisy in wanting to have freedoms and rights for themselves, while wanting to deny the same equalities to others.

SA GLAAD expresses the sincere hope that the pink community will answer the call by SA Human Rights Commission spokesperson Vincent Moagato to lodge complaints against this group and its leader in order to facilitate action.

We thank the SA Human Rights Commission for their defence of the Constitution and urge them to take this matter further and to pursue justice for this outrage to the full extent of the law.

UPDATE ; SOUTH AFRICAN PRESS PICK UP LEZGETREAL CALL FOR BOYCOTT OF 2010 WORLD CUP SOCCER IN USA.
Well Known South African Journalist, Michael Trapido of the widely read  Richmark Sentinel reported that he had been approached by us to Announce the Boycott of the 2010 Games.      Here is his report: I especially like his opening line – that here in theUSA we are watching South Africa’s failure to take a leadership role in the HATE GAY KILL BILL debacle.

The South African governments previous and ongoing insensitivity in matters of foreign policy reaches audiences far wider than they believe or perhaps anticipate.

As a result acts such as supporting President Robert Mugabe, suggesting Jon Qwelane for the post of Ugandan ambassador and refusing the Dalai Lama entry until after the World Cup occasion a backlash against this country and calls to boycott the World Cup.

The Richmark Sentinel was approached by gay activists who are calling for a boycott of the football tournament pursuant to a renowned homophobe being suggested as our representative to Uganda.

The fact that it is a crime to be gay or lesbian in 38 African countries does not sit well with the international community but giving tacit endorsement to Uganda’s lethal policies by sending them Qwelane is proving to be a step too far .

Upon further investigation it soon emerged that this is by no means the only area in respect of which our policies are attracting resentment.

The government’s decision to bar the Dalai Lama from entering South Africa in order to attend a peace conference, with further confirmation that he would not be allowed to visit until the 2010 World Cup was over drew no less criticizm than that of David Wallechinsky of the Huffington Post.

“I would never call for an athletes’ boycott of the World Cup; but for spectators, that’s another story.

If the president of South Africa, Kgalema Motlanthe, wants to grovel at the feet of Hu Jintao and the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, that’s his choice. But if the Dalai Lama has to wait until the World Cup is over before he visits South Africa, I guess I can wait until then too.”

There are even some like Australian journalist Peter Roebuck who go a step further and suggest that South Africa has no right to host the World Cup as a result of their policies on Zimbabwe.

“South Africa has forfeited the right to stage the 2010 football World Cup. By supporting and sustaining the holocaust unfolding in Zimbabwe, the Government has aligned itself with the ranks of evil. It is one thing to refuse to intervene when cruelty is rife in a neighbouring country, quite another to fuel it with sympathetic words, pathetic policies and required resources.”

The Richmark Sentinel is proudly South African and stands 100% behind our bid to host the world’s biggest sporting event.

It would however serve the government well to factor in the resentment and bitterness they are causing when they make these sometimes startling decisions.

South African foreign policy occasions calls for World Cup boycott

Saturday, January 23, 2010 [ Reads:528 / Comments:10 / 3741 ] 

Melanie Nathan LGBT ADvocate /Activist

By Melanie Nathan,    Wits Alumni (B.A. LLB)  - Activist and Personal Advocate , USA.
Inactive Member of  Gauteng Bar. (TVL)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Amnesty International: Anti-Homosexuality Bill could mean a death sentence for LGBT People in Uganda (huffingtonpost.com)
• In South Africa, Lesbians Fear ‘Corrective’ Rape (abcnews.go.com)
• Outrage – Zuma Appoints Homophobic Ambassador to UGANDA (lezgetreal.com)
• 700+ Posters for South Africa Gay Film Fest Systematically Removed from Streets by Homophobic Vandals (towleroad.com)
• http://www.richmarksentinel.com/rs_headlines.asp?recid=3741&pcurr=1 

by Melanie Nathan, San Francisco;     YOU MAY BE DENIED WHEN YOU REALLY ARE ENTITLED. A MUST READ ARTICLE FOR EVERY LGBT CALIFORNIAN.

       While Proposition 8 is challenged in the current court action, Perry v Schwarzenegger and every LGBT relationship suffers its trial, a new California law became effective on January 1, 2010.  To some extent the Prop 8 case has distracted us and we have ‘awareness’ work to do with the new SB 54 Law. We have reported previously on this law,  however now that it is in effect there are practical hurdles to overcome and we will alert to some important information that will educate and empower.

“SB 54 tracks the decision of the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, which held that Proposition 8 “carves out a narrow and limited exception to [the] state constitutional rights [of same-sex couples], reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law.” 

However Proposition 8 did not invalidate any pre-existing marriages.  Proposition 8 also did not change the court’s previous ruling in the Marriage Cases that the California Constitution prohibits government discrimination based on sexual orientation and requires the state to treat same-sex couples equally under the law. The measure’s only effect was to prevent the state from licensing any new in-state marriages or using the name “marriage” to recognize any out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples entered after Proposition 8 passed.  SB 54 was carefully written to carry out the constitutional mandate that the state provide equal treatment for same-sex couples to the fullest extent allowed within the bounds set by Proposition 8.” http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/SB_54_FAQ.pdf?docID=6641  

There may be new rights in California that impact you, directly.   You may not know it.  It could cover many areas of your legal life, so to speak.

What does this mean for the prop 8 trial; nothing really. The trial is critical and we must win back our fundamental right to marry in California. Prop 8 must be exposed for what it is, and albeit unbearable to listen to or read about, it is clear that the Prop 8 bigots cannot escape the exposure of their injudiciousness and their sinister campaign.  

The new law in effect recognizes marriages (Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions) from other Jurisdictions outside of California for the purposes of California Law.  The best explanation of the new law, which is to some extent confusing, is found in a PDF online FAQ sheet by NCLR (National Center for Lesbian Rights*) and EQCA who were  involved in the authorship and legislation process itself.

“SB 54, a bill authored by Senator Mark Leno and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009, clarifies the rights of same-sex couples who marry outside of California. SB 54 has two parts:

1 First, it clarifies that couples who married outside of California before November 5, 2008, are entitled to full recognition as married couples in this state.

2. Second, it ensures that couples who get married outside of California on or after November 5, 2008, will receive all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage except for the name “marriage.””

This valuable link provides answers to some common questions about the rights of same-sex couples who marry outside the state:

http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/SB_54_FAQ.pdf?docID=6641

This new law has far reaching effect and it is critical that one understand how it can impact one’s particular circumstances.

From what I am seeing on the field and in the California real life trenches, it seems that many employers and officials have failed to reflect the changes in their respective policies, including informing staff in the hierarchy of changes.  Employers must provide their employees with the tools and education to treat people equally. An employee in a same sex marriage should be treated 100% in the same way as an employee in a different gender marriage.  They should not receive raised eyebrows if they merely ask for a form, or assistance in making inquiries into their benefits.   

In fact at this early time of SB 54’s inception, people seeking to obtain benefits there under may well find themselves either rejected or being misled.  These cases are actually already starting to  present themselves.

The ideal situation for an employer would be to check with an attorney before denying an employer, or for a landlord to check with a Fair Housing Group before denying a tenant.

I am alerting and encouraging our community not to take ‘no’ for an answer when discouraged by employers, pension plan administrators, banks, colleges landlords, hospitals or any authority who may either have no understanding of the new law or who may be purposely leading you away from your rights. This is already happening.  My suggestion is to consult an attorney or  a local agency with expertise in the issue at hand.  

If you are refused a form or turned away from any benefit or right to which you believe you may be entitled, please contact someone on the list. I recommend contacting NCLR and LAMBDA legal and they will explain the law to you, help you understand your rights and either assist you directly or refer you to the appropriate agency that can help.

Why is it important to contact NCLR or LAMBDA Legal?

1. You are entitled to your rights – and you must ask for them. No one is going to come up to you and tell you about a new law; it will not be handed to you. The law is there for you – if you qualify under the law, you may find that your marriage (or civil unionor DP)  is recognized in California and that your spouse is entitled to be on your medical insurance, pension plan,  lease, etc. in circumstances where you may not otherwise have thought possible.  Imagine yourself as a heterosexual spouse/partner and act in relationsh to your rights accordingly.  Basic but true – even a straight person has to ask for his/her benefits.

2. If all those who experience resistance or denials from benefit providers or administrators report their experience, it will help the LGBT groups identify patterns and systemic problems and this will provide the valuable information needed to target and help educate business, pension plans and small or large business employers and those who fail to amend /update their policy and procedures - to be fully inclusive.

3. It is important not be intimidated by authority – not to be misled into thinking that they have figured out SB 54. Do not presume anyone to be organized to handle the sudden influx of same-sex partners requesting implementation of their rights.  If you work for the County, the State, the City or  a Town – the likelihood is that they are not yet prepared for the changes and that they may not even know what these are.

Always insist on receiving the forms that you believe you are entitled to fill in.  If you receive any resistance, be sure to ask for what you need in writing,  keep all e-mails and related correspondence and call a resource.

It is imperative not to accept the word of a desk employee who is not trained, nor well versed with the law.  It is your responsibility to look elsewhere for your answers.  You may also find that some are simply prejudiced and cannot fathom your entitlement. 

SO here is an example.  Imagine if the guy who wrote this piece below, a blog post ( which I am quoting in red  below) also happens to be the person who will decide if your spouse can get onto your lease agreement or if this were the person who sat at the pension desk:

“This is the BLOG of one Randy Thomasson of - 

“What’s going on with the new attack on man-woman marriage? We all remember Prop. 8, which created Article 1, Section 7.5 in the California Constitution, reading, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” And we all know that the written Constitution is the highest law of the land, higher than the California Supreme Court, higher than the Governor, and higher than the State Legislature.The problem is, since the California Supreme Court already undermined Prop. 8 by validating some 18,000 homosexual “marriages,” the Democrat-controlled California Legislature is now trying to neutralize Prop. 8 even further. SB 54, authored by homosexual activist and Democrat state senator Mark Leno, would violate the clear reading of the Constitution by recognizing pre-Prop. 8 homosexual “marriages” from other states and nations — Massachusetts, Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden — as fully-valid “marriages” in California.”

Thomasson continues in his anti-gay rhetoric and concludes

 “You and your friends must resist this corrupt violation of the California Constitution!”

So there are people out there who believe this and who may heed the call to “resist.”  If that is the type you have to face when seeking assistance for your rights, you had best know your rights or where to go if you do not.  Bottom line: accept no “no’s.”  Get help.

No one has the legal right to resist what is law and personal judgments are simply inacceptable. We all have our part to do in educating our community.     

For attorneys advising clients who have related disputes, my suggestion is that you too contact NCLR or LAMBDA Legal for clarity.  This will also help isolate the problems and forge education campaigns leading to amendments to policy in the individual, public and private sectors.  You may well find that given the choice the LGBT client may choose education and policy change over legal action or as a concomitant of settlement; and therein lies the value to the community as a whole.  

By way of introduction: *  From the Website of  the National Center for Lesbian Rights: “The audacity to fight for justice. The perseverance to win.”

“In 1977, two brave and determined women—fresh out of law school and eager to make a difference—decided to put their knowledge to good use. As legal scholars, Donna Hitchens and Roberta Achtenberg saw the courtroom as a way to change the world. As lesbians, they had experienced frustrations and fears—both personal and professional—and didn’t want others to suffer the same. And as future parents, they knew they would face even more challenges ahead.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education.

NCLR is a non-profit, public interest law firm which litigates precedent-setting cases at the trial and appellate court levels; advocates for equitable public policies affecting the LGBT community; provides free legal assistance to LGBT people and their legal advocates; and conducts community education on LGBT legal issues.

They serve more than 5,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families in all fifty states each year, including LGBT seniors, immigrants, athletes, and youth. And our impact litigation serves all LGBT people in the United States.

 Further Resources: Post will be updated to include a list of fair housing groups, legal aid groups and more. Questions / regarding re-publishing – please contact Melanie at Nathan@privatecourts.com

Written by:- Melanie Nathan, a mom, a daughter, a sister, a friend, a niece, a cousin, an human rights advocate, a mediator, a writer/ an equality activist – Nathan@privatecourts.com www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com  – Twitter: @oblogdeeoblogda  / www.privatecourts.com / www.divorcemediators.com

Architect of Prop 8

By Melanie Nathan  – 7.50 PM 1/13/10
Asking the Questions – oblogdeeoblogda - Readers of Lezgetreal Unite!    

This is the “Tweet at Two:  Proposition 8 = Church vs. Civil Rights”

Tweet twitter ask them to trend the PROP 8 TRIAL-  The more who tweet sites from Prop 8 trial the more chance it goes higher on trending.  

Not that I purport to really understand this, but we need Proposition 8’s trial to get more mainstream exposure. The LGBT community is outraged that The Supreme Court has blocked the frivolity, the recklessness, the hate and the constitutional lambasting from public view.  

Excuse my colloquialisms; all because a miserable group of cowardly defendant witnesses (my opinion and maybe yours too) have succeeded in their insidious blackmail – threats to not testify for fear of retaliation.   5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that Judge Walker was wrong to allow cameras.  The Court in effect will not allow the world and the US to see this, a trial about constitutional rights.  It must be seen by America and the World.  

It does my heart some good to think that at least 4 judges do not agree with the majority and that it is not one little flailing dissenting Judge. To me that speaks volumes, for now! The only positive aspect of this is that there is one less excuse the defendants can make on appeal if they were ever to allege they did not get a fair trial. So it at least takes that out of the equation on this particular issue.    

The good news is that our ever resourceful community has its creative ways and means and we are getting through to tens of thousands of people. Now we need the mainstream media to report the egregious content that is presenting through the evidence, such as the Video today which I have referred to in my earlier post.  

If you were in the Court and saw the evidence and heard the testimony for yourself – you would see why they do not want the rest of the World to see this; because it is damning, insulting, insensitive and offensive.  But there is no good real reason. In essence they are saying they are too afraid to publicly stand behind their assertions.  

I am outraged- How dare they!!  Look at what they have done with their money and manipulation of an entire 50% of voting State. Without their ads and lies, emanating from  a group of zealots whose hate belie their purported religious attributes and barely visible in California,  none of this would have happened.  They stripped all of California from a fundamental basic civil right; an LGBT right to equality under the law – a right to marry.  Worse yet, our children’s right to married parents and all the laws, validation and recognition that goes with it have vanished at the “X” of flippant insensible pens.  

It reminds me of a story my dad told me when I was a child living in apartheid South Africa. This has never left my fore-conscience – in decades. Dad came home from work one day and he was very upset. He said that his friend, Naidoo, who under South Africa’s (then) racial classification laws was classified as an “Indian/colored.”  This was just one category of apartheid categorization.  Naidoo told my dad that he was walking past the  annual Town Fair and that his five year old son pulled on his arm, excitedly, “daddy, daddy,  look, look a  ‘Big Wheel,’ (Ferris) please can I go on like the other kids.”  Naidoo said to my dad “Arthur, how do I explain this to my child?   What reason can I give my child for him not being able to take that ride?” That is how I feel about proposition 8 and our children; our right to marry is the ferris wheel and only some kids are allowed on.  

If you live out of California, this affects you too.  The right wing bigots are using their defense to indict our very existence. They are trying to say we can change –they are trying to say we are not a minority deserving of civil rights- they say we can “change our ways” – (in the argument.) imagine, we do not need to be Gay and Lesbian.  The gay community is unlike the African American population, according to these proponents of Prop 8 African Americans cannot change the color of their skins.  Hence the “Black Civil Rights” movement has validity and the LGBT Civil rights movement does not!  

What I do not get about this crazy argument is the fact that we exist in our relationships, like it or not we are here and we exist; we are a fact of life, our relationships and families are well formed. It cannot be undone.  In essence their argument is demanding that we all break up with our wives, husbands, domestic partners, permanent partners, lovers, etc; pronounced deviant we must reform!  If the court rules for the defense, then the Court will be agreeing with this thinking, at least in its practical expectations.   

The Defense is impeaching gays all over the globe – they are placing our country in International hot water. If citizens from the UK, such as Elton John, want to come into the USA as spouses, in essence they cannot.   This impacts our existence as a country inter connected with other countries through trade, commercial compatibility and more. For example if we outlaw a relationship recognized by a foreign country, then we are saying that if we invite medical professors, scientists, technology experts to come and work in the US, the spouses are not welcome! This plays out in reality, when our immigration laws, together with the arbitrary powers of border point Immigration and customs officials, discriminate against married same-sex spouses.    

The point is that our existence and function as family, partners etc. cannot be rolled into reverse. We cannot– ‘change our ways.’  There is no “way” to change.  It is not only a matter of genetic predisposition – but it is also a matter of de facto existence.  I am not sure if the latter argument is going to be incorporated into the trial, per se, or how it will come across, but to my way of thinking, this is a critical point.   That is why in essence we are ALL on trial.  I believe this to be extremely critical because either way it will end up in the Supreme Court.   

Oh do I ever BEG for the repeal of DOMA!  

Now in my own frustration I ask where are the straight people, where are ALL the gay people and the politicians- where is everyone?  Who cannot stand hearing all this? Why are we not protesting DOMA now!  Are we not sick of this State by State piecemeal stuff? It is costly and time consuming and quite frankly emotionally overwhelming.  

We are all worn out when all we want is parity – fairness, equality and to conduct our lives in peace with an equal chance to pursue our livelihoods and happiness.  

The 19^th floor of the Court Building is a place where one can hear the broadcasting. I recommend that if you can take time off work, to show up there and tweet and face book away, mentioning actual testimony so that the world can see what is going on here and maybe Twitter will in fact trend it.  

I implore – please all participate in showing America and the World that Animus did in fact fuel California Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage.   Our entire community is on trial and each and every one of us MUST do something.   

By Melanie Nathan, Nathan@privatecourts.com/ www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com
Picture- Architect of Prop 8 Looking good in Pink!  

Related articles by Zemanta

HOW PROP 8 ACTUALLY HURT MY CHILD -  http://lezgetreal.com/?p=24823 

• Not every liberal supports same-sex marriage (bilerico.com)
• NYT On Prop 8 Camera Ban (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Day 3 of Federal Prop 8 Trial, and Day 4 Preview: Updates (towleroad.com)
• Same-sex marriage on trial again as California ban goes to federal court (guardian.co.uk)

By  Melanie Nathan 1/10/10 :  A much anticipated day is about to dawn, Monday, January 11^th, as the contentious trial,  Perry v. Schwarzenegger will commence.  From inception of the idea,  this smacks of all that a Hollywood movie is made of,  starting with the birth of the idea, to the unlikely right/left team of  Olson and Boies. As Attorneys for Plaintiff s they will be arguing that marriage—and, by extension, the right to marry the person you choose—is a fundamental right. The hope is that precedent will serve to knock down Proposition 8 and Californians will have their right to get married in California, restored.   Two interesting and in depth articles can be found in the New Yorker and Newsweek, heralding the importance of this chapter in LBGT history. 

The  federal trial challenging Prop 8, is scheduled to begin on Monday January 11, 2010 at 8:30am in Courtroom 6 on the 17th floor of the Phillip Burton Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Ave. in SF.  There will be very limited seating available in the courtroom and an overflow room on the 19th floor broadcasting the proceedings live. It is likely that the court will upload the trial daily to You Tube – Marriage Equality has assured supporters that they will do their best “to keep everyone in the loop.”

My sense of synchronicity tells me that we may be on to some equality here,- but then is that not what the courts are for?  Justice and the establishment of precedent, setting law.   This case has been touted as a possible Brown v. Board of Education for this Century.  Although initially, our LGBT organizations and community were somewhat concerned by what seemed a premature strategy, it seems that not only is everyone on board, but lending vigorous support.  What I find powerful is the fact that maybe for once the scales are indeed balanced -  in a sense – as the Plaintiff’s Team, at least,  have both right and left  in harmony.

The City of San Francisco has taken the lead in marriage equality, in an unrelenting committment for its residents and remains a vital ally with thanks to the original initiatives of Mayor Newsom and the leadership in the City attorney’s office by   Dennis Herrera who was sworn into office as City Attorney for a third term this past week. This office represents the only external amicus allowed by Judge Vaughn Walker in the Trial.  At the swearing-in ceremon, attended  by city employees, friends  and a ‘whose who’ of dignitaries, any mention of equality received standing ovations and rousing applause.

 This is a critical case and the concern was always that should we lose in the Court, the ripple effect could be damning.  The other concern has been that due to recent State losses on the issue, there is an indication that the popular sentiment is still anti-gay marriage. When this case ladders to higher Courts, the negative populace may impact the Courts’ decisions by swaying against same-sex marriage.  The contention is that the Supreme Court tends to follow what is popular. 

However, I draw one significant difference.  In this case, I believe we ought to credit our Justices with the ability to distinguish fundemental rights from the popular opinion, which in effect crosses over into the very crux os this case.  Imagine the double face slap of a populace idea impacting the Supreme Court, in a case that would seek in its effect to limit the ability of  a popular vote usurping the rights of a minority.

This will go on for years, of that I have no doubt, and maybe legislation will preceed a final outcome in the Courts, that is my hope – repeal of DOMA at the fore.  However I take my hat off to this daunting challenge and those who are up for the fight.  The success of the case  will all be in the argument  that is most deeply researched and  eloquently played and for that I have a sense that Plaintiff team will demonstrate a solid, creative, inspiring and profound case.  I also believe that  Judge Vaughn Walker’s call to the Defendants to show how same-sex marriage hurts traditional marriage, will yield fascinating responses by the Defendants, because in truth for years I have tried to wrap my head around the argument and simply cannot do so.

What fascinates me about the marriage equality fight in California is the fact that a core small group of activists, volunteers and grass root organizations do so much work organizing participation.  Showing up by the community is an essential aspect of our success and we should all do our small part. So with that please join Marriage Equality USA’s  leaders Molly McKay & Davina Kotulski and Stuart Gaffney & John Lewis, Courage Campaign leader Ksuzanne Massey, PFLAG parents Sam & Julia Thoron and Helen Laird, NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell, Lambda Marriage Project Director Jenny Pizer, couples who joyfully married, couples who want to marry, clergy leaders, musical performances by Veronica Klaus, Diane Larsen, local choirs and many, many more at the early morning vigil.

Marriage Equality has provided the following Statement: “Together we will share the spirit of courage, hope and strength that will herald in the light on this important next chapter of our civil rights movement.

There will be LOTS of strong coffee provided to those willing to get up that early and join us. Couples are encouraged to bring copies of their marriage licenses, photos from their weddings or anything that might help illustrate the importance of marriage equality and/or our experiences of getting married.     For more information and updates the vigil and court case go to www.marriageequality.org.

Recommend:  The New Yorker:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=1  By Margaret Talbert. (An extensive and worthy Read.)

SEE YOU AT
Federal Court Case Challenging Prop 8
Monday January 11, 2010
Morning Vigil for Hope and Marriage Equality
6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
Phillip Burton Federal Building Plaza
450 Golden Gate Ave in San Francisco

Melanie Nathan, nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

Prop 8 Trial Will Be Recorded And Uploaded To YouTube, Judge Says (huffingtonpost.com) Proposition 8 Supporters ask Judge- to delay trial so they can appeal broadcast order (lezgetreal.com) Urgent Call for Public Comment as to Why Prop 8 Trial Should be Televised (lezgetreal.com) Prop 8 Supporter William Tam Wants Out of the Perry Trial. ‘Cause Everyone Is Making Fun of Him (topix.net)

Debbie Thurman

 Posted by Melanie Nathan, 11.05 p.pm PST  1/1/10

  Lisa Miller, ‘ex-lesbian,’ has fled from her legal obligation to hand her daughter over to the custodial parent Janet Jenkins. She has disappeared with the child and all the while egged on by a very righteous bunch of  Christians who deem their interpretation of the Bible superior to civil law of the United States of America.  See my colleague,  Bridgette P. LaVictoire, Ex-Lesbian” Lisa Miller Fails To Hand Over Custody of Isabella To Janet Jenkins Written on 1 Jan, 2010 at 16:05 

Ex-gay proponent,  disguised as mental health expert, Debbie Thurman, creator of a support group, today cheered the disappearance of Miller sometime earlier this Thurman’s blog called this apparent kidnapping an example of “true motherhood”:

Thurman’s BLOG clearly sought to aid and abet the criminal act of Lisa Miller, spurring her along with prayer () and G-d knows what else,  and now guess what like Miller Thurman’s BLOG has done its own disappearing Act, clear evidence of her assistance and encouragement of the sacrificial lamb Miller,  to commit a crime.

I kept a copy of her website BLOG because I knew that when today came if Miller would fail to hand over the child as ordered by a Vermont Judge, Cohen, , Thurman would be compelled to take her BLOG, evidence of her crime, down.  SO if the FEDS want me as a witness I am ready willing and able. There are hundreds of LGBT bloggers out there who have been reporting on this for some time. I am sure they too would be willing to provide any evidence that the Blogosphere may have produced.

It is about time that religions interference and stepping on civil law is exposed for what it is.  The LGBT community is ready to be active when the civil law discriminates and now we are ready to be good citizens to urge the upholding of the civil law when it is broken; and to add insult to injury broken in the name of Jesus.  

The Christian right has no authority to circumvent the  law of this country.  This is the perfect example of the danger in failing to honor the boundary between Church and State. This failure to separate the two and invoke the Bible in place of the law of the land would serve to give us license to stone adulterers, and you all know the rest of what the bible has to say.

This is what Debbie  Thurman’s now missing Post says about now missing Miller :

“Were I in Lisa’s shoes, I could only hope to have the faith and courage she has displayed for the past six years. …

Lisa obeyed God in seeking to raise Isabella in the Christian faith. Isabella learned Scripture, apologetics and the art of prayer at her mother’s knee and in church, to the extent that she found her Christian school Bible classes boring and “childish.” This is an intelligent, precocious 7-year-old, who knows her mind and can speak it. She would have given Janet Jenkins nightmares had she consented to live under the same roof.

I cannot answer the burning question on everyone’s lips: Where are Lisa and Isabella? Somewhere safe, I pray. How and when did they get there? Only God knows. ..

What happens now? A lot of frustration, recrimination and more lies on one side and a collective sigh of relief on the other. The courts still have a huge task set before them, meanwhile. Lisa and Isabella represent only one of many similar cases waiting to be resolved. We need precedents that honor the prevailing states’ rights, laws and constitutions. The majority of Americans overwhelmingly support traditional marriage. If the tyrannical minority wants to push against that, it can and will be met with civil disobedience. There is no other way.

Lisa Miller is a mother who would give up her life to save her child. Of that there is no doubt. She apparently has chosen to forfeit a large measure of her liberty, personal property and pursuit of happiness in assuring that child her God-ordained future, much as a group of patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor more than two centuries ago to establish this nation.

I say God bless and long live Lisa and Isabella Miller. All who have known them are the better for it.

Thurman’s statement seems to confirm allegations that Miller is being used by Thurman and Christian Rightists at the Liberty Counsel as a test case for their Manhattan Declaration, which is a vow to violate any law that fundamentalists happen to disagree with.

MMM, what do you all think?  So go to her BLOG site http://theformers.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/this-is-true-motherhood/

and you will see nada gone bye bye!

And  then there is this guy who ought to be subpoenaed too.

“ I pray,” says  Drew Taggart  “people ‘along the way’ are brave enough and smart enough to render the necessary assistance to Lisa and Isabella so this girl can be raised in a healthy environment. I just hope Lisa did her homework and did this disappearing act properly.”

In a subsequent defense of this statement, Taggart says:

I doubt she’ll ever see a day of jail. Once word of this gets out, millions of people are going to be outraged. And there are plenty of local and a few state law enforcement agencies around the country, who will not waste a minute trying to find her. William Cohen is a leftwing hack and this ruling is a joke. Without the support of law enforcement, especially wherever Lisa opts to call her new home, this ruling is going nowhere.

So back to my having copied the  now barren BLOG as a keepsake, I find the comments  here revealed to show  this Mr. Taggert that sentiment is not always anti-gay but that we have a way of being on the side of what is fair and correct  and average Americans have no problem seeing the danger in what you preach.

Comments from Thurmans now missing BLOG:-

” Surely there are similar precedents to draw upon involving hetro couples. Namely, situations where the mother’s male partner/husband is not the biological father, and has not adopted the child, but at some point had a supportive relationship to the child as a stepfather.

Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 2:32 pm“

I can think of anecdotal cases involving people I’ve known (in which case the former stepfather has no rights), but I’m not a legal scholar so I’d appreciate any info on the matter. Anyone?

Comment by Brad — December 30, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

If a warrant is issued for her arrest, anyone providing her with assistance would be aiding a fugitive. Somehow I doubt Debbie Thurman wants to do state or federal time. Since the State of Virginia is now supporting the Vermont Court as they are required, I would guess that Miller would flee south (perhaps even to Mexico). If anyone helps Miller flee Virginia, they are looking at federal penalties. Judges hold a dim view of those who flout court rulings. I wouldn’t expect much leniency in sentencing.

Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

Unbelievably someone on the page made sense in pointing out that Miller hasn’t put herself in a good position and being on the run actually hurts Isabella.

Comment by a. mcewen — December 30, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

So much for Thurman’s lame excuse that she didn’t give Miller any legal advice. Always knew you were a BS’er Debbie, thanks for coming out of the closet and admitting it.

Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

If Miller does not comply with the law and wants to play martyr – I say fine. She can send a few years handcuffed and locked in the can to think about the sin of kidnapping.

What Miller is doing is not holy. She is a poor role model who is mentally abusing her child. There will likely be massive shrink bills in the future for Isabella, thanks to Miller.

Her lawlessness is not to be compared to our nation’s founders. It is criminal behavior, profoundly irresponsible and deeply immoral. It disgusts me that these frauds are cynically co-opting American symbols in their politically based criminality.

It is a shame that Miller allowed herself to be used as a pawn in the Culture War Syndicate. I doubt her friends will visit her much in the hoosegow once she is no longer useful to their political games.

Comment by Wayne Besen — December 30, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

“So much for Thurman’s lame excuse that she didn’t give Miller any legal advice. Always knew you were a BS’er Debbie, thanks for coming out of the closet and admitting it.”

   And you are deducing this how, exactly?

Comment by Debbie Thurman — December 30, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

You really are a piece of work Debbie. You just admitted the truth in your own blog, praising miller for the kidnapping, calling it “true motherhood”. Now of course in your Christian world where black is white and bad is good, you’ll have some pathetic excuse for how your actions are really the opposite of what you’ve done, but we’re not stupid and we’re not buying any of your BS. “ 

Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

THURMANS WEBSITE  is located at http://debbiethurman.com/dt_files/aboutdebbie.php 

Last but not least important, I am urging the FEDS to investigate the Liberty Council, Debbie Thurman, Taggart, et al to see just how Ms Miller has financed her escape… Check the Banks and there is likely to be a trail and who knows that trail might lead to Isabella.

At the same time I urge Ms Miller to turn the child in, the damage is done and your only chance of leniency is that once you have done so you may be reprieved.  I urge also the Christian Ministries involved or not involved to encourage Ms. Miller to subvert the Manhatten Declaration and to obey the Civil Law especially those of you who may be implicated in this.  If you do turn yourself in pronto,  you may find a willing Judge let go of having you do time.  That would be a lot better for Isabella.    A good mediator may then help you with some supervised visitation, once Janet decides she is comfortable with such.  Or do you prefer Jail visits for Isabella?

Blogged by Melanie Nathan: nathan@privatecourts.com
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

 The  Prop 8, Monstermind,  Frank Schubert’s sister, Anne Marie Schubert has announced her candidacy for Sacramento County Superior Court Judge and her brother supports her campaign.

Frank Schubert asserts that his political activities have nothing to do with his sister.  “I tried to focus the Prop 8 and [Maine's] Question 1 campaigns on the various issues associated with redefining marriage, not on the personalities of the people involved on either side. Anne Marie and I disagree on the marriage issue. I am certain that she opposed Prop 8. Neither of us has allowed that single issue to define our relationship as brother and sister.” well jolly good show – but  the 2 apples stay close,  as they hit the ground,  because according to voter records, Anne Marie Schubert is a registered Republican and her campaign has hired one of California’s most formidable conservative political conculting firms- Gilliard Blanning.

While she has a decent record of prosecuting crimes against women and children.   Unfortunately in the US, Judges have political affiliations. To many in the world that is unusual and not desirable.      Her conservatism must impact the record.  How can it not?  Justice Sotomayor commented recently that once life’s experience definitely influences how one sees things as a Judge. 

Anne Marie Schubert is a supervising deputy district attorney for Sacramento County, and according to her website at, http://www.schubertforjudge.com/ : Direct quote-

“As a Prosecutor for 20 years, I have dedicated my career to keeping our community safe, successfully prosecuting murderers, serial rapists, child molesters and other dangerous criminals.  While assigned to the Homicide Team, I developed and implemented the Cold Case Prosecution Program, which has been highly successful in the identification and prosecution of old murder cases.

I am proud to be law enforcement’s choice for Judge. Numerous law enforcement leaders in our community have already endorsed my candidacy, including District Attorney Jan Scully, Sheriff John McGinness, former Sheriff Lou Blanas, Sacramento Police Chief Braziel, Galt Police Chief Loren Cattolico, the Sacramento Police Officers Association and the Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs Association. I have also received the endorsement of WEAVE.”

The aspiring 45 year old’s experience seems to be exclusively in the arena of crime , with Civil Litigation, Defense work, Civil Rights, Family Law all noticeably and critically absent from her record.   She highlights the following experience as prosecutor,  and it is impressive, yet if I were a  Sacramento voter I would be concerned about the fact that her career is steeped to one side and not well rounded.  

• People v. Scott Wright: Prosecution of serial rapist involving violent attacks on two women; trial consisted of six weeks of testimony, including two weeks of Kelly/Frye testimony regarding admissibility of DNA evidence; first case in Solano County to admit PCR DQalpha and Polymarker; first published opinion in California on Polymarker; see  People v. Wright (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 31. Defendant was sentenced to 79 years in state prison.

• People v. David Funston: Prosecution of serial child molester involving six victims; trial consisted of lengthy testimony involving admissibility of RFLP DNA evidence, including the “product rule”; testimony included several world-renowned DNA experts, including Dr. Ranajit Chakraborty and several defense experts.  Defendant convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

• People v. Irvin Parnell:  Prosecution of serial rapist, who had been previously convicted of rape.  Case involves two separate sexual assaults occurring in 1996 and 1998.  This case involved STR DNA evidence, which was litigated in a protracted admissibility hearing.  The Defendant was convicted of 19 counts and sentenced to life in prison.

Although  Ms.  Schubert does not mention her family or sexual orientation on her website, Sacramento County tax records show that she purchased a residential property with her domestic partner,  Julie Greenberg, where the women live together raising two children.

Asked if he considered Greenberg and the children to be a part of his family, Frank Schubert replied, “Of course I consider them and their children to be part of my family, and I love them very much.” (Bay Area Reporter, Dan Aielo)

Ms.  Schubert declined to discuss same-sex marriage or Proposition 8, citing judicial code. “It is irrelevant what race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender someone possesses. What matters is that all participants in the judicial system be treated with fairness and respect,” she said. According to the Bay Area Reporter.

Geoff Kors of EQCA, according to the Bay Area Reporter commented that, ”It would be terrific to have a member of the Schubert family on the bench who understands the public danger and harm that Frank Schubert has helped inflict on so many,” 

This writer is unsure how Ms. Shubert qualifies for the likes of a family law seat. I am open to hearing more.  I do however express that her brother may serve as an embarrasing noose around her neck (bad cf) or should we simply say her achilles heel – Lets hope that she is judged on her merits and qualifications.

Posted by Melanie Nathan-
nathan@privatecourts.com

 By Melanie Nathan,   Dec 24th, 2009 :   Story # 2, In this my second post in the series: ”UAFA or 1,666 years of binational stories,”  my column presents in the form of my letter to President Obama, below.  It also reveals my own less told binational story, the one that prompted my advocacy and writing on the plight of binational couples.  

Dear Mr. President,

 My family of four,  including my two young daughters, aged 4 and 12 years, wish You, the First Lady and the First Daughters a very Happy Holiday and New Year. Not to forget Maya Lasso Absa to Bo, First Dog… best wishes.

With these wishes, I would be remiss to ignore this opportunity to alert you, with respect Mr. President, to the other families, less fortunate than mine, the same-sex families, who are unable to spend this Holiday Season together. 

 During January of 2002, I went into an online chat room for the first time ever and developed a friendship with a woman from Israel.  Coincidentally she was soon to arrive in the USA to study at a University in Texas.  I invited her to stop in California, en route, so we could meet and soon I realized that this was the person with whom I wanted to spend the rest of my life. 

 Our relationship flourished while Dor was studying in Texas and soon she transferred to a college near my home in Northern California; and so we moved in together and married as soon as it was legal for us to do so.  At the time, my daughter, HC, from my previous relationship was five years of age.  Dor and HC developed a close relationship and they could not have loved each other more.

We were able to change Dor’s student visa to a very limited R1 visa.  Notwithstanding the fact that California recognized our domestic partnership and subsequent marriage, I the US citizen could not sponsor Dor in the same way as a different gender couple could.  

Dorit taught Jewish religious studies, Hebrew and Bible at a local congregation and was qualified for the R1 Visa. We were luckier than many others in the same-sex binational community because we had found a way, albeit expensive and fraught with difficulties.  With Dor the last in her family of Holocaust survivors, and biological clock ticking, we decided to extend our family and to inseminate so that Dor would carry a baby for us.  The birth of Refael was one of the most exhilirating moments in our lives, with HC, the big sister ecstatic at the arrival of her new baby sister. 

Our lives continued; and we were a tight family, notwithstanding our constant fear that we would have to part ways if Dor’s Visa did not lead to her intended immigration within the time constraints of the R1 termination date.  The termination date came and we advocated crazily for the renewal by Congress of the R1.   With mere days and then hours to the sunset of the law, and Dor’s process hanging severely in the balance, Congress did extend the Visa, setting yet another sunset date for March 06, 2009.

Dor’s lawyer informed us that our chances of success were remote as the timing was still not in our favor, as well as other aspects of the statute and rules that were so onerous and arbitrary on the part of DHS.  We were given low odds and another huge legal bill and a decision to make – should we continue on this Visa path?  The choices were dim; in fact there were no feasible choices.  I could not face the Sophie’s choice that had been haunting me for so many years.

How could I leave my then 11 year old (due to shared custody agreement with me ex) and go with Dor and the baby to Israel?  How could I say goodbye to the love of my life-my spouse, and my then three year old Refael.  How could I split the sisters? I went to see my member of Congress and there was nothing that could be done for our situation.  As an American Citizen and with both children American citizens there was no law to prevent the high probability of Dor having to leave the USA.    I had also determined that I would never prevent Dor from taking our baby with her; the attachment and bond between them would be forcibly broken and my baby would suffer irreparable harm. There were no choices, only extreme denial.

 So we paid and prayed… and then before the final impending sunset date, DHS showed up at our Congregation, with three official investigators to check that Dorit’s basis for her Visa to Immigrate was legitimate; and of course it was.  They approved her application and we were able to submit the finalizing Petition.  

 With 7  days to the sunset of the R1 process, we received a letter stating that the R1 Visa Law was going to sunset and this time there would be no renewal by Congress. This would not give enough time to process the final piece of Dor’s approved application.  Again I spun into denial determined to fight and not willing to think of my ‘Sophie’s choice.’ There was no plan B.  

 It was then that I went to Senator Feinstein for help and with mere hours to the sunset of the law, Dor’s file was given a priority position and viewed just before the 11^thhour.  Dor  was approved and received her green card about two weeks later. This four year hell cost us a great deal, emotionally stressful and financially debilitating. 

I calculated how much more it had cost us compared to that of a straight couple who could simply Petition because of their recognized marriage. I took into account legal fees, non-resident student fees, work limitation losses and Visa fees and renewals: A whopping total of $71,600  for us (over a six year period) compared to $1,500 for a straight couple over a six month period.

It was the spread of our good news that led to my introduction to Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado and my advocacy for them and other binationals has helmed my 2009 year.   

Mr. President, with great respect, I am mentioning this during the holiday season because this time for many is fraught with sadness, fear and pain.  Exiled Americans, who are with their spouses, cannot come home to spend Xmas with extended families and if they do, they have to leave spouses  abroad.  Tens of thousands of same sex couples are unable to spend these holidays together because they are stuck in different countries.  These families cannot wait any longer. Our binational spouses and partners are being turned away at US airports, even as I write these words, at the arbitrary instance of an ICE officer.

 We cannot wait any longer and this President  Obama is what we can do:  

 1. Ask Congress to formulate a special interim Visa for Same-sex Spouses, Domestic Partners, Civil Union Partners, for entry into the USA, and for the ability to remain and work in the USA – possibly subject to renewal  and/or- with a path to immigration.  This can be done in a similar manner to the R1 Visa Process.  It should however be less complicated and could be set for termination when UAFA or similar legislation is passed, or until DOMA is repealed.

 2. The burden of proof could be similar to a marriage – where, inter alia, the following is required:
a. Proof of certification of marriage, Domestic Partnership, Civil Union contract – from any jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, proving a contractual nexus between the spouses;  and also an Affidavit of suport from American Spouse;
b. The same two year conditional residency as spouses have – where the parties attend an interview where they prove that they have been living together in relationship, to back up the contract in the exact same way as straight people have to do;
c. Anyone who has a ten year ban – who was in a Same sex relationship at the time – ought to have their case reviewed to negate the ban and criteria for this should be established;
d. Same sex couples ought to have a process to convert Visas to this Visa status, regardless of waivers they may have signed.

(I have written a more detailed drafty of legislation for such a VISA and its available to anyone interested.)  UPDATED;  SIGN PETITION
http://immigration.change.org/actions/view/special_visa_for_binational_lgbt_spouse-perma-partners 

 I believe if this was done in the form of a special visa category and did not alter the Immigration and Naturalization Act in any way, it could perhaps work its way through the system quickly and differently.  The way it is written will not conflict in any way with DOMA and its tacit  restrictions on the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The legitimacy would rest on the fact that de facto relationships and families exist, a simple fact of life; and that because they are specifically ousted by law, with their civil right to live together impeded, they should be allowed a special visa status, until such time as the law changes to include them, so that they no longer need to be considered a special class for special rights.   I say the argument here is to embrace an agenda of special rights,  as an interim necessity, and to counter the argument against it by admitting it to be just what it would be which is special rights! 

For as long as DOMA exists LGBT relationships are automatically a special class, simply because one cannot deny the factual existence, the contractual commitment and the ethical obligations these families have assumed.

Now while none of us want special treatment and would much rather have equal treatment, I guarantee that 95% of binational couples who are currently in jeopardy or suffering hardship by virtue of their non- status, would agree to a moratorium or interim visa so that they can live their lives in peace, in their own country and with whom they wish, as a matter of immediacy.

 This would in no way derogate from the work that needs to be done to amend this injustice in the long term.  All it would do is stop subjecting LGBT couples to immediate human rights abuses engendered by the lack of equality with regard to visas and immigration.

Regardless of my plea for binationals and certainly not to negate the urgency, what we need Sir, for the long term, is your leadership to pursue what you promised and that is the passage of repeal legislation for DOMA.

 Perhaps pursuing Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s “Respect for Marriage Act” ought to be the priority of all LGBT movements, organizations and leaders, above and beyond DADT, ENDA, UAFA, etc.     It  is my contention that the pivotal legislation detrimentally impacting the LGBT community is the insidious one that seeks to deny our de facto relationships, which to my way of thinking denies us the right to be gay.  If we are denied the validity of our relationships, it is tantamount to an overt endorsment  that we ought not have our relationships – what could be worse?

If  we cannot sponsor our spouses to be with us in our country, causing banishment from the USA, then we are thwarting those lesbian and gay relationships; – Silence by this Administration and the continued persecution of gays and lesbians, profiled and deported at the airports by suspicious ICE officers,  is the same as overtly stating that exiling our gays and lesbians is acceptable.  The relationships are the essence of who we are and the absolute benchmark  for acceptability, beyond mere tolerance.

 This situation, Mr. President,  is hardly known by mainstream America and I imagine once revealed more openly, through columns such as mine, where I am publishing this letter, the average American may feel compassion or perhaps even some guilt. The fact that America can exile its own is simply unconscionable. As a community we are hurt and sickened by the perception that a Democratic majority and President cannot rescue us from the throat hold of the religious right and from States that vote away our rights.

 So at this holiday time,  when families are gathering together  in happiness and joy, please find a way to remember those Americans. their beloved and children who, because of DOMA,  cannot share these days- and all our community can do at this time is beg and pray for something extraordinary, perhaps a miracle.  Our exiles and exiles-to-be cannot wait for the impending Immigration Reform battle or for UAFA to garnish more co-sponsors.  Our binationals do not want to be the “Public Option” of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 

 Our binationals cannot wait to hold the hand of a dying parent, nor be on foreign turf if they themselves are ailing, nor be subjected to losing homes, jobs, and businesses, nor the separation of siblings. Our binationals are running out of money to support the long distance relationships.

 By XMAS time next year, it is my Holiday prayer that our binationals will all reunite through whatever means it takes – but here and now Mr. President we need your leadership and for you to take reach beyond business as usual in D.C. to accomplish what for us was also a “YES WE CAN.”   

Thank you for reading this and in Solidarity I say,

Happy Holidays and a Miraculous New Year,

Most Sincerely,
Melanie Nathan,

 American Citizen,  
Married Lesbian 
Mom of two daughters
Unable to Sponsor Spouse
Feature Picture taken by Melanie - of  Dorit, HC and Refael, 2008.

PLEASE NOTE – This Letter will be re-faxed to President Obama and mailed together with all comments that readers make.  I encourage one to two paragraph stories of binationals. 

 UPDATE; OUT OF THIS – Piece a Petition is born - The overwhelming response on my personal e-mail to this post has given me faith in the fight.  So I have taken a vision of mine, which many may think silly and naive,  and once again in defiance of  protocol, in defiance of all that (those who know better say) is possible, in defiance of the experienced, and veering off the beaten track…… here is my hopeful interim remedial solution to the crime against binational Americans and their partners/spouses/children.  PLEASE PARTICIPATE AND SIGN THIS experiment in grassroot power……   Lets take back the fight!!   Lets wake every American conscience to the Binational Plight.  We need 36,000 signatures.     CLICK HERE -  http://www.change.org/actions/view/special_visa_for_binational_lgbt_spouse-perma-partners

  Posted by Melanie Nathan- If you look at the history of my posts, you will see that I have been an avid critic of the strategy adopted by Immigration Equality who spearheaded the effort to have LGBT families included in all and any Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bills.  Yesterday, Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced an immigration reform proposal in the House of Representatives that does not include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families.  I do believe that Immigration Equality and other activist groups worked hard for LGBT inclusion, but at the same time they backed the wrong horse.

To me the writing was on the wall. Although Rachel Tiven of IE states in her BLOG that there is still hope, I am terribly upset to have to note “I was right.”   The leadership acted as if this was the only strategy and as I said they effectively SHOT ALL BI-NATIONALS in the toe, with their off course (From Uniting American Families Act as a stand alone) strategy.

  Posted by Melanie Nathan; Picture of Senator Boxer meeting with Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado and twins; The Lesbian mom – who was almost deported this year.  Senator Boxer’s office was suppportive and Senator Feinstein’s office introduced a private bill (#867) on behalf of the family.   It is important to ensure that whomever we support has signed on to UAFA and other LGBT legislation.

GENRAL ACTIVISM AND ALERTS; You will note that when I choose an alert that has fundraising motivation – I am not asking you to fund it– I am telling you to fund it.    There are some national fights that require a huge grass root response to make the difference. To help keep our LGBT interests at the fore it is imperative that Senator Boxer be re-elected and that Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are axed!  Read on and make your decision…..  So $5.00 a piece will do the trick…. speak with your money.   Even though some activists are cheesed off at the Demoratic Party, we must remain on course by re-electing those who have always been our champions.  we cannot afford to lose a single friendly vote.

THIS ONE REALLY concerns me _ Senator Boxer is imperative to the LGBT community. I highly recommend donating to her campaign as being in the interests of LGBT issues nationally.   Even though she may not be your Senator her vote is for you!

Last week, Karl Rove wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal predicting that national Republicans would pick up at least four and as many as six Senate seats in 2010.

Talking about California specifically, Rove called Barbara Boxer “vulnerable” and said that Carly Fiorina “could be a strong candidate [...] if she can win her nomination battle” against Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.     Contribute $5 to Barbara’s campaign right now — and show Karl Rove that Barbara Boxer has the grassroots support she needs to beat Carly Fiorina, Chuck DeVore, or any challenger in 2010!   https://donate.barbaraboxer.com/page/contribute?source=121509email_non

Fox News contributor Dick Morris went even further than Rove did, predicting a Republican sweep of both the House and Senate next year and an outright victory for Carly Fiorina over Barbara Boxer.   With the Republican establishment lining up to help defeat Barbara, we can’t take anything for granted.  

That’s why we’ve launched our biggest grassroots fundraising drive yet — a goal of $250,000 before the December 31 year-end fundraising deadline — to show folks like Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina that Barbara has the support she needs to win in 2010.

Senator Boxer -needs your help, right now, to close the year strong.  https://donate.barbaraboxer.com/page/contribute?source=121509email_non

———————————————————-

 David Wallace sent a message to the members of Ban the “GAY EXTERMINATORS” from Facebook.
Subject: Our membership is soaring.  1800 in ONE week!
“In reference to Zach’s post on the group wall – Yes, the administrators and officers of the GAY EXTERMINATORS are still on Facebook.  That’s why we need to get as many friends to join our group as possible.  If you haven’t already sent invitations to your friends list, I urge you to do so now.  Our membership has more than doubled since the last time I sent out this request, so if you already did so, please accept my apologies.  But maybe you’ve added a few friends to your list since you sent out your invitations?  ”   To reply to this message, follow the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/n/?inbox%2Freadmessage.php&t=1287373698117&mid=191c710G412904ffG1221ce7G0

—————————————————————————

AD CAMPAIGN needs help -MEG WHITMAN IS THE SARAH PALIN OF CALIFORNIA –

California’s Sarah Palin: Help COURAGE CAMPAIGN  air radio ads that tell the truth about Meg Whitman on global warming

Meg Whitman is airing radio ads across the state, trying to present herself as a moderate to Californians. But when it comes to global warming, she is just another Sarah Palin.

It’s time to hold Meg Whitman accountable. That’s why, with your help, the Courage Campaign is going to produce and air a radio ad of our own, pointing out that Whitman and Palin have the same “wait and see” approach to our planet’s climate crisis. DEADLINE Thursday 9 AM: Contribute now so we can get the ad up on the air before the climate summit ends on Friday

DONATE   if you can and if you choose – https://secure.couragecampaign.org/page/contribute/CaliforniasSarahPalin

posted by Melanie Nathan – nathan@privatecourts.com - seen
here with Shirley tan, Jay Mercado and twins at the SF Pride Parade 2009.
Photo courtesy Kathy Drasky.

follow my twittering    @oblogdeeoblogda

12/11/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
When Pope John Paul II passed away, I mourned. The man who had been my Pope, though I am not a Catholic, was gone. I respected his Holiness even if I never agreed with him. He was a man of peace, a man of respect, and a man of deep faith. He was a man who understood the deep pain and suffering in the world, and knew that the Catholic Church had much to answer for with regards to the suffering it had caused. He is one of two men ‘on the Right’, as it were, who I have deep respect for though I never agreed with what they believed. Pope John Paul II knew that the sex scandals that had embroiled the Catholic Church had to be addressed, and he did what he could to not only fix the problem, but bring those perpetrators to justice.

With all due respect, Pope Benedict does not come close to filling the shoes of Pope John Paul II. If nothing else, Pope Benedict has sought to blame an entire group for the crimes and sins of a few people, and purge them from his Church without bringing those individuals to justice. I do not care if Pope Benedict is “disturbed and distressed” by the report in Ireland into the abuses perpetrated by Catholic Priests over the last several decades. Demanding that the Irish Government publish that report without naming a single person who committed those crimes and who covered those crimes up is tantamount to obstruction of justice. These individuals should be punished for their crimes. Not punished within the Church, but defrocked and handed over to face criminal charges in a temporal court of law.

What is more, the Vatican is attempting to hide behind diplomatic immunity, and demanding that the pursuit of justice be taken through diplomatic channels. Pope Benedict must end that as well. Hand over these criminals and stop blaming their crimes on a group of people who seek to demonize in order to bolster your waning numbers with those uncomfortable with modernity. Stop making wonderful speeches and giving pretty words in order to assuage the pain that your parishioners feel and see that justice is done. Worse, the decision to make sure that the report did not come out until the Thanksgiving Holiday in the United States just shows how desperate the Catholic Church is to hide the scope of the abuse from the world by making sure that the American networks did not cover it.

If you truly feel that the Vatican, and thus the Church, are above the temporal laws of the various nations that your faith has spread to, then do not be surprised if your Church’s status within those nations is threatened. It is not possible for the Vatican to claim diplomatic status with impunity and not expect that some nation, somewhere, will not see their actions as a threat to their sovereignty and expel the Church forthwith as a foreign nation. All it will take is one dictator in some country who feels that the Catholic Church is a threat to his power, and the Catholic Church will be removed. It will be taken over.

This is not the Sixteenth Century. It is not the age when the Pope and the Vatican ruled the Catholic nations by decree, and the temporal power of the Church often trumped that of the Crown. It is not the age of Henry II and Archbishop Thomas a Beckett. It is not the time when the Pope could install a King and rule his flock through their voice.

This is hardly the time of Pope Adrian VI when the Vatican decreed English rule over Ireland. A decree which sparked eight hundred years of warfare over the sovereignty of that island.

It is this diplomatic duplicity and the ability to hide the names of criminal priests that fuels men like Ian Paisley, and those like him who have warred with the Catholics of Ulster for the better part of half a century.

This is hardly the time of the Synod of Whitby when the Roman Church took over the Irish Church.

Today, there are hundreds of major Christian denominations. By not bringing these criminals to justice in the open, visible to the very people they wronged, you, Pope Benedict the former Cardinal Ratzinger have chosen to give them reason to doubt and reason to leave the Catholic Church. You have given them cause to join- horrors of horrors- the Church of Ireland, other denominations of Christianity, or even to just stop going to church. By hiding behind the supposed sovereignty of the Vatican- a sovereignty that even now Italy is contemplating revoking over this issue- you have threatened the Catholic Church’s very survival.

Some would say that a world without the Catholic Church would be a better world.

I can say this. I was molested as a child, and that man was brought to justice. The very people who sheltered him were punished as well. Twenty-four years later, the knowledge that they were punished takes away some of the pain. By not bringing these men to the light and giving their victims justice, all you are doing is increasing their pain. It is un-Christian, unconscionable, and against everything that the Bible stands for.

 Blogged by melanie nathan – Kudos to Chris Johnson of DC AGENDA  for a great report;  Rep. Jerrold Nadler  said the Respect for Marriage Act,  would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act,  and would notpass next year.  The sponsor of the bill that would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act said repeal won’t happen in this Congress and that efforts next year will instead be focused on building support on the issue.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in an interview with DC Agenda that lawmakers will work on passing other pro-LGBT bills next year, and could take up legislation to repeal DOMA — known as the Respect for Marriage Act — at the end of the two-year session starting in 2011. “The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill that we can’t pass right now; we know we can’t pass it right now,” he said.

Nadler apparently is reiterating the Barney Frank strategy voiced that Congress won’t take up the DOMA repeal next year because other LGBT-related bills, including the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation providing partner benefits for LGBT federal workers and a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” are taking precedence. Supporters hope to pass those measures by the end of 2010.  Nowhere do we have mention of UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) other than if it is not in Comprehensive Immigration reform, Nadler will come in with an amendment –albeit hard to the fight.

So as a tired activist having read this article we can all note that the order of things is the same, the timing is pushed even further forward and the progressives are following the beat of the usual drum.   The interview reports Nadler as saying,  “The Respect for Marriage Act comes up after that, maybe at the end of the next Congress, maybe afterward,” he said.

Nadler’s legislation would overturn DOMA, allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. It also has a “transport provision” that would allow same-sex couples to marry in one state and still receive federal benefits even if they move to another state where gay nuptials aare not recognized. 

The ripple impact of the removal of DOMA is that in all likelihood the US will have to recognize married gay couples for the purposes of immigration and then UAFA and immigration equality would be moot. There are an estimated 90,000 binational couples around the world, in hiding in US, abroad in exile, pending deportation or waiting for visas to expire.  Every time a gay married American’s spouse leaves the USA, entry back into the USA, even with a valid visa, is not guaranteed.

The entire article about the DOMA repeal legislation and all LGBT strategy can be found at http://dcagenda.com/2009/12/10/no-doma-repeal-next-year-nadler and is a worthy read.

So it seems to me that it is now all about building the support.  If this is the only way that this repeal happen then it is incumbent on all of us to get ourselves and families out there in front of our politicians – not giving up our dollars so easily to rusty old campaigners- and looking for the blood that beats from hearts such as ours.

 Even though we need to call our senators and members of Congress, asking them to sign on to the bill, we still need to wake America up to the fact that we exist, we are decent and we are not going away.

Gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) hasn’t signed on as a co-sponsor to Nadler’s bill, saying that lawmakers will instead focus on other LGBT issues this Congress and the bill’s trasport provision could cause political problems for House members seeking re-election. I completely disagree – this is a damned if you do and damned if you don’t moment.   I am so appalled at the tip- toe –thru- the –tulips  technique that smacks of low- self- politcal -rights- esteem. 

The article points out that  Nadler said he hasn’t “had too many conversations” with Pelosi on the proposed DOMA repeal since it was introduced, but noted that the speaker has privately encouraged House members to co-sponsor the bill. We all know – healthcare-healthcare-healthcare – financial crisis – queers get to the back of the line and with a little luck we may still be here for you when we get to you.  A big miscalculation by our own leadership – the timing -   did they think that a healthcare debacle and  would be the impetus for our legislation or the measure of faded promises?

  DC Agenda also reports Nadler had not spoken much with Frank on the issue since the bill’s introduction and from this I garnish perhaps some harsh feelings remain, a sense I had from my own discussions with senior staffers close to both Congressmen when the new bill was originally introduced. I believe Frank felt slighted at the fact that Nadler had jumped in with the all-encompassing legislation (The Big One) that would may have rendered Frank’s pets ENDA and DADT redundant.

Although supporters have said other bills will take priority this Congress, advocates for the DOMA repeal have hoped for congressional hearings on marriage by the end of next year. This is where the support can happen as we bring our stories to DC. 

Right now we cannot allow ourselves to be put off by or rely on a fragmented strategy and ineffective leadership we cannot  miss our beat – we have our work cut out for us more than ever.  This is our lives they are playing with and we don’t have time anymore. We have to play this differently to what we have been doing – or not doing! Eevery queer- gay- lesbian- treansgender- bi- questioning must get their story out to our members of Congress and Senators, in more than mere letter form.  Forget those standard letters they keep sending you to send – do this do that – blah – okay do it but that is not all you need to do. Write your own letter explaining who you are, what you do, what you like, what you want, tell them about your kids and how much everything is costing you without your rights. Get personal.  Our members of Congress are asking you to do it. Nadler has asked repeatedly to hear from our community. They want to meet you. Make an appointment with your member of congress or a staffer of your Senator. Turn uop and say I am here to collect my rights. Be nice be polite – let them see we are decent normal people.

Dc Agenda adds the quotes  -  “Some of the people we’re dealing with are very busy with a number of other things.”   There’s not a sense of urgency, the sense that this bill has to have a Senate sponsor right now because it’s going to pass right now, because it’s not, so we’re talking.” Even without a sense of urgency among lawmakers, Nadler said he thinks DOMA should be repealed because it’s “a stain on the national honor.” – Indeed I agree with Rep Nadler, but for me, because  it is such a severe civil rights abuse it is unconscionable, yet it is always on the backburner. 

Excluding a handful, our lawmakers do not care about us gays and lesbians – we are not a priority – and like an abandoned child I must cry and  tell them who I am – we must all cry out loudly now.  Rep. Nadler is a dear friend to our community, he can do no wrong in my eyes;  he is willing to truly stand up for what he believes to be the right thing, fearless of political misfire.  I know no other member of Congress as truly concerned– and so it is with gratitude that I commend the Congressman for being so open in the interview.  I know he is up against a huge brick wall and he is in essence begging for OUR help.

 Write a personal letter; attach photographs. Do it three times a year. Send a Holiday card with your family picture and tell them you are waiting for your equal treatment. It will go a long collective way.  Imagine if one in  every ten cards turns out to be from a queer constituent.

When it comes to UAFA – the major obstacle that UAFA supporters will face is opposition from Catholic leaders. This what I have been saying for a long time. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged lawmakers to exclude the provision from immigration reform because church leaders support reform, but oppose the LGBT-specific provision. The recent Manhattan Declaration certainly adds to this taint.  

Rep. Nadler said opposition to UAFA from Catholic leaders will make inclusion of the measure in the bill “a very difficult fight.”  This is precisely why I have been personally advocating for UAFA as a stand- alone Bill to give LGBT couples immigration rights; this is what I am sure Rep Nadler would have preferred. But one man can’t take on all.

I have been in disagreement with the Immigration Equality strategy since June of this year when they failed to pursue UAFA as a stand -alone at the appropriate time.  My earlier articles refer to this in more detail. Hanging around waiting for immigration reform has hurt binationals and the UAFA cause really badly. I pray that this strategy will work in the long run. I cannot wait to eat my words!  I too have had to join this imposed badwagon and have indeed risen to the occaision.  However as an advocate currently helping other binationals in crisis,  on a daily basis, this strategy is not serving us and remains risky and costly.  

I am not sure if the politicians get quite how cruel this lack of law is.  I rue the day when Steve Ralls and Immigration Equality sold out the “equality” in immigration for “immigrant reform.”  They might as well change their name to just that. It may seem like semantics, but it is not, and I fear our time has been lost by this dire distraction.

Even with opposition from Catholic leaders, Ralls said the list of religious groups who support the inclusion of UAFA in immigration reform “is very long and diverse,” and includes Quakers and Episcopalians. Ralls underestimates the Catholic power and did he forget the religious right?  The problem is that the Catholic leaders are now knee deep in our civil life and shoulder deep in immigration matters.

Ralls told DC Agenda  - “If the Conference of Catholic Bishops decides that they’re willing to throw the immigrant community under the bus because of the inclusion of LGBT couples, I think that would be a shame because, at the end of the day, immigration reform can help millions of families — both gay and straight — and that should be Congress’ priority.”  Well duh ….. it would be a shame, but what do you think is going to happen and when did you think people came ahead of zealot agenda and religious ferver seeking a bed in the center of Congress? It will not be seen as the fault of the Church it will be used against us and it will hurt. As the Catholic Church prepares to shoot its devotees in the toe, mostly Latina immigrants, the gay community will be vilified further and there will be a huge rise in Latina vs. gay animosity. 

We do not need it. It is a dire strategy by chosing it we are not bringing our exiles home. Why are you not fighting for the stand-alone based- not on immigration reform but rather based on the question of inequality; what about equality for the American gay  spouse who cannot sponsor a spouse?  Why have you coupled our inequality with immigration reform? It makes no sense to me. Entering the world of religious homophobia – purposefully, thinking that is our answer. We need UAFA as a stand- alone bill and now it may be too late.

When asked whether he would support immigration reform legislation that doesn’t include a UAFA provision, Nadler replied, “I hope it doesn’t come to that.” “All my efforts are designed to make sure it doesn’t come to that, so I’m not going to get into what happens at that point,” he said.

Again I urge my brothers and sisters to pick up the fight – we cannot sit back anymore – we all need to put a story in a card to our Reps.  Keep a look out there will be more to come and soon…

Blogged by melanie nathan,
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com
nathan@privatecourts.com
Picture: Rep. Jerrold Nadler & melanie nathan.

  Blogged by Melanie Nathan.  The statement below my comment was released today by the undersigned LGBT organizations;   an expression of the frustration felt by the leadership on behalf of the organizations which they represent.   I agree with what they express but at the same time I would be remiss if I failed to communicate what I believe to be the true grass root question – perhaps somewhat rhetorical and then the sentiment: Why are you able to come together in this fashion when things do not happen and unable to do so to form a multi-organizational PINKPLAN to address our entire movement.  Why do we not all move toward a CIVIL RIGHT ACT AMENDMENT and from that everything would flow? 

My opinion is that these expressions of frustration are a result of a fractured leadership, where organizations struggle to survive through their specific micro-causes, at the inextricably detrimental shot in the toe to our movement as a whole.  The other part of the problem are the grassroots – who when asked to write letters to congress, tell their stories etc, fall so way low of what we could achieve.   It is time to wake up LGBT community we are being thrown to the wolves on every issue, by everyone- all we have is us and there are 2 ways to get this done-

1. Forget the fragnmented micro legislation as an emphasis for victory – DEMAND leadership conference and establish a PINKPLAN with the ultimate goal 1. Civil rights amendment and 2. Repeal of DOMA

2. Get out on the Streets and stand on corners

3. Boycott everything and everyone anti gay

4. That would include the US Government; “I refuse to pay tax from this moment on!”

5. Law firms come out to help us!

6. All Gay closeted folk – now is when you should show us who you are. You should come out in the name of equality

7. ALL members of the military COME OUT ON THE SAME DAY in defiance of DADT- how about TAX day? April 15^th – that will give you time to get your savings accounts in order

8. Call on our friends in Congress to take the helm and push for us: I specifically name:

Reps and Sens:  Kristin Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer,  Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Lynn Woolsey. Jackie Speier, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Sestak (wants Specter’s Senate seat),  Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer (up fro reelection) and please feel free to add to the list.

9. Go to your corporate employers and ask them to take a stand

10. LGBT non profits – risk your status and stop paying payroll taxes for your employees. 

THIS IS THE STATEMENT THAT TRIGGERED MY COMMENTS:

In light of continuing delays in the House of Representatives, we must state clearly and unequivocally: Passing basic job protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people must happen now.

At a time when our government is deeply focused on the critical issue of employment, it is inexcusable to delay action on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Each and every job lost to prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity needlessly compounds the unemployment challenges facing our nation. We call on Congress for the immediate passage of ENDA.

For decades now, we have called upon Congress to pass legislation to address the basic right of LGBT people to work free from discrimination at our jobs, and now Congress tells us we must wait another year. In 29 states, it remains legal to fire people based on sexual orientation and in 38 states, discrimination based on gender identity remains legal. In failing to take swift action to pass ENDA, our government allows unfettered bigotry to go unchecked, leading to the loss of jobs, fear in the workplace, economic instability, and personal hardship, while allowing employers to lose competent experienced workers. ENDA is urgently needed by our communities.

The majority of Americans consistently state their support for employment protections and voters have affirmed similar state and local measures. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to continue to delay this non-controversial bill or drop LGBT issues to the bottom of their agenda. We will not be denied basic rights any longer. Nothing is more important than protecting people’s jobs, so ENDA must pass now. Further delays are absolutely unacceptable.

Those who signed the Statement:

Matthew Coles & James Esseks, Co-Directors, American Civil Liberties Union LGBT Project

Terry Stone, Executive Director, CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers

Toni Broaddus, Executive Director, Equality Federation

Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director, Family Equality Council

Lee Swislow, Executive Director, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders

Jarrett Tomás Barrios, President, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign

Rachel B. Tiven, Executive Director, Immigration Equality

Earl Fowlkes, President/CEO, International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.

Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director, Lambda Legal

Christian Berle, Director of the Log Cabin Republicans National Office

Sharon J. Lettman, Executive Director/CEO, National Black Justice Coalition

Kate Kendell, Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights

Mara Keisling, Executive Director, National Center for Transgender Equality

Rebecca Fox, Executive Director, National Coalition for LGBT Health

Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund

Michael Mitchell, Executive Director, National Stonewall Democrats

Gregory Varnum, Executive Director, National Youth Advocacy Coalition

Selisse Berry, Founding Executive Director, Out & Equal Workplace Advocates

Jody Huckaby, Executive Director, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National

Jo Kenny, Interim Director, Pride at Work AFL-CIO

Masen Davis, Executive Director, Transgender Law Center

 Blogged by Melanie Nathan

Senator Leahy and Melanie Nathan 6/3/09

By Melanie Nathan:- When I met Senator Leahy, I was touched by his compassion, his sensitivity and his veracity. Most of all he is a champion for equality and as a supporter of UAFA, and has done much for our LGBT binational immigration.   I would like to support Senator Leahy in his endeavors, first and foremost because he has my trust and faith.

On Tuesday Senator Leahy took to the Senate floor and formally filed an amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies and it has already 18 co-sponsors signed on.

In the senator’s words, “I look forward to debating this critical measure during our deliberations on the broader health care reform bill. After all, to bring insurance costs down, we’ve got to introduce more competition in the marketplace — and my amendment will do just that.”

More Senators ought to join to get this critical amendment passed. 

Click here to forward an email to your Senators now — and urge them to support our amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies!

I have not read the amendment but the Senator assures that amendment will introduce antitrust oversight to the health insurance industry, ruling out of bounds egregious anti-competitive conduct like the currently activated and detrimental price fixing loophole which  raises our health costs.  

There will be no real Health Care reform until, inter alia, the health insurance industry is forced to compete on a level playing field just like every other business in America, large and small. In all fairness, consumers must know that the price they’re being quoted is a concomitant of a free and fair marketplace.

The senator in a letter to his on-line community implored our support “That’s why this amendment repealing the health insurance industry’s antitrust exemption is so important — but I need your help, right now, to get it passed.” Call your representatives and Senators to ensure they support the Bill and this critical principle.

  By Melanie Nathan:  38-24 –numbers that may win someone the lottery some day but could not be more invidiously representative of anything other than the most pusillanimous* perfidy of the year…

 The people of New York State are not against Gay marriage, yet its representatives are; how does one explain such a phenomenon?  The deliberate duplicity of the eight democrats who voted ‘no’ was characterized by Senator Tom Duane as pure betrayal – and the infringing eight are:-

1. Joseph Addabbo (D) (518) 455-2322; 
2. Darrel Aubertine (D) (518) 455-2761;
3. Ruben Diaz (D) (518) 455-2511; 
4. Shirley Huntley (D) (518) 455-3531;
5. Carl Kruger (D) (518) 455-2460; 
6. Hiram Monserrate (D) (518) 455-2529;
7. George Onorato (D) (518) 455-3486; 
8. William Stachowski (D) (518)-455-2426.

CNN reports that the Marist College poll released the same day as Senate vote finds that a majority of New Yorkers support marriage equality at 51-42%.   It is quite ironic that their representatives left their spines at home the day of the vote. They chose to vote NO contrary to their supposed democratic ideals, regardless of fairness for their constituents, and in defiance of colleagues. What can they be afraid of if they are not fearful of re-election? Their ‘no’ votes will not please constituents, given the polls. Could it be a concomitant of their respective personal beliefs – anti-gay; anti-equality; church bonded, some bog donor dangling some big carrot?  I suggest that all the 51 % pro same-sex marriage supporters censure this disdainful crew, through the withdrawal of all support, to the point of bye-bye political careers.  Instead of assisting to make history in the interests of equality this group of schmendricks are now ensconced in the RAINBOW HALL OF SHAME.

 Anger aside, what is truly most hurtful to me is my own ebbing trust; a tide that is pulling me farther and farther out to sea and with every “NO you cannot,” my wedding cake icing, “Yes We Can” flails in its hopeless glaze, as my excruciating retort from the failure of the Democratic Party to hone a faithful and authentic crew, edges to that part of the ocean that slips beyond the horizon. 

 In viewing the roll, every single Republican voted NO – not one of them out of their usual and profoundly effective lock step. Reminiscent of Rex Harrison during ‘My Fair Lady’, “Why can’t the English learn to speak-” ‘why can’t the democrats learn to vote?” This malfunction is the Democratic Achilles heel and New York State is a tip of the iceberg.  If only the democrats could vote in sync each and every time maybe something will change here in ‘Retro-land.’

 Where is our Martin Luther King, to lead us through the streets of this unconscious wasteland; – where the GOOD are few, the BAD are many and the GUTlLESS prevail.

 P.S. Call the Gutless Crew and let them know what you think of their vote.

 (*showing a contemptible lack of boldness and resolve)

Authored by Melanie Nathan- (citizen,  mother, wife,  daughter, queer, a  niece, cousin,  Aunt, Sister, friend,  wise-fool, volunteer, in the box, out the box, – still planet earth, comparative privilege, ever-grateful, trying to feel pain, measured guilt,  abhorred by injustice, glass half full half the time, too well-read and out-traveled; lived in Africa, live in USA, mediator, advocate, activist, idealist, dreamer, doer, done! nathan@privatecourts.com ; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

 By Melanie Nathan -  After much back and forth emanating from my article on the Manhattan Declaration, a comment by Paula Brooks (thanks Paula) sent me scurrying to the CATH PEWS site.  If you have read the thread of over 100 comments from the latter article, you will note the tussle between LGR and CATH PEWS.  The site Administrator of Cath-Pews has denied gay hate, anti-gay language, yet it is very easy to find.  The articles they provide to enhance their arguments against gay marriage are hateful in purpose. It is there to subvert our rights and our equality.  How else can it be construed?

 So having been challenged by the admin of Cath -Pews I am providing a cryptic analysis based of one such article promoted by Cath Pews.   I have provided a demarcation between the article wording and my comments as can be seen from ITALIC BOLD = CATH-PEWS and REGULAR= Melanie.

 ANDERSON:-   ARTICLE :_
How to Make the Case for Marriage ,
(Using Non-religious Language)  
By Mary Jo Anderson

 Whether we like it or not, secularism is the dominant mode of public discourse today. Even those we encounter who are not “anti-faith” often place a high value on their understanding of “separation of church and state.”  Catholics must therefore be prepared to support moral positions without recourse to Scripture or religious vocabulary. That is an enormous challenge to Catholics who want to defend and preserve marriage as the only healthy model for an orderly society.  Before we go any further, we should make it clear that using secular terms to make the case for marriage in secular terms in no way suppresses or denies the faith. While it does omit a higher dimension of marriage, the secular case is effective because all truth—including the truth about men and women, marriage and family—is God’s truth. 

 MELANIE – Anderson, the Author provides an excuse and subversive means to hide the intention of faith behind overt secular language. This article is all but a ruse a desperate attempt to provide secular legitimacy to a faith based argument.  You cannot hide behind the intention! Simply ridiculous!

 ANDERSON – As such, it has an internal coherence that is part of the created order. One need not credit God with the physical laws of nature, such as gravity, to know that gravity works. Where the physical laws are violated, breakdown occurs. The same goes for the moral realm: A violation of God’s moral order brings chaos in human relationships. The evidence of that chaos is the source of the daily headlines and the nightly news broadcasts. When people of faith make the case for marriage using this kind of evidence, it is less likely to be perceived as “imposing religion.”

 MELANIE:-  This is a flagrant misrepresentation, as is the entire surreptitious intent of this article-  (A Catholic Virtue – to be manipulative and furtive? Anderson is providing the readers a way to Circumvent the truth of their own assertions by trying to slip it into secular form; a clear case of scape-goating?  How do we know that the church itself is not to blame for the depravity on earth?  After all the church has a violent history, borne through war for conversion!

ANDERSON   There is a secular argument for preserving natural marriage as the only legal definition of marriage and the one model of family life deserving of tax relief. The major building blocks are these:

1.             Nations that fail to form families suffer grave consequences, including loss of workers, loss of tax base, and decline in human ingenuity and productivity

MELANIE :-  “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”   as my beloved granny Rose would say: Firstly there are an ever increasing amount of Gay families out there.  In the US and abroad who are contributing to society in a big way.   The new census  2010, may reveal these numbers.  Let me give you my family as one itsy bitsy example and as a metaphor for all of us:-

I am a lesbian. I married spouse under California Law. We have been together for almost 10 years.  

I went to University for many years and have law degrees, which I use in my Conflict Resolution and Mediation practice, which I established over ten years ago.  I used to practice law and decided I would prefer to resolve conflict through mediation.  I function as any other American who owns a business.  The fact that my spouse is of the same sex has zero impact on my productivity or functionality.   In fact I was recently appointed by our County Board of Supervisors as a Commissioner on the County Human Rights Commission.  I serve on the Board as Vice President of A Fair Housing Group and volunteer in our congregation on social justice issues. I volunteer in the Courts to mediate family law matters for people who cannot afford attorneys.  I advocate in DC for equality. I would say about 90% of my free time is devoted to volunteer or pro bono work.   

My spouse teaches Hebrew language to children and adults; as well as bible studies.  She has   almost complete a Masters in Education.  She is brilliant and spends much of her free time with our children.  Our four year old has never had a babysitter because one of us is with the kids at all times.

In fact your argument is so false it makes an argument for the fact that we NEED EQUALITY.  You see we do not get to file Federal tax returns together and so everything costs us more. We have no Federal government benefits.   Your argument highlights that gay families are discriminated (in fact your thesis even calls for the discrimination …”no tax relief..”) against because within the realm of our productivity we are denied the  benefits that you get as a result of your productivity = unequal!   Your productivity does not endure as a result of your sex nor that of your spouse; my production does not occur as a result of my sex or the fact that my spouse is of the same sex.   The government takes our tax money- but as separate and not as joint, while we function as fiscally joint. Your argument has no foundation and simply makes no sense.

We have two daughters.  One was adopted from an orphanage in Vietnam as an infant, suffering from malnutrition and scabies; and is now a thriving all A’s scholar, budding young leader, who loves to help those less fortunate than herself.  She has great talent and will certainly be a productive and well adjusted adult. She will go to University, get a degree, help others, continue to volunteer for our congregation which focuses on helping the needy.  Just last week her class organized a lunch for homeless people in the area. This is not just a one- time event.   

My second daughter was conceived through donor sperm and Artificial Insemination.  She is four now and very smart. We were able to choose sperm of a genius and so have contributed to the population. Who knows maybe our daughter will be President of this Country. Who knows maybe our daughter will be the one to find a cure for diabetes, cancer, aids. Point is – we as a family have conscientiously and decidedly contributed to the increase of population and done so in a responsible fashion.

The adoption costs us about $35,000 and the insemination cost us about $8,000.  So you can see by choosing our modes of ‘birth” if you will, we have contributed to the economy.  We have saved a child from a difficult life and turned it into a situation where she will be ready to give to society in a big way. We pay for childcare, we pay for extra -activities, we pay for clothes, for food

IN SUM ,  Anderson  re my family:

1. We have added to human ingenuity;
2. We provide tax base plus more than we ought to if we had equality;
3.We are an extraordinarily productive family and contribute to our economy in a big way;
4. There are hundreds of thousands of other families like us- maybe millions;
5. If we had equal rights then we would have an opportunity to have more contributing gay families – and increase productivity.    

Conclusion – This  Anderson Argument is DOA!

ANDERSON:-  2. The question is not about denying individual rights but about promoting the good of the whole society.

MELANIE:- This is the argument that I just cannot understand. Most Pedophiles are straight white men.  Most incest occurs via straight fathers raping their children.  The US divorce rate is high;   we all know and easily condoned by Churches – some of which choose annulment. The latter simply denies the marriage ever took place even though there are children. Is that not destructive on society and morality?  

This particular statement made me laugh because of the contradiction in terms.  Ms. Anderson   we will be promoting the good of society if we had equal rights.  How can you on any level think that by denying equality society will improve? (Maybe we ought to bring Jesus in here – lest I forget this is a secular argument.)   Inequality leads to hate, validates inequities and injustice on a secular level. The scales are tipped. People suffer terrible hardship, such as Shirley Tan who highlights the plight of all  binational gay couples.   You tube and hear her testimony.

The question IS about denying rights and in doing so you are promoting an unequal society.  Argument DOA.

ANDERSON:-  3. Marriage and family provide benefits to society by producing, raising, and educating the next generation.

MELANIE:- Gay and lesbian families are in no way deterred in this function. We are already doing this and having equal rights and benefits will only strengthen our ability to be more even productive. Oh yes… Britney Spears marrying for 24 hours is productive; reality shows making a mockery of marriage where you line up bachelors and pretend to fall in love for TV exposure is a fine way to honor marriage and maintain its sanctity.  I could go on…. Let us add this to our secular argument.   Anderson Argument DOA.

ANDERSON:-  4. A strong family life offers the benefits of mental and emotional health.

MELANIE : Gay and lesbian families are in no way deterred in this function. We are already doing this and having equal benefits and rights will only strengthen our health.  Studies have been done to show how stressful it can be not to have equal rights.   

What part of my family life is not strong?  What position is Ms. Anderson in to make that assumption or judgment unless based on falsehood.  Would you like testimonials from my daughter’s school, from my clergy?  From my neighbors, from the homeless guys we fed yesterday?  Are you thinking my kids will turn out to be criminals? Are you presuming that my emotional and mental State is not in good order?  Simply ludicrous.  I can list the names of professionals, judges, politicians, moms, teachers, doctors, scientists, professors who are openly gay and who offer perfect emotional and mental health in living their lives at home and in society.  Who are you using as your example the ‘straight’ Senator with a straight marriage who played tootsie- footsie under the toilet door with a male prostitute?

 It is not possible with the amount of parental involvement and love we provide, to imagine that my home is anything but emotionally stable.  I am  not in need of super nanny and nor do I need a reality show.    There are studies showing that gay parents are of a high caliber and that we provide good and safe homes for our kids. . There are many millions of emotionally imbalanced straight families.  What about the woman, Smith who drove her kids into a pond and drowned them?   The mother who drowned five kids in the bath tub?  The suicides stemming from military returning home from WAR? What about the child abuse day to day; the trash who loose their kids in the night to suspect circumstances? You only have to watch Nancy Grace’s show to see that my life and that of hundreds of thousands of gay families have had nothing to do with the sicko’s in this society.  Straight America is doing fine in its own destruction without gay help or influence. I challenge you to find one gay family convicted of murder.   Anderson argument = DOA

ANDERSON:-  5. These blocks build on the foundation of the common good: shared commitment to a society ordered to the good of the most members.   No Marriage, No Civilization

MELANIE:- Exactly and thanks for making my case and RESTING  MY CASE FOR ME-  THANKS MARY JO ANDERSON – not only have you failed to make your secular argument but you have revealed a furtive attempt to avoid the faith based argument AND  you have successfully made the argument for WHY GAY MARRIAGE EQUALITY WILL ACTUALLY ENHANCE SOCIETY.  

  Yeah – at last We are in agreement marriage – Civilization – Give everyone the right to marriage one person of their choice regardless of sexual identity. This secular argument, albeit furtive,  works after all. It works for our equality and not against it.  So maybe Ms. Anderson your attempts have backfired and you should go back to your religious argument. In truth the religious argument is the only one that may hold any relevance at all and to that end I say thank G-d for the separation of Church and State.

In the words of Anderson per an article on credentials for Bishops “Our bishops must foster authentic marriage and family life. In the heart of the family the dignity of the human person is taught and the future is nurtured. Healthy families are the source of a moral people, ethical citizens, and vocations,” she concluded. ”

In light of this comment Ms. Anderson how hypocritical is it of you to argue against marriage for all G-d’s flock?

  Mary Jo Anderson :-  

By Blogger, Melanie Nathan, contact
nathan@privatecourts.com /
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

  by  Melanie Nathan:  I do not go a single day without wondering how the Federal Government can usurp the rights I have been given by my State,  which rights in essence are nothing more than civil rights providing me with rights equal to my fellow Americans.  Doma is a Con, and America has fallen for it, including President Obama.  What will happen if we disregard DOMA; if we simply pretend it is not there?  The only way we can do that is to keep asserting our rights and filing in the forms that they say do not apply to us. 

 Time.com reports a bombshell and a big kick in the side for the Obama Administration.  A little hole in DOMA which may lead to a blow out for the iniquitous law:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeal issued an unusual and exceedingly profound challenge to the power of the Executive Branch, by doing something not even the most sweeping state-court constitutional decisions on gay marriage have been  able to do: put the issue of equal treatment for gays to President Barack Obama in a way he will find hard to ignore.  

 ”The Office of Personnel Management shall cease at once its interference with the jurisdiction of this tribunal. “  He gave the Obama Administration 30 days to permit Karen Golinski, a lawyer employed by the Ninth Circuit, to include the woman she married under California law last year on her family health-insurance plan. “Some branch must have the final say on a law’s meaning. At least as to laws governing judicial employees, that is entirely our duty and our province. We would not be a co-equal branch of government otherwise.”

Will President Obama defend the actions of the FEDS and refer to the Defense of Marriage Act, a policy that Obama has consistently said that he is against (even though the Obama Administration has defended the law on several occasions since his taking office), and run the risk of Judge Kuzinski taking further legal action?  Or, will they concede that the Office of Personnel Management overstepped its bounds by interfering with the judicial branch, and flirt with conceding too that DOMA itself is overreaching and infringes not just on this one Court’s ability to make rulings independently, but a state’s right to autonomy, and, as part of that, its right to define marriage by its own constitution as expressly stated as part of the Defense of Marriage Act?

The unusual order is only incidentally about gay rights — the judge sidestepped the constitutional question about gays entirely — and is instead a fiery defense of the rights of the judiciary to manage its own employees. But if the Administration chooses to fight the order, it will have to tread carefully to avoid looking to gay-rights advocates like it is waging war in defense of a statute — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — that candidate Obama had said should be overturned.

“Kozinski’s order comes at an interesting time in the Ninth Circuit. It was matched last week by an order by a fellow judge on the appeals court, who ruled that Brad Levenson, a public defender working for the federal courts, was entitled to back pay to cover costs associated with buying separate insurance policies he purchased for Tony Sears, whom he married under California law before last year’s Prop 8 made gay marriage illegal there. That state constitutional amendment will itself be on trial beginning in January, when a U.S. district judge in San Francisco will hold the first federal jury trial on whether the U.S. Constitution requires that gay couples be given the opportunity to be married. As chief judge of the circuit, Kozinski will then almost certainly hear the Prop 8 case when it goes on appeal.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1942791-1,00.html#ixzz0Y76ZmcT3

So I say if you believe you are entitled Fill in that Form and help put another nail in the coffin signaling the DEMISE OF DOMA.  By the way keep your eye on this one.

Blogged by Melanie Nathan, nathan@privatecourts.com

Joy Behar has her own show and what a stroke of happiness for us queers; she is her own person and clearly is at the helm of her nightly presentations.  Her strength and force will go a long way as notwithstanding her progressive sensibility, her VIEW always seems so correct in a matter of fact “how could it be any different “ kind of  way.   Hence she may reach those who have yet to be touched.

I watched the Joy Behar show on TV last night.  Her guests explored a “home for the hols” topic, with an emphasis on their personal coming out experiences and the difficulties in coming out to family, or having same-sex partner be invited to the family table. The guests included Judy Gold comedienne. The show can be viewed at  http://joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/.

Clearly Ms. Behar is a great advocate for the LGBT community, albeit perhaps inadvertent. She has a distinctive ability to address issues within the realm of acceptance and not mere tolerance.  In providing the voice to one who says he is sick at the thought of male and male sex, – and the humor that ensued as a result, enhances her credibility and showcases the issue. The concerns and hardships for the LGBT community are expressed through the personal experiences and stories of the of guests who wear their “out” badges so proudly on their sleeves.

This Thanksgiving I want to thank Ms. Behar on behalf of our community, for providing a forum where we do not feel we are portrayed as an oddity or slither of irrelevant society, despite the ratings risks that may result.   She has a special gift where her “chutzpah-esque” humor transcends any possibility of alienation by landing squarely on the side of the person who she perceives as just another person.  The talent is in her ability to highlight the issue without making it an issue. You go Joy Behar. We love you dearly and oh yes “thanks!” Happy Thanks giving to All at LGR – Writers, Publisher Paula, Lizzy, Bridgette, Sei – Readers, Fans, Bloggers, Activists, Binational couples in hiding or exile abroad.!

Blogged by Melanie Nathan, -
Mama- Wife- Writer- Activist – Lawyer- Friend
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com 
Contact:-  nathan@privatecourts.com
www.privatecourts.com, www.divorcemediators.us

 By Melanie Nathan:  With the potential to give all Church’s a bad rap, a diverse group of Christian leaders joined together Nov. 20 to declare a commitment to defend the sanctity of human life, biblical marriage and religious liberty without compromise. One hundred and fifty evangelical, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox signers said they were coming together to “embrace our obligation” to speak and act in support of the dignity of all human beings, marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and the freedom to express religious convictions. It is imperative that Church leaders and those of faith who disagree with this, not remain silent, but provide the backlash such hate deserves.

The 4,700-word statement, yet another reproach for the LGBT communities, named the Manhattan Declaration,  asserted: “[W]e will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” the statement says, “nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

 ”If you look at the Manhattan Declaration, we are clear that we see a genuine increase in the threat, especially on the sanctity of life front,” said Robert George, a Roman Catholic and a professor at Princeton University. “That’s the result of the federal government having an administration that is deeply committed to legal abortion and [government funding] and a majority in both houses of Congress that share that commitment…. We could have said many of the things that we are saying today a year ago, but some of the things we are saying today have an urgency to them as a result of the [Obama administration].”

 This declaration was drafted in last summer and was worked upon for several months before it was declared on Friday by the leaders of Conservative Christian communities.

The Conservative Christian communities in this declaration are implored to disagree with all rules and regulations that   accept any ideals against Christian doctrines, marriages in same sex and abortion. The leaders of Christianity supporting the declaration stated, “They are motivated and come from the deepest resources of our faith.” They also added that they could have made the declaration earlier but they consider this declaration to be more relevant for the present and future. According to the advocates of this declaration, ‘historic understanding of marriage’, ‘religious liberty’ and ’sanctity of life’ are the major highlights of this declaration.    

Yet, in snide hypocrisy these so called Leaders of Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox groups were present during the declaration and made it clear that the declaration does not have any political interest.

 So yes, those of a faith that declares its hate – you may – but do not take the majority of Americans for fools, for we believe that you are in truth endeavoring to impact politically. I trust that the majority of true Christians will declare opposition to this statement that purports to speak for all of faith- because it is simply not so for those who subscribe to G-d as a loving G-d.

 Let us not forget the way the various Churches and doctrines have been used to pronounce upon policy through the world over many an era; in modern times we can look to the abhorrent example of Apartheid.  Born from Calvinism in Europe and transported to South Africa via the arrival of Jan Van Riebeck in 1652 on the Shores of the Cape, developed a group who considered themselves a nation of people, the Afrikaner, a white minority in Southern Africa.  They used gunpowder and bible under the Dutch Reform Church’s teachings to ensure that black people were ruled undeserving of equality, that black Africans had an inferior place, one of servitude in a society of religious fervor. In 1949 Apartheid was born, a direct concomitant of these interpretations of the Bible and that birth was engendered in the form of LAW, yes legislation that declared racial prejudice legal, but also institutionalized the required compliance with its discriminatory codes.

 By: Melanie Nathan,
www.nathan@privatecourts.com 
www.visualcv.com/melnathan 
Note Photo: Consist of Archbishop Wuerl/

Updated – Donald William Wuerl (born November 12, 1940) is an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He is the sixth and current Archbishop of Washington, having previously served as Bishop of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006.  Evangelicals like Chuck Colson, Roman Catholics like Archbishop Donald Wuerl, and the other religious leaders who signed the “Manhattan Declaration” don’t seem to understand that justifying discrimination in the name of religious freedom is dangerous to society.

UPDATED: By now we have all heard about the Manhattan Declaration put out by various religious right figures and groups urging, among other things, non-cooperation with laws that in any way recognize same sex couples. It has been condemned in many circles and for good reason.  Wayne Besen of Truthwinsout.org said the following: “This is a disturbing call for anarchy from a group of radical clerics and activists who believe they don’t have play by the same rules as other taxpaying Americans.”  And according to the blog Instaputz, there is another reason to not only oppose this document but also raise the alarm about it.   Some of the names those signing the declaration aren’t a surprise. They are the usual folks who oppose lgbt equality – Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher, Gary Bauer, etc.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Manhattan Declaration – Go Sign it! (liveactivecultures.net)

 There has been a recent bevy of co-sponsors signing onto the Uniting American Families Act, the legislation that seeks to provide Lesbian and Gay Americans with the right to Petition for their    same-sex spouses/ partners to live in the USA.  This law merely seeks to place the words “permanent partners” into the existing Immigration and Naturalization Act.   This is no time to let up, but rather imprtant that we make the most of the momentum.   I have 14 couples I am trying to help remain together in the US.  That is a tip of the iceberg.  They are all desperate.  They want to stay together and they want to stay at home. We need UAFA legialstion and awareness of the binational issue more so than ever. Please I am asking for your help.   

Today the news was immense when Senator Arlen Specter sign his support to the Bill.  In June this year  the Senator attended and spoke at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in support of equality in immigration. Now he has put his pen to his word and for that we are grateful.  There is no doubt that the Senator’s Democratic rival, Rep.  Joe Sestak, who is challenging Senator Specter for his seat next year, will sign on as co-sponsor as well. However this will probably necessitate  a campaign promise in the meantime.

From my perspective ANY candidate that signs on to UAFA would earn my vote. That is why Barbara Boxer must beat controversial HP spoiler, Carli Fiorina, the Republican contender for the Senator’s California seat.

In addition I believe that the grass roots effort with our4immigration at the helm of a letter writing campaign seems to be paying off. Activists have put in a tremendous amount of hard work and have strategized to target new representatives each and every week.  The new additions in supporting UAFA include:- Senator Ted Kaufman; Congresswoman Donna Edwards signed on as a co-sponsor
of the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709) which includes UAFA which means she would probably also vote for it as stand-alone legislation.

If you are willing to help this critical legislation passed – please help.  Unfortunately UAFA is not first and foremost on the plat of our activists – it has taken last place to HATE crimes Bill, ENDNA and DADT and worse yet it remains on the back burner for those who believe it will be included in Comprehensive Immigration Reform.   

Here is where we need your help:-

Please take a minute to call or fax Senator Carper’s (202) 224-2441office today and tell them you’d like him to support The Uniting American Families Act (S.424) and support it’s inclusion in comprehensive immigration reform, and please share this with anyone you think might be willing to help.  And also the following  who had signed on to the

All five of the following  members of Congress were past co-sponsors of UAFA, and have still not signed on. We need their support once again, and please remind them that they were past co-sponsors when you e-mail them.  Tell them why The Uniting American Families Act matters to your family, if you are impacted and if not simply tell then you want to know if they will support it now.

Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ-1) Staffer to contact: Mr. Stephen Hunter, Immigration Aide
Stephen.hunter@mail.house.gov;  Phone: (202) 225-6501; Fax: (202) 225-6583; 

Congress Rep  Kathy Castor (D-FL-11) Phone: (202) 225-3376 Fax: (202) 225-5652

Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC-6)  Staffer to contact: Mr. Danny Cromer, Immigration & LGBT Aide
danny.cromer@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-3315 Fax: (202) 225-2313

Congressman Al Green (D-TX-9)  Staffer to contact: Ms. Susie Saavedra, LGBT Aide
Susie.saavedra@mail.house.gov  Staffer to contact: Ms. Renee Mayo, Immigration Aide
renee.mayo@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-7508 Fax: (202) 225-2947

Congressman Dennis Moore (D-KS-3)  Staffer to contact: Ms. Sarah Lochner, LGBT Aide
sarah.lochner@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-2865; Fax: (202) 225-2807

 Thanks for your help as always.

Blogged by Melanie Nathan/ Picture of out4Immigration’s tireless footsoldiers.
www.privatecourts.com
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com
www.visualcv.com/melnathan

Contact: nathan@privatecourts.com

Posted by Melanie Nathan; Today,  Nov 20^th  is  Transgender Day of Remembrance. A sombre day with hundreds of  events around the world to honor  the memories of lives lost to anti-transgender violence. This day of Remembrance is celebrated with events purposeful in memoriam, advocacy and education.

The day was first observed by Transgender communities in 1999, and is held on the anniversary of the death of Rita Hester, a transgender woman whose life was cut short in Boston just weeks following the gay-bashing death of Matthew Shepard. To date, her murder, like most anti-transgender murder cases, remains an unsolved crime.

Events are planned in many centers around the US, including Portland, New York, Richmond, San Francisco and many more, including abroad. 

This year’s commemoration also comes just weeks after President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added gender identity to the federal hate crimes law.  This year’s Day of Remembrance is especially poignant, coming on the heels of the one year anniversary of Lateisha Green’s shooting death in Syracuse, New York.  Her killing led to New York State’s first-ever hate crime conviction stemming from the death of a transgender person.  It was just the second such conviction in United States history.

Let us remember -
Angie Zapata, an 18-year old Latina transgender woman was found brutally murdered in her home in CO.
 2009:
Taysia Elzy, age 34  Indianapolis, Indiana USA;
Caprice Curry, age 31 San Francisco, California
Jimmy McCollough, drag performer, 34, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Foxy Ivy, under 35, Detroit, Michigan
Kelly (Frederick) Watson, age 32 , Albuquerque, New Mexico
Christopher Jermaine Scott, 30, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Cesar Torres, 39,  El Paso, Texas
Beyonce (Eric) Lee,  21 New Orleans, Louisiana
Tyli’a Mack also known as NaNa Boo, 21, Washington, DC
Paulina Ibarra,  21 East Hollywood, California
JJDoe, Baltrimore  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-stabbing1026,0,2707985.story
Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado,: Cayey, Peurto Rico,  decapitated,  November 14, 2009
Jorge was found on the site of an isolated road in the city of Cayey, he was partially burned, decapitated, and dismembered, both arms, both legs, and the torso. Jorge was 19 years old.
Sources: http://www.365gay.com/news/murder-suspect-thought-puerto-rico-gay-teen-was-a-woman/

Please feel free to list names in the comments section – with asmuch information as you would like to provide.

Posted and blogged by – Melanie Nathan. nathan@privatecourts.com

Yesterday the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a committee vote on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO), legislation that would provide equal benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees. The committee passed DPBO at 23-12, an important step in securing federal protections for the LGBT community. Kate Kendall of NCLR commented in a mailing today, “We must secure this victory and work to pass other crucial pieces of legislation pending in Congress.”

DPBO moves to the House floor for consideration, and it’s up to us to make sure that it passes and protects the thousands of devoted, hard-working LGBT government employees.  Equal work demands equal compensation. We must speak up and remind Congress about this basic principle of fairness, to ensure that the domestic partners of government employees are able to receive their partners’ benefits, including health insurance and access to pensions.

President Obama is ready to sign DPBO into law but we need to make sure that it passes in Congress. Call your representative today and ask them to vote for equality and fairness. Ask them to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act.

Please take a minute and call your representative at (202) 224-3121. We must make sure that a House vote on DPBO will happen soon and that our representatives support DPBO. We need to stand together as a community and urge our representatives to fight for the rights of the domestic partners of federal employees.”

Notes from Melanie: -Thank you NCLR for keeping us informed and active.  

It is time now for LGBT groups and organizations to get married….(imagine!)  To work on the BIG ONE – Repeal of DOMA – it will solve many problems.  DOMA is a gift – because now it provides the opportunity for overt recognition- through its repeal, that might not otherwise have been there.  The recognition of our relationships, the cornerstone of who we are, may never otherwise have had this opportunity.

I know easier said than done, but imagine if we can pool our brains and set aside mutual resources as we pursue a “PINK-PRINT” ( as in blue print…) A comprehensive plan- to unify our movement. This can happen with a BIG conference of leaders and  defined and shared purpose… Full equality  is our civil right goal and must happen more urgently than fragmented piecemeal legislation will allow. Congressman Nadler has provided the tool, now lets all work it.    

Melanie Nathan.
www.visualcv.com/melnathan  nathan@privatecourts.com   www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com   www.privatecurts.com

IN PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE WOMEN OVER THE AGE OF 40 TO RECEIVE MAMMOGRAMS, GILLIBRAND URGES FED TO CLARIFY NEW RECOMMENDATIONS

New Guidelines Released This Week Claim Only Women Over 50 Need Routine Mammograms As Part Of Breast Cancer Screening Many Doctors, Experts Object To Recommendations, Giving Women Conflicting Messages on How to Protect Themselves -

Washington, DC – After having participated in a public awareness campaign to encourage women over the age of 40 to receive mammograms, U.S. Senator Kristen Gillibrand today called on the federal government to clarify new recommendations for women on how to prevent breast cancer. New guidelines released this week by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force suggested that only women over 50 need to get routine mammograms as part of breast cancer screening. Many doctors and experts objected to these recommendations, sending conflicting messages to women about how they can prevent breast cancer.

“I am concerned that women are being given differing messages about how to prevent breast cancer,” Senator Gillibrand said. “In addition to getting my own mammogram each year, I have been involved in public awareness campaigns to encourage other women my age to do so. I understand that there were many independent scientists involved in making this decision, but that there are also many respected medical experts that are disagreeing with the recommendations. I plan to seek some answers here so that women are getting a uniform message about how to protect themselves.”

Doctors, medical experts, and news reports from around New York have raised concerns about the new recommendations.

“I think this would be a huge mistake,” said Dr. Paul Fisher, a radiologist at the Carol M. Baldwin Breast Care Center at Stony Brook University Medical Center. “There’s almost unanimity that mammography saves lives.”

Dr. Jane Carleton, an attending physician specializing in breast cancer at the Don Monti Cancer Center at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, said cutting back on mammograms could allow some small breast cancers to become larger, more lethal growths. “We continue to see tragedies in women who present with much larger breast cancers because they have not had mammograms,” Carleton said.

At Nassau University Medical Center in East Meadow, Dr. Victor Scarmato, chairman of radiology, questioned the new recommendations. “Their conclusions are against the conclusions of the American Cancer Society and other cancer and screening advocacy groups,” Scarmato said.”There are many in that population whose lives are saved because of the procedures [mammograms] even if the yield is not as great as in older women,” Scarmato said.

“We are very concerned that the insurance companies will use this to restrict coverage for screening, taking away the option for what women and their doctors feel is best for them,” said Hillary Rutter, LCSW, Director of the Adelphi NY Statewide Breast Cancer Hotline & Support Program.

Dr. Derek ten Hoopen of West Ridge Obstetrics and Gynecology said that his colleagues would continue to recommend screening for 40- to 49-year-olds until the data used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was better analyzed.

Holly Anderson, executive director of the Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester, said that screening guidelines trigger anxiety. “We’ve been dealt a breast cancer diagnosis. It sounds very scary to hear these guidelines and the recommendation is to not be screened in the 40 to 49 window.”

Full text of the letter is below.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Secretary Sebelius:

Earlier this week, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) came out with new recommendations that suggest that women ages 40-49 no longer need routine mammogram screenings. As I’m sure you’re aware, this has caused mass confusion among women who, like myself, have long been told that every woman over 40 should receive a mammogram every year. As a 42-year-old woman and Senator, I volunteered my time to speak in Public Service Announcements to remind women my age that they need to get screened. Therefore, I share my constituent’s confusion over this new message coming from the government.

I understand that these new recommendations were developed by independent scientists, however many respected medical experts and advocacy organizations such as the American Cancer Society, disagree with the recommendations. I, therefore, implore you to work with these respected patient advocacy groups, radiologists and oncologists across the nation to come up with a clear message to women about how best to protect themselves.

I would also encourage you to consider the weight that recommendations have across the medical and insurance industry. When the government changes their recommendations for screening, insurance companies will often choose to change their reimbursement policies as a result. I do not want women that are a high risk for breast cancer, because of their genes or family history, to be denied screenings because insurance companies refuse to reimburse the doctors.

I would encourage you to convene a meeting of interested parties so that this confusing message can be resolved and so that women can receive the best medical care that science can provide. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Note from Melanie Nathan, your blogger: I started my regular mamograms when I turned 40 and continued to have them each year thereafter. I used my birthday as a reminder of when the next one was due. No one in my family had ever had breast cancer, although there had been other types of cancer causing extended family and grandparents. Each year my Mamogram was clear and that did not deter me. In 2003 I went for my regular mammogram and the readiologist noticed a tiny calcification. Stating it was probably nothing I had a biopsy to be safe. Long story short it was VERY early stage Ductoral carcinoma in situ. After radical surgery, they found a little more than anticipated or more than had shown on the mammogram. I did not need Chemotherapy or radiation. That in itself was a huge relief. They had caught it so early. Seven years later, I have since married and we have a four year old together. I will see my 12 year old Batmitvah next year. I am alive. Had I not been diagnosed then and had they not had earlier base grams to diagnose from, I do not think I would be writing this piece today. The way I see this recommendation -? Well its tantamount to saying Melanie your life is worth nothing. Its okay if you would have died – because 1299 others would have lived – or whatever number they attribut to it. In fact I bet my fellow breast bearers out there will agree that their ten minute anxiety to save my life was worth every moment of said anxiety.

GALS- lets fight – this is not okay. Thank you Senator Gillibrand for your keeping a stern stand on this issue.

BY: Melanie Nathan

YES -YOU – CAN Posted by melanie Nathan: Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits (LA Times Report) by Carol J. Williams:-  
While recognizing  the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act,  federal judge of U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,  Judge Stephen Reinhardt today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men; and deemed the denial of health-care and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.

Levenson married his longtime partner, Tony Sears, on July 12, 2008, during the five-month period when same-sex marriagewas legal in California. A ballot measure. Reinhardt, who is the federal judge responsible for resolving employee disputes in the Federal Public Defenders office within the 9th Circuit, had earlier ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to process Levenson’s application for spousal benefits for Sears. The federal government’s Office of Personnel Management stepped in to derail the enrollment, however, citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage for the purpose of federal benefits or programs.

Levenson appealed, seeking either an independently contracted benefits package for his spouse or payment of the equivalent value of the coverage denied. Reinhardt ordered the latter, based on a “back pay” provision in the law covering federal defense lawyers’ employment.  “Considering that the federal government won’t give Tony the equal benefits package of other spouses, we are very pleased with this decision,” said Levenson. “Is it equal treatment? No. Is it a good remedy? Yes. And we are appreciative of the judge’s order.”

The men have been keeping track of the costs of separate insurance  and estimate the back pay and future compensation will amount to thousands of dollars each year.  The judge’s order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson’s case.  Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

The Obama administration has spoken out against what it sees as a discriminatory policy toward gay spouses of federal employees but Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has also said his office is obliged to defend the practice as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains law. 

Comments Melanie Nathan:- When I wrote to President Obama about Holder’s pursuit I received the following (probably generic) email which was signed with the President’s name.

“Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  I appreciate your perspective. Every American deserves equal protection under our laws, and neither Federal nor state law should discriminate against any American.  The issue of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) rights has all too often been used to divide our country.  We must treat all of our citizens with dignity and respect, and stand united in our protection of equality–a founding principle of our Nation and a moral imperative. 
      
I continue to oppose a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.  We must also extend the over 1,100 Federal marital rights and benefits to same-sex couples, because every American should be able to visit a loved one in the hospital, transfer property, and receive equal health insurance and other employment benefits.  
     
My Administration is committed to addressing a full spectrum of issues important to the LGBT community.  We can reduce
discrimination by strengthening hate crimes statutes; supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; ensuring adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation; and opposing discrimination in public accommodations.  To combat HIV/AIDS, we need policies that support people living with this illness and increased funding for prevention, care, and research.  I also support repealing the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in a sensible way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.  Please join me online to learn more about my civil rights  agenda at:  www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights.     Together, we can create a more open and tolerant society that protects and values all people.  Thank you again for writing.  To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov 

Sincerely,

Barack Obama“

Mr. President – our families cannot wait any longer. Our binationals are being turned away at the airports, even as I write these words.  Just a few days ago a same-sex couple came home and  dispite having a  same-sex valid marriage and visa, the foreign partner was turned away at the airport and sent back to a country where he has no work, at the command of one ICE official given arbitrary power belying his age and qualifications.

If you cannot effect change immediatley, you must create a moratorium on all the unconscienable results of the inequitous laws that plague our lives; you MUST make what you yourself term civil rights your number one priority issue.  What could be more important than ALL Americans being treated the same way.   Is that not why we fight abroad.  What is the point of fighting on foreign soils and losing our soldiers while you continue to fail  your own at home when it comes to basic fairness and human rights. You must provide full civil rights to all your own citizens.

Do something now. Our LGBT leadership is disjointed and fragmented and we cannot expect our non-profits to take the helm in the face of this fragmentation.  Mr. president we voted for you to be our leader and now we expect YOU to be the ONE to lead us to equality. Please spare us your generic words and your purported civil rights agenda – you must come up with something to end all this – the Repeal of DOMA should be first on your list.  You must lead us to equality because you can;  ”YES YOU CAN”

Thank you Sir, for listening.

Article  Melanie Nathan. nathan@privatecourts.com; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com www.visualcv.com/melnathan ;
Picture by Refael Nathan-Israel, 4 years old – taken at kid level of fridge magnets

Ten days ago, the House passed the Stupak Amendment, which would be one of the biggest setbacks to women’s health and rights in recent decades; unless we stand together and stop it, this will provide license for our rights to be rolled back to where the right wing would have us. Do not think the backlash would stop at women’s issues. It will go every which way!

The Stupak Amendment is discriminatory, extreme, and just plain wrong. At Lez Get Real we have been reporting and commenting on the Stupak Amendment, and we are not letting up – why? Because it will take away health insurance coverage that women already have. This would be a huge step back for women’s health. Now this together with the suggestion by Government Task Force regarding Breast Cancer screening at age 50 as the new recommendation is simply unacceptable and worthy of a revolution for our health!!! The mere fact that they can think this up is disturbing to me….

We support Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) launch of a petition because women must not be denied access to safe and legal medical procedures. If you want to join : click here -Senator Boxer wrote her supporters and saying: “For decades, a very difficult and delicate compromise has held firm: Women can use their own private funds for legal reproductive health care procedures, but federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. But in a stunning turn of events, anti-choice House members passed the Stupak Amendment as part of the health care reform bill and shattered that compromise. The House amendment would tell women who participate in the new health insurance exchange that they can’t even use their own funds to buy a policy that includes abortion coverage. We need to be sure that all our voices are heard clearly on this issue.”
Boxer asks: “How can we tell women that they will lose coverage that they already have? How can we tell women that they can’t buy insurance coverage for a legal health care procedure, even if it’s paid for with their own money?”

 SIGN THE PETITION and then visit our site in the next few days for my personal story on how Breast Cancer Screening in my forties saved my life…   

Blogged by: Melanie Nathan, nathan@privatecourts.com : Picture – Credit to Artist Benny Ovid, Tel Aviv, Israel – Thanks to  Dorit Israel, from her Personal Art Collection.

   By Melanie Nathan- Congratulations to Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado  and the boys and Mommy. Shirley was named  ADVOCATE MAGAZINE ’s  Activist of the Year for 2009.   This is well deserved.  However they may have been used in a way that could result in resentment from the community rather than the applause they deserve:   Here are the comments from Immigration Equality’s (IE) BLOG site where IE makes the announcement:   Quoting the Announcement by IE on their BLOG:

“Congratulations are in order for Shirley Tan (pictured here with her family), who has been chosen as one of The Advocate’s “People of the Year” for 2009.   Shirley, who testified before the Senate in June and was also recently featured in People Magazine, was chosen by Advocate editors as their 2009 Activist.  “There are two types of activists,” the magazine writes, “. . . those who revel in the spotlight, and those who would rather slink away from it when the speech is over. Speaking with Shirley Tan, who catapulted into national discourse following an early-morning arrest last January by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in her Pacifica, Calif., home, you get the sense that she’d prefer going back to relative anonymity.”  But, the magazine notes, Shirley “is visible, but not eagerly.”    “I’m certainly not used to this,” she told The Advocate. “I’m just an ordinary housewife, living my own life, doing everything for my kids and my family. But this is what I have to do now. It’s not only for our family, but the 36,000 bi-national couples who are relying on UAFA.”

 Indeed, Tan has become a passionate and effective advocate for bi-national families. In addition to her testimony before the Senate, she has also met with White House officials and spoken out widely in the media about the need to pass immigration reform that will help families like hers.  All of us at Immigration Equality applaud – and thank – Shirley and her family for their extraordinary work. We are proud to be standing with them to end our country’s discriminatory immigration laws.

 To read the full write-up about Shirley, pick up a copy of the December/January issue of The Advocate, on newsstands now. ”

HERE are the first seven comments that followed the post - including my own – number 7….

1. Check this out on Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125816110639347917.html
If they are the key players for the immigration overhaul, we might be screwed, especially with Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s bill because he is a co sponsor of UAFA, but under his bill, he did not include us in his bill. On the other hand, Chuck Schumer is also a big supporter of UAFA, but whether he will include us in the bill remains unknown. Unless we can gain momentum for UAFA, let’s keep fighting for the inclusion of bi national couples in the bigger immigration bill. If we don’t do anything, we will be ignored and defeated again!! Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — November 14, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

2. I am so sincerely happy for this family. At the same time, disappointed that all of us are not being afforded the same opportunity with extended stays for our partners, etc. We all deserve the same attention and “exceptions” – Again, I truly, am happy for you! Tom Comment by Very happy For the Tan Family But Disappointed For the Rest Of Us — November 15, 2009 @ 4:32 am

3.We don’t yet know if Gutierrez has included us. His bill hasn’t been introduced yet. The House version of the CIR will be introduced in December. Or perhaps I missed something. Comment by nola — November 15, 2009 @ 10:02 am

4. There is a lot of talk about moving Immingration reform to the top of priorities for Obama…ARE YOU ON IT IE? We need to be in there getting our rights! Comment by Brian — November 15, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

5. re – the talk about moving immigration reform to the top of priorities – where is this information coming from or is it hearsay? Comment by Where Is This Talk Comming From — November 15, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

6. It would really piss me off if any immigration bill didn’t include UAFA. I think I would leave and never come back to this country again. It would be disgusting if 12 million illegal immigrantsget in front of someone that has been in the usa legally, and has been in a relationship with an American citizen for almost 4 years. Comment by Gerry D — November 15, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

7.  MY COMMENTS :- This week I testified together with Shirley Tan at a symposium with the Immigration Commission in San Francisco.  Nancy Pelosi sent a staffer as did Zoe Lofgren. The symposium had a group of panelists including Professors at Law schools etc.  NCLR was invited and did not show up.**(update)  IE had no rep there either.  There were no panelists to speak for UAFA- yes at a symposium that was looking for advice on Immigration Reform, reporting to Mayor Newsom and the SF  Board Of Supervisors . My verbal testimony is  published on my BLOG at http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/uafa-hearings/.   Reluctantly trapped in IE’s strategy I did promote UAFA as a component of CIR and asked the commission to work on behalf of its locals to ensure that UAFA is included in CIR.  Afterwards a  key Immigration Organization insider in D.C. who was on the panel suggested that IE had made a big mistake – that we should have pushed for UAFA as a stand alone.  This is something I have been writing about since June 4th, 2009. I brought Shirley and Jay to IE and worked as the lead advocate and strategist on Shirley Tan’s Private Bill. I promised Julie Kruse of IE that Shirley would advocate for UAFA, as she had given me her word in exchange for my pro bono work.  Indeed instead IE used Shirley to promote UAFA as a component of CIR.  A strategy I would only have pursued AFTER exhausting all opportunities to get UAFA moving on its own. Shirley and Jay have innocently followed their lead.   A mere few made this decision on behalf of all binationals.  The grassroots have had no control over this as only IE has an effective lobby with the HILL and no other LGBT organization seems to show much interest in UAFA. IE left Shirley with no choice but to advocate for CIR. 

I just want to be clear- that if UAFA is not in CIR – Shirley was used by IE for their own strategy and should not be blamed.   If UAFA is in CIR, it may be very bad for us because then we can  no longer promote it as a stand alone and we will be at the mercy of the bigger Immigration Lobby, including the faith based groups who are anti LGBT.  If we are NOT included it could be very bad because then UAFA may be perceived as DOA…. Basically we are screwed either way. HOWEVER maybe it is best left out and we can be sneaked in -through committee – we have our necks in a very tight noose right now, the noose of IE strategy and the components that were not thought through.  I hope that this will have all LGBT and friends call reps tomorrow to sign on to UAFA NOW, regardless of CIR!!!  “”     end of Immigration equality BLOG comments

 I am documenting this in the hope that for prosterity we all remember that Shirley and Jay are innocent bystanders to their own activism – who got caught up in a situation where they received help due to their unique circumstances.  They have been inadvertent, yet willing  activists and are being guided by those around them. If anything goes wrong it will not be for lack of trying on their behalf to help others. It would have been much easier for them to remain silent.  I resent those who display their short vision by thinking Shirley and Jay received special treatment – they did not – their case was unique and as their advocate I seized the oppportunity and took the risks that relied completely on their particular circumstances.    We were told that a Private Bill could not be done and yet we went ahead.  The risk was great and no others were willing to take it on.  It happens our strategy worked.  So I am asking for 3 things:

1. Tell ALL your stories NOW to local press; tere are still not enough stories out there. Once you have told your story report the publication of it to my BLOG or to OUT4immiggration.com You can keep the foreign partner/ spouse invisible. Its the American partner who is missing his/her right;

2. Ask your National Reps to Support and co-sign UAFA NOW.  It will help whichever Strategy we end up with;

3. Call your local city councils, counties, state legislators, commissions and ask for Resolutions to support LGBT bi-nationals with UAFA and to ensure that we are part of ALL Immigration Reform discussions. Our leadership is asleep at the local level when it comes to advocating. That was clear to me when NCLR had signed up as a partner for the Symposium in San Francisco and failed to provide a speaker, or even show up and also failed to refer our interests out to another LGBT organization.

4. Always respect what Shirley and Jay are doing, regardless of your own needs and regardless of the strategy that they may find themselves hhaving to support; and most of all regardless of outcome.  When I asked them to go out for UAFA, they had no conditions except one – they did not want any money or fundraising in relation to their advocacy.  All they wanted to do was help others and ensure ultimately that Shirley, who is still at risk, is not deported.   

** UPDATE; 11/18/09  re: “NCLR was invited and did not show up” Today I received a phone call from NCLR’s communications director, Calla Devlin, who explained that NCLR was ONLY asked to co-sponsor the event, but was never asked to to participate in any form. This was clearly a misunderstanding in that the organizers seemed to think that NCLR would be there.  Nonetheless Calla reassured me that NCLR has UAFA and its LGBT immigration asylum cases at the helm of pivotal issues.  Of course resources are limited.  This is one organization that I would send my dollars to especially because while others are decreasing staff, they plan to ramp up on legislative staffer/s in DC.  Perhaps I should have called NCLR before mentioning this as a ‘no show’ and I apologize for that to NCLR.   I am pleased that we were able to have a discussion that touched on a lot more about LGBT binational interests . 

Thanks for the visit and the support…… keep the fight for UAFA strong. Contact me if you want to get involved in a bigger better way…. nathan@privatecourts.com     
  You can see my Testimony to the SF commission (albeit a strategy I disagree with – I am cornered into having to promote UAFA  with Comprehensive Immigration reform and so I will do it..)

 Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

 Equality California is requesting that President Obama file a brief in the Federal Case against proposition 8.  I hope I can pursuade our valued readers to jump on this one.  One can go beyond the Petition and send the Whitehouse your own Stories. My child was personally impacted by Prop. 8 and I have vowed to keep republishing the story until such time as prop 8  is prop zero!  The story can be found on this site at: 
  ” HOW PROP 8 HURT MYCHILD”  -  

Exerpts  from the story: 

“Despite my promise to my daughter to keep hush, “I flew like a bat out of hell” to see the Principal, who, ironically an “out” lesbian, was not surprised to see me show up on the issue; she mentioned that I was the fourth parent to complain about this lack of discretion on the part of the teacher. I explained that my child was extremely conflicted in trying to reconcile her respect and admiration for her teacher with her love and pride for her family.” 

” The advertisement had clearly hurt my child; its viciousness was not something she had been subjected to before. What could be worse than adults lashing out like that at children? It was direct and personal and having heard it before, was not personally outraged as when I realized the irresponsibility and how damaging those lies were to my babies.”

“I have to show my child that our family is worth fighting for and that anything short of complete equality is simply not good enough.  I think this story illustrates the far reaching effects of de jure disqualification and the de facto reality of inequality. Whether we receive equal rights or not, nothing will derogate from the fact that we are here; us, our spouses and our kids and nothing can or will ever change that simple fact.”

Petition to President Obama:

The Obama administration was absent in yet another critical fight for the soul of our nation. His failure to speak out forcibly against Question 1 in Maine is unacceptable. Sign our petition. Then, ask everyone you know to do the same.

President Obama, I urge you to immediately file a brief in the federal court challenge to Prop 8 and ask the court to rule that it is unconstitutional to allow a majority to take away the rights of a minority.   www.eqca.org

 PLEASE HELP AND SIGN THE PETITION

 Last night the city council of Salt Lake City unanimously passed an ordinance outlawing discrimination against gays in employment and housing, the first such law in the entire state of Utah. Very surprisingly, among those speaking in support of the bill were official representatives of the LDS Church.

Hours after the LDS Church announced its support Tuesday night of proposed Salt Lake City ordinances aimed at protecting gay and transgender residents from discrimination in housing and employment, the City Council unanimously approved the measures.

Mormon teachings assert that the Church believes in human dignity, respect even when in disagreement.   The Council opted to vote after dozens of residents in the overflowing crowd expressed their support. “Guaranteeing a right to fair housing and fair employment is not an issue of compromise,” Councilwoman Jill Remington Love said. “We are a stronger, better city this evening. I’m proud to serve on a City Council where this isn’t even controversial.”

Yet that said what about the Mormon money for Prop 8 Hate ads which I believe got the vote against Gay marriage. Perhaps we should read into what may be a slap in the fact statement when Michael Otterson, a spokesperson  intrigued with “The church supports these ordinances, because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”  I imagine still justifying their interference in another State. If described in these terms as to do VIOLENCE- imagine how passionate they must have been when parting with those furtive millions! So inferring that gay marriage may do violence to marriage by virtue of their support of prop 8 – is not too far reaching…

Although an astounding feat, the LDS Church’s endorsement was applauded by LGBT leaders in Utah’s gay community.   Although I agree this can and must be viewed as positive in the big scheme of things; please call me ungrateful because “AS LONG AS the queers (you know the ones your compassionately adorn with limited equality) do not cause havoc to your marriages there in Utah – even those where your teaching and silence condones many wives – you will remain solid behind your church influenced dollars that robbed my buddies of their right to one spouse each!

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

11/11/09-by Paula Brooks
I am not the daughter of the privileged… I am the daughter of a career military man, who is the son of a career military man, who was the son of a career military man… and I have an uncle who is a name on a black wall here in DC and a brother who is missing a leg because of his service in Iraq. I come from a family that has paid it dues to this country.

I am also a deaf lesbian widow and the working mother to twin three year olds… I don’t make a lot of money and what I do make goes to feeding, housing and clothing my little family. But I am fortunate to have a job that has healthcare coverage.

I have not been with out tragedy or struggle in my life … I lost my wife and soul mate Debbie due too breast cancer far to early and am now being denied her benefits for our children…. children we created together… Because of DOMA

My beautiful Debbie was a Navy pilot when we met… and she love to fly, but she was forced to choose… between her love for me and her first love of being a pilot.

I had to watch her get tears in her eyes every time a Navy jet flew over and her heart broke for 8 years… Because of DADT

But we went on to build a successful, tax paying, business together and created a wonderful family.

As she was dying, Debs spoke so much of her days in the Navy as one of the best things she ever did, but at her funeral… that had full military honors because of her honorable service to our country… a country Debs loved so very much and would have been willing to die for… I had to pitch a bitch just to get the officer in charge of her funeral detail to give me the flag off my wife’s coffin… Because of the current policies of my country…

I voted for President Obama… I sent him money and knocked on doors for him… because he promised to end all these policies. Policies that keep Debbie’s children from benefit entitled to them and disrespected her funeral.

But in the time since they have been in office, President Obama and the Democratic leadership have a pretty solid track record of saying one thing about LGBT rights then doing something entirely different.

Last month at an HRC fund raising dinner, on the eve of a march by 100,000 LGBT rights activists, President Obama promised to end that Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell policy and called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act. Yet not two week later, on the weekend before a major referendum on same-sex marriage in Maine, President Obama’s Justice Department filed a brief in a Federal Court defending that same Defense Of Marriage Act he vowed to repeal.

To make matters worse, when Stonewall Democrats in Maine asked the Democratic National Committee for financial help and logistic support in that referendum, they were refused, only to have that same Democratic National Committee turn around to send e-mails to Gay Democrats in Maine asking for their assistance in the re-election effort of Gov. Jon Corzine… in NEW JERSEY.

LGBTs in Maine lost the right to marry in that referendum and you can be sure that lost is going to be mentioned prominently in any future effort to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act.

On Saturday, we entered the final stretch of a 100-year march toward extending health care coverage to the millions of Americans who currently live without.

The goal of overhauling the heath care system was supposed to be equality – to give every American access to comprehensive coverage and make it affordable.

But the Democratic leadership in the House did not have the votes to advance their version of the bill Saturday and were willing to trade away a woman right to chose what is best for her and her body by cutting a Faustian Bargain with anti-choice Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to get those votes by allowing passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment will prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion services in any health exchange, public or private and prevents private insurance companies from receiving government subsidies if they cover abortions and will require that women who want such coverage purchase a separate abortion rider.

What this amendment does is tell woman that if their current insurance company is covering reproductive services in a policy that they are currently paying for that company will not be allowed to offer those paid for services if they are participating in any way in the new Health Care legislation.

The Stupak amendment will disrupt the very equality that healthcare reform was supposed to accomplish and does exactly the opposite of what this whole exercise in health care reform was supposed to do. It says only women who can afford a special insurance rider deserve access to reproductive health care and marks an unprecedented restriction on people who pay for their own insurance.

It directly and unfairly attacks the rights of lower and middle class women. It directly and unfairly attacks my rights.

President Obama and the Democratic leadership have been busy saying they will get the Stupak language stripped out of any final bill, so we can have healthcare reform without having to sell our souls to some old men in Rome to get it.

As a working widowed mom who is not getting Social Security Survivor Benefits for her kids, I fervently hope they do, because I, like most working single moms, really need some help with the cost of my healthcare. I’m all for moving forward on health care reform, but I hope that the president and congress understand that progress on healthcare will not come at the expense of the rights of the more than 150 million women in America.

However, as an fairly well abused by the system lesbian, who has watched President Obama and the Democrats say one thing, then do another and play politics in the area of LGBT rights, my trust level of these folks is pretty low, so I can’t say I’m that confident President Obama and the Democratic Leadership will try not sell out the rights of American Women to get their win on healthcare….

That is if we let them do that…. And we as American Women cannot let them do that.

 By Melanie Nathan -  If there is one thing to come out of healthcare reform’s ultimate house bill, is the need for the Democrats to take lessons in the “Lockstep Tango” and who would be better teachers than the experts on the other side of the aisle.

History nonetheless -as an unusually emotional Nancy Pelosi graced the gavel on a 220-215 House Vote – to cheers and tears and amidst a barage of defections.   I invite comments about the Reproductive Rights Amendment thrown in to produce the vote. 

 Visit  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOQ-Iw6_wTA&feature=player_embedded   

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

Tell the U.N.:

To: Ban Ki-moon (U.N. Secretary General)

Sponsored by: CARE go to http://change.org

To: Ban Ki-moon (U.N. Secretary General)

 Just weeks ago in the West African country of Guinea, countless women were brutally raped in a public stadium when soldiers stormed a peaceful protest. The world reacted with outrage, but Guinea is just the tip of the iceberg.

What happened in Guinea is a visible example of the violence and abuse that threatens women and girls all over the world. In the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 36 women and girls are raped every day. This is the world’s shame.

You can do something to change it. Sign the petition at www.change.org to urge the U.N. Security Council to appoint a special representative now who can help hold government forces and armed groups accountable for stopping repeated gender-based violence, and assist survivors of rape and assault. This special representative was called for in a recently passed U.N. resolution to protect women and girls from sexual violence, but pressure is needed to ensure urgent action.

America is not far off in terms of the brutality. Shame USA – what in our culture breeds gang rapists that feel good about brutalizing a 15 year old, 100 pound child at her school dance for over 2.5 hours.  Its man vs. woman – its crimes against women .  Flagrant disregard for humanity. Selflish momentary instances of feeling powerful, which turns back upon itself because of itself;  and serves only as a constant endeavor because in truth those who suffer such loss of their own humanity can barely sustain that feeling of power; and so must compensate by perpetuating the crime.  Its unconscienable in Africa, America and anywhere. It has got to stop.  To my way of thinking omission and inaction is as bad as the bad action itself. If you can do something to stop crimes against humanity you are obligated to do so; and for us that means waking up to the call of our sisters. Silence is tantamount to participation.

Post by Melanie Nathan, Contact nathan@privatecourts.com
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com; www.privatecourts.com

Melanie Nathan: Considering Maine and Reflecting on California:

Does marriage equality and more specifically same-sex marriage hurt traditional marriage? This most confounding question has yet to be answered by anyone, especially those who expound the rhetoric while seeking to ban same-sex marriage.  The derogatory impact of same-sex marriage on straight marriage has yet to be quantified.  I wonder how one would be able to figure it out.

Could it be that for every 4 gay marriages one straight person will not marry his fiancé; could it be that for every 4 gay marriages one straight couple will divorce?  Could it mean that allowing gay marriages will result in less straight people marrying and thereby reduce the numbers of married people?  I am trying so hard to come up with a formula, can someone please help me?   

Proposition 8 succeeded in California, and effectively removed a fundamental constitutional right, as endorsed by the Courts by way of popular vote – the right for any couple in California to marry regardless of gender was stripped.  Prop 8 was initiated in direct response and its mantra was  to “protect the institution of marriage” by keeping lesbians and gays out.  

After the barrage of voracious advertisements led 51% of voting Californians to believe that gay marriage would by its mere legality threaten straight marriages. Churches poured their money into the advertising coffers, tacitly claiming the interests of their God.   Silly them there is a better way to save the institution of marriage and just think it can be done without stripping other Americans of their inherent rights, as well as the advantage of quantification.  The obvious, unambiguous and only one absolute vehicle to sustain the precept of marriage is clearly the “The outlawing of Divorce.”  We must bring a new proposition to the voters in this earnest quest and that would be  ahh maybe -Proposition 9 – “Repeal of the Legislative Right to Divorce Act.”

Notably, divorce, unlike same sex marriage, can be easily quantified.  I believe in California the divorce rate is approximately 1 in 3. There you go – for every 60,000 marriages ending in Divorce, we can save 60,000 saved – see how easy that was. Not like our difficulty when we attempted to quantify the impact of same-sex marriage on ‘ traditional marriage.’ – that means we would have 60,000 out of every 180,000 marriages saved… How powerful is that!

This is a call to all those who truly believe in the sanctity of marriage. Support the rescue of marriage by ending divorce for good. Here is a safer and better plan – how about making that retroactive.  Anyone who has been divorced consider your good-selves remarried.

Indeed the next obvious step is legislation that prohibits one’s right to divorce.  Divorce is not an inherent right; it is one that is granted by specific statute. For example in California there would be no divorce if the Family Law Code did not deal create it. It gets worse – Divorce involves one spouse suing the other for divorce.  In California the first paper served by a plaintiff spouse on a defendant spouse reads “SUMMONS- You Are Being Sued.”  How bizarre – to separate church and State in this fashion.  It is an abomination to the sacred right of marriage to think that after spouses have said “till death do us part” that one may sue the other for divorce and that our law allows that to happen.

If Maine supports the ban of same-sex marriage tonight, I profess this to be the nest obvious step there too. 

Is this ban on Divorce a joke?  Not according to a Sacramento man, John Marcotte who is collecting signatures to place a new piece of legislation on the 2010 ballot for the people of California to decide on. He wants to make it illegal to divorce in California. Read his petition here.

Why? He contends that this is a natural extension of what religious conservatives did when they voted “Yes” on a ballot measure to ban gay marriage so that they could “protect traditional marriage”.

From John Marcotte’s Rescue Marriage website, here’s the statement announcing the new ballot measure:

“I loved Proposition 8, but felt it did not go far enough. So fresh from the office of our legal counsel, I present the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act.

No party to any marriage shall be restored to the state of an unmarried person during the lifetime of the other party unless the marriage is void or voidable, as set forth in Part 2 of Division 6 of the Family Code.”

Marcotte has just launched his first couple of PSAs on the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act. Here they are:

Few Choice Quotes From the PSAs:

“My kids are being taught in school that divorce is all right.”

“You said ‘Till death do us part’. You’re not dead yet.”

“Hell is eternal, just like your marriage is supposed to be.”

“If we allow anyone to get divorced, before you know it, people will be divorcing their dogs.”

Lock Step-lock-jaw-Republicans-and conservatives- and those on the right – do not fail – put your money where your mouth is and support the BAN on DIVORCE.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news andLGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com. nathan@privatecourts.com

You cannot go platinum a gazillion times and get away with this one. However seems popular darling and singing sensation may well get her pass, at least from those who do not have a clue. But for this lesbian Jewish woman, there is no pass.  While the blogs ablaze with comments senseless, I wonder how no-one gets the “JH” on the T Shirt. This is a coincidence!  She never meant it as JH= “Jew Hater.”  She does not mean it , nope she is just too pretty to mean it, her voice is too good for her to mean it…even though she has her arm around a swastika bearing little Nazi.  Well seems no one has thought of  JH=“Jew Hunter.” Either way I demand an explanation and a heartfelt apology, unless of course she really does mean it! Then she can own it and kiss her career goodbye.

I saw a very sweet and much publicized interview with gay-ol-Ellen D. and Ms. Swift, just today.   Ellen perfect timing- kindly ask your celebrity friend if she aspires to Nazi ideals because if she does, that puts you Ms. DeGeneres in the  next available Gas chamber.    If its a joke – I am not sure its one any lesbian could appreciate, given so many were victims of Nazi genocide   …..

One  Blogger said:  http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/10/taylor-swift-poses-with-jew-hating-swastika-lover/  “But we really hope she doesn’t feel the same way about Nazis. The 19-year old singer was photographed at Katy Perry’s birthday party last week, with her arm some hateful loser wearing a Swastika-covered t-shirt. We’re gonna give Swift a pass here and assume she had no idea the guy to her left was donning the symbol of such hate, evil and genocide. But she might wanna be careful about who she poses alongside of in the future.” Say What?   A Pose too ….   

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

10/29/09-by OutVoice

I have always taken pride in not voting a straight party ticket. As I lean more toward independent that only makes sense. However the ugly and dishonest politics of this year’s Virginia election may change all that. Since the onslaught of election ads it seems the Virginia Republican candidates only say three things, “They Lie”, “they have run a negative campaign” and “They will raise taxes”. Yep the party of no!

These statements of course are in the same ad/speech as the Republican candidates spend even more time and money on negative attacks and lies they themselves say they deplore. Led by ring-leader and top dog of the pack, Bob McDonnell. As a matter of fact, after watching the debates, listening to his speeches and interviews here is what I know about the candidate based on his own statements.

1.) Bob McDonnell is a Catholic.
2.) Bob McDonnell served in the military.
3.) Bob McDonnell has a large and handsome family.
4.) Bob McDonnell has a plan. (for many things, sadly I can not find the details.
5.) Bob McDonnell has a plan to fix the Virginia road/transportation problem without raising taxes. But the only thing I can find shows that he leans toward taking money from education. Already education is suffering in Virginia from budget short falls.
6.) Bob McDonnell will not continue the Executive order protecting GLBT employees against discrimination at the state executive level.
7.) Bob McDonnell says he still supports the writings of his twenty year old thesis. Although he admits some things have changed. Just does not tell us what has changed, his attitudes about working women, gays, feminists, or women in general.

However if we look a bit closer at those Mr. McDonnell supports in this race we start to see another possible Bob McDonnell agenda. Let us start with Ken Cuccinelli, candidate for State Attorney General. Mr. Cuccinelli has already shown his agenda with the following statement which was confirmed by Adam of his campaign office on 10-29-2009, “ “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong,” said Cuccinelli, according to the Virginian-Pilot.

“They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society.” Adam added, “ Ken is not going to use quotas.“ What is wrong with this picture? Wait let us look a bit deeper.

In his most recent attack/counter attack ad Cuccinelli, addresses an ad from his opponent Steve Shannon. In that ad Shannon’s contention is that Cuccinelli voted against protecting victims of domestic violence and also voted against clergy having to report child molestation. In the recent ad Cuccinelli denies voting against protecting victims of domestic violence, but said nothing about his protection of clergy with regard to reporting child molestation. Cuccinelli’s campaign office also did not deny his vote on clergy and child molestation reporting.

As a recovered Catholic I know all too well the lengths the Catholic Church will go to further the dogma. We all learned that through the Church’s protection of pedophile priests. I have heard McDonnell state on more than one occasion his Catholic roots. We all know how the Catholic Church feels about the GLBT community. Now McDonnell’s favored Attorney General Candidate who is for protecting clergy by not requiring they report child molestation. Not surprising. Does Virginia really want to place a strong religionist in any high government seat? Especially when that religionist is an Attorney General who favors protecting clergy from reporting child molestation? Something really wrong with this picture!!!

In the final debate McDonnell stated his agenda/goals were on growing jobs and making Virginia stronger not the “Narrow social agenda” his candidates accuse is his real goal. But in this bit of news about his favored Attorney General we see a different set of possibilities. Is this injection of Catholicism in the Virginia State Government? And what about child molestation victims in Virginia? If Cuccinelli wins the Attorney General spot how will he protect victims of child molestation by clergy? Or will he protect the clergy? How does this make Virginia stronger Mr. McDonnell? Ask McDonnell, Cuccinelli and yourself these questions and I hope a few more.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Candidate for Virginia Attorney General: “Homosexual Acts Are Wrong” (queersunited.blogspot.com)
• Deeds Running Behind Even in Rural Areas (politicalwire.com)
• Fornicators, beware of mild-mannered theocrat, Part Two (powerlineblog.com)

Bishop E. W. Jackson Sr., who leads Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va., says that while he’s against anti-gay violence, he also opposes homosexuality and wants to be free to preach against it, as reported in the Virginian-Pilot. While reading this I am clear that the smiling Bishop and I clearly do not share the same Adonai. His comments were made in conjunction with President Obama’s signing of the Mathew Shepard Hate Crime Act into law, yesterday. Jackson stated that federal legislation defining attacks on gays and lesbians as “hate crimes” will stifle religious freedom.

I say – if stifling religious freedom saves lives, so be it!

Jackson told the newspaper he fears religious leaders could be prosecuted for inciting anti-gay violence, even though the legislation — expected to be signed Wednesday by President Barack Obama — contains language meant to preclude prosecution of religious leaders and others on the basis of speech or beliefs.

I say – let the chips fall where they may!

“We could find ourselves in a situation where we’re accused of inciting someone,” Jackson said. “I am categorically opposed to the hate crimes bill.”

I ask -Why did he not come out against Hate Crimes before sexual orientation was included?

Thank my Adonai for the solace I find in the voice of Rev. Steve Jolly of Freemason Street Baptist Church in Norfolk’s who disagrees, telling the Virginian-Pilot: “If I stand up in the pulpit and say the consumption of alcohol is evil and we should pour it all in the river, that’s a personal opinion. That’s very different from saying, ‘There’s a bar down the road; let’s break in and pour all the alcohol into the river.’”

But I must say – people like the BISHOP – scare me still! Has he considered that the Hate Crimes ACT protects lesbians like me from people like him? His intent is clear and I am pleased to recall my law school lesson where I learnt mens rea is mens rea!

Refs: http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/10/virginia-pastor-says-hate-crimes-bill-stifles-religion.html

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy; motivated by injustice, I blog about family, law, mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com. nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Signs Historic Federal LGBT Hate Crimes Legislation (towleroad.com)
• Obama Signs Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Hate Crimes Bill into Law (bilerico.com)
• “No More Matthew Shepards,” Ctd (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Judy Shepard’s Statement on Hate Crimes Legislation (mombian.com)

By Melanie Nathan – Oct 27, 2009 – Today a post by Senator Arlen Specter appeared in the Huffington Post where Specter categorically states: “The time has come to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Enacted 13 years ago when the idea of same sex marriage was struggling for acceptance, the Act is a relic of a more tradition-bound time and culture.”

Specter went on to say “Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts have already passed laws recognizing same sex marriage and other states are moving in that direction. The states are the proper forum to address this divisive social and moral issue, not the Federal Government with a law that attempts to set one national standard for marriage.

Specter used the example of prohibition in his essay, saying, “Prohibition showed just how difficult it is to enforce law establishing standards of personal behavior or morality. Coercion, whether civic or legal, in matters of this kind rarely works. It certainly won’t halt public controversy surrounding the issue.”  I was somewhat confused as I found it an interesting  as an argument in persuasion for ditching DOMA, yet disconcerted that Specter finds it appropriate to place sexual orientation  in the context of moral issue in the first place.

I for one really appreciate the written word of the Senator.  However I note that the Huffington Post article fosters the impending senatorial battle against Joe Sestak, who has come out ferociously in favor of LGBT equality.

Senator Specter spoke favorably of LGBT Immigration rights at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA in June this year.

I had the privilege of meeting the Senator after the hearing and I really liked what he had to say. So I find it odd that he did not mention UAFA and immigration equality specifically in this article.  I leave this up to the reader to interpret.

Quote from article:
“The repeal of DOMA is one step among several designed to fully integrate and protect the rights of gays and lesbians in American society. ” He spoke of his sponsorship of The Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and his general support of LGBT issues. “Nothing in the Act impedes the lawful expression of one’s political or religious beliefs. “  All Americans are entitled to hold and express their own beliefs, no matter how provocative.  Measures to combat discrimination against gays and transgendered people in the workplace are another needed measure. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, of which I am an original cosponsor, was introduced on August 5, 2009 and is currently before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Finally, the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is outdated, and should be rescinded entirely. A person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on their ability to serve their country in the armed services. Countless studies and the experiences of gays who have served in the military have borne out these findings.”  However no mention of UAFA or RFA or CIR or RMA… noted!

My personal barometer when it comes to endorsing Specter or Sestak will amount to the answers that I want to hear on the following questions:-

1. Where do you stand specifically on the Respect for Marriage Act (by Rep. Jerold Nadler) as the Repeal legislation for DOMA and would you be willing to Sponsor a Senate version including the critical transportability clause (meaning Same-sex marriage entered into in one State must be recognized all other States for the purpose of federal benefits that ensue.) ?

2. Where do you stand on the Uniting American Families Act would you support it as a stand-alone bill, (co-sponsor it?) and will you support Comprehensive Immigration Reform with UAFA included?

Campaign talk is not good enough for me when it comes to trusting, we as a community have been down that road too many times . I want the specifics before my endorsement – specifics on the leadership role the candidate will assume, time lines, and strategy.

I thank Senator Specter for his words of support, his courage to speak out, but challenge him, as well as Rep Sestak, to provide the specifics I have mentioned in this post.

I also encourage those of you from State of Pennsylvania to ask these very specific questions of these two candidates.

Reference:- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-arlen-specter/time-to-repeal-doma_b_335226.html

UPDATE: Please refer to the article by Paula Brooks from Lezgetreal  indicating Rep Sestak’s response to the Specter Article….

Blogged and written by Melanie Nathan, CEO Private Courts Inc. an Advocacy and Conflict Resolution Firm. nathan@privatecourts.com, http://privatecourts.com ; http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

BOSTON — Associated Press reports today that a gay Brazilian man has been denied asylum by the Obama administration and won’t be reunited with his Massachusetts husband in the U.S.

Tim Coco, the US citizen binational spouse said that  Attorney General Eric Holder did not act on a Friday deadline in the case of Genesio “Junior” Oliveira, effectively denying the 30-year-old Brazilian man’s request for asylum in the U.S. on humanitarian grounds.

This is not the first time a gay man from Brazil has been denied an immigration path through marriage to the USA.  The other case involving a Brazilian is that of the husband of US citizen Gordon Stewart, as Pfizer employee who is now living in exile in the United Kingdom so he and his spouse can live their marital relationship.

In June 2009, Gordo, together with Shirley Tan provided oral testimony before Senator Leahy and other Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the hope that the Uniting American Families Act would engage congress enough to do something about the inequities in our immigration law.

Coco said, “We needed the Attorney General to make a decision on whether Junior could come home,” said Coco, 48, of Haverhill. “He didn’t take this request seriously.”  It seems as if the Justice department has yet to respond to questions about this case.

In 2002, Oliveira had sought asylum in the U.S. apparently basing his case on a rape as a teenager in Brazil.  But an immigration judge denied his request.  The Associated Press noted that it does not typically name rape victims, but Oliveira speaks openly about his case and is allowing his name to be used.

Oliveira  and Coco married in Massachusetts in 2005 and bought a house together. However unlike other married couples in the US, gay marriages have no bearing on the immigration law that overtly discriminates against same-sex spouses.  The undeniable fact is that gays and lesbians are allowed  to marry in the US in under the law of certain States. Yet because of the Defense of Marriage Act they are precluded from federal rights which includes that provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

In March, Sen. John Kerry asked Attorney General Eric Holder to grant Oliveira asylum on humanitarian grounds.  Kerry spokeswoman Brigid O’Rourke said Monday that the senator will continue to work toward a solution that would reunite the couple for good. The fact is that if Tim and Junior were a heterosexual married couple, they would never have suffered through more than two years of separation,” said O’Rourke.

The Uniting American Families needs it’s time now. While there are thousands of unpublicized stories in the shadows right now, many more are being exposed to Congress and yet Senators such as Kerry who favor the passage of UAFA are still failing in their leadership on the issues.  What is the point of advocating for individuals when you have the power of the legislation in your hands?

Coco said he thought there was “no way” the Obama Administration would deny Oliveira’s asylum request after Kerry made his plea to Holder.  “We are profoundly sad,” said Coco. “This is more than any married should have to face.”

AP reports, the case comes as Obama tries to smooth a rocky relationship with gay activists, who want him to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays, which he has pledged to do but hasn’t given a timeline. Tens of thousands of gay rights supporters marched in Washington earlier this month, demanding Obama keep his promise to end the policy.

Coco said he has spent about $250,000 in legal bills and hasn’t seen Oliveira since January, though the two video chat online every night. A heterosexual sponsorship of a spouse costs $750-$1500 if you use an attorney.

Oliveira was denied a visa to return to Massachusetts last year for the funeral of Coco’s mother. Gordon Stewart’s husband has been denied the right to visit his spouse’s sister who has cancer. 

Coco said the couple plans to launch a legal challenge against the federal Defense of Marriage Act as a violation of immigration laws.

That may be a worthy attempt but with my experience in this issue I believe that energy should be put into legislation – we should be calling all our Representatives in Congress and demanding the change we were promised.  Challenging this in the Courts will still yield one major shield for those who are not allowed to marry in their respective States.  Until marriage is uniform, UAFA, which ascribes the right to Permanent Partners, as the relationship that seeks validity to circumvent DOMA.  

 In the meantime, pending legislation, which must happen and soon,  I call on Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Gillibrand, Schumer, Frank to pave the way for binationals by enacting / introducing/Class Private Bill whatever it takes -a moratorium on all deportations of married LGBT spouses;  by providing a special Visa Program with status for married LGBT couples (perhaps one that can sunset pending a solution or legislation– similar to the R1 (religious workers visa program) for married lesbians and gay spouses.

When I was in DC during August I spoke with congressional staffers and received an “interested” response to this idea. 

The reason for this is based less on the privilege granted to ‘a would be immigrant,’ but rather based on the RIGHT – the CIVIL RIGHT of the American Spouse…. Never since the days pre-civil rights movement has there been such a flagrant apartheid-esque practice perpetuated upon US citizens.  We do not have a right that other Americans have.

O’Rourke said Kerry supports the couple’s legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners. This I personally find outrages. Why does Senator Kerry not get behind the REPEAL of DOMA.  Congressman Nadler has had the courage to introduce it in the form of the Respect of Marriage Act.  Why is he talking Domestic Partnership.  Another incremental crumb? I don’t want to hear that word…Domestic Partnership.

This month, Obama called on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Well do it. This case is one in thousands. We need our remedy now. I am not available for a life on hold. Neither is Mr. Coco.

 Melanie Nathan. nathan@privatecourts.com

blogger  and personal advocate
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

The question remains – and answers are still needed.

When listening to the Video, below, I am wondering which would be the hottest political hot potato – UAFA (Uniting American Families Act, ) as stand-alone legislation or comprehensive immigation reform or comprehensive immigration reform including UAFA?

The bottom lines is we must push very hard for UAFA now - to ensure that it will be included in CIR and that this time line is adhered to. That is Senator Gillibrand’s loud and clear message.   Surely  our organizations should take heed of these important words. Given the time constraints -  with us the pending hot potato issue,  is it not time to rally behind Rep. Nadler and ensure we get RMA (Respect for Marraige Act)  the shot of the excitement it deserves and so badly needs?  Wake up activists and get together to talk about a comprehesnive strategy- we have mere months left…

Are we still waiting for Barney Frank to have his day with DADT before pushing for the very  legislation that serves as the essence of who we are ? The critical repeal of Defense of Marriage Act? (DOMA;) the  legislation that denies our relationships, with the one that calls for its RESPECT- which defines who we are?  I believe that Hate Crimes, ENDA, DADT, UAFA, CIR would be a relative breeze if the psycho-politico-socio recognition of our most basic civil right- the de jure recognition of our de facto relationships was at the helm of our struggle!

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.  Contact nathan@privatecourts.com

Today a Binational married lesbian couple (names private) attended Senator Gillibrand’s meet and greet at the LGBT Center in NYC. They went armed with a letter setting out their dire circumstances, including reference to the unconscionable detention suffered by one of the spouses. 

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.”

This may be interpreted to confirm that CIR will in fact include UAFA, when introduced by Senator Schumer.  However in August of 2009, when I asked Julie Kruse of Immigration Equality why would we be concerned that an overt champion of UAFA and LGBT issues such as Schumer would fail to include LGBT in CIR,  she cautioned that there was no guarantee that Senator Schumer would  in fact include UAFA.  However it would seem that Senator Gillibrand may now be providing some valuable insight as to what we can expect.   

That said, we must take heed of the Senator’s most fervent suggestion. We cannot ignore the overt and bland advice when she told her participants today that she recommends we push, push and push for the legislation now.  That we write like we have never written before and specifically that we bombard our representatives, urgently.  I know out4Immigration is doing an amazing job in the 34^th week of their letter writing campaign, but it is not enough and they cannot do it all. We need to hear from our brothers and sisters in the community who may not be directly impacted by this. 

The Senator emphasized the importance of Senator Schumer introducing Immigration reform legislation by year’s end; and the fact that it is imperative that the legislation passes by Spring 2010, the latter in her estimation possibly being a last opportunity.

I challenge every single person reading this, regardless of whether their rep is supportive or not of the Uniting American Families Act, to get 5 members of your community, friends, family to write and simply as follows: “Where do you stand on Uniting American Families Act and will you support it in comprehensive immigration reform. What are you doing to ensure this legislation passes before the Spring.” That’s all you have to do!!!

At the moment though, everybody is focused on DADT  (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) as priority and that seemed to dominate the conversation, especially given that Lt. Dan Choi was there to introduce the Senator.

A community, advocates and activists, thank Senator Gillibrand for holding the meet and greet on this perfect Sunday.  In doing so she clearly displays her championship of our equality and that there is a good chance she could step forward to lead the more timid amongst our allies

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN,  CEO of Private Courts, Inc.  Communications, public policy consulting, mediation & private advocacy; motivated by injustice, I blog about family, law, mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com. Contact Nathan@privatecourts.com

“Pass the Uniting American Families Act” and I say

now!

Senator Leahy and Melanie Nathan June 2009.

 

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) of 2009,  would grant same-sex couples the same immigration benefits — and responsibilities — as opposite-sex couples, under the same existing legal framework.  It is cosponsored by 22 senators and 117 members of the House of Representatives and has the support of a diverse coalition of businesses and civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the American Bar Association and the Anti-Defamation League. In highlighting some of the hardships, the article should be read, and more importantly the comments that appear thereafter.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)   reflect on the legislation introduced to what they refer to as “to right the  wrong”.   The words of both Senators appear in a jointly authored article appearing in publication  –  ”THE HLL” today.   

“We must change the law to end the gratuitous cruelty being imposed  thousands of couples  around the country. We urge Congress to incorporate UAFA into the forthcoming comprehensive immigration reform. No immigration reform we enact can be truly comprehensive unless it also addresses this deprivation of the civil rights of bi-national families. There is no rational reason to continue this discriminatory treatment. It is long past time that Congress did something about it.”

I for one have always feared that UAFA will take a back seat as a stand alone bill to Comprehensive Immigration Reform. while I understand and truly appreciate the Senator and Congressman’s plea for inclusion in CIR, I fear that this may derogate from the work that still needs to be done to sweeten UAFA  and pass it as a stand alone, this year.  My own comments, together with the very valuable input by Lavi Soloway, founder of Immigration Equality,  are noted in the posting’s comment section. I for one believe that if organizations such as Immigration equality worked directly with the Senator and Congressman, they could forward UAFA.  Instead IE has nailed their hat onto the Comprehensive Immigration reform hat stand.    This action could have served well to compliment out4immigrations letter writing campaign, but again we find our organizations’  inability to unite in strategy.

What I find most interesting is the Article’s heading – “PASS THE UNTING AMERICAN FAMILES ACT” and so I hold hope that Senator Leahy and Rep. Jerrold Nadler will continue to lead and motivate to acheive this ultimate goal.  I am still urging Immigration Equality to work on the underlying impediments to UAFA with Senator Leahy and Rep. Nadler. Please work on the Feinstein concern – the underlying contractual nexus issue – it is the ultimate key to passage and you have known this since 2007.

I am calling on all Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual and Transgender communties to appeal urgently to your representatives to help those who are suffering now.  Those who are about to leave their homes for countries abroad.  I have 25 cases on my list right now of people facing this huge challenge – who are set for exile in the coming months and it is plain wrong!  Some have aging parents, one has a heart ailment;  these Americans are being forced to leave the US to be with their loved ones at great cost.  Its a civil rights and a human rights abomination and American Law is the culprit.  It must change and I for one am intolerant of the fact that they are being asked to wait for Comprehensive Immigration reform when in fact they are the subject of discrimination and inequality that has nothing to do with Comprehensive immigration reform.     If you want to learn more about how to effectively advocate, contact www.Out4Immigration.org

Melanie Nathan, of Private Courts Inc.  An Advocacy and Conflict Resolution Firm. www.privatecourts.com and www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com  and www.divorcemediattors.com  nathan@privatecourts.com

Melanie Nathan -  pursuant to Press release where NAACP President for Iowa and Nebraska endorses Republican Vander Plaats for Governor in IOWA;

In the wake of a recent endorsements and due to his flagrant disregard for the NAACP stand on LGBT equality as a civil rights issue, I call for the resignation of Rev. Ratiff President of IOWA and NEBRASKA NAACP. Unless willing to explicate a public withdrawal of support for the 2010 Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Bob Vander Plaats, who has taken an open stand against Gay marriage, I expect a resignation and an apology for the Rev’s unabashed endorsement of the anti-gay – hence anti civil rights ticket of the Governor ‘wanna be.’

Quoting the website of Vander Plaat’s Issues statements, he asserts that he is “FOR – a stay on same-sex marriages until the General Assembly rewrites state law or Iowans are allowed to vote on the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.”  

Notwithstanding this overt indictment against legal Gay marriage in Iowa, the Reverend Keith Ratliff, pastor of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church and president of the Iowa/Nebraska Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,(NAAC) announced his support for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats.

I ask, where is the consistency in the NAACP?   In at least two prominent appearances, Julian Bond Chairman of  the NAACP has categorically stated that LGBT equality is a civil rights issue and that the NAAC fully supports LGBT equality.  These statements could not have been clearly. The first time I heard Mr. Bonds assert this stance, was on June 3^rd of this year while sitting directly behind him at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the equal immigration legislation, Uniting American Families Act.  The video of his testimony is available on You Tube. The more recent affirmation was at this past weekend’s Equality march in D.C.

In a press release appearing on Vander Plaat’s website:

“Speaking at a morning news conference at the Statehouse, Rev. Ratliff noted that his support for Vander Plaats is “an individual decision based on Bob’s commitment to improving our educational system, economic opportunities for all Iowans and ensuring that our criminal justice system is equal to all.” He added, “I know that Bob Vander Plaats is not afraid to stand up for what is right. That takes courage. He has what it takes to be a fiscally responsible governor who gets Iowa’s financial house back in order, but there is so much more work to be done,” Ratliff said.

No only does Ratliff endorse Vander Plaat, but he also ascribes to the anti-gay marriage tickets when he stated, “Vander Plaats talked about the importance of defending the institution of marriage. And, most importantly, he won’t just talk about those things he’ll do something about them. That takes backbone and determination. That’s what I want in my governor – and that’s why I’m standing here today to show my support for him.”

This is an imperative opportunity and must not be missed – so I encourage all to write Mr. Bonds and express your feelings about this sad contradiction.  Demand that an organization such as the NAACP cannot have at a State’s helm any person who is unable to separate church from state, personal from NAACP position, and one who does not place civil rights as the paramount issue above all else.

watch?v=70wZwx247MQ

Blogged by, MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. – Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com. CONTACT:- nathan@privatecourts.com

9/29/09-by Melanie Nathan

09/13/09 -by Melanie Nathan
A Commentary In response to an article By CHRIS JOHNSON, in today’s Washington Blade “Nadler to unveil DOMA repeal bill Tuesday Frank not among legislation’s co-sponsors” at http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27153 ))

There is so much LGBT popcorn popping on the Hill (D.C.) that it is tough to discern which bag to choose; the one with the hot popcorn or the one with cold popcorn. Then add some seasoned politicians to the mix and we are indeed coiled. Oh yes and lest I forget, the ‘not for profiteers’ whose jobs depend on partitioned successes – add them to the jumble and you indeed have a muddle.

I once promised myself that I would never use this (now cliché) phrase in my writing, but my mind falls prey to these vagabond fingers – as I do type the very word “W T F” – yes WTF, I said it ! That is what I said when I read the Article in the Blade today, at http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27153

My hero Jerrold Nadler will at 11.00 am on Tuesday next week announce his newly sponsored Bill to repeal DOMA. Did I say my hero? This extraordinarily compassionate man, whom I believe has no problem prioritizing the interests of his constituents, at whatever political cost, went the extra mile and to include in the Bill a “Certainty Provision.” This means that the marriage is transportable at a Federal level. It will not force States to marry same sex couples, but regardless of where you live as long as you got married somewhere, you will carry your Federal rights anywhere in the US.

Here is the dilemma – enter my other Congressional Hero, Rep Barney Frank, openly Gay and yet has not signed on to cosponsor this Bill with other “OUT” Representatives such as Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis. The reason apparently is because of “strategic differences.” In a nutshell he believes that the “Certainty Clause” could in fact turn out to be an impediment to the passing of the Bill.

Now I have to think about where I stand on this one. Do I support The Nadler Bill? Of course I must support the Nadler Bill. Just think – if DOMA is repealed, Binationals seeking immigration rights will automatically be included, and of course all those 1,138 benefits would apply to every gay married couple. This would have the impact of a catchall amendment to the Civil Rights Act. It would eliminate the need for some (exclude DADT/ ENDA and HATE CRIMES) of other stand alone/ piecemeal legislation and all the “non-profiteers” will have to reinvent themselves to justify their respective existences. (well almost, anyway.) We would not have to sit around waiting for the big “CIR to include UAFA – maybe- Bill… “ We would all simply climb on board for this one.

Then Frank’s statement that the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders lawsuit against DOMA, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, stands a better shot of overturning DOMA than congressional action. The lawsuit specifically targets the portion of DOMA that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. “That’s very thoughtful, very well done,” Frank said. “That’s the way we’ll win this.”

So here is my knee jerk 2 cents worth – I think we Should embrace Nadler’s repeal Bill, with the certainty provision in and put everything each and every LGBT activist, non -profit etc has left in them into promoting and lobbying the legislation, so that if we lose the GILL case, we still win the Repeal. Imagine both simultaneously timed to synchronize the respective results. For this to happen all the LGBT organizations will have to unify as one to develop a well mastered and funded strategic plan. Egos and separate agendas aside – good leadership and it can be done. Once we can marry and we all do so, all the other still necessary Bills will pass with ease given that our de facto existence will finally have universal de jure clarity. We will be a newly empowered people and a lot more than mere facts of life. We will have our path to absolute equality.

Note Frank did say: “It’s not anything that’s achievable in the near term,” he said. “I think getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and full domestic partner benefits for federal employees will take up all of what we can do and maybe more in this Congress.”

If anything I think Barney Frank, who has a most brilliant mind, has made the argument for Nadler’s Bill in this statement and so…………..

Here is my challenge – cryptic as it may be-

(1) Let us find the leadership that can gather us all- Call two tier meetings/ strategic action:- to strategize and develop a Master Plan:
First Tier: Human Rights Commission, EQCA, , , PFLAG, COLAGE, LAMBDA LEGAL, ACLU, NAACP, Stonewall Democrats, OUT4Immigration, Immigration Equality Log Cabin Republicans, Amnesty International, NCLR, Marriage Equality – API, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force , GLAD , GLAAD, Keshet Inc., Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, and whichever important group I have forgotten or not heard of; and
Second Tier:- Courage Campaign, Local groups and organizations, community centers etc.
Third Tier:- Bloggers, writers, media, social networks.

(2) Let us ALL stand 100% behind Rep Nadler’s legislation as a Priority strategy and get it pushed through to the Floor/s ASAP. Remember – the President will SIGN a Repeal of DOMA. We would have to explore if he would sign one with a Certainty Clause in it.

(3) That means drop all else and fight for Repeal of DOMA, in Mega Unity.

(4) First meeting to be held directly day after March on Washington in D.C.

(5) Once Doma is Repealed any stand alone Legislation can be pursued.

This Plan places recognition of our relationships at the fore. What makes us gay and lesbian is ultimately our relationships. Our love for our same sex partners is our common denominator and the reason we are here in the quandary as a minority that is discriminated against, is our existence in relationship to our partners, whether in commitment or not. We have children. Family law pertains to all children and ours too suffer the impact lack of rights.

So in conclusion ask yourself this question and observe the metaphor:

If you were a black person in 1989 South Africa – which would you chose:
1. The complete repeal of Apartheid; OR
2. Fighting for the enactment of legislation as stand alone separate bills as follows:-
a. discrimination in employment
b. the reservation of Jobs act
c. Repeal of the Group Areas Act
d. Legislation prohibiting Pass Laws
e. abolishment of the Racial classification Act

Now while the above is more complicated than presented for the purposes of this article – it merely illustrates the point. Get the recognition and legitimatization and the rest will be history.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

September 8, 2009 -Melanie Nathan:

I sent my twelve year old off to school today hoping that her first class period would run the President’s speech; in fact I e-mailed her principal to ensure she watched it live. I believe it to be a great moment for our children.

I am disgusted by the people in this my Country who assert their children should not hear President Obama’s talk to school kids to inspire their educational futures; given it was nothing more than that. Leadership is always inspiring and who better to offer an example of such than the President of our Country. That is all the kids see.

They have no ideal about the politics of it and they should not have to. The President should be commended for taking the time to devote directly to our children, and yet there are those of you who believe he should not have! What is wrong with this picture here? An elected President ought not inspire our kids? Why such outcry. Is this a concomitant of these unfortunate times of unparalleled partisanship or of undying racism? The President is our elected leader . What message are those parents sending to their kid? That our President is not worthy? That our President is not our leader? That our democracy – our vote- does not count in the notion of leadership? That our President is a mere politician? Is a Presidency not something worth aspiring to? Our President is the ultimate example of success and therefore an ideal spokesperson for inspiring our children. Kids have no political reference when listening to a person as qualified as President Obama. We need to see examples of leadership.

These racist partisans need help – do they realize they are destroying their children’s opportunity to see the world with the purity still available to them? These parents are delivering a message that serves to dampen Patriotism as whether you like it or not, whether you agree with his politics or not, he is indeed an extraordinarily accomplished citizen, father and now he is proving his worth as a leader.

This was a pep talk adorned with leadership. What is wrong with that. Oh yes, by the way, have you noticed that the inability to put the word “President” in front of Barck Obama is the common denominator with all these critics. They just cannot bring themselves to say it.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Some Parents Need A Time Out (bizzia.com)

9/4/09-By Melanie Nathan
I was born and raised in South Africa (from 1956 to 1985) and practiced law there during the apartheid era and when I immigrated to the USA, around the time of sanctions, I truly believed that there was no discrimination of any kind in the United States of America.

Safely seated in my US citizenship, I had no reason to doubt that I would have the right to pursue my happiness and that I would be treated as full citizen in every respect of the law. At the time I was thankful to the US for introducing the sanctions that in essence brought the apartheid government to its knees resulting in the release of Madiba Mandela and the end of Apartheid.

Now my once anti-apartheid stance has come full circle in the US, as twenty four years after immigrating, South Africa has not only ditched apartheid, but now boasts a constitution that specifically protects all its citizens, forbidding discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation; while in that same time period America has introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA, ) and DADT – and has had the gall to resist ENDA and the Mathew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill, failed to secure equality for its LGBT citizens; indeed a sad irony.

Since the enactment of legislation Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that specifically serves to exclude same sex partners from rights that different- gender spouses have, the US has in fact institutionalized discrimination in a manner that stinks very much like apartheid. President Clinton’s stamp of approval will forever emblazon DOMA and so now that we have President Obama and a Democratic majority, something has to be done to right this wrong.

My fellow activists would probably shoot me down for saying this, but if it is not possible to rid us of DOMA, quickly or per se, there must, at the very least be legislation that seeks to remedy its impact. Immigration is the one area where this cannot happen quickly enough; our ‘de facto (existence) is begging for its de jure (validation.)

Of the 1,138 federal rights and benefits that the LGBT community is denied, the worst (I am biased having suffered this particular form of discrimination) is the one that denies us two fundamental prerequisites to our basic freedoms and happiness:

1. The right to fall in love and live with whomever we choose from wherever we choose;
without impacting -
2. Our right to remain in our homes and Country.

This is the plight of our Binational families; – I estimate now with the increasing use of web based social interaction, at least 54,000 – 90,000 couples impacted by this great, where spouses of the same gender are unable to Petition for the a partner who is not a US citizen or legal resident to remain with him/her or join the other in the USA.

On the lips of every Binational I know and I am sure on the lips of those I do not know, is “How can my Country, the United States of America, in all its glory, allow this to happen to its own citizens?” Our country is in effect causing its citizens to go into exile when “in pursuit of happiness” in flagrant disregard of our own constitution and while we are preaching human rights to the rest of the World we are so grossly at fault within.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act provides a privilege to the foreigner when issuing a visa, a green card or conveying citizenship. It is a dispensation and even an indulgence if you will – meaning that there is no ‘constitutional’ obligation until such time as the immigrant receives the benefit. On the other hand, inherent in the ACT is a RIGHT conveyed to the American Spouse to petition for the foreigner.

The fight for equality under the Immigration Law in the United States, is not about the privilege for the foreigner, but rather about the RIGHT denied the American[i] same sex spouse/ partner. It is therefore clearly an Equality issue more than it is an immigration issue per se.

I write regularly on this topic and am probably being somewhat repetitive in my posts, but I cannot let my thoughts dissolve, only to haunt me the following minute, as it tends to day after day. What bothers me is the inaction, the inaction and also the inaction – the fact that days go by, people age ; and while that happens there are those who are either unable to be with their loved one, their spouse, their partner – unable to be with an ageing or ill parent, living where they do not want to live, leaving their homes, careers for foreign shores, and too many hardships to mention in this short post. These are our American family….

Today on TV (Highlighted by Keith Olberman) I saw a woman who was seriously disabled, trying to express her needs regarding health care reform at a town hall meeting. She was heckled and treated in the most disgusting fashion, by her fellow Americans. For some reason it served as a metaphor for my article today; to my way of thinking omission and inaction is as bad as a bad action. Those hecklers overt in their abuse stand in the same row as those of us who refuse to notice the hardship and pain and suffering of our fellows – we are all catalysts and protagonists for each other’s well being and keeping quiet is tantamount to yelling at the woman sitting in the wheelchair.

We need all of our EQUALITY – all of our rights. Although I usually advocate specifically for UAFA (Uniting American Families ACT,) which seeks to include same sex permanent partners in the IMMIGRATION Law, I would be remiss if I did not note that sweeping legislation – a catch all for equality, an Amendment to Civil Rights Act, the repeal of DOMA is the only real way we will truly classify as fully equal. I pray for that day – but in the meantime must continue with the piecemeal Brigade.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

8/12/09

In a recent interview with U.S News and Weekly Reports Dan Gilgoff, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, said he has been some doing looking into Barack Obama’s soul…

“I’ve had the chance to visit with the president personally both during the campaign and since he’s been in the White House. I don’t really know what’s at the heart of his opposition. It’s hard for me to believe that in his heart he’s truly opposed to same-sex marriage. Maybe it’s something he’s working to get his head around. When you look at who he is and what his life experiences are and who he surrounds himself by and the transformative political figure he is, it’s hard to imagine he genuinely opposes it.”

As president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization, Joe Solmonese is LGBT community’s top liaison to the Obama White House. So his job comes with huge responsibilities and a pretty substantial paycheck too, but I have to think Joe sounds a bit like George W Bush when he said of Vladmir Putin… “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

Now while Solmonese isn’t the first in our community to doubt the Presidents Obama’s unfriendliness to gay marriage, despite the fact the White House has asked the Supreme Court to not review a case on DOMA in a rather abrasive fashion that compared same-sex marriage to incest, one has to hope Joe has better “soul vision” then GW did.

Incidentally, last week Putin parked two nuclear powered attack submarines, which normally come equipped with cruise missiles off the East Coast of the United States not too very far from where I am sitting…

Just saying here …

PhotoJoe Solmonese, HRC on Flickr – Photo Sharing!.

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House saying gay ban will be lifted next spring? (americablog.com)
• Guess Which Activist Organization Is Releasing a ‘Road Map’ to Equality? (queerty.com)
• Gay Rights Leader Doubts Obama’s Anti-Gay Marriage Stance (usnews.com)
• Why Gays Can Trust Obama (usnews.com)
• What Obama secretly believes (themoderatevoice.com)

A Group posting on LinkedIn cited by Marion Mulder of ING Global, Netherlands (fully quoted below) sent my mind tumbling into a political quandary. I wondered about the dichotomy between corporate pride in achieving these milestones while functioning in societies where there continues to be disdain, invalidation and inequality toward the LGBT citizenry.

This may not be the best analogy – but to illustrate my point – this is tantamount to Companies creating protocols to ensure they do not discriminate on the basis of color, making a point of patting themselves on the back with awards for being non-discriminatory and then functioning in a country where in effect there is apartheid.

It serves certainly as ‘food for thought’ because here in the USA and all around the world LGBT communities grovel for recognition to be equally entitled in their coupling while no contemplation has been given to corporations that are willing to continue to do business with Countries that hurt their LGBT employees through a myriad of human rights and civil rights infractions.

Nonetheless please note my criticism is not leveled at the profound voices of our Global Corporate Allies who bring increasing attention to the issues of inequality by providing validation through recognition of their LGBT employees and leaders, but rather at the political slackness that prevails despite corporate correctness and the progress in acknowledging diversity.

“ – 28 July 2009
The International Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce reveals the most gay friendly corporations in the world: BT Group, IBM and The Dow Chemical Company

Copenhagen, Denmark, July 28th 2009 – The International Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (IGLCC) is pleased to unveil the results of the first edition of the International Business Equality Index. The Index is a measurement of the performance of multinational corporations in relation to Diversity and Inclusion issues specifically focusing on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) communities in the countries where they operate. The leading corporations are BT Group, followed by IBM and The Dow Chemical Company. The announcement was made at a press conference during the closing of the IGLCC Second Annual Congress in Copenhagen……….

The corporations participating in this year’s Index are: AMR (the parent company of American Airlines, Inc. and American Eagle), BT Group, Cisco Systems, The Dow Chemical Company, IBM, ING, Intel, KPMG, Kraft Food, Merck, Novartis, Philips, SAP, TNT and UBS. They represent 1.7 million employees in 227 countries and sales of USD 800 Billion a year.

“On behalf of BT, I am absolutely delighted with this recognition” said Ian Livingston, BT’s CEO.” As one of the largest communication companies in the world, we provide service to customers in more than 170 countries and employ well in excess of 100,000 people across the globe. Diversity must be, and is, at the heart of our business and having the policies and the practices in place to support the LGBT community is essential to our success.”

Anne Heal, BT’s Senior Champion for Sexual Orientation added, “BT has been providing same-sex partner benefits to employees since the early 1980s and will continue to look at ways in which we can ensure that our people can be ‘who they are’ at work without fear of discrimination or prejudice. The IGLCC award recognises the efforts of out HR community and our LGBT network, Kaleidoscope, in their determination to ensure that equality of opportunity is reality in our business. I am also delighted.”

“The findings of the survey on which the Index is based are somewhat mixed, but definitively encouraging,” said IGLCC Secretary General, Pascal Lépine. “The vast majority of respondent corporations have Diversity and Inclusion programs and most explicitly include LGBT issues. We see from this survey that most of these companies take sexual orientation and gender identity matters very seriously. However, full equality is still years or decades away.”

While corporations scoring high on the index are powerful examples of how diversity and inclusion programs can be very successful, the 2009 Index findings also point to a darker side: nearly 50% of global corporations participating in the survey do not have any LGBT Diversity & Inclusion managers; openly gay men or lesbians are hard to find among the ranks of management (fewer than one out of ten include gay men or lesbians in more than one of every sixteen countries they have a presence in); and, without regard to the level of internal focus on LGBT inclusion, these multinational companies are not proudly trumpeting their diversity programs to the general public or the local LGBT communities through advertising or PR. In fact, only a handful of companies support local LGBT communities either through financial or in-kind support.

Despite these negatives, Mr. Lépine is optimistic. “To have such confidence shown towards our community makes me believe that there are still many good chapters to be written in the history of the international LGBT business community. It is especially important in these difficult economic and political times to salute all the participating corporations for their courage and example”, he said in today’s presentation. “But,” he continued, “we must be realistic and say that, even if today we see promise, there is much more work to be done. Far too often we see and hear of gay and lesbian professionals throughout the world that do not have access to basic employee rights and benefits just because of their sexual orientation”, added Mr. Lépine.

The Index is the product of an international committee that includes gays, lesbians and transgender professionals living and working in eight different countries from Europe and North America. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) and its European Region (ILGA-Europe) have played an instrumental role in the development of the program. “It is obvious that with the impact of globalization the LGBT community has its eyes on what corporations are doing at the international level, not just in one single country”, said David Pollard, Chairman of the Index Committee.

“BT Group’s outstanding commitment, policies and investment in LGBT diversity merits them the title of the most LGBT friendly corporation in the world. We challenge all multinationals to follow the example and leadership shown by those who saw a chance to be ahead of the curve. The IGLCC is proud of this historic moment and extends the invitation to all international corporations to participate in next year’s Index”, concluded Mr. Lépine.

To download a copy of the Index report, go to: www.iglcc.org/index2009 “

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

According to an exclusive interview  by Matthew S. Bajko (Published 07/16/2009 in the Bay Area Reporter):

“Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo), said she is confident that lawmakers in D.C. will pass a federal bill banning workplace discrimination against LGBT people this year.  But Speier also raised doubts about Congress’ ability to approve other legislation of importance to the LGBT community during the nearly 90-minute sit-down at her district office in downtown San Mateo Saturday, July 11. In regard to a bill that would allow LGBT Americans to remain in the country with their foreign-born partners, Speier said the issue had not gained enough traction in Congress to become a priority…. ”

As my readers know I have expressed a great deal of concern with how the  Uniting American Families Act has been handled by our self-appointed-by-ommission-leadership. It  is sad, yet validating  to note the comments of Congresswoman Speier  on UAFA’s unlikely passage.    Albeit it disturbing news, I believe it can and ought to serve as a titanic wake up call to bi-nationals, supporters and the LGBT community as a whole.  It is time to fight for UAFA and it must be NOW.  The Article can be read in full at….  http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4072

Congresswoman  Speier mentions that UAFA is low on the list of important and hence unlikely to see passage.   I too have heard that many members of Congress have not even heard about UAFA, the bill that will allow American Partners in same-sex relationships to Petition under the immigration law for their Permanent Partners to remain in our Country.  While Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado’s case created astonishing awareness, I agree with Representative Speier’s comment – “ In regard to a bill that would allow LGBT Americans to remain in the country with their foreign-born partners, Speier said the issue had not gained enough traction in Congress to become a priority.”

To me this is indicative of the very problem that I and many others have been concerned about and I am willing to go out on a limb to assert UAFA  has not gained traction for, inter alia,  the following reasons, and some points are cryptic:

1. Lack of involvement and utilization of grassroots groups;

2. Failure to use the stories of bi-nationals as a poignant tool, beyond mere display on websites;

3. Lack of effective leadership by Immigration Equality organizations– good leaders gather the best brains in the Country and do not make decisions without consultation, alliances, strategies and delegation.  When alliances are made, we should never lose sight of the prize by being swayed into battles that deplete our minimal resources.  Losing sight of the prize is when we minimize the fight for equality by shifting to a fight for immigration reform for those who already have the right to petition for spouses.  UAFA is an issue of Equality and not an immigration issue.  We have been manipulated to look at the issue from the perspective of the immigrant.   UAFA should be seen and advocated through the eyes of the suffering of the American partner citizen who has been denied the same rights as other Americans in permanent committed relationships having the option to marry.    Immigration is a privilege for the immigrant and inherent in the Immigration & Naturalization Act is a right for an American citizen spouse/ fiancé. Lesbian and Gay Americans are denied these rights. That is the fight and we should not be led down other paths.

I believe as do many that the Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado story hit the mark.   Their Story provided a mix of every element critical to immigration awareness and especially the LGBT and bi-national plight.   The fact that had there been equality of process by recognition by US law of same-sex permanent partnership,    the family would never have gone through the hell they did.  This exacerbation of hardship is clearly evident from Shirley’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 3rd this year.  I urge every reader who has yet to see the testimony to do so on you tube and to add to the already 29,000 plus who have viewed it. 

The very day after their testimony, Immigration Equality  in D.C. effectively shifted the focus to RFA, the new legislation being introduced by Rep. Mike Honda.  Although this Bill was momentous and Shirley spoke at the initiating press-conference, I had not been fully apprised of the nature of the conference.  Regardless, as Shirley’s personal advocate I did believe her appearance was important, but I would not have agreed to it had I known what I now know and that is that the focus would shift from UAFA as an absolute, and that Immigration Equality would re-assign its resources, contrary to the expectation and consultation with a fully respresented  bi-national community itself.

This was a big mistake in my opinion.  Of course LGBT language should be included in immigration reform as a matter of course as it is the right thing to do.    However, our fight is still the equality fight and we are selling our community and those who have funded and advocated the work, short if we fail to focus on UAFA. 

Shirley and Jay agreed to represent the issue of UAFA and that is why we went to testify; and they remain committed and focused to continue to do so.  They know and understand the value of comprehensive immigration reform and the inclusion of LGBT language therein, but will not take their eye off the ball when it comes to the inequity of immigration laws against same-sex couples. I believe a great opportunity and momentum may be lost if we do not take Shirley and Jay’s advocacy to the next level in relation to UAFA – and that should be to speak to and motivate other couples to deliver and share their stories with their own congressional representatives.    I am convinced this type of direct advocacy would  impact Congress to move quickly.  They have no idea about the extent of the suffering – someone has to deliver the message.

I had a great conversation this week with a prominent D.C. insider who has much more experience in D.C. than me.  He explained his view and the reigning sentiment amongst LGBT organizations such as Immigration Equality, on the importance of  the LGBT alliance with the larger immigration community via the Mike Honda Bill, Reuniting Families Act, (HR 2709)  that seeks to incorporate UAFA.   He also conveyed, similar to Rep. Speier, that D.C. intelligence is clear that UAFA stands less chance than Comprehensive Immigration reform of passage; and that for this reason some organizations may be seen taking a new path which clearly veers from the absolute focus on UAFA. I was really appreciative of our discourse yet remain unconvinced, especially when my source admitted that we could land up being dumped,  the sacrificial lamb at the end of the road. 

However at no time to date  has the beast been unleashed, truly unleashed; and believe me there is one waiting…. If all the bi-nationals band together on a grassroots level and strategize and if more Shirley and Jays and Carla and Britta’s have the courage to show up on doorstep of congress with their reporters, cameras and bloggers in tow, and if people like me are willing to advocate for Private Bills  and in arenas that most say are impenetrable, I really believe that UAFA can move in a direction that would provide a format of a Bill that will pass. 

Congress can and will have a new attitude toward UAFA – but it is not going to happen until we empower our community to make appointments with their representatives in every district, to show up with their own stories asking for help and if they do not need help, then to show up with the stories of other constituents.  Congress will buzz if the dialogue between Rep and Constituent is prevalent and persistent.   Until this constituent push happens the D.C. insider intelligence is meaningless.  If congress has not taken the issue on after we do this, then I will succumb to the current D.C. Intelligence.

Shirley Tan’s testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee has had almost 30,000 hits on YouTube – compared to about a couple hundred by Session’s witnesses.   I believe that speaks volumes for the clout of empowerment.

If anyone who reads this article is interested in joining the battle, providing funding, or simply chatting, please contact me directly for direction at nathan@privatecourts.com.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

By Guest L. S. Carbonell

Empathy: 1. Psychol. A strong imaginative or emotional projection of one’s self into a work of art; esthetic appreciation. 2. Phychoanal. The mental identification of the ego with the character and experiences of another person. Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language. © 1973.

In the deep South, there is very little history of immigration. The vast majority of white, native Southerners are descended from inhabitants of the British Isles. They do not know and usually don’t believe that there were whole towns in America – from Germantown, Pennsylvania to Solvang, California – where English was not spoken until the mid-20th century. They don’t understand how a small town in Vermont could have three Catholic churches, each geared to a specific ethnic group. Their cultural diversity is limited to two colors, black and white.

At the other end of the spectrum is New York City. During her Senate campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton quipped that only in New York could a person be told to “go home” is fifty languages. Until the 1960’s, each immigrant group in New York had a territory – a neighborhood – that was ethnically pure. The most famous were Little Italy, Chinatown, Harlem and Spanish Harlem (a misnomer for the Puerto Rican enclave). There were also areas that were Polish, German, Russian and Irish. The movie The Gangs of New York captured part of that history. Each new wave of immigrants faced the prejudice of their predecessors. When New York started sprouting middle-class suburbs after World War II, people who had grown up in these ethnically pure neighborhoods suddenly found themselves in white, ethnically diverse communities. Their response was to become superficially WASP (old term meaning white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant.)

The thing that separates judges from these two backgrounds is not their individual prejudices (we can hope), but their ability to see how the ethnic or cultural identity of a plaintiff or defendant would effect the way that plaintiff or defendant perceives the law or the action that precipitated the lawsuit.

The Law is, unfortunately, not simply written or imposed without bias. The Law is a befuddling, over-written, bloated elephant that manages to confuse even the best-educated of us. It is not enforced with absolute impartiality. It can, and has been, ignored in an atmosphere of political pressure. Laws are not “unwritten” or completely nullified. They are superceded by new laws. Or, they are believed to have been superceded, but have not actually been. And that’s just the minefield of criminal laws. Civil law is even worse. Civil suits are not about justice, but about affixing responsibility for injury. They are typically determined by a jury of six to twelve citizens who would rather be anywhere than in that courtroom. The longer the case, the more bored the jurors become, the less they listen to the details. Precedence – the body of rulings by other judges on a specific law or similar situation – can be completely contradictory. An ineffectual judge can be bullied into ruling in one way, while a strong but bias judged can impose his personal beliefs on the case.

So, in the highest court in the land…the court of last appeals…which kind of judge is better able to thread the most just path through the minefield – the one with a very limited cultural history or the one who understands that the people who have come before the bench may have vastly different perceptions of what the law actually means?

The judicial branch of our government was not established to enforce laws. That is the job of the executive branch through the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security and the law enforcement arms of them. The function of the Legislative branch is to create the laws, and it does that badly, using convoluted language and ignoring or trying to amend previous laws. Legislators are able to create laws that deny fundamental rights to certain groups of people. The function of the judicial branch is to interpret the law. It is the most difficult function in our government. The judiciary has to look at more than the letter of the law. They must look at the laws which preceded the one being argued. They have to determine the intent of the legislators and decide if the intent of the law was the denial of rights or if the legislators were just being stupid and caving in to political pressure.

Take our second-most controversial Constitutional Amendment for example. “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Was it the intent of the writers that all Americans should be able to choose to own guns, or was it their intention that gun owners must be part of a regulated Militia? The person who can contact Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and get them to answer that question would be a God-send to this country. Until then, it is the job of judges to try to determine the intent behind the Amendment.

So, what does empathy have to do with judicial wisdom? Plenty. It means that Justice Alito knows that Italians are stereotyped as mobsters. It means that Justice Ginsberg knows that anti-Semitism is rising again. It means that Justice Thomas knows that Affirmative Action has had the unintended consequence of allowing Americans to have lower expectations for African-Americans. And it means that Chief Justice Roberts does not possess any of this knowledge from a personal position. He does not know, from personal or social history, how a person’s ethnic background affects their perception of the law. And perception, just as much as the written word, is the core of our laws.

There are many people who believe that our laws are based on The Ten Commandments. Most of The Ten Commandments are simple. Thou shalt not… That’s so straight forward, so easy to enforce. But even The Ten Commandments get muddy. What does “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s goods” mean? How do you enforce a law against envy? And which set of The Ten Commandments is the right one? The Protestant and Catholic versions are different from each other because Moses didn’t bother with punctuation and numbering, and the Hebrew version differentiates between killing and murdering.

Judge Sotomayor’s statement that a “wise Latino woman” would reach better conclusions than a white male was simply a condensation of what I have written here. She will bring to the highest Court an understanding that there is more to this country than a history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. She will bring the understanding that in an ethnically diverse nation, the history of everyone’s jurisprudence is important and the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence in relation to other ethnicities is important.

The intent of the creation of the confirmation process was to provide a forum for the review of a person’s professional conduct to determine their suitability for the Federal bench. It was not intended to impose litmus tests or ferret out a judge’s political affiliation. It was intended to find out if a judge has made a serious mistake while on the bench. The issue in the Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearings should not be speeches she gave outside her courtroom, but the decision of the Senators to ignore the intent of the law which created their jobs.