CA Legislature Officially Endorses Repeal of DOMA

Equality California-sponsored resolution puts State of California on record supporting repeal of so-called “Defense of Marriage Act”

Sacramento – Today, the California State Senate approved a joint resolution, AJR 19, calling on the U.S. Congress and President Obama to immediately repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which explicitly forbids the federal government or any federal agency from recognizing state-sanctioned marriages between same-sex couples. Introduced by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D – Santa Monica) and sponsored by Equality California, the joint resolution was passed by a bipartisan vote of 22-12.

“The Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from recognizing the relationships of loving same-sex couples, even when the states where they live recognize their relationships,” said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. “We’re proud of the California legislature for making the state’s opposition to DOMA official state policy. Now we must overturn this discriminatory federal law and pave the way for the marriages of same-sex couples to be recognized at the federal level.”

Under DOMA, which passed in 1996, married same-sex couples are refused the same federal rights and responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts, resulting in inequitable and unfair implementation of federal laws governing a range of issues such as housing, immigration, tax and inheritance. A repeal of DOMA would result in the federal government recognizing legal marriages of same-sex couples, just as it currently recognizes legal marriages of heterosexual couples.

“President Obama has called this law abhorrent in the way it denies more than 1,000 federal rights to same-sex couples,” Assemblymember Brownley said. “Congress must act now to overturn DOMA, which is rooted in irrational and unfounded prejudice. Married same-sex couples deserve equal access to these benefits.”

Currently, there are eleven nations that recognize marriages between same-sex couples, including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Five states in the U.S. grant same-sex couples the right to marry, including Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C.

For more information about Equality California-sponsored legislation, please visit www.eqca.org/legislation.

“EQCA works tirelessly to pass California Resolutions and endorsements to support and influence legislation in Congress.” Melanie Nathan  nathan@privatecourts.com

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed over 60 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment. www.eqca.org

Related articles by Zemanta

• IRS Issues New Policy For California Domestic Partners – Retroactive Refunds (lezgetreal.com)

Film Showing and Reception Set for Sept. 14, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO-  Twenty-five years after its premier, the groundbreaking documentary “Choosing Children”—the first film to explore and chronicle the journey taken by lesbians and gay men to become parents after they came out—will return to the silver screen at the Herbst Theater on Sept. 14 to celebrate its 25^th anniversary.

The landmark film, produced by two Bay Area filmmakers, Academy Award winner Debra Chasnoff and Kim Klausner, was released in 1985, introducing viewers to the first generation of lesbians and gay men who chose to become parents after coming out, and contributed to an expanded definition of family that has since opened the doors for millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to become parents. “Before the early 1980s, it was just assumed that if you came out, you gave up the chance and the right to be a parent,” says Chasnoff. “But a small number of brave lesbians and gay men began to challenge that belief. With “Choosing Children” we wanted to share their stories with the world and inspire others that they, too, could redefine family for themselves.”

Chasnoff and Klausner conducted a nationwide search for lesbian-headed families that were navigating what was then a very new legal, political, and social terrain. Ultimately, they found six families who reflected some of the racial and ethnic diversity of our vibrant communities, and who had “chosen children” in different ways. Their stories provide an intimate look at the challenges and joys faced by this early generation of lesbian and gay parents in their quests to build their families—stories that are still fascinating and relevant today.

“Without the pioneering generation that we were able to capture in “Choosing Children,” none of us would have the rights or opportunities for creating families that we have today,” Klausner says. “It is almost beyond comprehension how much the political and social landscape has changed since we made the film.”

The film poignantly captures some of the important history that has contributed to today’s LGBT family rights victories, including the recent Proposition 8 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker here in California. It is partly why so many community groups are cosponsoring this evening celebration for LGBT families, our allies, prospective parents and others.

One of the arenas where the most significant advances have been made is the legal system.

“The legal advances we have made for our families are nothing short of breathtaking,” says National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell. “These gains are largely due to this early generation of lesbians and gay parents, who charted a previously unseen path in order to become parents and raise children, becoming role models for LGBT people everywhere.”

Many Bay Area organizations are joining together for this community-wide screening and celebration to mark the 25th anniversary of Choosing Children, celebrate all the wonderful children LGBT people are now parenting, and raise funds to permanently preserve this historical gem on DVD. The restored 35 mm film print, courtesy of the OUTFEST Legacy Project and the UCLA Film Archive, was a huge hit at last summer’s Los Angeles Lesbian and Gay Film Festival.

If you’ve never seen Choosing Children, here’s your chance to soak up a delightful piece of our cultural history. If you are planning on having children, you will be inspired by the courageous pioneers in the film who figured out how to bring kids into their lives, co-parent with a same-sex partner, and handle concerns from relatives and schools. If you saw the film “back in the day,” this will be a trip down memory lane (including a rarely heard song by Holly Near) and a special moment to marvel at how much progress we’ve made.

The 25^th Anniversary Screening and Reception includes a viewing, and remarks by Chasnoff, Klausner, and the Honorable Donna Hitchens, founder of the National Center for Lesbian Rights who is featured in the film, and dessert reception The event is presented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Groundspark, COLAGE, Frameline, Equality California, Our Family Coalition, and PFLAG to celebrate the advances our movement has made in family law and society, and to raise funds to permanently preserve this historical film on DVD.

TICKET and EVENT INFORMATION

“Choosing Children” 25^th Anniversary Screening and Reception

What: “Choosing Children” 25^th anniversary celebration to raise funds to permanently preserve this historical film on DVD
When: 6:30 p.m. on September 14, 2010 (Program begins at 7 p.m.)
Where: Herbst Theater, 401 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA
Cost: $25 (regular admission); $10 (student admission)

Learn more and order tickets

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Contacting My Sperm Donor – I Am A Kid who is All Right! (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan  – July 19, 2010

Growing up in the orthodox Jewish Tradition meant the sefer  Torah, in all its sacredness, could only be carried and read directly from  by Men, barring participation by women.

This served as part of the relegation of women from any possibility or position in prayer and ritual  and impacted their inability to be ordained as Rabbis.

Well with the accomplishment, contributions to society and evolution of reform and re-constructionist Jewish movements, often viewed as “nonreligious”  for openness of policy and ordination of female Rabbis, the ideal amongst many congregations around the world,  has become to afford women equality in prayer and hence an opportunity to carry, read from and have all and any honors equated with the use of the Torah.

So a daunting quest would indeed be one where women could carry and read Torah at the most sacred of all place, the KOTEL, (Western Wall, Wailing Wall to some.)

In Jerusalem Israel,   the group Women of the Wall led by its chairwoman attempted to hold a procession in the Western Wall Plaza carrying a Torah scroll, a move which police say  contravenes a 2003 High Court ruling prohibiting women from reading from the Torah in the plaza’s public area in the interest of public safety; and so Anat Hofman  was held for questioning for several hours yesterday after holding a prayer session at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City.

While Jerusalem police questioned Hoffman for four hours, dozens of members of her organization rallied outside the station to protest her arrest. Hoffman was ultimately released after paying 5, 000 Sheckels in bail and agreeing to stay away from the Western Wall Plaza for 30 days.

Rabbi Steven Wernick, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said, “My understanding of the law is that it doesn’t mention anything about carrying a sefer Torah [Torah scroll]. It mentions reading Torah in public [on the women's side] and it mentions wearing a tallit, but not carrying a sefer Torah.

“I am just in shock that on Rosh Hodesh Av, of all days, nine days before Tisha B’Av, that any Jew would be arrested for carrying a sefer Torah anywhere in the Jewish State,” he said. “I think that at the time that our enemies are working to delegitimate the Jewish state, the message of the Israeli establishment is the illegitimization of the liberal streams of Judaism.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Woman Arrested For Carrying Torah Near Western Wall (huffingtonpost.com)
• Female Activist Arrested for Holding Torah at Kotel (israelnationalnews.com)
• Woman arrested for Western Wall prayer (thejc.com)

Today Argentina celebrates a Human Rights and Dignity Victory.  To my way of thinking this beats first place at the World Cup Soccer.

Paula Brooks, of Lez Get Real posted the good news:

“After a 14-hour debate that lasted well into the early morning hours, the senate of Argentina has voted 33-27 to pass a bill that gives same-sex couples equal marriage rights and will make Argentina the first Latin American country to legalize same-sex marriage.

The bill, that has already passed the lower chamber of Congress despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, will also grant same-sex couples the right to adopt children.

Debate on the bill began in early afternoon on Wednesday and spilled into the early hours of Thursday as several hundred same-sex marriage supporters also stood vigil awaiting the vote.”

Now we get to to witness History made!

Oh No! Oh No - Argentina is a Go!

Related articles by Zemanta

• We Cheer for You Argentina! Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• Gay Marriage Now Legal in Argentina (lesbianlife.about.com)
• Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Argentina Allows Same-Sex Couples To Marry! (perezhilton.com)
• Marriage Equality in Argentina (hrcbackstory.org)

Melanie Nathan from Lezgetreal wrote an earlier article on this topic article – repeated below.

Before you re-read it or read it for the first time or ignore it here is some update by The ADVOCATE”:

“The man behind a proposed law banning divorce in the state of California has been given the go ahead to start collecting signatures.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced Tuesday that John Marcotte can start collecting petition signatures for the measure, according to KGO-TV. Marcotte has 150 days to collect 694,000 signatures before the measure can be put to a vote.

Marcotte began the petition after Prop. 8 passed at the polls. He said he thinks if gay marriage is a threat to the sanctity of marriage, divorce should be considered threatening as well.”

Article Re-print November, 2009;
“Considering Maine and Reflecting on California”

by Melanie Nathan

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.

SECTION 1.  Title.  This act shall be known as the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2.  Section 7.6 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Initiative to Ban Divorce in California Resurfaces (laist.com)
• L.A. Times: Throw Out Prop. 8 (advocate.com)

If you were not around during the 60’s Civil Rights Movement then you may be around for the  2010 Civil Rights Movement.

It has started.

During April I printed my little big vision in an article http://lezgetreal.com/2010/04/the-lgbtqi-pink-plan-liberation-of-usa-gays-and-lesbians-btqi/

My personal vision when I wrote that first article was simple – Build it and they will come of sorts…..   And that is exactly what is happening since this week’s launch of the AMERICAN EQUALITY BILL (AEB) an Omnibus with the ideal of an Amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 –   the inclusion of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity into the Civil Rights Act.

This week we hit the champagne bottle on the ship…

The American Equality  Bill takes the approach that piecemeal bills for various areas of discrimination be supported through recognition of our civil rights, first and foremost and may serve to yield an omnibus bill that will in essence get rid of all discriminatory legislation.  See the draft here   http://lezgetreal.com/2010/07/breaking-first-release-the-american-equality-bill/

It also recognizes that creating separate bills in separate areas breaks the interests of those against discrimination into small, separate pieces that dilutes the strong force of the coalition necessary to pass any bill on the federal level.

This is a critical approach to win Equality. Equality cannot come to fruition without the Benchmark – something specific that carries forth a universal message.  Now that we have the wording and the Goal- we need the BILL.

Bye Bye back door – tralalal piecemeal approach – no more  with domain ownership by organizations who tickle our backs into persuasive complacency, while we dole out more LGBT  dollars for more LGBT reassurances. Use that money to take a day off work and get on the streets.

I decided some time back that no one was going to own the rights I need to fight for and now I am asking that you all jump into the ocean with AEB (American Equality Bill) our wave – as we surf toward the beach where equality awaits under the sun.

This is THE BIRTH OF THE gay Movement. The one that is planning the front door entrance  to the Universe that belongs to us as equally as to any other – hence the beach metaphor.

“Now OUR TIME HAS COME. We have already won the de FACTO fight –  we EXIST – the factual existence – we have won visibility – the fact that we are out and open, the fact that we have created controversy, the fact that we have children – the fact that we are shaking up DADT, the fact that Annette Bening is playing a lesbian – and many more such victories – now it has come time for De Jure – The Legal Victory!  It can Only be done one WAY and that is  this  CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT   http://lezgetreal.com/2010/07/the-launch-of-hope-finally-grassroots-find-feet-the-american-equality-bill/ “

Now that a group of grass-root-sloggers, none of whom are asking for money, have in fact put this together in benchmark formality in the form of  AEB  – it is time to take the street as spontaneously as you want.   It can be organized, it can be random, it can be anything you want- because YOU America- own it.  We own it..all of us own our civil rights and we are ready to demand the newly launched benchmark.

I have nothing invested in what anyone in congress thinks about it. I do not give a damn if you think I am wasting my time.  I don’t care who you think I offend.  I do not give a heck if you laugh and continue to marginalize my entitlement.

I am only invested in demanding it  - it is MINER and I can Demand.  What will be will be!  But at least I was unafraid.    I am not scared of failure I am not dependent on success – I am only concerned about DPING it.    I am not going  to shop AEB around – YOU-  Mr. President and you Mrs. Speaker and all of  Congress and those in the Senate – you must come to us.   We are going on the streets in a big way because NOW we are starting our movement.

To those who purport to represent us and make – deals behind our backs to assert your re-election – carry on thinking your existence is worthy while Americans suffer deep pain of discrimination. “Carry on,” I say.   But I am going on the street.

So yes it has started.  Today my very dear partner in the Civil Rights Claim, Todd Fernandez sent me a note on FB:

“J Todd Fernandez Honey – A tiny band of us in NY have decided to have a NY Civil Rights March 2010 – for SO&GI Equality Now. Can you dig it. xoTif!  Visit Todd on FB to see what is happening…..   http://bit.ly/AEBnow

If you are interested in going on the Street wherever you are just do it…

Start a Petition »

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda
FaceBook be my Friend.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• Breaking First Release -THE AMERICAN EQUALITY BILL (lezgetreal.com)
• The American Equality Bill: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (pinkbananaworld.com)
• LGBTQI Activists Up the Ante – Equality means Amend (lezgetreal.com)

Barbara Boxer for Senate Vs. Carly Fiorina for LGBT  Hell; Senator  Barbara Boxer and Fiorina Tie

Now while many of you feel “over the democrats” the Boxer v Fiorina race will be the most important in November’s general election.  Barbara Boxer incumbent Democratic Senator for California and one of the very few reliable and progressive allies for LGBT legislation in the Senate is facing her first ever terrifying (for us)  challenge, by Fiorina, ex CEO of Hewlett Packard, who, in my opinion is either Homophobic or a panderer  of the worst kind.

The latest Field Poll shows Barbara Boxer in a statistical tie with Carly Fiorina. “Now, we have further confirmation of just what a serious challenge we are facing. Although this is within the margin of error, there’s no question that we are in the toughest Boxer campaign ever. ” says Rose Kapolczynski
Campaign Manager for the Boxer Campaign.

Yesterday, Survey USA released their latest California Senate poll — and it is more confirmation that the race is now too close to call. Fiorina is actually ahead of Barbara by two points, 47% – 45%.

The campaign blasted out an email and is asking for support. I encourage all my readers here at LGR to send at least $5.00  – PLEASE let us support a true friend and at the same time ask for more profound and overt leadership on our issues in the Senate.  The gay community has always supported the Senator and we  MUST continue to do so, regardless of our disappointment with the Democrats and President Obama.

Without Boxer in the Senate forget about equality!

Send the Senator Boxer’s campaign your $5.00, no matter where you are – if we wait on the sideline in essence the gay community will be defeated again by the millions of dollars that corporate anti-gay right wing motivators will pour into this campaign, not to mention the millions that

Fiorina will use of her own money in her power hungry quest – which WILL harm us all directly.

http://www.barbaraboxer.com

Photo Shirley Tan © Senator Barbara Boxer with Tan Mercado Family

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda
FaceBook be my Friend.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Carly Fiorina’s Mean Girl Moment And Another “Year Of The Woman” [Primary Colors] (jezebel.com)
• Carly Fiorina Is Sorry That You Overheard Her Comments About Barbara Boxer’s Hair [Primary Colors] (jezebel.com)
• Poll: It’s a Real Race for Sen. Boxer and Carly Fiorina (laist.com)
• Fiorina in Tight Race with Boxer (politicalwire.com)
• EQCA Endorsements – Critical Vote for LGBT Interests Low Turnout Expected (lezgetreal.com)
• Despite Republican Hypocrisy – California Senate Judiciary Committee Supports UAFA Resolution (lezgetreal.com)
• NOM for Fiorina- Donations-in Anti-Gay Bid for Senator Boxer’s Seat (lezgetreal.com)
• Anti-Choice SBA List Pumps 215K into Fiorina for Primary (lezgetreal.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Melanie Nathan 7-9-10

Drafted by Karen Doering, an attorney who has been involved in some of the most important legal LGBT victories and controversies, the American Equality  Bill takes the approach that piecemeal bills for various areas of discrimination be supported through recognition of our civil rights, first and foremost and may serve to yield an omnibus bill that will in essence get rid of all discriminatory legislation.  This is the first  Publication of the Draft is forthcoming.

It also recognizes that creating separate bills in separate areas breaks the interests of those against discrimination into small, separate pieces that dilutes the strong force of the coalition necessary to pass any bill on the federal level.

This is a critical approach to win Equality. Equality cannot come to fruition without the Benchmark – something specific that carries forth a universal message.  Now that we have the wording and the Goal- we need the BILL.

Who ever says this is “Pie in the Sky or Bold” (Bilerco) – is marginalizing our entitlement and our rights.  To my way of thinking anyone who suggest we keep the backdoor approach as our only approach does not have our absolute interests at heart.  Selfless advocacy means going for the only benchmark that will bring full equality, and if we are going to have a movement then we need to have the movement regardless of how many votes we may or may not get in Congress.  They need to know that we are not fighting for legislation; we are fighting for our lives and to live our lives, happily,  like other Americans, and that means equally.    I for one, have a right to enter through the front door -  and that is why I have touted this plan for all this time.

Special Credit also goes to Todd Fernandez for pushing for this and for being one of the few who listened with open mind and heart.

http://lezgetreal.com/2010/07/the-launch-of-hope-finally-grassroots-find-feet-the-american-equality-bill/

THE AMERICAN EQUALITY BILL
(Draft July 4, 2010)

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING LEGISLATION
TO END LEGAL DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICA ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

A. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION.

SECTION 1. Amends Title VII the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in employment.

SECTION 2. Amends the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, and 3 U.S.C. 411 (a)(1), to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in employment.

SECTION 3. Amends the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16a et seq., to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in employment.

SECTION 4. Amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to clarify the definitions of “parent” and “son or daughter.”

B. HOUSING DISCRIMINATION.

SECTION 5. Amends the Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, real estate related transactions, and the provision of brokerage services.

C. DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

SECTION 6. Amends Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.

D. DISCRIMINATION IN THE USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES.

SECTION 7. Amends §2000b of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for denial of equal use of public facilities.

E. DISCRIMINATION IN ACCESS TO CREDIT.

SECTION 8. Amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited basis for discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction.

F. DISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES.

SECTION 9. Amends Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in federally funded programs or activities and adding an exemption for religious organizations.

G. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.

SECTION 10. Amends the Americans with Disabilities Act to repeal discriminatory provisions.

THE AMERICAN EQUALITY BILL
(Scope and content only. This is not in filing format.)

SHORT TITLE.
Upon passage, this bill may be cited as the `The American Equality Act of 2010’.

PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to realize the American ideal of equal protection under the law by amending existing civil rights legislation to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

FINDINGS OF LEGISLATIVE FACT.
(This will be an elaborate section that details the discrimination against LGBT people. Content TBD.)

A. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION.

SECTION. 1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in employment, as follows:

a. The following definitions shall be added at the end of §2000e:

(o) The term “sexual orientation” means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

(p) The term “gender identity” means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

b. Sections 2000e-2(a)-(d), §2000e-2(h), §2000e-2(j), §2000e-2(l), §2000e-2(m), §2000e-3(b), 2000e(g)(2)(A), §2000e-16(a), and §2000e-16(c), are amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” appears to include after the word “sex” the following words:- “sexual orientation, gender identity,”

c. Dress and Grooming Standards. Nothing shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.

d. Certain Shared Facilities. Nothing shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

SECTION 2. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §2302; Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a et seq.; Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.; and Section 411(a) (1) of Title 3 of the United States Code are amended to specify that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are prohibited bases for discrimination, as follows:

a. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are defined as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e.

b. 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1)(A) and 5 U.S.C. 2302(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16b; 2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1); and 3 U.S.C. 411(a)(1) are amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” appear to add after the word “sex” the following words: “sexual orientation, gender identity”

c. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a(b) is amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability” appear to add after the word “sex” the following words: “sexual orientation, gender identity”

d. Certain Shared Facilities. Nothing shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

SECTION 3. The Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16a et seq., is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination, as follows:

a. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are defined as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e.

b. Section 2000e-16a(b) is here by amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability” occurs by inserting after the word “sex” the following words:- “sexual orientation, gender identity,”

c. Certain Shared Facilities. Nothing shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

SECTION 4. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §2611, is amended to clarify the following definitions:

(7) Parent. The term “parent” means the biological parent of an employee or an individual who stood in loco parentis to an employee when the employee was a son or daughter. For purposes of this statute, the term “in loco parentis” includes but is not limited to an individual who is a defacto or psychological parent of the child.

(12) Son or daughter. The term “son or daughter” means a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis, a child registered as a “dependent” or similar classification under the employer’s domestic partnership policy, or a child designated by an employee and his or her domestic partner as a “dependent” or similar classification pursuant to a municipal, state or federal domestic partnership registry, who is—

(A) under 18 years of age; or

(B) 18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.

(13) Spouse – The term “spouse” means a husband or wife, as the case may be. For purposes of this statute, the term “spouse” includes a person designated a domestic partner under the employer’s domestic partnership policy, an employee’s civil union partner, a spouse from a domestic or foreign marriage, and a domestic partner registered pursuant to a municipal, state or federal law.

B. HOUSING DISCRIMINATION.

SECTION. 5. The Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq., is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, real-estate related transactions, and the provision of brokerage services.

a. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are defined as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e.

b. Sections 3604(a)-(b) are amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” appears by inserting after the word “sex” the following words: “sexual orientation, or gender identity,”

c. Sections 3604(c)-(e), 3605(a), and 3606 are amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin” appears by inserting after the word “sex” the following words: “sexual orientation, or gender identity,”

d. Section 3605(c) is amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status” appears by inserting after the word “sex” the following words:- “sexual orientation, or gender identity,”

C. DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

SECTION 6. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000a et seq., is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.

a. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are defined as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e.

b. Sections 2000a(a) and 2000a-1 are amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion or national origin” appears by inserting after the word “religion” the following words: “sexual orientation, or gender identity,”

c. Certain Shared Facilities. Nothing shall be construed to establish an unlawful practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the proprietor provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity as established with the proprietor at the time the relationship first began or upon notification to the proprietor that the individual has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

D. DISCRIMINATION IN THE USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES.

SECTION 7. 42 U.S.C. §2000b, is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for denial of equal use of public facilities as follows:

a. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are defined as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e.

b. Section 2000b(a) is amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion or national origin” occurs by inserting after the word “religion” the following words:- “sexual orientation, gender identity,”

c. Certain Shared Facilities. Nothing shall be construed to establish an unlawful practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the proprietor provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity as established with the proprietor at the time of the relationship first began or upon notification to the proprietor that the individual has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

E. DISCRIMINATION IN ACCESS TO CREDIT.

SECTION 8. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. §1691 et seq., is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction as follows:

a. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are defined as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e.

b. Section 1691(a)(1) is amended every time the phrase “race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age” occurs by inserting after the word “marital status” the following words:- “sexual orientation, gender identity”.

F. DISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES.

SECTION 9. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, is amended to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as prohibited bases for exclusion from participation in, denial of the benefits of, or being subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, as follows:

a. The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are defined as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e.
b. Section 2000d is amended every time the phrase “race, color, or national origin” occurs by inserting after the word “color” the following words:- “sexual orientation, or gender identity,”

c. The provisions of this section regarding sexual orientation and gender identity shall not apply to any educational institution, as that term is defined in 20 U.S.C. 1681(c), which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization as determined in its sole discretion.

G. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.

SECTION 10. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §706, are amended to repeal discriminatory provisions, as follows:

a. 42 U.S.C. §12208 is repealed.

b. 42 U.S.C. §12211(b)(1) is amended to delete the words “transvestism” and “transsexualism” and the phrase “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments,” from the definition of “Certain conditions” excluded from coverage under the Act.

c. 29 U.S.C. §705(8)(F)(i) is amended to delete the words “transvestism” and “transsexualism” and the phrase “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments,” from the list excluding from protection an ‘individual with a disability’ for purposes of Section 501, 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

END.

How did this happen read

• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Join Lezgetreal on FaceBook

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan- "Finally a Benchmark"

This is a critical approach to win Equality. Equality cannot come to fruition without the Benchmark – something specific that carries forth a universal message.  Now that we have the wording and the Goal- we need the BILL.

Who ever says this is “Pie in the Sky or Bold” (Bilerco) – is marginalizing our entitlement and our rights.  To my way of thinking anyone who suggest we keep the backdoor approach as our only approach does not have our absolute interests at heart.  Selfless advocacy means going for the only benchmark that will bring full equality, and if we are going to have a movement then we need to have the movement regardless of how many votes we may or may not get in Congress.  They need to know that we are not fighting for legislation; we are fighting for our lives and to live our lives, happily,  like other Americans, and that means equally.    I for one, have a right to enter through the front door -  and that is why I have touted this plan for all this time.

Bold? No way – that is an insult! Its what our factual existence demands!

“At the same time, the piecemeal approach seems to have been a disaster. For example, ENDA was first proposed in 1996, and it is still languishing fourteen years later. Representative Jackie Speier last week said it would take another five years.” (Bilerco)  But that was the back door now we want the front door!

When I spoke to the Congresswoman back in 2009 about the Civil Rights Amendment approach, she agreed that would be the best approach to our Federal rights.

I spoke up in many an articles, speeches, meetings, phone conferences – but everyone seemed to have their head in the next fundraiser or the next “call to action.”  I have to say you are all still doing the same thing until you subscribe to this benchmark legislative amendment.

Thank goodness people are frustrated and angry enough to realize that this is an imperative stance that may turn out to be our only chance. Whether it becomes law or opens our eyes to what ought to become law – we have to do this.

Some may suggest that the African American Community may be concerned about ownership of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and such amendment may be offensive to the struggle – but this is a completely unfounded concern given the NAACP leadership and testimony provided by Julian Bond in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 03, 2009, at the UAFA hearing where he specifically stated that Gay(LGBT) rights is a civil rights issue.

Quite simply, the AEB amends ALL Existing Civil Rights Laws, starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”.

This ends discrimination in vast areas of life: employment, housing, credit, public places and facilities, and all programs operating with federal funding. It covers school discrimination and bullying, adoption, and all federal health programs.

The AEB would INCLUDE US EQUALLY in the Federal Non-Discrimination “GROUP POLICY” that now covers “race, color, sex, religion, and national origin”.

In whole, the passage of the AEB will make Non-Discrimination against us The OFFICIAL US Governmental Policy.

Working to file and pass the AEB will stimulate real conversation about our suffering under discrimination. This process will prepare us all for the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases already on their way to the Supreme Court.

LONG OVER DUE

Of course, Sexual Orientation – should have been included in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act first passed.

A gay black hero, Bayard Rustin (http://bit.ly/AEBrustin) was the chief organizer of the 1963 March on Washington at which MLK gave his Dream Speech, which helped secure the ‘64 Act.

Then, we were shoved aside because of societal homophobia.

Now OUR TIME HAS COME. We have already won the de FACTO fight – the factual existence – we have won visibility – the fact that we are out and open, the fact that we have created controversy, the fact that we have children – the fact that we are shaking up DADT, the fact that Annette Benning is playing a lesbian – and many more such victories – now it has come time for De Jure – The Legal Victory!  It can Only be be done one WAY  and that is  this  CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Now we need your support Grassroots Join us. More to come…

Civil Rights Act LBJ

FIVE Action Steps needed:

1. Sign Petition

2.  Join Face Book Page

3. Take Pledge  – http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gaycivilrights/

4. Write your representatives in House and Senate – via hand written  faxed letters, as well as the usual e-mails.

5. GO VIRAL anyway you know how!!!

DO IT NOW!

by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• The American Equality Bill: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Senators Franken And Gilibrand Introduce Bill To Protect LGBT Youth From Bullying (lezgetreal.com)
• LGBTQI Activists Up the Ante – Equality means Amend (lezgetreal.com)
• New Poll Favors Gay Equality – A Case for An Amendment to the Civil Rights Act. (lezgetreal.com)
• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• The American Equality Bill: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (bilerico.com)
• The Democrats Ask, Let Us Tell Them- Amend The Civil Rights Act of 1964 To Protect The LGBTIQ Community Too! (lezgetreal.com)
• 4-10-2010 -THE LGBTQI PINK PRINT – A Liberation Plan for the USA (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

Start a Petition »

7-6-10  Rachel Wahba -

Freud was wrong when he said girls had penis envy. Me, I had penis rage! Rage that my baby brother got special, very special, attention for having a penis. The special status of being a boy drove me crazy.  I was four and a half at his birth and I was enraged.

Not only was I no longer the only child, this one was “a boy” with a special celebration because he had a penis. I became a second- class citizen despite my parent’s attempts to tell me I was overreacting…

In his blue lace gown, he was the center of attention. Never mind his cries or barbarism of the act, special boy prayers sealed his entry into the sacred covenant of Jews.

I never gave it much thought after that. In fact I have not been to a ‘brit milah’ (bris in Yiddish) since I was a child. Not too much of that going on in my lesbian feminist world; and I had a girl child thank G-d! I remember thinking, ‘I don’t have to deal with circumcision and my parents…’

So it was not until last week, in conversation with my new friend Rabbi Natan, did I think about baby boys and their cut penises.  A few years ago, Natan came out against circumcision to face an onslaught of rage from a distraught community of liberal non – mainstream Jewish rabbis.

Jewish Renewal rabbis for G-d’s sakes outside Mainstream Jewish Organization, they wanted his ordination rescinded. Fear had taken over, Natan’s position paper received as if it had heralded the end of Judaism. They wanted him ostracized. Blackballed.

Now I have to admit, I have not thought much about this issue since childhood, not since the brit milahs, of the little boys born into our small Jewish community in Kobe Japan.  Girl babies didn’t even have baby naming. We visited, brought some pink present (my Granny was famous for her knitted blankets and booties) and cooed. In a Middle Eastern community (or any traditional community) be it Jew, Muslim or Christian, you can expect to hear at least one well meaning visitor utter “and may you have a boy the next time.”  I heard it every time.

And the circumcision ceremonies, what I do remember, as we kids stood waiting for the ceremonial throwing of the treats, once the daddies with their sweat soaked shirts survived the ordeal of their screaming infant sons on their laps while the mohels did their job? The packets of Jordan almonds wrapped in blue cellophane, tied with shiny blue satin ribbons, sweetened our mouths and covered up the hideous ritual just performed. I loved those sweets.

By Rachel Wahba

Related articles by Zemanta

• My penis has become a little uncomfortable during sex… (ask.metafilter.com)

7-01-10 Posted by  Melanie Nathan

Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

American University School of International Service, Washington, D.C.

11:12 A.M. EDT Transcript….

“THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Everyone please have a seat.  Thank you very much.  Let me thank Pastor Hybels from near my hometown in Chicago, who took time off his vacation to be here today.  We are blessed to have him.

I want to thank President Neil Kerwin and our hosts here at American University; acknowledge my outstanding Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, and members of my administration; all the members of Congress — Hilda deserves applause.  (Applause.)  To all the members of Congress, the elected officials, faith and law enforcement, labor, business leaders and immigration advocates who are here today — thank you for your presence.

I want to thank American University for welcoming me to the campus once again.  Some may recall that the last time I was here I was joined by a dear friend, and a giant of American politics, Senator Edward Kennedy.  (Applause.)  Teddy’s not here right now, but his legacy of civil rights and health care and worker protections is still with us.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice:  We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

I believed that then and I believe it now.  And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.

We launched the most aggressive education reforms in decades, so that our children can gain the knowledge and skills they need to compete in a 21st century global economy.

We have finally delivered on the promise of health reform -– reform that will bring greater security to every American, and that will rein in the skyrocketing costs that threaten families, businesses and the prosperity of our nation.

We’re on the verge of reforming an outdated and ineffective set of rules governing Wall Street -– to give greater power to consumers and prevent the reckless financial speculation that led to this severe recession.

And we’re accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy by significantly raising the fuel-efficiency standards of cars and trucks, and by doubling our use of renewable energies like wind and solar power — steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America.

So, despite the forces of the status quo, despite the polarization and the frequent pettiness of our politics, we are confronting the great challenges of our times.  And while this work isn’t easy, and the changes we seek won’t always happen overnight, what we’ve made clear is that this administration will not just kick the can down the road.

Immigration reform is no exception.  In recent days, the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country, with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America.  Some have rallied behind this new policy.  Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state.  And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.

Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new.  On the one hand, we’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants — a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts.  Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is.  The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.

And then there are the countless names and the quiet acts that never made the history books but were no less consequential in building this country — the generations who braved hardship and great risk to reach our shores in search of a better life for themselves and their families; the millions of people, ancestors to most of us, who believed that there was a place where they could be, at long last, free to work and worship and live their lives in peace.

So this steady stream of hardworking and talented people has made America the engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world.  And it’s allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change.  To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe.  Folks travel here in the hopes of being a part of a culture of entrepreneurship and ingenuity, and by doing so they strengthen and enrich that culture.  Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy — than many of our competitors.  And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.

Just a few weeks ago, we had an event of small business owners at the White House.  And one business owner was a woman named Prachee Devadas who came to this country, became a citizen, and opened up a successful technology services company.  When she started, she had just one employee.  Today, she employs more than a hundred people.  This past April, we held a naturalization ceremony at the White House for members of our armed forces.  Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted.  One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos — born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy.  And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.”

These women, and men and women across this country like them, remind us that immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country -– and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth.  It’s a matter of faith.  It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.  That’s what makes us unique.  That’s what makes us strong.  Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.

Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful.  Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval.  Our founding was rooted in the notion that America was unique as a place of refuge and freedom for, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “oppressed humanity.”  But the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when, amidst conflict, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances.  A century ago, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, other European countries were routinely subjected to rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes.  Chinese immigrants were held in detention and deported from Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay.  They didn’t even get to come in.

So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious.  And that remains true today.  And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.

To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades.  Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country.  In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.

The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.  The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.  Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble.  But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage.  Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward.  And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe.  And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.

More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally.  Indeed, after years of patchwork fixes and ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders.  Backlogs and bureaucracy means the process can take years.  While an applicant waits for approval, he or she is often forbidden from visiting the United States –- which means even husbands and wives may be forced to spend many years apart.  High fees and the need for lawyers may exclude worthy applicants.  And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States.  Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.

In sum, the system is broken.  And everybody knows it.  Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.

Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform.  Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate.  But that effort eventually came apart.  And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.

Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands.  Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable.  But it is also ill conceived.  And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate.  Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable.  It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets.  It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.

And you don’t have to take my word for this.  You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.

These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.  And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.

Our task then is to make our national laws actually work -– to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.

For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws.  And often this argument is framed in moral terms:  Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?

I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.  It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.  And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.  And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.

Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.

Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people.  They know it’s not possible.  Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive.  Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric.  Many have children who are American citizens.  Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job.  Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations.  So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.

Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values.  Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals.

Government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders.  That’s why I directed my Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano — a former border governor — to improve our enforcement policy without having to wait for a new law.

Today, we have more boots on the ground near the Southwest border than at any time in our history.  Let me repeat that:  We have more boots on the ground on the Southwest border than at any time in our history.  We doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces.  We tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the border.  For the first time, we’ve begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments.  And as a result, we’re seizing more illegal guns, cash and drugs than in years past.  Contrary to some of the reports that you see, crime along the border is down.  And statistics collected by Customs and Border Protection reflect a significant reduction in the number of people trying to cross the border illegally.

So the bottom line is this:  The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.  That doesn’t mean we don’t have more work to do.  We have to do that work, but it’s important that we acknowledge the facts.  Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders.  But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols.  It won’t work.  Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.

That’s why businesses must be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers.  We’ve already begun to step up enforcement against the worst workplace offenders.  And we’re implementing and improving a system to give employers a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.  But we need to do more.  We cannot continue just to look the other way as a significant portion of our economy operates outside the law.  It breeds abuse and bad practices.  It punishes employers who act responsibly and undercuts American workers.  And ultimately, if the demand for undocumented workers falls, the incentive for people to come here illegally will decline as well.

Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally.  They must be required to admit that they broke the law.  They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English.  They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship — not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being — what being an American means.  Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities.  We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.

Now, stopping illegal immigration must go hand in hand with reforming our creaky system of legal immigration.  We’ve begun to do that, by eliminating a backlog in background checks that at one point stretched back almost a year.  That’s just for the background check.  People can now track the status of their immigration applications by email or text message.  We’ve improved accountability and safety in the detention system.  And we’ve stemmed the increases in naturalization fees.  But here, too, we need to do more.  We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and create jobs.

Our laws should respect families following the rules -– instead of splitting them apart.  We need to provide farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status.  And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they’ve grown up.  The DREAM Act would do this, and that’s why I supported this bill as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator — and why I continue to support it as president.

So these are the essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform.  The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done.  Last summer, I held a meeting with leaders of both parties, including many of the Republicans who had supported reform in the past — and some who hadn’t.  I was pleased to see a bipartisan framework proposed in the Senate by Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer, with whom I met to discuss this issue.  I’ve spoken with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to plot the way forward and meet — and then I met with them earlier this week.

And I’ve spoken with representatives from a growing coalition of labor unions and business groups, immigrant advocates and community organizations, law enforcement, local government -– all who recognize the importance of immigration reform.  And I’ve met with leaders from America’s religious communities, like Pastor Hybels — people of different faiths and beliefs, some liberal, some conservative, who nonetheless share a sense of urgency; who understand that fixing our broken immigration system is not only a political issue, not just an economic issue, but a moral imperative as well.

So we’ve made progress.  I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward.  But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem.  Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes.  That is the political and mathematical reality.  The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.

And, yes, this is an emotional question, and one that lends itself to demagoguery.  Time and again, this issue has been used to divide and inflame -– and to demonize people.  And so the understandable, the natural impulse among those who run for office is to turn away and defer this question for another day, or another year, or another administration.  Despite the courageous leadership in the past shown by many Democrats and some Republicans — including, by the way, my predecessor, President Bush -– this has been the custom.  That is why a broken and dangerous system that offends our most basic American values is still in place.

But I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable.  I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans.  It’s been inscribed on our nation’s seal since we declared our independence.  “E pluribus unum.”  Out of many, one.  That is what has drawn the persecuted and impoverished to our shores.  That’s what led the innovators and risk-takers from around the world to take a chance here in the land of opportunity.  That’s what has led people to endure untold hardships to reach this place called America.

One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago.  At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground.  The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic.  Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.

It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants.  Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers.  And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.

Years before the statue was built — years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish — she imagined what it could mean.  She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire.  Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom.

“Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand,” she wrote,

A mighty woman with a torch…
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome…
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”…
“Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free…
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Let us remember these words.  For it falls on each generation to ensure that that lamp -– that beacon -– continues to shine as a source of hope around the world, and a source of our prosperity here at home.

Thank you.  God bless you.  And may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

END

Related articles by Zemanta

• Activists Calling for Stronger Proactive Counter Catholic Bishop Action (lezgetreal.com)
• Progressives & Congress Fails to Focus on & Help Americans in Bi-national Same-Sex Relationships (lezgetreal.com)
• Understanding the Flip Flop – Congressman Gutierrez and UAFA in Immigration Reform (lezgetreal.com)
• The Carrot Dangles as Political Expediency Controls Immigration Reform at Expense of UAFA Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• The State of California Passes Historic Resolution in Support of UAFA Same-Sex Couples Rights to Immigration equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Gay U.S. citizens seek to claim residency for foreign spouses (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Obama on Immigration: More Politics Than Policy (time.com)
• Can Obama close divide on immigration? (cnn.com)
• How Obama can lead on immigration (cnn.com)

EqualityCalifornia

SACRAMENTO, June 28, 2010 – Today the State Senate passed a resolution with a 23-12 vote that included bipartisan support, endorsing a federal law that would permit U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor a same-sex partner for immigration. The resolution, AJR 15, introduced by Assembly Member Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) and co-sponsored by Equality California and Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality (AACRE), formally requests that the United States Congress pass and President Obama sign the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA).

Moving  testimony was provided by Gina Caprio, Melanie Nathan and Amos Lim in the California State Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, highlighting their personal stories and the hardship suffered by couples in same sex relationships who have been deprived of immigration equality.

“Our broken immigration system unfairly discriminates against thousands of families headed by same-sex couples by keeping them apart,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. “It is in the hands of Congress and President Obama to end this grave injustice. We call on them to pass and sign into law the Uniting American Families Act, thus ensuring that all families, regardless of sexual orientation, enjoy the security and stability that all families deserve.”
Under current federal law, U.S. citizens and permanent residents can file visa petitions on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse. The UAFA, introduced by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), would amend the nation’s Immigration and Nationality Act by adding same-sex “permanent partners” to the list of family members for whom a U.S. citizen or permanent resident can petition. The bill defines a “permanent partner” as an adult who is in a committed, intimate, financially interdependent relationship with another adult in “which both parties intend a lifelong commitment.”

“Thousands of American families and committed same-sex couples are denied basic rights and legal protections, including the ability to petition for a partner to immigrate to the U.S.,” said Assembly member De León. “They live in legal limbo and are torn apart by outdated immigration policies. In ensuring a true state of equality, Congress must take immediate steps to reunite and protect all families once and for all.”

According to the U.S. Census, approximately 35,000 bi-national same-sex couples currently live in the United States. At least 16 other nations already have immigration policies allowing the sponsorship of same-sex partners, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

There are currently 115 co-sponsors of the UAFA in the U.S. House of Representatives and 21 co-sponsors in the U.S. Senate. Endorsed by the State Assembly in September of last year, the resolution now awaits a procedural concurrent vote in the Assembly.

For more information about EQCA’s legislation, visit www.eqca.org/legislation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Despite Republican Hypocrisy – California Senate Judiciary Committee Supports UAFA Resolution (lezgetreal.com)
• A Heart Breaking Life with No Hope for Americans Caused by Gay Rights -Lame US Congress (lezgetreal.com)
• The Carrot Dangles as Political Expediency Controls Immigration Reform at Expense of UAFA Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• URGENT ACTION- PLEASE Call Now!! Senators to Consider Stand-Alone Bills – UAFA for Bi-nationals (lezgetreal.com)
• New Breakthrough VIDEO: A Year Since Shirley Tan Gave Testimony at Senate Judiciary for UAFA (lezgetreal.com)

(Washington, DC) – Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL-4), Chairman of Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, held a press conference today with dozens of other Members of Congress to recognize the milestone of 100 co-sponsors for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act (CIR-ASAP/H.R. 4321). The bill is sponsored by Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and co-sponsored primarily by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More information on the bill is available here.

Some of the Members of Congress who attended the press conference: Joe Baca (CA), Judy Chu (CA), Yvette Clarke (NY), Joseph Crowley (NY), Charles Gonzalez (TX), Gene Greene (TX), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Mike Honda (CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Barbara Lee (CA), Grace Napolitano (CA), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Jared Polis (CO), Gregorio Sablan (D-Northern Marianas), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), Nydia Velázquez (NY), Anthony Weiner (NY), and Lynn Woolsey (CA)

The following is the opening statement delivered by Rep. Gutierrez:

We have reached the milestone of 100 co-sponsors for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America Security and Prosperity bill – a bill I helped put together with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and which has been embraced and supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. We will hear from the leaders of each of these caucuses today, as well as a number of other Members who are not only committed to reform themselves, but are helping us reach out to other Members and build support.

We know the legislative clock is ticking. We know people are getting deported at the highest rate in modern history. We know that the inter-related problems of illegal immigration, clogged and unattainable legal immigration, border security, deportation, detention, and a two-tiered labor market that hurts all workers will not solve themselves.

We know that the Arizona law — which, unless something happens, will go into effect in about one month — is a call to action. It is a cry of frustration. It is not a rejection of comprehensive immigration reform but an alarm bell that the American people are angry, they want solutions, and they want a rational legal immigration system that secures the border and gets all immigrants into the system and playing by the rules.

This next month will be critical. After the August recess, we all know the chances of major action dwindle and that if the Arizona law is allowed to go into effect, it will cause massive disruptions and set a dangerous precedent. As American leaders, we must show the way to fix an American problem: our broken immigration system.

The American people want action, and they want law and order restored to the immigration system. My fellow Democrats, we support the policy the American people actually want; the policy the American people see as pragmatic, and the policy they see as the law and order approach to the immigration issue. Now we must be brave enough to fight for it. Where Republicans see voter frustration and want to exploit it, we should be smart enough to respond to voter frustration by solving the problem that actually frustrates them.

Americans know that trying to drive out 12 million immigrants is not going to happen. And most immigrants are not leaving on their own, no matter how tough we make it. We simply cannot expect to get rid of a population about the size of Ohio (or their 4 million U.S. citizen children). They will not magically disappear. So an immigration policy based on a fantasy no longer flies with the American people. It has no credibility. The American people want a different, more realistic solution.

We need a rational solution. We need a practical solution. We need a fair solution. That solution, CIR ASAP, is on the table and it should not languish there while the American people demand action.

AND NOT a SINGLE WORD about Binational and UAFA -We are yet to see more than just a Promise…. (hmmm)

Are you being politically expedient again Rep Gutierrez?  Lezgetreal has contacted the Congressman’s Press office for comments on his flip flop, – and its been almost a month since we received a communication citing we would get a response. I am still waiting for it.

BY THE WAY – UAFA as a stand alone has more than 100 Co Sponsors!!!   Where is the LGBT Caucus?  Where is Immigration Equality?

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama backs senators’ immigration overhaul outline (sfgate.com)
• Immigration reform advocates rally at Cuellar office (mysanantonio.com)
• Immigration reform advocates rally at Cuellar office (mysanantonio.com)
• Obama backs senators’ immigration overhaul outline (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Backs Senators’ Immigration Overhaul Outline (abcnews.go.com)

Photo by K.T. Drasky

San Francisco – It has been a year since Shirley Tan gave evidence at the Senate Judiciary Committee for the hearing on Uniting American Families Act.   Although Shirley received Private Bill #867 as an introduction to Congress, she remains ‘deportable’ unless Senator Feinstein re-introduces the Private Bill each new Congress.

This is not the only compelling story- there are thousands more such stories.  I receive at least 100 emails per week from Binational couples in this reprehensible situation.

Thanks to Breakthrough and Restore Fairness this magnificent Video which was shot last year at the Home of the Tan-Mercado family is a bold statement for bi-national couples and speaks to the urgency as it presents itself, almost a year after the video was shot.

“As per family unification provisions in immigration law, American citizens are able to petition for residency for their spouses. Unlike countries like France, Germany and Canada, this does not apply to same-sex partners in the United States, so although Jay Mercado is an American citizen, she is unable to sponsor Shirley. Having come to the United States to escape a traumatic and violent familial situation in the Philippines, Shirley had applied for political asylum in 1995.”  http://restorefairness.org/2010/06/on-gay-pride-watch-two-moms-fight-to-stay-together/

Shirley’s lawyer had advised the couple that they should be patient while the application was being processed. News of the denial of Shirley’s application came in the form of a rude shock that disrupted the whole family.

Includes Excerpts from testimony at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing for UAFA

At 6:30 am on a winter morning last year, Jay was getting dressed to go to work and Shirley was getting ready to take the boys to school, when the doorbell rang. On opening it they were faced with two agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who showed them a 2002 letter ordering Shirley’s deportation (which she had never seen before). Minutes later she was handcuffed and taken away as Jay and her mother watched, frightened and helpless. Shirley was held in detention at the Sansome facility in San Francisco before being tagged with an electronic bracelet and returned to her family, awaiting deportation to the Philippines. Shirley describes her time in detention as one of the most traumatic ordeals of her life-

“My agonizing, humiliating and tragic experience started when I got in their SUV. My partner ran to the car and saw me being handcuffed and she broke down to tears… I thought it was the lowest point of my life…I was taken like a criminal… My heart was beating so hard, my whole body was shaking and I felt so nauseated with what was happening to me. (Jay Mercado)

Reporting to ICE three times a week and struggling to deal with the possibility of being separated from her wife and children, Shirley sought the support of LGBT advocates and the media to raise awareness about the case and seek justice that would prevent her family from being torn apart. As a result of this, in April 2009, California Sen. Diane Feinstien introduced a rare bill that granted Shirley a temporary reprieve from deportation, allowing her to stay in the U.S. till January 2011.

“All the while my family was first and foremost the center of everything on my mind.  How would Jay work and take care of the kids if I was not there?  Who would continue to take care of Jay’s ailing mother, the mother I had come to love, if I was not there?  Who would be there for my family if I was not there?  In an instant, my family, my American family, was being ripped away from me.  And when I did return home, I had an ankle monitoring bracelet. I went to great lengths to hide it from my children. I have a partner who is a U.S. citizen, and two beautiful children who are also U.S. citizens, but not one of them can petition for me to remain in the United States with them. Because my partner is not a man, she cannot do anything to help me. Nor can my children, who keep asking why this happened to us and what will ultimately happen to our family.”

“While the Tan-Mercado family are extremely grateful for the respite that Sen. Feinstein’s bill has provided them, they are worried about what will happen to them post-Janunary 2011. In a testimony that Shirley delivered to the United States Senate Committee, Shirley expressed her concerns for the future of her family-” (Breakthrough)

The only way for Shirley to stay in the United States with her family is if gay and lesbian couples to be able to sponsor their partners. It is important that we recognize families like the Tan-Mercado’s so that families can stay together, in Pride month and beyond.

June 28th, last year I joined Shirley and Jay and the twins at the SF Pride event where we accompanied the OUT4Immigration contingency.

On June 3rd 2009, Shirley gave testimony at Senate Judiciary Committee  at the request of Senator Patrick Leahy. Present was Sen. Chuck Schumer and Senator Specter.  Nothing has happened since that time to  further to bring Shirley nearer to the security she and her family deserves.

At the end of the Video above, hear the words of young Jorienne when he says “I cannot live without my mother…” and so the Tan Mercado’s  live with the  ’sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.’   Although there may be some positive moves such as the flip flop of Rep Luis Gutierrez  to sign UAFA up as part of Immigration reform in his House Bill.

But in fact UAFA is an equality Bill and remedial by nature; it is more than mere immigration reform.

Sources tell us, that immigration reform is on the back burner  and  may come on the political stage only into 2011.  There is a framework but no senate bill yet. There is no guarantee that the UAFA provisions will be included in the Senate Bill or that it pass to passage.

For this and many other reasons, such as the larger immigration community rejecting gays and lesbians right to be in an immigration reform bill,  UAFA should be re-considered as a stand alone Bill, especially that so many American Citizens and their children are suffering such discriminatory hardship.

Take action now to fix our immigration system and keep families together for all immigrant families and also Speak to the equality Legislation UAFA and the DREAM act as possible Stand-together Bills.

BY Melanie Nathan
Nathan@privatecourts.com

Thanks you Breakthrough for this Brilliant Video. It was a pleasure to work with you.

Breakthrough is an innovative, international human rights organization using the power of popular culture, media, and community mobilization to transform public attitudes and advance equality, justice, and dignity in India and the United States.

Two Moms Fight to Stay Together from Breakthrough on Vimeo.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Two Moms Fight to Stay Together (pinkbananaworld.com)
• URGENT ACTION- PLEASE Call Now!! Senators to Consider Stand-Alone Bills – UAFA for Bi-nationals (lezgetreal.com)
• SF Weekly – Stunning Report on Same-Sex Couples and Immigration Plight (pinkbananaworld.com)
• The Carrot Dangles as Political Expediency Controls Immigration Reform at Expense of UAFA Equality (lezgetreal.com)

6-19-2010 Melanie Nathan

HAPPY FATHERS DAY DADS -

President Barack Obama’s second Father’s Day proclamation, bears resemblance to his second (2010) Mother’s Day Proclamation where he openly acknowledges gay parents, noting that some kids have two parents.

Although grateful for the recognition, I would be remiss not to point out that Proclamations such as this serve ONLY to exacerbate the discrimination against and marginalization of LGBT parents, families and people, and the relegation to second class citizens.

This excerpt from the Father’s Day Proclamation is noted with delight and appreciation:

“Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a stepfather, a grandfather, or caring guardian. We owe a special debt of gratitude for those parents serving in the United States Armed Forces and their families, whose sacrifices protect the lives and liberties of all American children. For the character they build, the doors they open, and the love they provide over our life times, all our fathers deserve our unending appreciation and admiration.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, as amended (36 U.S.C.109), do hereby proclaim June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day… IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth. Signed – President BARACK OBAMA”

Indeed historic in its validation of our LGBT same-sex families, t has yet another unexpected impact. If the President can make such assertion by Proclamation, its effect and impact is tantamount to acknowledging the discrimination that gay and lesbian couples still suffer under the federal Law.

While grateful for this momentous acknowledgment and the courage it took to proclaim, I must assert that it flies in the face of DOMA, the Defense of marriage Act – which in essence serves to exile some of our same-sex Dads on this father’s day from their home country USA, simply because these fathers (and of course moms too) are precluded by law from sponsoring their foreign born partners for immigration to the USA. In many instances these exiles are Dads with American born children who cannot live in their country of birth.

President Obama must pursue the repeal of DOMA as an absolute priority and even so UAFA; the Uniting American families Act, also a priority above Immigration Reform, ahead of ENDA. The President has it in his power to insist that Speaker Pelosi bring at least UAFA legislation to a Vote before the election in November.

Mr. President – The bi-national couples, despite poor leadership and wild goose chases, want UAFA as a stand alone Bill- we are not willing to wait for Immigration reform, the latter still unavailable in Bill form. Frameworks do not cut it for us as we wait in fear, detention, exile, suicidal, desperate, lonely!

With thanks for this dynamic Proclamation – please show us that your assertion of our de facto existence and validity – is step one of the very soon to be de jure acknowledgment through legislation that will eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Proclamations such as this as meaningless and serve ONLY to exacerbate the discrimination and marginalization and second class citizenship that seems to foster our citizenry! HELP!

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.con

@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• Top 10 tips for having a great Father’s Day (seattlepi.com)
• Presidential Pride Proclamations (pinkbananaworld.com)
• The Carrot Dangles as Political Expediency Controls Immigration Reform at Expense of UAFA Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• President’s Mother’s Day Proclamation Includes Two-Mom Families (mombian.com)
• Obama Issues LGBT Pride Month Proclamation (towleroad.com)

Tan Mercado family and Twins With Senator Feinstein- Family is still at Risk until passage of UAFA

06-16-10   Melanie Nathan

We have learned that a meeting between the four Senators below is scheduled for THURSDAY (tomorrow) focusing on WHICH stand-alone immigration bills might fly (probably via attachment to another  vehicle such as the Defense Bill or Farm Worker Safety bill).

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, ) H.R. 1024, S. 424) is a U.S. bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.

1.            The UAFA was introduced during the 111th Congress, to the United States House of Representatives on February 12, 2009, by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

2.            On April 22, 2009, Senator Feinstein introduced a rare private Bill # 867 into Congress , to keep Shirley Tan, a Pacifica Lesbian mother of twin 13 year olds, in the country after a debauched legal process that ultimately led to her ICE detention, after 23 years in the USA, living in relationship with her partner Jay Mercado.

3.            On June 03, 2009 Senator Patrick Leahy led the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA, where the proponent testimony was provided by Shirley Tan,( introduced by Rep.  Jackie Speier,)  Julian Bond,  Gordon Stewart (Exiled US citizen in bi-national relationship)- and also the American bar Association.

4.         On June 4^th – Immigration Equality decided that the only way for UAFA to pass would be through Comprehensive Immigration reform, which they touted as imminent week after week and month after month thereafter.  From that date to this date (June 16, 2010) over a year, they have spent on lobbying for UAFA’s inclusion into Immigration reform, (CIR) citing the chances as better than a stand alone.  II have opposed this unilateral strategy vehemently.  All we have at this point is opposition from the right, the religious lobby, fervently supported by anti-gay rhetoric that such will open the door to gay marriage.

In addition to the battle vs, Gays, we will see an enormous amount of opposition to the other ideals presented in the recently published “framework for reform” such as amnesty for the 12 million undocumented immigrants – (the right will oppose) and the biometric card (the left will oppose) and the Border fences (G-d will oppose) and UAFA (The religious and Republicans will oppose.)  Get the point?

NOW Activists who have been asking for leadership to revisit UAFA as a stand alone

Are asking for YOUR help.  We need you to get on those PHONES NOW  and call the Senators listed below and BEG them politely to consider bringing UAFA to the floor ASAP,

TEN REASONS WHY UAFA Should be a first choice Stand Alone Bill and Why it is Urgent.

1. Out of all the stand alone Bills it has had the MOST sponsorship in Congress and for that reason alone it should be included:

Co-sponsors total end of June ‘09: (As you can see – when the strategy changed from Stand alone to CIR, Immigration Equality reduced the impetus in sponsorship for UAFA –  In the first five months (Feb 09 – June 09) since the Bills introduction in Congress we gained   House 113 and Senate 20 co=-sponsors. After reverting to the CIR strategy   (in a period of one year) – we only added  11 in the House and 3 in the senate.  To my way of thinking, when immigration equality led us down the CIR path, UAFA as a stand-alone did not receive the added sponsorship it should have, give the Shirley Tan platform.  This point is important to make at this time – because we may find ourselves having to explain why such little support has been garnished for UAFA in the past year.  The simple answer is that Immigration Equality made a mistake in its strategy and in its claim for ownership[ of the issue, led everyone down the CIR path at the expense of UAFA as a stand-alone Bill.  We failed to seize the momentum when we had the 5 month Boost, and veered off course.

2. This is remedial legislation that establishes equality and justice for Americans and US residents, who are specifically discriminated against by the Federal Law.

3. What could be more hurtful and insidious than the EXILE of  our own US citizens –those who are compelled to leave everything – just so that they can live with the love of their choice.

4. The enormous cost to binational couples – who are resorting to extraordinary lengths to maintain contact and constant travel abroad to be with their wives, husbands and partners.

5. Separation of siblings and parent from child in shared custody arrangements.

6. To prevent fraudulent straight marriages between desperate gay couples.

7. To help us amend the strategy of tagging onto CIR that has done little than keep our families and couples exiled for yet another year.

8. The damage to careers and the awful brain drain of our exiled families.

9. Several States, Counties, Cities, Towns and organizations are either about to or have already passed resolutions in support of UAFA, citing inequity based on the reprehensible anomaly that pits State law against Federal Law.

10. It is the right thing to do!

UAFA is not an immigration bill per se, it is an equality BILL and a democratic Congress must not turn its back on the desperate amongst our own.

SO TODAY PLEASE -

Please call all four Senators below and ask them to push the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) as a stand alone bill! Ask your family and friends to do so as well!

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
331 Hart Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-0504
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
528 Hart Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-3004
Phone: (202) 224-4744
Fax: (202) 228-2197

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
522 Hart Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-2803
Phone: (202) 224-3542
Fax: (202) 224-7327

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
313 Hart Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-3203
Phone: (202) 224-6542
Fax: (202) 228-3027

RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY
STATEOFCALIFORNIA – Passed resolution through the Assembly and through Senate Judiciary Committee and it has now been referred to the California  Senate Floor and will probably pass in the next two weeks.

• City of Albany, NY
• City of Berkeley, CA
• City of Binghamton, NY
• City of Cambridge, MA
• City of Campbell, CA
• City of Chicago, IL
• City of Ferndale, MI
• City of Hartford, CT
• City of Los Angeles, CA
• City of Miami Beach, FL
• City of Minneapolis, MN
• City of New York, NY
• City of San Francisco, CA
• City of St. Louis, MO
• City of Seattle, WA
• City of Troy, NY
• City of Washington, DC
• City of West Hollywood, CA

Related articles by Zemanta

• SF Weekly – Stunning Report on Same-Sex Couples & Immigration Plight (lezgetreal.com)
• Activists Calling for Stronger Proactive Counter Catholic Bishop Action (lezgetreal.com)
• UAFA Revisited by Activists – Failure to Engage Opposition (lezgetreal.com)
• White House Calls for Immigration Reform Dsicussion with Senators Schumer & Graham (lezgetreal.com)
• Congressman Nadler talks UAFA Strategy with Bi-National Activists seeking Immigration Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Activists call HALT the Harm -June 9th Anti-UAFA Lobby by Catholic Bishops & Evangelicals (lezgetreal.com)

6-10-2010 Melanie Nathan

Now that Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack,  Republican incumbent from Riverside County, CA, is officially the Republican nominee, Mayor Steve Pougnet has reiterated his challenge to Bono Mack to hold a substantive, issue-focused debate with him during the general election campaign. Bono Mack has not held a public debate since 2002.

“Residents of Riverside County deserve to know where the candidates for Congress stand on the issues that affect us all. Today, I call on Congresswoman Bono Mack to join me in a series of debates to be held throughout the district over the coming months,” said Mayor Steve Pougnet. “Last September, I requested that Bono Mack join me to discuss health care and she failed to reply. Although Bono Mack has not debated an opponent of hers since 2002, I hope that this request meets with a different response because the voters ought to have the opportunity to hear from both of us.”

Openly gay Dad, Mayor Pougnet is running for Congress to create good-paying clean energy jobs in Riverside County. Since announcing his intention to run for Congress, Pougnet has raised over $1 million, more than any campaign has raised to challenge Bono Mack. 3rd party conservative candidate Bill Lussenheide will also be on the ballot in November.

Pougnet has already garnered strong national support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), as well as drawn national press attention to what is viewed as one of the most vulnerable districts for Republicans among the 2010 congressional races.

Prior to moving to Palm Springs, and his election as Mayor,  Steve Pougnet was Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado.

As Vice President he had executive responsibility for the School’s Office of Development, including structuring, planning, budgeting and execution of all programs in fundraising, gift administration, stewardship and records maintenance.

He was also responsible for the School’s Public Affairs Office.  From 1991 through 1993, Mr. Pougnet served as the Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations and Special Assistant to the Vice President at Colorado School of Mines.

Steve is also the former Associate Director for Corporate & Foundation Relations, at Michigan State University and the former Associate Director of National Corporate Leadership Programs at United Way of America. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Business from Michigan State University.

Steve Pougnet lives in Palm Springs with his partner Christopher and their children Beckham and Julia. He enjoys running, biking, swimming, snowboarding and golfing.

The LGBT community is keeping a supportive eye on Steve to help rid congress and the people of incumbent  Republican lockstepster Mary Bono Mack, not to mention the fact that the face, such as represented in the Photograph above, of an LGBT family is currently missing in Congress. This would make a refreshing change!

Please see Melanie’s interview with Steve Pougnet earlier this year.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Imagine: A Father – the First Married Gay Man With Kids in Congress- Steve Pougnet (lezgetreal.com)

6-10-10  Melanie Nathan

In preparation for the June 16 Closing arguments, Judge Vaughn Walker, in California’s same-sex marriage trial issued an advance list of a series of  questions.  Now while no one on the correct side of the issue – NO ON PROP 8, would be so dumb as to provide pseudo manufactured answers to tickle the fancy of readers, a bigot hiding behind and touting religion as his excuse to subject an entire community of Californians to his hate, has indeed done just that – provided as

Bill May asserts on his website “Catholics for the Common”    (I think there may be the word GOOD in there somewhere, but I could not bring myself to include it)  that the Judge asked “plaintiffs and proponents for responses to series of questions that only highlight the absurdity of putting marriage and the intentions of California voters on trial.”

While the full list, nine pages of questions can be found  here -  at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/prop80608.pdf ,  we are going to indulge our readers in the buffoonery and hate peddle revealed in the proposed answers by our would be Jurist  Mr. William B.  May.

HERE is William B. Mays Report  and his contrived answers to the questions -Verbatim from May’s site at http://www.ccgaction.com/index.php?q=node/814 :-

“To both the plaintiffs and proponents of Prop 8, Chief Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker asked:
“What purpose does a law requiring that a marital partnership consist of one man and one woman serve?” Specifically to proponents he asked, “What does evidence show the difference to be between gays and lesbians, on the one hand, and heterosexuals on the other?”

(NOTE this is MAY playing lawyer….)  If it pleases the court, there is ample evidence to suggest that relationships between heterosexuals commonly result in new citizens, not always, but sometimes unintentionally. There also seems to be ample evidence that relationships between people of the same-sex have no possibility of creating new citizens (hereinafter referred to as “children”). Your honor, it seems this difference is very significant and important to the state when considering the definition of marriage and considering that children and their welfare are important to the future of society. Marriage between a man and a woman who are committed to each other and to the children that come from the relationship is of immeasurable value to those children who cannot testify and represent their interests. They depend on grownups to do if for them.

To the plaintiffs he asked:
“Assume the evidence shows that Proposition 8 [defining marriage as between a man and a woman] is not in fact rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Do the voters’ honest beliefs in the absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?” Interestingly, to put this in context he referred to the New York Supreme Court opinion upholding traditional marriage in which they stated, “In absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and a father in the home.”

Yes, your honor, the voters honestly believe, based on their own experience, their common desire for connection with the man and woman from whom they originated, a man and a woman committed to each other and committed to them in a relationship of love – something known as a family with a married mother and father – yes your honor, that experience is relevant in making public policy even if you were to conclude there is no legitimate state interest in protecting and promoting that primordial relationship.

Prop 8 proponents were asked:
“Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination?” The question itself is an indictment of the voters of California. That is like asking, “When you beat your wife why is that not tantamount to spousal abuse?”

Your honor, homosexuality has nothing to do with protecting and promoting marriage between a man and a woman for our children and their future. People are free to adopt any lifestyle they like, but there is no justification for any special interest to redefine and undermine the very foundation on which the family and society are built.Prop 8 proponents were asked:
“The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn’s testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?”

Yikes! Blankenhorn was the main witness on our side testifying to the reality of marriage and its value to society. Again, this underscores the absurdity of determining the future of marriage for California and the country in any court room based on testimony of witnesses and presentation of evidence. Only the voters, drawing on their own experience, acting in the best interest of children and future generations, are qualified to make this decision. The voters of California and Maine and 40 other states have spoken. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

The outcome of this trial could go either way. Whatever the decision, the case is likely destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. Your prayers are needed. ”

As a lesbian I find this so offensive, yet I am embarrassed for this apology of a man – that he is an American- making that our common denominator – because truly nothing else does.  The fact that people like him use religion in this fashion and then try to invoke your prayer…. PLEASE PRAY FOR  DISCRIMINATION AND HATE.

In a separate development Tuesday, the state Fair Political Practices Commission said the Mormon Church had agreed to pay a $5,500 fine for failing to report $37,000 worth of assistance to the Prop. 8 campaign shortly before the 2008 election.

OH BY the way here is the PRAYER That MAY wants you to share:

Closing arguments, June 16, 2010 Federal District Court, San Francisco Heavenly Father, I offer my prayers, works, joys and sufferings today and unite them with those of the whole Mystical Body of Christ. Imploring the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I beg you to protect marriage as authored by You at the very time of creation. (HEHEHE.. not in my B’reisheit) Open the minds and hearts of the Judge Vaughn Walker to accept Your Divine plan for marriage. Inspire him to consider the delight you take in families. (HEHEHE thats precisely what he ought to do we too have families) Guide him with wisdom and understanding of the rights of children (yes my children need their moms to have equality so thanks Billy Boy for this one) to know and be cared for by their father and mother.  (SHEEZ BILLY BOYYOUFORGOT ABOUT SINGLE MOMS  AND SINGLE DADS – they dont get your prayers either?) Fill him with right judgment and the courage to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society. We beg you to send your Holy Spirit upon the attorneys to guide them in their presentations and to make their arguments compelling. (okay thanks for that) We raise up to you the plaintiffs and their attorneys that they might realize that dignity does not come from external sources, but from the fact that each is created in Your image and likeness and are manifestations of Your love, more precious to You than the entire universe. (PRECISELY Billy – G-d made me and all queers in His image – I am not sure how else we were made? That has been my argument all along – Can I rest my case now please?) Give them peace through understanding this and help them see the consequences of their actions for humanity and the common good. Give us the grace to reflect Your love for them despite our differences. We ask these things in Jesus’ Name.

BY Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tough questions for each side in Prop. 8 debate (sfgate.com)

Amen.

Today, together with Amos Lim of Out4Immigration and at the behest of Assembly member Kevin de Leon and under sponsorship of EQCA,  I had the great honor of testifying to the California State Senate Judiciary Committee  for AJR 15, a Resolution in support of Uniting American Families Act, which made it out with 3 votes in favor and at least one opposition vote. The second Republican member was not present but may have shown up later to cast his vote; regardless a 3:2 victory sends the resolution to an almost certain passage in the California Senate.  State Resolutions in California do not require the signature of a Governor.

This was my 2.5 minute testimony:

Madam Chair and Honorable Members of this Committee, Assembly member De Leon, thank you for this opportunity to tell my story, personifying that of tens of thousands of other binational same-sex permanent partners, many of whom are from California, either living in undocumented fear, exiled to a foreign country or in detention awaiting deportation.

Nine years ago I fell in love with Dorit Israel who came to the USA as a student.  We married in July 2008, during California’s window of opportunity. We have a daughter born of this relationship and I have 13 year old  daughter from a previous relationship, in a shared custody arrangement.

Because lesbian and gay partners are excluded by Federal law, I was unable to sponsor Dorit for a green card. We faced untold hardship; and on 4 occasions during our process, I was faced with a choice that no American or Mother should ever have to bear; – leaving my home, my country, my mortgage and my business to go to a foreign country where I do not speak the language or have any viable prospects of survival, paled in comparison to having to choose between my two beloved daughters.  If I were to leave my country, I would have been forced to choose between my spouse and our child, ahead of my first born. If I chose to stay with my 13 year old,   I would be separated from my spouse and my little one.  Worse yet, these young American Citizen Sisters would also be torn apart.

I was not able to make the choice – there WAS no plan B.

To explain what we went through would take too much time, save to say that with the help of Senator Feinstein, we were lucky and finally able to rely on an R1 Visa, after hurdles such as the sunset of the very process upon which we relied.

Had we been a different gender couple our $72,000 five year nightmare would have been over in mere months costing no more than $1500.00.

While our case ended with a remedy, many do not. It is for them that I am here. Through my advocacy for other couples I am privy to many cases of hardship, the brain drain of California doctors, lawyers, Professors, PhD’s and entrepreneurs; the waste of resources and the unconscionable injustice.

The State of California recognizes gay and lesbian couples through equality legislation, yet this great anomaly exists, where but for the passage of The Uniting American Families Act, the equality laws in California are useless to bi-national couples.

I believe that passage of AJR 15, will send an imperative message to Washington D.C. – California cares about its families and that this situation is simple intolerable.

Before the vote, Senator Mark Leno made  a very moving and supportive statement about the hardship and the lack of immigration equality for binational same-sex couples.  He ended his remarks by saying that after what he heard, he could not fathom anyone single person VOTING NO to the passage of the Resolution which supports laws keeping California families together.

The Republican  Tom Harmon (California’s 35th District) when asked his vote  bellowed a resolute “NO.”

Of course I expected no thing different, but surely he may have had an excuse a reason?  So when he walked out of the Chamber, I ran after him. I told him I was curious about why he had voted no.  He looked at me and snapped loudly “I don’t have time for that now.”  I then asked him if I could make an appointment to see him so he could explain at a later date or time. Again he snapped, viciously, “I will NOT do that.”

So there you have it California, Republicans truly do not care about Californian  families and their children.

Based on this, I deduce that if  Harmon and the other lockstep Republicans purport at anytime on the future to be concerned about California Families, then such solicitude is tantamount to saying “I hate Gays.”

That said, Republican Meg Whitman now in the race for Governor and Carly Fiorina, in the race for incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat, have all openly subscribed to this ant-gay equality stance.  To my way of thinking, mere campaign statement by these candidates are tantamount to the offensive and upsetting Bullhorn “NO” VOTE we heard today.

Note: Senator Boxer is a Co-Sponsor of UAFA, The Uniting American Families Act.

Thank you to Assembly member Kevin De Leon,  Senator Mark Leno for co sponsoring the UAFA Resolution in California as well as our host EQCA with Mario Guerrero at the helm.

The Hypocrisy of  “NO”

6/1/2010 – California Senate urges the federal government to quit ignoring the immigration problem.

Harman’s Floor Speech for Immigration Resolution, SCR 108 from CA Senate Republican Caucus on Vimeo.

Senator Harman’s Senate Concurrent Resolution 108 (SCR 108), a bi-partisan measure urging the federal government to act immediately on federal immigration law cleared the Senate today. In a landmark display of unity, Senator Gil Cedillo, a leading immigrant rights activist in the Senate, spoke in strong support of the legislation, agreeing with Senator Harman on the importance of immediate federal action. The measure passed 31 to 1.

“We don’t agree on much here in the legislature, but I am glad we can agree that the federal government should, at a minimum, enforce existing immigration law,” said Harman. “With California facing a $20 billion dollar budget deficit, the legislature would be remiss to not demand action on a federal problem that costs California taxpayers upwards of $10 billion a year.”

Money Is above People..Money Money Money!!!

After today’s vote, Clearly Tom Harmon does not support UAFA ’s inclusion in Federal Immigration Reform  Law

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda
Http://visualcv.com/melnathan

Related articles by Zemanta

• SF Weekly – Stunning Report on Same-Sex Couples & Immigration Plight (lezgetreal.com)
• reBlog from lezgetreal.com: Equality in Immigration – Activists to Testify for CA State support of UAFA (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

6-09-2010 Melanie Nathan:-

Our earlier reports came to fruition when today the Unites States Conference of  Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals, urged through a press call for support of comprehensive immigration reform and specifically for the exclusion of same-sex partners from  immigration reform, thereby insisting on the status quo for gay and lesbian couples – exile, detention, hiding and no visas or sponsorship for same-sex couples in loving committed relationships.

However Immigration equality thinks this is no big deal and assert that the gay community has the upper hand on this one.

Today Steve Ralls, the spokesperson for Immigration Equality, speaking again to Kerry Eleveld at to the Advocate – said the breadth of support that has developed for folding gay families into the bill puts conservatives at a disadvantage. The combination of all those things have led us to the point where our inclusion in the bill is expected among most faith and immigration groups and those that are preaching for our exclusion are really the ones who are fighting an uphill battle.”

Immigration Equality has long touted its front row seat in the LGBT immigration rights arena as “the only national organization that is dedicated to advocating for equal immigration rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive immigrants. As a leader on these issues, news media often seek out our opinion on issues that affect our community.”

So it seems that according this foremost advocate on same-sex immigration equality, who devised the strategy for the inclusion of same-sex partners in immigration reform as a means to attaining equality, as opposed to lobbying for UAFA as a stand-alone bill,  are informing us that the Unites States Conference of  Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals who were lobbying on the Hill today, present little concern to bi-national same-sex inclusion in reform to come, which according to Senator Schumer said last week that he believed an immigration reform bill, which has yet to be introduced, could potentially be passed by the end of the year or at least by March of 2011.

Fortunately there is an opposing religious stand and maybe the center -left amongst them will make a stand for what is morally right.

What no one is speaking about in the Advocate Article is the fact that bi-nationals are still facing extreme uncertainty and the strong Catholic lobby has already impacted UAFA’’s relationship with Immigration reform:-

On October 8 of 2009, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security held a hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:  and testimony was delivered  by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C. entitled “Comprehensive immigration reform: Faith-Based Perspectives.” After outlining in great detail the hardship and suggestions for Immigration reform, the Cardinal proceeded to testify with this overt exclusion in direct opposition to S. 424, the Uniting American Families Act.

“Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the inclusion of S. 424, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), in comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  The legislation would permit same-sex partners to enjoy the same immigration benefits as married couples in our immigration system.  While our tradition and teaching values all persons as children of God, we believe that the enactment of UAFA would erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships, a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage, which pre-dates the Church and the state.  We also believe its inclusion into comprehensive immigration reform would add another controversial issue to an already polarized and divisive debate.”

What  precisely is Immigration Equality doing to combat this lobby?  Is there a strategy, a plan? USCCB had a seat at the table already – was pro LGBT testimony provided .  What measures were taken to counter this sordid testimony; letters, rallies, grass root organizing, Press call outs ? What – Blog pieces? Did Immigration Equality call on the other organizations to assist in this counter lobby effort?  If so who – show us the letters,  the communications.  Show us something that is not couched purely in solicitation and fundraiser parlance!  Where are the Press releases?  Where is transparency.  Is the IE  BOARD asking questions?

Are they resting on their laurels – well maybe – based on the statement by Ralls, they believe UAFA has the upper hand in relation to immigration reform- so maybe we are going to have another Prop 8 scenario- where our California Marriage Equality community was outgunned.

I am calling on Immigration Equality to NOT underestimate the power of the Lobby.

Is Immigration Equality providing direct counter press calls and lobby efforts to that of USCCB?  Has IE written anything on their website about this lately?  Or will simple feed Kerry Eleveld sound bytes suffice?

A few weeks ago,Immigration equality conducted a community telephone call. Rachel Tiven, Executive Director introduced Julie Kruse who delivered the messaging, where she commented on Immigration Equality’s “incredible success” (see a BILL anywhere anyone?)  while thanking the grass roots efforts around the  country  those “who have applied the pressures.”

Here is a lost opportunity – Why has  Immigration Equality not acknowledged OUT4Immigration, the only group whose massive communication outreach to bi-nationals and coordination has had any impact on garnishing congressional and countrywide support for UAFA and why not form an alliance so that they can work and plan, hand-in hand?

In the call Kruse stated that there was no certainty about the inclusion of UAFA – that we could be excluded at any time, when answering one of the submitted questions. “yes, we can be stripped out; but harder to take us out once we are already in; it is better than fighting to get in.”

I found this to be rather odd sense of security, given that we are NOT in the House BILL and there is NO Senate version, only a framework of intent; and a miserable flip flop by Gutierrez, without anything introduced into Congress.

Truth be know we are not included anywhere YET. Hence why does Ralls think we are in good shape with the powerful Lobby of Catholic Bishops – on the HILL today specifically calling for our exclusion.

Rachel Tiven, the Board of Immigration equality do you think that a miserable ten line article at the behest of Ralls in the advocate is sufficient counter power against the USCCB?  Where is your outrage. Stop placating your supporters and get out ghere and be heard. Get the mainstream press on it.Do your own Press Calls. Contact OUT4Immigration, and NCLR and ask what you could all do together.  Why were you not on the Hill with a contingent of counter Protesters.

Every single visit by a  skirted Bishop, should have been followed by that of an LGBT clergy supporter, organized by Immigration Equality.

Both Kruse and Tiven mentioned on that call that we must remain vigilant. Vigilant – give me a break – that denotes waiting for something to happen – what about proactive?   I cannot imagine that IE did not know about today’s Call to Press – we, like other sites,  have been reporting on it at Lezgetreal for over a week. Kruse admitted on that call, ” It is a problem we have to keep our eye on…” Again same type of talk keep an eye on?

I am asking to see the proof  from IE that they are doing the work they say they are doing. I want accountability to the bi-national community.  Show us what you have done, and what you are doing.

Gutierrez

The Gutierrez Flip Flop:-

When Rep Luis Gutierrez introduced the House Immigration reform Bill, It excluded UAFA; last month Gutierrez suddenly announced he supported its inclusion and yet has failed to say where and how he plans to include it.

Here are reader comments from the Immigration Equality site:

1.  Re; Gutierrez’s flip flop – Did he provide any explanation as to why he left the UAFA language out of his bill as originally introduced? Has he now decided that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is too toxic to continue bowing to their wishes? Perhaps he saw that the UAFA language was going to be included in the Senate version and didn’t want to lose all those Chicago LGBT votes. Politicians rarely do something simply because it’s the right thing to do.”

2. “Now the question is, why can’t we do the same with the UAFA? I really believe that using the rider option (attaching it to a bigger bill) is the best option (not the only but the best) to get the UAFA pass in this Congress. The possibility of a CIR passing this year is getting slimmer and slimmer. If it’s not done by this year, then the UAFA will have to be re-introduced again in the next session of Congress and we will have to start all over again.”

3.” @1 not much more we could ask for? how about a bill being introduced with us.. how about everyone stop saying “CIR must include UAFA” and actually make some progress? This lip service is getting old..”

4. ” I think if Democrats hold onto or strengthen their numbers in the midterms, then they’ll tackle CIR in early 2011 to get it out of the way before the 2012 election. Otherwise, I don’t see it making it through a Republican-led House and/or Senate, not without significant changes (including us being removed)”

None of these comments received any response form Immigration Equality.

While the broader immigrant community see LGBT as their ball and chain and while we see Amnesty as ours, surely the course we are on is worth a round table?

Again I am asking for transparency, for the truth, for real leadership, for inclusion, for proactive advocacy, for a strategy, for alliances, for a direct and targeted response to the USCCB and NAE, re-visit the CIR course, See if we can get UAFA and DREAM ACT  attached to legislation other than the risky and controversial CIR.

Stop waiting to be Defensive – get in on the attack.. with a strategy…. or our bi-nationals will have another ten years to wait.

By Melanie Nathan
Nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• Activists call HALT the Harm -June 9th Anti-UAFA Lobby by Catholic Bishops & Evangelicals (lezgetreal.com)
• Time to Fight as Bishops and Evangelicals Usurp LGBT Rights (pinkbananaworld.com)
• SF Weekly – Stunning Report on Same-Sex Couples & Immigration Plight (lezgetreal.com)
• Congressman Nadler talks UAFA Strategy with Bi-National Activists seeking Immigration Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration And Gay Families (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

San Francisco – In one of the most comprehensive reports in  mainstream press to date, Lauren Smiley, a  staff writer for the SF Weekly and the print version SF Weekly, transports the readers into binational same-sex couple hell.

The article tells the stories of couples, some of whom are too afraid to reveal their true identities, who have been victimized by discrimination in the Federal law, that prevents gay and lesbian couples from sponsoring foreign partners and spouses for green cards.

No two stories are alike, but they all carry one central theme – injustice and a slap in the face of the Constitution of the USA, which would have you believe that every US citizen and permanent resident has the equal right to pursue happiness.

Excerpt from Smiley’s Article and I recommend reading the entire piece.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-06-09/news/worlds-apart/3

“It’s no wonder that none of the couples in this story wanted their real names used. While the couples are out about being gay, there’s no benefit to being out about having broken the law. When a contingent from Out4Immigration, a local grassroots group that lobbies for change for gay binational partners, turned out for the May Day march for immigration reform through the Mission, mostly only the legal halves of the couples showed up. They must speak for both.

Yet publicity has served some well. Melanie Nathan is a fiftysomething firebrand with a shock of dark brown curls and an accent from her native South Africa but citizenship in the United States. Her Israeli wife was able to get a religious visa and eventually permanent residency, but that hasn’t stopped Nathan from advocating for other couples not as fortunate. From her office in Marin, she pens gadfly blog posts at Lez Get Real, chronicling the latest developments in gay binational couple politics and calling out lawmakers who flip-flop on the issue. (Rep. Luis Gutierrez [D-Ill.], she’s talking to you. )The blog gets 150,000 hits a month, some dropping in from the White House and senators’ offices, and she gets e-mails from some 40 couples a month. “I know every couple that’s in this situation,” she says.

Her advocacy for one such pair may have helped to get the issue on Washington’s radar. Last year, ICE agents showed up at the home of Shirley Tan, a Filipina stay-at-home mother of two who has lived with her American partner without a visa in Pacifica for 20 years. With Tan facing imminent deportation, Nathan lobbied Senator Dianne Feinstein to introduce a rare personal bill that would allow Tan and only Tan to become a permanent resident without enacting any change in existing immigration law. As long as the bill waits to be heard, Tan is free to stay in the country.”   READ MORE

This Article may surprise many in the mainstream and in my advocacy I am grateful for its timely publication. This is the time when the Evangelicals and Catholic Bishops are seeking to exclude same-sex couples from immigration reform.  This is a time of failed LGBT  strategy; the time when opportunities have been lost; the time when hope is fading[ but yet still time for a great opportunity.

Another excerpt from SF Weekly: “It threatens the conservative and evangelical support that has taken five years in acquiring,” says the Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, director of the Sacramento-based National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, which represents 25,000 churches. “Right now we’re having difficulty getting one Republican senator to support the Schumer proposal. With the same-sex partner, it will be an even greater hill to climb.”

The Uniting American Families Act remains the only plausible solution for immigration equality and in my opinion only as a stand-alone bill.  Now it has become the predictable center of controversy because politicians are reluctant to include it in the immigration reform Bills. (See my earlier articles.) Now because of this reluctance, it is the perfect time to take UAFA out of the immigration reform equation, to attach it to the Dream ACT and to pass it as a stand-alone where the Catholic Bishops will have no bargaining power.

The binational community is begging for members of  the House and Senate  to do something immediately to change this reprehensible  inequity. Please if you are reading this and want to help – Contact your representative and ask what they are specifically doing to forward passage of UAFA.

On Thursday June 10th, Amos Lim of OUT4Im migration will be giving Testimony with me in the California State Senate Judiciary Committee for AJR15 – a resolution from California in support of UAFA.  If you want to come along in support, please contact me – nathan@privatecourts.com

Thanks to Lauren Smiley for the Exposure – and hello Mainstream Press – Where are you?

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Congress and the Unconstitutional (Tacit) Establishment of Religion - (lezgetreal.com)
• Activists call HALT the Harm -June 9th Anti-UAFA Lobby by Catholic Bishops & Evangelicals (lezgetreal.com)
• Understanding the Flip Flop – Congressman Gutierrez and UAFA in Immigration Reform (pinkbananaworld.com)
• UAFA Revisited by Activists – Failure to Engage Opposition (lezgetreal.com)
• Lesbian Spouses Torn Apart – Fight for Bi-national Immigration Equality (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

While taking the Bishops and Evangelicals to task, we must remember we have allies in the religious world too; those who stand up and say that treating people unequally in the United States is simply wrong. That Gay and Lesbians (LGBTQI) are the same in the scheme of creation.   Those brave voices, who often defy the odds and risk losing membership, are the ones who we must thank because we are in desperate need of allies.

In December, the State Senate rejected a bill that would have allowed gay couples to marry. For advocates of same-sex marriage, like the Kulanu committee of Temple Israel of New Rochelle, the vote was a big disappointment.

“Everybody was so upset. We felt we had to do something,” said Mitchell Tarnopal, a committee member and New Rochelle resident, who rallied for civil rights in the 1960s.

To show its support for gay marriage, the committee will hold a rally from noon to 3 p.m. Sunday at the temple with other religious institutions from Westchester County.

Many religious institutions perform weddings for same-sex couples, but those marriages are not recognized by the state.

He compared the gay marriage ban to the discrimination that interracial couples once faced.

“We would be much better off if we all had the same rights,” he said.

Hopefully other Congregations of all faiths will find ways to show support for equality.

The rally will be held at the temple, 1000 Pinebrook Blvd. in New Rochelle.

by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;” What if Congress makes Laws  reflecting the influence of testimony of one particular religion, to the exclusion of all others? Is this tantamount to ” establishing a religion” in an implied or tacit form?

A group of independent unfunded activists, supporting the ideal of a Universal LGBT Civil Rights Movement, with one simple Goal, to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1968, to include sexual orientation and gender identity, has drawn a new line in the sand.

The Gay and Lesbian (LGBTQI) minority is under attack –we are not sitting back any longer. We are going to fight back and with a vengeance.  We are going to defend our civil rights and demand equality by silencing those who seek our destruction.

Those who are attacked have a right to defend themselves. Our weapon for now shall be our pens and our legs and our mouths and our signs and our money and our signatures and our VOTE.

Mission 1:-

Amendment I to the Constitution of the US states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Previously, we’ve argued that the church has no right to be involved in government – using the “separation of church and state” concept.  However, more succinctly, the First Amendment protects all Americans from the US Government “establishing” a religion.

This new line rests its case on the predication that certain religious groups and Congress are teetering on breaching this strict boundary – the one that asserts no establishment of religion by government while respecting religious freedoms.

The NEW LINE is that UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, religious groups SHOULD NOT be permitted to advocate against basic human rights and dignity (s), in any Congressional setting. Religious groups should not have the opportunity to insert their interpretation of morals into legislative process, because if such were permitted it would be tantamount to ‘establishing’ a religion which the First Amendment guarantees cannot occur.

That does not mean that religious groups are not allowed to participate in the public and social debate.   Asserting this boundary cannot extend to teachings from the pulpit, because that right in the same Aedment1, is equally guaranteed, along with the right of free speech and freedom of assembly.

This in no way derogates from public debate. Nor does it derogate from the pulpit; but the pulpit does not belong in a congressional hearing and nor in the halls of Congress.

It’s a matter of mutual civic responsibility that the religious groups desist from interference and a matter of oath of office that Congress cease invitations to select religious groups to testify in committee, especially where such testimony consists of presentations of religious dogma.

If someone wielded a sword in the face of the Catholic Bishop and said “stop your prayer, you cannot preach, you cannot believe” – we would defend their right to religious freedom as vigorously as I am begging for reciprocity and respect.  We ask the Catholic Bishops to resist brandishing their pulpits in the face of Congress -undermining our constitutional rights and protections.

We submit that any invitation to any religious group to testify before Congress in any committee or format, has the impetus of Congress ‘establishing’ a religion, especially if such testimony asserts a religious doctrine that can be interpreted to discriminate against a minority population, and/or that infringes on the human rights and dignity of any one or group of persons in our Country, thereby in effect causing harm.

If the Catholic Bishops have NO locus standi in Congress – then let us ask how we explain this:

On October 8 of 2009, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security held a hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:  and testimony was delivered  by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C. entitled “Comprehensive immigration reform: Faith-Based Perspectives October 8, 2009.” After outlining in great detail the hardship and suggestions for Immigration reform, the Cardinal proceeded to testify with this overt exclusion in direct opposition to S. 424, the Uniting American Families Act.

“Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the inclusion of S. 424, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), in comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  The legislation would permit same-sex partners to enjoy the same immigration benefits as married couples in our immigration system.  While our tradition and teaching values all persons as children of God, we believe that the enactment of UAFA would erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships, a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage, which pre-dates the Church and the state.  We also believe its inclusion into comprehensive immigration reform would add another controversial issue to an already polarized and divisive debate.”

The testimony was fraught with biblical references and Catholic religious Dogma.

This week we launched a petition in our quest to stop the harmful lobbying by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and National Association of Evangelicals. The petition is in the form of a letter to the USCCB and NAE, a cease and desist request from lobbying against our community.

http://www.change.org/petitions/view/halt_the_harm_-_stop_advocacy_by_usccb_and_nae_causing_harm_to_lgbt_community

The message is clear – leave our civil rights alone.  So the more who sign the petition the more letters the groups will receive, they will hear our voices.

Already over 200 letters have been sent, but we need 5,000 to complete mission 1.

We have targeted the USCCB (US Conference of  Catholic Bishops)  and NAE(National Association of Evangelicals,   because they are launching a newspaper AD blitz this week; they assert their support for Immigration Reform – however as we have noted above – the support is tainted by their direct threat that they will  not support reform, if the Gay Community is included in the legislation.

How despicable; these men of clothe are prepared to hurt their own devotees, 12 million undocumented immigrants who may qualify for amnesty, for the sake of their anti-gay DOGMA;  interfering in a civil rights matter, while defiling the boundaries established by our Constitution.

To add insult to injury, they are flagrantly horse whipping our minority community, based on canon that now seems to condone the carnage of our most purest beings, 100 deaf children and counting…

While their own stable is in shocking disarray; molesters running rampant hurting children en masse (no pun,) how dare they think they have any moral authority at all? Unfettered felons abound their conclaves and they speak of abomination as if it applies to our G-d-given love.

If necessary this will become our battle cry and we will smear the faces in their mess.

So we ask you to sign this Mission 1 Petition.

Soon we will speak more about the audacity of our Congressional legislators, who single out and invite certain religious groups into our Congressional committees, to the exclusion of all others.  Does this permissive practice of accepting testimony from religious groups, denote “establishing” a religion, in defiance of the First Amendment?

There is abundant proof thus far, in the immigration equality debate, that our representatives have allowed the Catholic and Evangelical churches to impact Gay and Lesbian exclusion from recently introduced Bills in Congress. (Rep. Gutierrez’s Immigration reform Bill in the House.)

Our redress must be explored.  We cannot stand back and watch this any longer.

If Congress wants to expedite reform and reduce this merging conflict in the immigration debate– if indeed the Bishops are powerful enough to influence our rights in this insidious fashion, then we call on Congress NOW to do something different.

To introduce an omnibus by merging the Dream Act, and UAFA or attaching these Bills to less controversial legislation– and to immediately seek passage of  legislation that has at its core equality and fairness , rather than on a reform basis.  That will divide the issues engendered by the conflict into manageable components – and will keep the non-equality issues of Amnesty and Biometrics to their own fate, and yes Border control may well form the basis for cooperation from the right in the latter instance.

While all this is going on, the overriding WAR will be waged on those who continue attempts to influence Congress to establish a religion for the USA.  The more hate that amalgamates in this scurrilous back door endeavor, the more our enemies will fall into our hands – as they will exacerbate the necessity for our Amendment to the Civil Rights Act.

Every single person who cares about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgenders, gender identity rights  and equality should sign on to this Petition.

All you need to do is sign the Petition and keep in touch with us on Facebook, via Melanie Nathan – will deliver more missions as we go along.

All Actions taken in Mission – in the name of the merging “LGBTGI Civil Rights Movement”

Start a Petition »

Related articles by Zemanta

• Activists call HALT the Harm -June 9th Anti-UAFA Lobby by Catholic Bishops & Evangelicals (lezgetreal.com)
• June 9th- Ads in Major Newspapers by Pro Immigration but Anti-Gay Lobby of Catholic Bishops and Evangelicals (pinkbananaworld.com)
• UAFA Revisited by Activists – Failure to Engage Opposition (lezgetreal.com)

Next week, on June 9th The USCCB (US Conference of Catholic Bishops) and the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) will run full page ads in various Newspapers to announce that they will be Lobbying in D.C. for Comprehensive immigration reform. They plan to emphasize their objection to the LGBT immigration equality language that is currently present in the recently introduced Framework for immigration reform.

“Part of their lobbying effort will be a push to take the same-sex provisions out of the immigration plan.”

Source: http://www.congress.org/news/2010/05/26/rift_grows_between_immigration_allies

The Catholic Bishops and their brethren in opposition to the recognition of LGBT rights and the continued invalidation of gay families together with the National Association of Evangelicals, (NAE) are joining forces to ensure their ongoing effort against the inclusion of the Uniting American families Act (UAFA) in Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR.)

They have taken out a full page ad in the Washington Post for support in their ant-LGBT lobby BLITZ, scheduled for June 9^th. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100511/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1994

Melanie Nathan and Todd Fernandez have co-authored a heartfelt request to the USCCB and NAE, in the form of a letter petition, to cease causing further harm to the LGBT community and are asking the entire LGBT community of individuals, activists and organizations to sign this letter in the form of the change.org petition in support of the contention that our community is being hurt by anti-gay legislative advocacy on the part of the Catholic and Evangelical groups, addressed therein.

Here is the context of the Nathan and Fernandez plea:-

During the course of 2009, the Immigrant community heard talk of long overdue impending immigration reform; and the LGBT immigration equality community joined in the quest seeking inclusion in comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) – specifically to include equality for binational permanent partners who, because of Federal law, cannot sponsor their partners for green cards or visas into the USA.

In October of 2009, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security held a hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:  and testimony was delivered  through the statement of Theodore Cardinal McCarrick Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C. entitled “Comprehensive immigration reform: Faith-Based Perspectives October 8, 2009.”

In this statement to the Committee Cardinal McCarrick reflected on what he termed  “the landmark pastoral letter issued by the Catholic bishops of Mexico and the United States, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope,” where the bishops acknowledged that the current immigration system is badly in need of reform and that a comprehensive approach to fixing it is required.”  The bishops offered, in their words, “a comprehensive set of recommendations for changing U.S. laws and policies to reflect the principles contained in Scripture and Catholic Social Teaching and to bring about a more humane and just immigration system in the United States.”

The Cardinal in his testimony, provided a detailed statement on all the aspects of comprehensive immigration reform, systematically detailing each item in need of reform and asserting the Catholic Bishops’ recommendations:

“Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Catholic bishops believe that any comprehensive immigration reform bill should contain, the following elements:

“a legalization program that gives migrant workers and their families an opportunity to earn legal permanent residency and eventual citizenship;   a new worker visa program that protects the labor rights of both U.S. and foreign workers and gives participants the option to earn permanent residency ; reform of our family-based immigration system to reduce waiting times for family reunification;  restoration of due process protections for immigrants, including asylum-seekers; and policies that address the root causes of migration, such as the lack of sustainable development in sending nations.”

“During my testimony,” the Cardinal added, “I will attempt to spell out in more detail our recommendations in this regard, as well as point out the policy provisions the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) would oppose in any immigration reform bill.”

After outlining in great detail the hardship and required changes in the Immigration law, he proceeded to testify with this overt exclusion in direct opposition to S. 424, the Uniting American Families Act.

“Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the inclusion of S. 424, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), in comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  The legislation would permit same-sex partners to enjoy the same immigration benefits as married couples in our immigration system.  While our tradition and teaching values all persons as children of God, we believe that the enactment of UAFA would erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships, a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage, which pre-dates the Church and the state.  We also believe its inclusion into comprehensive immigration reform would add another controversial issue to an already polarized and divisive debate.”

Yes they said it in testimony to the Senators on the Committee, including Chuck Schumer, the New York Senator leading the immigration reform effort in the Senate!

They testified specifically for the exclusion UAFA from CIR and hence for the exclusion of our gay families, even those of us who are legally married under the civil law of this our Country; the country that purports to separate church and state.

Moving forward with context –  -

The desperate need for comprehensive Immigration reform recently  came to boiling point when the Governor of Arizona signed a State law  compelling the police to ask for proof of citizenship of anyone ‘suspected of being an undocumented immigrant,’ effectively endorsing racial profiling and usurping the domain of Federal law.

This prompted the seemingly rushed announcement by Senators Schumer, Reid and Feinstein for a framework for CIR that happily delineates an intention to include UAFA.

But for Arizona, the framework may not have been forthcoming in its current form as a Bill was being worked on for a later date and we have no idea if Senator Schumer, etal, would have included UAFA in Bill format, especially that the testimony of the Cardinal  seems to have carried weight, certainly when it came to the House taking note, by way of the Gutierrez bill, which excluded UAFA at the time of its introduction.

Now we have the Bishops, by virtue of the framework intent on lobbying fervently against the inclusion of LGBT families and their advocacy for the exclusion of UAFA is set for this month.

The National Association of Evangelicals and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops USCCB plan on lobbying to exclude UAFA and Gays and Lesbians, et al, from any immigration bill and this event will take place commencing on June 3^rd and culminating on June 9th with their anti-gay lobby day in DC.

But we are not going to allow this to happen.  Not anymore.  We are putting out a petition calling on these Church groups for neutrality and to keep their nose our of our rights, based on the harm it is causing to us as people with impeded rights living in the USA.

Here is the letter we have written and we are inviting all to sign it as a petition on change.org; your letter will automatically be sent to the addressees. Please be so kind as to pass on…

THE LETTER PETITION

June, 04 – 2010

To the:  Honorable Representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals,

There is a crime at work when society takes a young child and teaches him to hate himself so much that he becomes George Rekers.  When this happens, as it does daily, we have failed our primary shared responsibility: to protect our children from harm.

Yet this is the suffering inflicted by the unrelenting advocacy against LGBT equality and basic human dignity propagated by you in legislative forums throughout the country.

From murder to depression to suicide, this fueled societal homophobia wreaks havoc on generation after generation, every day, and every hour.   Due largely to your work, LGBT people are not safe and their dignity is systematically under attack.

Given the overwhelming evidence of injury, at this point we consider your involvement in perpetrating this harm to be an act of violence against our community. Today, we say that advocacy must end.

Regardless of the teachings of one bible, our social compact in the United States is founded upon a Constitution.  As such, equality for LGBT Americans under the law cannot be held hostage to any religious viewpoint, and nor should you try; it betrays our duty as citizens.

The system itself demands a degree of mutual respect and deference, which allows for both the sanctity of your beliefs and houses of worship, and our right to live and work in safety.  Clearly, both parties have to respect that relationship for it to work.

In this spirit, we urge you to cease your political advocacy against our human rights in every piece of legislation, state and federal, and on every topic, including marriage.

Our Country’s founding promise that we each enjoy the pursuit of happiness can no longer be denied us, and nor should you try.

Clearly, the civil rights conferred by marriage do not belong to any specific Church, and many other faiths reject your claim on the institution and the word. This hubris underlies much of the Catholic Churches’ misguided history, and it is time to stop it.

From this day forward, we intend to hold the USCCB and the NAE, and their representatives, directly accountable for the harm caused to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people stemming from their political opposition to our legal equality and their painful homophobic advocacy, which lacks even basic respect for our fundamental existence.
Indeed, our human dignity demands it, as would yours should you find your religion and right to exist similarly undermined and persecuted.

As an indication of your good faith, we ask that the USCCB and the NAE issue a statement of political neutrality on all matters of LGBT human rights and equality under the law.

Once you have taken that righteous step, we look forward to forging a mutually respectful co-existence with you in the United States.

Sincerely,

Melanie Nathan, B.A. LL.B LLM
J. Todd Fernandez, JD, LLM
Signed in support of all members of the
LGBT Community in the United States of America.
Contact: Nathan@privatecourts.com

Start a Petition »

TO:
Reverend John C. Wester
Bishop of Salt Lake City
27 C Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Asst:  Shirley Mares:  shirley.mares@dioslc.org

Mr. Kevin Appleby
Migration and Refugee Services
US Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.  20017
email:  kappleby@usccb.org

Mr. Galen Carey
Director of Government Affairs
govaffairs@nae.net

Mr. W. Todd Bassett

Executive Director
executivedirector@nae.net

National Association of Evangelicals
PO Box 23269
Washington, DC 20026

—————————————-

Related articles by Zemanta

• UAFA Revisited by Activists – Failure to Engage Opposition (lezgetreal.com)
• Council Member Jumaane D. Williams Fasting For Immigration Reform (lezgetreal.com)
• Understanding the Flip Flop – Congressman Gutierrez and UAFA in Immigration Reform (lezgetreal.com)
• UAFA: Binational couple protections move forward (bilerico.com)
• Immigration Reform Framework -Inclusion of Permanent Partners Angers Hispanic Groups (lezgetreal.com)

The poll was conducted for the station by the firm Research 2000. In February, a Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found 62 percent of Iowans felt lawmakers had more important things to worry about than same-sex marriage. another poll conducted by the University of Iowa shortly before the Iowa Supreme Court issued its ruling in April 2009 legalizing same-sex marriage found a majority of Iowans favored some sort of legal recognition of same-sex relationships, either through marriage or civil unions.

Justin Uebelhor of the group One Iowa said he thinks a majority of Iowans hare worried about other issues closer to their own families.

“Iowans want their elected officials to focus on issues like jobs and education and really, those pocketbook issues, rather than focusing on divisive issues that are going to pit neighbor against neighbor,” Uebelhor said.

However, Bryan English, a spokesman for the anti-gay Iowa Family Policy Center, told KCCI the poll doesn’t accurately reflect the feelings of most Iowans.

KCCI

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Difference Between OneIowa.org and OneIowa.com (queerty.com)
• The Iowa GOPer Isn’t the Only One Who Wants to Skink Fred Karger’s Presidential Campaign (queerty.com)

In the face of June 16th, the date Arguments will commence in the California Proposition 8 Case, the American Constitution Society (ACS) is distributing the brief,  “The Prop 8 Court Can Have it All: Justice, Precedent, Respect for Democracy, and an Appropriately Limited Judicial Role,” an Issue Brief by Rebecca L. Brown, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. In this Issue Brief, Professor Brown discusses Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the United States Constitution requires states to permit marriage between individuals of the same sex. read more and download the issue brief here…

Excerpts:
“I suggest that in this case, it would not be a dereliction of duty, indeed it would fulfill the best expectations we have of the federal judicial role, to resolve the case on strong, unassailable, time-honored, and yet narrow, grounds. The result would be that same-sex couples in California would benefit from the ruling, because it would be very precisely tailored to the unique facts of this case.”

“Now the unique aspect of this case begins to emerge. Same-sex couples in California are guaranteed the right to enjoy the complete package of obligations and entitlements in the marriage bundle, but the right to enter into marriage, once afforded, has now been withdrawn. In a federal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause, then, the action that the state9 must defend here is not the denial, across the board, of marriage status to same-sex couples. Rather, the action to be defended here is that, from the pool of all couples who are lawfully entitled to avail themselves of the marriage bundle in the state, the state singled out just one subgroup—those in same-sex relationships—and demoted them by relegating them to another status known as domestic partnership rather than marriage, without changing any of the underlying components of that bundle.”

This is an exceedingly valuable Brief and we commend its Author.

© 2008; Pictures: Melanie’s daughter, Refael (3) at Prop 8 protest

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• California Judge Sets Date June 16 For PROP 8 Closing Argument (lezgetreal.com)
• CA Media Sue for Right to Broadcast Prop 8 Trial Final Arguments (lezgetreal.com)
• EQCA Award Dinner and Justice Moreno’s Moving Remarks (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

5-31-10 Melanie Nathan

This so called  Lesbian Study has been supported and published by a right wing anti-gay hate group, which seeks to Judge the female homosexual, that would be  Lesbians, through  worship activity as an intrinsic factor to reach this conclusion  “As the evidence indicates, more family brokenness in family of origin and less frequent worship correlate positively with homosexual activity.”  thereby effecting yet another biased gay bash!

I guess they forgot to factor in one simple fact – “If you are lesbian you are not welcome in many churches – hence why the heck go worship?”

Here it is

Women (aged 14-44) who have not had a homosexual sexual partner in the past year are more likely to worship at least weekly and to have grown up in intact families than those who have had a homosexual sexual partner in the past year.

According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), 2.1 percent of women who grew up in intact married families and attend religious services at least weekly have had a homosexual sexual partner in the year prior to being asked, followed by women who grew up in other family structures and worship at least weekly (4.6 percent), those who grew up in intact married families and never worship (7.3 percent), and those who grew up in other family structures and never worship (9.5 percent).

Examining structure of family of origin only, four percent of women who grew up in intact married families have had a homosexual sexual partner in the year prior to being asked, followed by women who grew up in intact cohabiting families (4.3 percent), those from married stepfamilies (6 percent), single divorced parent families (6.6 percent), always single parent families (6.6 percent), and cohabiting stepparent families (9.6 percent).

Examining current religious attendance only, 2.8 percent of women who worship at least weekly have had a homosexual sexual partner in the year prior to being asked, followed by women who worship between one and three times a month (2.9 percent), those who worship less than once a month (6.9 percent), and those who never attend religious services (8.7 percent)

Related Insights from Other Studies
Several other studies throw some light on why this might be so. Michele Dillon of Yale University reported that 44 percent of frequent Catholic church attendees “said that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex were wrong,” compared to 10 percent “of those who attended occasionally or never.”

Darren Sherkat of Southern Illinois University also found that heterosexual women have much higher rates of church attendance than homosexual women.

Examining the current family structure of homosexual men, Daryl Higgins of Deakin University reported that homosexual men who married women usually did so because “it seemed natural” or they “wanted children or family life.” Separation or divorce from their spouses often “led to an increase in the range of sexual behaviors engaged in with other men.”

As the evidence indicates, more family brokenness in family of origin and less frequent worship correlate positively with homosexual activity.

Here are the esteemed researches.  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. and D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D.Dr. Fagan is senior fellow and director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) at Family Research Council. Dr. Sullins is an associate professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America.

Visit the study and then ……

Message to MAPP :  AS requested we have complied with the usual norm of attribution and to that we add – your study is worthless and a waste of good resources.  Why don’ t you spend it to study the relationship between worship and ignoring the RAPE of Deaf Children by Priests!   See if there is a connect there.  You know maybe too much worship?

MA10C02
family research council
801 g street nw
washington dc 20001
800-225-4008
www.frc.org
Please feel free to make additional copies of this resource, says MAPPING AMERICA – We only ask that you comply with standard norms of attribution to the Family Research Council and to the Marriage and Religion Research Institute. www.mappingamericaproject.org Marriage and Religion Research Institute / Editor: Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. / Managing Editor: Michael Leaser

ARTICLE POSTED by Melanie Nathan
mel@lezgetreal.com

The Separation of Church & State

The case for separating Church and State;  made directly by religious right themselves!  Here is a couple, happily married, with no scandal in sight (yet) – Using the Pulpit to Step on our RIGHTS as Women and Lesbians -  and against all who would be equal!

Cindy Jacobs, founder of Generals International, is according to her website and her own authorship “a respected prophet who travels the world ministering not only to crowds of people, but to heads of nations.  Perhaps her greatest ministry is to world influencers who seek her prophetic advice.” ( does anyone have the word ‘influencers’ in their lexicon?)  Her husband  Mike Jacobs is Co-founder of Generals International.  Mike worked in the airline industry as an analyst and controller, she notes!

However the schtik seems to incorporate a somewhat unusual and boundless commercial model of Prophecy-Prayer-Politico – as  in the real message – “Buy this CD which is about winning 2010 and while we are doing it- and kicking Kagan for being a lesbian – lets pretend we see things in the dark of night like fires in our bedrooms, renderings of Devilish Angels and we scream – PAY me Pay Me!!!”  (or was that scream ‘YOU ARE CURED.’)

With the  Mrs. Jacobs Ministry ’s concluding point  # 7 in their Statement of Faith “We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, with equality across racial, gender, and class differences,”  we are left with little doubt as to sentiments pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity.

If ever you thought your rights were being stamped upon by lunatics, you were right! Read on…

The only perceivable or even feasible  argument (if you be so inclined)  that may possibly serve to  justify the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and its continued defense by the Obama Administration, is the one based on religious grounds and religious argument.

For as long as DOMA remains law and continues to be defended by any US administration in the Courts of the United States of America,  we as a country are  the religious argument in denial of LGBT parity and basic civil rights.

Yet repeal legislation, The Respect for Marriage Act, remains hostage in Congress to the tired hope that other piecemeal legislation will pass first!  How much longer can we remain suckers for dangling carrots foisted in our faces as meaningless derivatives for what need NOT be the long path ahead?

This video is the Religious Right  – for as long as DOMA is in our legal lexicon, we remain the subjects of this lunacy and its influence in our Congress.  That is why Videos such as this OUGHT to make the case for Separation of Church and State as a matter of absolute and vigorous urgency. President Obama  REPEAL DOMA NOW! Do not remain complicit with thieves who steal tax money to further their cause against Equality and Civil Rights in America.

About This Video:   Kyle at  “RIGHT WING WATCH” put together this video of the  “Convergence 2010″ conference where one Cindy Jacobs of Generals International displays her lunacy as she recounts the time she had an amazing visitation with God during which he showed her Seraphim and set her bedroom on fire, before she set about about casting out demons, lifting curses, and conducting faith healings of everything from AIDS to Hepatitis C to Glaucoma and even Cancer.

Would you have the likes of this maniac dictate your rights?  Rise up NOW in counter protest and make your  LGBTQI and ally voice heard  “We will no longer tolerate overt Agendas of Churches such as this weighing in on CIVIL RIGHTS. Keep Church and State Separate Now! Here is the evidence to remove any Tax Free Status -

More on Jacobs taken directly from  the Generals International site quoted as follows:

Cindy Jacobs to her followers:- “In this first of many RPN Teaching Videos, I teach out of the Ephesians 6 passage about the heavens–the unseen realm–and our right and authority, as believers, for dealing with principalities and powers in heavenly places.  Let us take up the armor of God so that we may stand in the day of evil, fill all things, and make known the manifold wisdom of God in the heavenly places.

This is a time to “turn the battle at the gate” and shift the nation in a huge way.  I am asking you to please intercede fervently about the U.S. Supreme Court nomination, as well as the upcoming U.S. elections.

The President’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is a social liberal with no judicial experience, and she is allegedly a lesbian.  Among many other points of concern, Kagan possesses an incredibly hostile view of the military, opposing “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and she endorses presidential control of federal agencies on domestic issues as well as the federal banning of certain books, pamphlets and “hate speech”–a violation of First Amendment rights.  For more information:

• Elena Kagan Profile from FRC Action’s thecloakroomblog.org
• Roundup of Articles on Kagan from FRC’s thecloakroomblog.org“

JACOBS continues:- “Let us pray that the Senate Judiciary Committee“  ( melanie says: chuckle, I am praying too in my Temple- let us see whose G-d wins!) She goes on to say :” would thoroughly and diligently examine Kagan’s qualifications.  May the new Supreme Court Justice pick be someone who will uphold righteousness in this Nation.  Here are some action steps, outlined by Faith2Action.org, which we can take:

1.The following seven Republicans sadly voted for Kagan in 2009 in the 61-31 vote to confirm her as Solicitor General.  Please call each to say “oppose and filibuster Elena Kagan” right away. Let’s seize momentum!  Kyl (R-AZ, 202-224-4521), Hatch (R-UT, 202-224-5251), Coburn (R-OK, 202-224-5754), Lugar (R-IN, 202-224-4814), Snowe (R-ME, 202-224-5344), Collins (R-ME, 202-224-2523), Gregg (R-NH, 202-224-3324).  Also please call new Senator Scott Brown (R-MA, 202-224-4543)

2.  Send correspondence to the offices of your Senators.

a.  Chaplain Klingenschmitt’s Pray in Jesus’ Name organization can send a fax petition to all 100 U.S. Senators, or a couple of smaller groups of swing-vote or Judiciary Committee Senators on your behalf, opposing this nomination.  Click here for details on sending your petitions.

b.  The Family Research Council has also set up a system for sending letters to your Senators in the form of an email or a printed letter.  For details, click here.”

Generals International mentions its membership to  the EVANGELICAL COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY For more information call 800-323-9473 ” Generals International is a member of ECFA” – However nowhere on the General International site do we see any reference to Tax Status – except for their self confessed designation as a church through their own commentary, as well as this membership to ECFA.

“Here taken from their site is ECFA Best Practices:

While ECFA Standards are fundamental to the accountability process, they are only a starting point to operating a church or other charity with integrity. In addition to the Standards, ECFA has developed a series of best practices which encourage organizations to strive for every higher levels of excellence. Best practices are always relative. To determine which practices are “best” for your organization, you must first identify what results your organization is trying to achieve.

One of the following documents has been customized for churches:

• ECFA Best Practices (PDF)”

Generals International , P.O. Box 340, Red Oak, TX, 75154, Phone: 1 972 576 8887 Fax: 1 972 576 8899

E-mail: generals@generals.org

Written By Melanie Nathan
mel@lezgetreal.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Christian conservatives target seated judges (sfgate.com)
• White House Defends DOMA From Mass. Law Suit (lezgetreal.com)

Calling for a New Direction: Marrying DREAM ACT to UAFA

Grassroot sloggers amount to a handful, a small dedicated group that has done an enormous amount of work with no resources at hand.  This group of people, some under the Out4Immigration banner and others, unpaid independent activists, have fought hard for the ideal of one basic right – EQUALITY – and in this instance equality under the immigration law.

Gays and Lesbian spouses/partners in the USA cannot sponsor foreign born partners for immigration to the USA, commensurate with that very right, freely exercised, by different-gender couples.

Contextually, this fight has been going on for well over a decade and has a history of Bills introduced, none of which garnished as much traction as the Bill introduced by Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York,  last year, The Uniting AMERICAN Families Act. (UAFA)

While on the path to sponsorship and at a time where there were already over 100 co sponsors of the House Bill as well as a significant number of Senators in support, a case occurred in Pacifica, California that brought media and mainstream attention to the issue and the severity of its inequities.

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s introduction of Private Bill #867 into Congress, in support of Shirley Tan’s plight, spurred great LGBT ally Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) into action and the first ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA was held on on June 3^rd 2009.  This together with a ‘friendly’ and ‘ LGBT rights promising President’,  Democratic majority in Congress opened the door for the real possibility of greater sponsorship for UAFA and immigration equality for LGBT permanent partners. (Shirley Tan’s moving testimony at the SJC can be seen and heard here.)

However at that June 03, critical  juncture – instead of seizing the opportunity, a small organization known as Immigration Equality, purporting ownership tantamount to domain in this arena of  LGBT equality rights, decided with a lobby to some democratic members of Congress, that UAFA could never get the traction it needed as a stand-alone bill in Congress and figured that we would be better off by tying UAFA into Comprehensive Immigration reform, which they asserted was imminent as far back as June of last year.

The more they advocated and the more they pushed for LGBT inclusion in CIR, the more bullets they put in the toe of UAFA as stand alone legislation.   This has been covered extensively in my bi-national column here on the LGR site.

Organizations were led by Immigration Equality ORG to believe they had the goods to deliver; and in their advocacy they changed strategy, seeking UAFA’s inclusion in immigration reform, while failing  to do any real due diligence, other than to canvass a few representatives in Congress and the Senate.

They also scoped and spoke to a few Latino organizations for support, but failed to take real stock of the impossible task ahead.  Soon everyone was equating OUR stand alone ‘equality bill’ with the BIG comprehensive Immigration reform picture.

They sauntered through the Health Care debacle, watching the Democrats fall like flies to political fear, costing the American people ‘The Public Option, ‘ and not for one minute did this self appointed threesome of strategists pay attention to how this would impact immigration reform in the future.

Health Care resulted in Immigration Reform, and not its new hopeful appendage, UAFA, taking a backseat, only to show up now in a much more aggressive anti immigration climate, to wit – Arizona!

Did the genius of Immigration Equality anticipate this?   Probably not and they should have known better.   But when things happen that one does not anticipate, it is an opportunity for leadership to get out the strategy thermometer and check the temperature.  What are the facts behind this story?  Accountability and transparency apparently not in the  Immigration Equality Lexicon.

Failure in transparency and unwillingness to involve more than a handful,  in a decision so momentous, sets Immigration equality up now for having to take responsibility especially having claimed full ownership to the so-called strategy.  At the very least,they ought to seek  external advice from the community, especially the bi-national community, which happens to be the true owners of the rights at stake.  Perhaps Rachel Tiven could have placed a call to Kate Kendell at  NCLR and to others,  and called for a collection of brains to re assess the picture.

So now in the midst of hailing Congressman Gutierrez for finally coming on board and Senators Schumer, Reid et al for the  (mere) framework for Comprehensive immigration reform, and a whole year later – we have indeed put UAFA to bed. Why? Because if we try and advocate for a stand alone UAFA, any representative who is not asleep at the wheel – will simply tell us to wait.  Guess what? Another year will go by and the balance in Congress will change and we will be back to square one, while continuing  to foster the banishment of our LGBT married and partnered bi-national citizens and residents, some  into exile, detention, and unnecessary risky asylum proceedings. Even Shirley Tan remains at great risk!

Yesterday I received information from an activist whom some of you may know as TIFF; and he says “I’m just back from “jail for CIR,” but the talk is edging toward stand alone bills for Ag-Jobs and the Dream Act given the Republicans flat out opposition to anything Obama wants to do.  This means we might consider focusing more on UAFA as a stand-alone again as well.”

Hallelujah! A year later someone else is speaking ‘my speak;’ and endorsing the fact that Immigration Equality is no longer qualified to own immigration equality!  They have led us on a wild goose chase, all the while collecting the good will and good money of desperate bi-nationals.  G-d I hope I am proved wrong; or alternatively they had better wake up and take the fork in the road.

Tiff goes on to say “But generally, whether we go UAFA alone, or in CIR – we still have major opposition from Evangelicals and USCCB that is going unaddressed.   I think this is a huge hole in our advocacy.”

I agree but all the more reason to jump start UAFA NOW while we have the chance at shooting for the friendly numbers in Congress.  Do not tell me we have no traction!  We have not tried. For as long as we have sailed the river of CIR- we have allowed UAFA to submerge.  No matter what anyone tells you, advocating for UAFA as a stand alone is vastly different from what Immigration Equality has poured its resources into.

Maybe if the Dream Act, Ag and UAFA – were put into an omnibus – and not set up with the ‘12 million biometric pay fines amnesty and fix the border controversy,’ we would get Congress to open their hearts!

Quite frankly when it come to equality related Immigration Bills, the evangelicals are welcome to risk putting their Church communities on the line in a climate that favors equity for gays and lesbians and those who abhor what the Dream Act will remedy, will eventually fall to conscience or take their front row seats in their self preserved Hell.

Recently Tiff put out a letter addressed to the USCCB telling them to STOP their advocacy against our community.   ” Some feel,”  says Tiff,  “that we should be quiet and not rock the boat since we have made gains in terms of being included in various frameworks (which is a great gain, but far from a win.)”

I wonder if he is referring to Immigration Equality here? I chose not to ask.

This articles shows that this struggle is FAR from over, and that the Evangelicals and others will regroup and come back.  http://www.congress.org/news/2010/05/26/rift_grows_between_immigration_allies

The hole that Tiff speaks of is  our failure as a movement to directly engage the opposition.   Most of the work on the religious front is focused on developing support among the more welcoming faiths.

It is here that I must add my agreement by way of example.  I would submit to Tiff that it is more than not engaging our opposition, it is a flagrant refusal to engage our opposition when we have the opportunity.  Example in point – After Shirley Tan gave testimony at the June 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA, I left the hearing Room together with Shirl, Jay and then 12 year old twins; we were excited to go door to door in the Dirksen Building to Advocate for UAFA.   (The IE switch to CIR advocacy was to start the very next day, when HONDA introduced related legislation.)

We asked the staff (no names mentioned,) from Immigration Equality, for a list of representatives and senators we should go and visit to introduce Shirl, the family and to tell the story.  The momentum was significant.  We had all afternoon and would have seen anyone.

However we were explicitly told by the IE staffer NOT to waste our time going to visit with Republicans.  Naive at the time, I was surprised, because I always believe that even if a person overtly opposes my viewpoint, I have a duty to provide the education in the hope that it could nestle somewhere in the opposition’s subconscious, waiting for that rainy day of reckoning.

Tiff goes on to say, yesterday “that as with any campaign, if we ignore the opposition, they are left unfettered to do their undermining.  I really recommend that we concentrate more effort on opposing the USCCB and Evangelicals for UAFA and for our broader movement.  I think it’s silly to think that if we are quiet – they will let this happen.”

Yes, I agree TIFF is correct.  However we would need to be looking at UAFA as a stand alone and/or include he Dream Act. That would be the best way. To marry the two.

We could move quickly from framework to BILL, and call it Remedial or Equality Immigration Reform – and amnesty and Biometrics and Borders could fall into CIR as a separate piece of legislation; the division is an excellent plan, because the Equality Immigration reform is in essence remedying an inequity to basic existing rights-  to existing policy and law.

Whereas Biometrics and Amnesty entertains the conference  of a new privilege to undocumented immigrants. The reason to keep border security with this second Bill – would be to encourage Republican votes and same would remain a response to Arizona’s encroachment on Federal law.

Please keep your eyes open for a follow up Article on how we can engage our opposition and how we should push for UAFA as a stand alone, with the possibility of Including DREAM ACT.

By Melanie Nathan
Nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House Calls for Immigration Reform Dsicussion with Senators Schumer & Graham (lezgetreal.com)
• Congressman Nadler talks UAFA Strategy with Bi-National Activists seeking Immigration Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform Framework -Inclusion of Permanent Partners Angers Hispanic Groups (lezgetreal.com)
• Understanding the Flip Flop – Congressman Gutierrez and UAFA in Immigration Reform (lezgetreal.com)
• Out4Immigration Relentless in Pursuit of UAFA – Updates (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform Framework -Inclusion of Permanent Partners Angers Hispanic Groups (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Immigration Reform Proposal – Mentions Intent to Include Permanant Partners (lezgetreal.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Comment by Melanie: – I am posting this for more than one reason:

1. We have desperate sisters amongst us and we must provide help;

2.When I heard about the plight of Roxann and Cindy, I gave the last of what I had for the month; I could not imagine the thought of these people homeless and they were 12 hours away from being thrown out of the motel; I am embarrassed to speak about what I gave, but now I have no more to give and  if this in any way inspires someone else, I will put my own embarrassment to the side.

3. Discrimination is bad – but how can a Church – three Churches- close the door on any human being?

4. I am asking anyone who wants to help these women to e-mail me at nathan@privatecourts.com; and

5. Gay Hate must be exposed and exposed and exposed!

6-6-10 -UPDATE AND GOOD NEWS and a piece of advice

The Family finally found a solution. They returned to Ohio, where Cindy was from this last week finding some hope for a new start with a relative/ – They extend thanks and best wishes to all those who helped them.

Now the Advice – Get out of the Bible Belt before your money runs out!  Thanks everyone for your kind attention and support.

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts

Related articles by Zemanta

• School Bus Driver Calls Child of Lesbian Couple a “Contradiction” (pinkbananaworld.com)
• School Bus Driver Calls Child of Lesbian Couple a “Contradiction” (lezgetreal.com)

Accommodating the royal book tour,  Larry King Live last night, interviewed Laura Bush about her book Spoken From the Heart. Asking about gay marriage, we may find a closet democrat outed by her perspective…. or are the Republicans about to helm Same-Sex Marriage equality.  Remember it was a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) who we can thank for the last nail in the coffin of marriage equality.

Laura Bush:”I think that there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage traditionally as between a man and a woman — but also know that, when couples are committed to each other and love each other they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has.
Larry King: “So would that be an area where you disagree?”
Laura Bush: “I guess that would be an area where we disagree. I understand totally what George thinks about marriage being between a man and a woman, and it’s a real, um, really, reversal of that to accept gay marriage … ”
Larry King: “But you do?”
Laura Bush: “But I think we could, yeah. I think it’s a generational thing that will slowly … ”
Larry King: “But it’s coming?”
Laura Bush: “But it will come.”

The ladies on the View, today discussed  the Laura Bush interview with King. Elizabeth Hasselhoff who recently spent an evening visiting with and discussing same-sex marriage on a very personal level with  Lesbian pop icon Melissa Etheridge,  suggested that everyone should engage in discussions with people whom same-sex marriage directly impacts to truly understand the issues before speaking against gay and lesbian marriage.    Talking about a subject with no real insight, says Whoopi Goldberg, is not the way to go.

Maybe Laura Bush will open some hearts and minds; I have always believed that the best asset to equality would be voices not our own. The voices that can step out of old religious moulds and truly embrace equality in marriage from its civil perspective are the one’s that will make a difference and ought ti be honed by our activist community.

Hasselhoff is an open Republican – sometimes I wonder if Laura is a closet Democrat.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

5-12-10    Melanie Nathan

Kentucky Equality Federation today called for the termination or route change for Jefferson County School Bus Driver Ronell Mattingly and an official apology from Crosby Middle School Assistant Principal Angela Allen.

“The issue centers on the suspension of the child from the bus simply because she was offended when others on the bus were making fun of gay and lesbian people. When she brought this to the attention of bus driver, the driver thought it was humorous and told the child she was a ‘contradiction’ according to the report filed with our organization,” stated Rick Wolfe, spokesman for Kentucky Equality Federation’s Discrimination, Hate Crimes, and School Bullying Committee, and special adviser to the president for youth and discrimination.  “As a result of the child bringing it to the attention of the bus driver, she was suspended for a three (3) day period.

The fact that the bus driver called her a ‘contradiction’ because she was the child of a lesbian couple, in addition to the way the school handled the situation is a serious problem.”

According to the parents of the child, on March 31, 2010 the school bus driver told the child she was a “contradiction,” because she has same-sex lesbian parents and has been subsequently and continuously punished for calling the bus driver a ‘jerk’ because of her remark.

“The fact that anyone still feels they have the right to make judgment calls regarding other peoples life choices is the reason that organizations like Kentucky Equality Federation and COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere) exist,” stated Julia Oiler Spiegel, Coordinator of the COLAGE Kentucky Chapter, and Kentucky Equality Federation’s Children of LGBTI Parents Outreach Director. The Kentucky Chapter of COLAGE is also a member of the Commonwealth Coalition. “As a parent, lesbian or straight, I would question the safety of my child while being chaperoned by this bus driver. I cannot help but wonder the drivers response if a child reported being bullied, harassed or assaulted while riding this bus. I commend this child for her willingness to defend her family unit, however that may be defined.”

According to the parents, children on the school bus were joking about gay and lesbian people. This offended the twelve year old child and brought it to the attention of the school bus driver. The school bus driver asked the child to have her parents call her, the parents did and the school bus driver allegedly repeated the statement to one of the parents, Evon Reeves.

Evon Reeves statement: “My daughter who rides the school bus to and from school, recently there were some comments made on the bus regarding gays, my daughter said that word offended her because her mom was gay; the bus driver laughed and replied ‘that’s a contradiction.’ Being 12 years old at the time, she did not know what that meant; my daughter did ask her what that meant and the bus driver ignored her. My daughter did get smart with her which I am not condoning at all and her punishment was suspension off the bus for 3 days and she was suppose to write a letter. The day this happened, my daughter called me at work told me what happened and I really could not believe an adult would say something so absurd.

I called the Blankenbaker Bus Depot like the bus driver had told my daughter to ask me to do; the bus driver returned my call later that night and said the same exact thing to me, which showed me what mentality she actually had. The next day the driver made her sit in back of the bus with High School Students, and would not let any of her friends turn around and talk to her.
I did not receive a call the from school until 3 days later, when I and spoke to Assistant Principal Angela Allen, she stated my daughter had been suspended off bus due to being ’smart.’

Mattingly wanted a written apology which my partner and I didn’t agree with; Assistant Principal Angela Allen stated my daughter should simply ignore such comments and grow some thicker skin. I reiterated that the comments were made to my 12 year old child, from an adult. My daughter has enough to deal with such as peer pressure, growing up, homework, etc. and should not be subject to bigotry from a school bus driver who is suppose to be driving the bus and protecting children, not arguing with a child.

When my daughter returned to school, the driver made her sit in back of the bus with High School Students, and would not allow any of her friends to turn around and talk to her. After that I did not let my daughter ride the bus until April 22, 2010.

When my daughter started to get off the bus the driver stood up in front of her and asked for her apology letter. My daughter told her that her family made the decision that she didn’t have to write it, then; the driver then aggressively held the referral in her face and stated ‘this says you do.’ My daughter explained again she was told not to apologize. The driver then stated she was going to give another referral and hoped she got suspend from the bus for the rest of the year. She has not ridden the bus sense.

The parents turned to Kentucky Equality Federation for assistance after being stonewalled by the school, as well as the Jefferson County Board of Education’s Transportation Office, who has refused to listen to the parents. The child still isn’t riding the school bus because she is now also afraid of the driver.

“The audacity of a school bus driver to say such a thing to a child is appalling and shows the bigotry gay and lesbian parents face,” stated Kentucky Equality Federation President Jordan Palmer. “The school bus driver has authority over the bus, and should have asked the students making derogatory comments about gay and lesbian people to stop, or they should have been the ones punished; had comments been made about any other minority group, I believe this situation would have been handled in a completely different manner.” Palmer continued, “The school certainly is not giving ‘an environment that fosters self-discipline and self direction’ as stated on their website.”

Reeves continued: “We have moved beyond ’some type of disciplinary action,’ or a simple don’t let it happen again. My daughter cannot ride the bus because she feels threatened by the bus driver who made her sit in the very back of the bus with high school students after this happened. I want them know they can’t make such statements. I want them to know they cannot do that to my child, or any other child.”

5-5-10  MELANIE NATHAN

Lambda Legal Case:

“This is a terrific outcome for our client and her six-and-a-half-year-old son. New York has recognized the legal parent-child relationship established after this couple entered into a civil union in Vermont.”

(New York, May 5, 2010) — In a decision yesterday, all seven judges on the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that a non-biological mother, represented by Lambda Legal, is a legal parent and entitled to seek custody and visitation based on a Vermont civil union that she and her former partner entered into prior to the birth of their son.

“This is a terrific outcome for our client and her six-and-a-half-year-old son. New York has recognized the legal parent-child relationship established after this couple entered into a civil union in Vermont,” said Susan Sommer, Director of Constitutional Litigation at Lambda Legal. “While this is a great result for Debra and her son, unfortunately a majority of the Court did not go further and overrule its 1991 Alison D. That decision allowed only biological or adoptive parents to seek custody and visitation. Today’s decision only added one new category of protection for families. Children whose parents conceive them using an anonymous donor but haven’t traveled out of state to enter into a civil union or marriage should be protected as well. The legislature should follow the lead taken by many other states and pass legislation clarifying children’s legal relationships with both their intended parents.”

The Court of Appeals ruled that “New York will recognize parentage created by a civil union in Vermont. Our determination that Debra H. is M.R.’s parent allows her to seek visitation and custody at a best-interest hearing.”

With this victory in New York’s highest court, Debra H. now is able to proceed in the trial court to seek custody and visitation with her son, as well as to provide him with financial support. A trial judge will ultimately rule on what is in the best interest of the child.

Today, the Court of Appeals also decided another case, H.M. v. E.T., involving a same-sex couple who conceived a child with an anonymous donor, but in which the non-biologically related partner now argues that she is not the child’s parent and should not be required to provide child support. The high court ruled that Family Court has jurisdiction to hear the case and determine whether the woman is the child’s parent.

Background on Debra H. v. Janice R.

Lambda Legal represents Debra H. in her effort to continue to parent the son she and her former civil union partner, Janice R., planned together. The couple agreed they would raise a family together in a two-parent household and conceived their son using in vitro fertilization. Janice promised that Debra would formally adopt their child, and they met with an adoption lawyer prior to their son’s birth. In 2003, before he was born, they entered into a civil union in Vermont, which at that time was the most legally significant relationship available to same-sex couples under U.S. law. Debra was by Janice’s side throughout labor and delivery and cut their son’s umbilical cord; her last name was included in their son’s name on his birth certificate. In the years that followed Debra gave him the day and night love, nurture and care of a mother. When it came time for the second-parent adoption, Janice, who is a lawyer, advised Debra “as a lawyer” that they didn’t need to get the courts involved and that Debra would always be the boy’s parent. When the couple’s relationship ended in 2006, Debra continued actively to parent her son, who moved with Janice into an apartment only a block away. Debra and her son were together daily, and she often put him to bed.

Early in May of 2008, when the child was four-and-a-half-years-old, Janice abruptly refused Debra any further contact with him. Debra immediately filed for emergency joint custody and restoration of parental access. The trial court ordered interim regular ongoing visitation and allowed Debra’s petition to proceed to trial. When Janice appealed, Lambda Legal entered the case in early 2009 on Debra’s behalf. The case was argued in the Appellate Division, First Department in March 2009, and on April 9, 2009, the trial court decision was reversed. The New York Court of Appeals then accepted the case for appeal and heard argument on February 17, 2010. Many prominent legal and child welfare experts filed friend-of-the-court briefs on Debra’s side, including the New York State Bar Association, the New York City Bar Association, the National Association of Social Workers, child advocates and 45 family law professors on the faculty of every law school in New York State.

The child’s court-appointed attorney also asked the court to give Debra the opportunity to protect their parent-child relationship.

Susan Sommer, Director of Constitutional Litigation at Lambda Legal, argued the appeal on behalf of Debra. She is joined by co-counsel Bonnie Rabin and Orrit Hershkovitz of Cohen, Hennessey, Bienstock & Rabin, P.C. and by Lambda Legal affiliated attorney Jeremy Sanders. Debra’s son is represented by Anthony Parisi, III and counsel Jennifer Colyer of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, who argued the case in the Court of Appeals.

Posted by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

4/30/10-by Paula Brooks
In a surprise vote, the Hawaiian the House of Representatives has approved a measure allowing same-sex civil unions by a 31-20 margin.

The bill, which would give unmarried same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights as married couples under state law, had been stalled but was unexpectedly revived on the last day of this year’s Hawaiian legislative session was passed in the Senate in January by a vote of 18-7 and now only requires the signature of Gov. Linda Lingle to become law.

Lingle, a Republican, hasn’t said whether she’ll reject it or sign it into law but her office said later that she would carefully review the bill.

If approved, Hawaii will become one of six states – along with California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington – to grant essentially all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage: Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The Aloha State has been one of the original battlegrounds for LGBT rights since the early 90s. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruling nearly made Hawaii the first state to legalize same-sex marriage before Hawaiian voters approved the nation’s first “defense of marriage” constitutional amendment in 1998.

This year the issue has proven equally divisive, with religious groups arguing that civil unions are a step the “down the slippery slope” toward legalizing same-sex marriage.

This the civil union law had also been part of a contentious fight in this legislative session. It appeared to be dead earlier this year when the House didn’t take a vote on the measure and Hawaiian lawmakers postponed further action on the bill indefinitely after massive protests by church groups and fears that Lingle would veto it. It was only by a series last minute legislative maneuvers that the bill even received a vote before the House session adjourned for the year.

Gov. Lingle now has 45 days to either sign or veto the bill.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hawaiian Senate Likely To Vote On Civil Union Bill Friday (lezgetreal.com)
• Hawaii House Does Voice Vote To Delay Civil Union Debate Until 2011 (lezgetreal.com)

My Plan is to take this Petition to D.C. in July. Please support it- it will not hurt anyone and nor will it derogate from any future rights which we may have restored to us or which we may gain via long term legislation.  ALL LGBTQI support your bi-national brothers and sisters- you are a heartbeat away from being in the same heart wrenching situation.

While we wait for immigration equality under the US Immigration and Naturalization Act -to sponsor our foreign-born partners, we endure unconscionable and inhumane situations on a day to day, hour by hour basis.  Our partners are persecuted at our airports by the profiling of ICE officials and arbitrarily turned away, despite having visas; our relationships are denied through our inability to live together in the US, or we live in fear, hiding or exile.  We lose jobs, we lose homes, we lose our time with extended family, we give up our pensions.  We are detained and deported.

So at last holiday time,  when families were gathering together  in happiness and joy, I suggested a way to remember those Americans. their beloved and children who, because of  inequality caused by DOMA to the immigration law,  cannot share holidays-  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 before accomplishing some rights under the immigration law.

Recently Immigration Equality posted this statement on their BLOG when referring to Immigration reform:  ”The Senate immigration reform bill will be followed by a House bill, too. In-between, there will be countless steps, challenges and opportunities that must be addressed. As we have seen in the current healthcare debate, legislation does not move easily, or without hard work. Immigration reform will be similar: It is imperative that we build grassroots support for our families, Congressional support for UAFA and broad public support for fair immigration policies.”

So just in case we become the public option of immigration reform, I believe that this makes the argument for a stop gap measure to help keep our families together in the USA. We want a SPECIAL VISA.

If you would like to read about the hardship suffered that necessitates such a VISa, please visit,  http://lezgetreal.com/?p=24121

Special Visa Process & Moratorium: Same-Sex Partner Sponsorship

Related articles by Zemanta

• BiNational Petition:- Remedial Visa -Stop Gap- Pending Legislation (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)
• Out4Immigration Relentless in Pursuit of UAFA – Updates (lezgetreal.com)
• Bi-National Same-Sex Couples Continue to Wait- The Case for a Special Visa! (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform, Binational Anger Builds – Plea by Reps to include UAFA- (lezgetreal.com)
• reBlog from lezgetreal.com: Equality in Immigration – Activists to Testify for CA State support of UAFA (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)
• Out4Immigration Relentless in Pursuit of UAFA – Updates (pinkbananaworld.com)
• White House Calls for Immigration Reform Dsicussion with Senators Schumer & Graham (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform – Get the LGBT Bi-national Voice heard NOW and LIVE at (lezgetreal.com)
• Steve Ralls: On Eve of Historic March, Hope for LGBT Immigrant Families (huffingtonpost.com)

simplicity in the name of a movement

What happened to our LGBTQI movement?  Since 1970, post Stonewall, – Good question.  Nothing. We have a quest for gay marriage rights, we have a quest for social security, we have a quest for immigration equality, to serve in the army, to not have crimes committed against us because we are gay, we have a quest for employment equality and the list goes on.

We are denied many rights in many States under State Law

We are denied 1,137 rights on a Federal Level

For almost 40 years we have been rallying around organizations,  while they advance their ownership- of the future of our rights,which has ultimately turned into a cannibalization of our movement.

There is NO MOVEMENT eat has been chomped at and is now in pieces called DADT, ENDA, DOMA – What do we really want?Is it not complete equality – The color of my skin is GAY!

Environment:

• BAD:

We are stuck in a milieu of Republican obstructionists,
an election (midterm) about to happen
a majority in Congress
a President the victim of serious racial attacks and unprecedented disrespect
Catholic Bishops and Evangelicals impacting Congress and the separation of Church and State.

• GOOD:
• Is this any different from USA as usual?
• Well we have one advantage at this time -a majority in Congress.  (ah but the elections! Oh well that lasted a minute!

How does this comport?  The current environment  only precludes piecemeal legislation-and yet we forge on the same path to nowhere.

Our LGBT organizations have formed mostly around specific arenas of our struggle, which has actually wedged us all into compartments in our activism. There has been no Universal message for our movement.  Guess what? That is the tone the USA public has been hearing and so they are accepting the tone we have set.  Our own attitude by way of how we approach our rights- asking for a little at a time – reflects uncertainty and insecurity- it  has done little more than to make us look as if we believe we agree with our marginalization.

The closest endeavor to universal message is “marriage”  and that one is fraught with problems. Why? Because it sets us up for the religious arguments which have been working successfully against us and also for the “leave it to the States” excuse also working against us.

I believe all is not negative and I do not look back along the path of the past and say ‘oops we made a mistake.’  No, we did not; it was our path and it is done and it has gained a lot for us by way of visibility. There is so much more that is acceptable that was not and the marriage road has given us a good measure of legitimacy and won us many friends.

But what I am critical of, is our failure to take stock when we enter crossroads and I believe we are at one right now.

In other words we cannot go forward in the same direction, we must choose a left or right turn and then we can forge a new road. The left turn is = do something completely different and the right turn = do the same thing.

What we have going for us is a Volcano about to erupt and we must harness that energy in a way that will work.  The first little eruption can be noted by GET EQUAL’S push for Choi et al – chaining themselves to the White House fence in the hope of getting attention – because in truth that is all they may have accomplished and yet did not.  It caused more harm and the energy was not favorably harnessed. (see earlier posts)

So back to my point – the larva bubbling under are all of you who have “equality” as a middle name or in the fore of your mind and others of you who are of good conscience and allies.

So now it is time to utilize what is emerging from beneath – let us take the left turn here. The organizations and leadership can join in or they can crawl like tortoise to the finish line taking the right path.

The Left path is the PINK PRINT – it takes us right back to the beginning – what it does is it gives us the cement – the foundation for equality. If we have a Civil Rights Amendment to the ACT of 1964 – where we ask for one thing – not 100 things. Just one thing. If we pool everything we have into this one thing; hence the number  …1… significantly displayed on the PRINT… and ask for what we are entitled to  A CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT to include the word “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” placed neatly next to the words “race and gender,” we would be setting the foundation for the Mansion to come….

After that our right to  equality is solidified and we cannot be denied anything thereafter.   What will fall will be an Omnibus to repeal all discriminatory law. We will not need ENDA and DADT will fall. As for UAFA – we will no longer have the problem as all the DHS will have to do will be to change their forms a little.

So Find me a champion. Find us a Senator and a member of the House.  Who wants to join this PINK PRINT? Who wants to have a one Goal Movement ?  For 40 years we have tried the other way and we are still begging for one piece of miserable legislation that a gay friendly President has yet to support to the point of passage.

What do we have to lose?

Our lives are no one’s priority – we must stop relying on those who do have a lot to lose  – we are gong to have to make sacrifices and do this from the bottom up – so to speak.  The leadership can follow. But please leadership, HRC,  et al, do not tell us to be patient while you fight for one piece at a time.

There IS no such thing as not possible. But it sure is not possible if you don’t not try.

Signing up for the Pink Print! One Goal – Mission Sexual Orientation and Gender ID as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act.

Melanie Nathan

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• CBS News Lets Hate Group Hijack LGBT Debate (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Video Post: Open Letter to President Barack Obama (lezgetreal.com)
• Mixner’s Twenty Top Lesbians in US Politics – But Where is the Messiah? (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)
• Developing Dan Choi – Service Members Chain themselves to White House Fence (lezgetreal.com)
• 4-10-2010 -THE LGBTQI PINK PRINT – A Liberation Plan for the USA (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

Last year, The California  Assembly Judiciary Committee in Sacramento held a hearing for a Resolution, AJR 15,  authored by Assembly member Kevin de Leon, CA -45, in support of UAFA, The Uniting American Families Act – (HR102 and the California State Senate version, S 424.)

I was privileged to testify at that hearing and pleased that the Assembly passed the resolution, (14-28 – with NO  Republican support,)  and now am delighted that within the next few weeks the Resolution will be heard in the California State Senate Judiciary Committee. I have been invited again to testify at this committee together with fellow victims of bi-national discrimination, Gina Caprio and Amos Lim – both activists with the Group Out-4-Immigration.

AJR 15 declares California’s disapproval of current US Immigration laws which forbids Same-Sex bi-national couples the opportunity from being able to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes.

According to the 2000 Census, at least 35,000 bi-national same sex couples currently live in the United States yet despite whether or not they are recognized as married by their State, they do not have legal authorization to sponsor their spouse or partner to permanently reside in the United States.  This number is significantly low, given that at that time the impact of people meeting and falling in love  over the internet was insignificant.  I have made up my own fuzzy math and belief that those numbers are closer to 99,000 – 200,000 at least.

This serious inequity has resulted in couples forcibly separated, unless the American of the pair choose to exile to a foreign Country. This is particularly impossible for those who would  have to give up businesses, mortgages, homes, jobs, pensions, the ability to work if language is a barrier,  and sometimes shared custody of children, simply to pursue their American right to happiness by having to exile abroad.   Some remain in the USA and their partners go into hiding, risking detention and unable to work; others exile and some suffer separation.

“By the passing of UAFA, The United States would join the more than 18 countries which already give full legal immigration rights and recognition to same sex couples,” says Gina Caprio in an Article on the San Francisco Examiner.

Thanks to the relentless and consistent efforts of Out-4-Immigration , with Tom Tierney at the helm of coordination, Cities around the country have been passing similar resolutions supporting the Uniting American Families Act. As of April 15, cities like Miami Beach, FL and Cambridge MA became the latest to join in support.

The coordination and work on the Resolution has been led by EQCA - who continue their efforts to ensure passage.

I will report further when we get the date to testify.

What you ca do:- 1. Please write your California State Senators and ask them to support this Resolution;  2. If you are interested in getting an action going to have a resolution passed in your own community please contact Tom T. via Out-4-Immigration

Picture: ©Melanie Nathan
In Picture Left to right: Gina Caprio, Amos Lim,  Assembly member Kevin de Leon (D), Melanie Nathan

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

My Story can be read at -  http://lezgetreal.com/?p=24121

Related articles by Zemanta

• LGBT Immigration Rights one Year Milestone for Out4Immigration (lezgetreal.com)
• BREAKING: Out 4 Immigration Spearheads New All Inclusive Plan for UAFA (lezgetreal.com)
• BiNational Petition:- Remedial Visa -Stop Gap- Pending Legislation (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)
• 2009 – Heroes and Zeros! (lezgetreal.com)
• Congressman Nadler talks UAFA Strategy with Bi-National Activists seeking Immigration Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Senators Chuck Schumer & Lindsey Graham write an Article – But where is the Bill? (lezgetreal.com)
• Bi-National Same-Sex Couples Continue to Wait- The Case for a Special Visa! (lezgetreal.com)
• The Grassroot Struggle for LGBTQI Equality in Immigration – New UAFA Sponsor. (lezgetreal.com)
• White House Calls for Immigration Reform Dsicussion with Senators Schumer & Graham (lezgetreal.com)
• Senator Chuck Schumer Is Planning To Exclude Gay And Lesbians From Immigration Reform Bill (topix.net)

4-20-210 -Melanie Nathan

The response to the horrific story of Clay Greene and Harold Scull has been very gratifying and inspiring. Clearly, their story struck a chord in all of us. To some degree we can’t help imagining ourselves in exactly this situation. Forty-eight hours ago, few people knew their names, and now a Facebook page in their honor has more than 7,000 fans. Quite simply, this case demonstrates how our relationships as LGBT people are so fragile, especially when we reach our later years. Just one small incident, in this case a fall down some steps, sends the world crashing down.

This was posted by Kate Kendell on Bilerco Project.

Harold and Clay were in a committed relationship for twenty-five years, and they lived together for twenty years. Both Harold and Clay had worked in Hollywood and were passionate collectors of film memorabilia. Harold had worked for MGM studios in the 1950s and was a favorite of Louis B. Mayer in the studio’s heyday. At the same time, Clay worked in television with many popular stars of that period. In addition to his film industry career, Harold was an accomplished artist and avid collector, especially of Mexican and Central American Santos religious art and artifacts. Art, heirlooms, and memorabilia graced the walls of their leased home, in which they planned to live together until their deaths.

Several folks have commented about the legal status of Clay and Harold’s relationship. These tragic events began in April 2008, one month before the California Supreme Court’s historic marriage ruling. By the time the California Supreme Court ruled and marriages began for that brief six months, Harold was already hospitalized and Clay imprisoned in a nursing home.

We can’t change what happened to Harold and Clay, but we can do what we try to do every day: to create a world where what happened to Harold and Clay never happens again.

An article by Stewart J. Lawrence of the UK’s the Guardian, reveals nothing new nor any surprises about the future of the Uniting American families Act and its relationship to US Immigration reform.   Yet it takes a foreign outlet to show us that UAFA and Immigration Reform do not go well together.

“Just when you thought immigration reform’s prospects couldn’t get any worse, a new “hitch” in the policy debate has emerged. It’s threatening to widen into a public chasm, pitting elements of the pro-reform coalition against one another while giving anti-reform forces a potent new weapon.” Says Stewart J. Lawrence in an Article for the UK Guardian today. Not many mainstream or Blogs or  articles have been written that pronounces upon the path to UAFA in this fashion.  However, for me  and tens of thousands of  same-sex couples, l the hitch has been here for quite a while.  Except we look at it the other way around.

The author illustrates the hindrance to our bi-national dream of equality, from the perspective of the negative impact of Uniting American families Act (UAFA) on the broader immigration reform, from that vantage point.  I, however,  have been writing about UAFA strategy since June 2009, in the belief, that immigration reform is the hitch to us – well to be clear -not on its own – but if we were to rely on it for our LGBT rights.   Why would we want to attach our right  to equality treatment under the existing  Immigration Laws of this Country ( that is the right of the American Spouse to equal treatment under the current law)  to Immigration reform?  This has been my question and for many articles past I have emphasized the danger of such a strategy.  Even if we need overall immigration reform on the myriad of other issues pertaining to immigration and the family, that is a separate issue and one where we would have advantage as well.  However I am speaking about UAFA and Binational spouses and permanent partners.

During this time I have been highly critical of Immigration Equality’s tactics/strategy/plan, and this article which speaks to UAFA being part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform affords me this unfortunate opportunity to tell you all “I told you so!”  This is the first time that I have seen an article that endorses what I said would happen.

Lawrence describes gay rights as the potential hitch in immigration reform. However the point is moot, because our lawmakers have already excluded UAFA from the House immigration reform bill introduced by Rep. Gutierrez. I am not sure if Lawrence ever read my earlier article where I “outed” Senator Chuck Schumer’s intent to exclude UAFA from his Senate version of the bill * – prompting hundreds of calls to the Senator’s office.  When people called, they were told, “Oh that article by Melanie Nathan is only an opinion piece.” And then followed the letter to constituents including a few to my clients, which Lawrence describes as follows:  “And gay rights groups have taken their case directly to Charles Schumer, the chief architect of immigration reform in the Senate. Schumer, who, like Gutierrez in the House, had previously punted on the issue, issued a carefully worded letter on 18 March in which he appeared to signal his willingness to include UAFA under the banner of comprehensive reform – at least, eventually.”  I read the Schumer letter as a foil.  Basically to stop the calls! Wait and see…

So when Schumer introduces the Senate Bill and does exclude UAFA, he will tell us that UAFA will come in via committee, on the back end, what is he really saying?  He is saying that he cannot put UAFA – gay rights – in now because if he did he will lose much needed support for the bill. Does it sound yet as if we are already ‘the public option of CIR?’ (see my articled dated….)   He is also saying that he will not stand up for our right to be included, he will not stand up to the Catholic Bishops who are prepared to lose the bill completely for a desperate Catholic Latina community, rather than have queer rights acknowledged.  Do you really believe that we will remain viable in terms of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) ever?

The Lawrence post is making the point –according to my many earlier articles – where I laid out this exact scenario – by way of logical forecast.  How could our leadership not have seen it? Now we are in check mate. This strategy of going for UAFA as part of CIR has indeed turned out to be at the expense of UAFA as a stand-alone.  Last year (2009) in August, Rep. Speier held a meeting with leaders of the LGBT community in San Francisco. I attended and asked her the question directly;  “If we take on immigration reform as our fight, instead of vigorously pursuing UAFA as a stand alone – will we be shooting ourselves in the toe?” She said yes we may be. In essence she agreed.  She also said at the time that UAFA did not have enough traction.

I know why!  Immigration equality not only took the wrong turn – there was no fork in the road – they made one and then took the wrong turn!

So in response to Lawrence’s article I posted the following comment:

“Thank you for writing this piece. It means a lot to me. On June 3rd 2009, I attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with my client Shirley Tan, who gave testimony for UAFA; whom I helped to receive intro of Private Bill #867  from Senator Feinstein – re her binational deportation situation. I have been a fervent activist for UAFA. The blame for this quagmire lies firmly and squarely with an organization called Immigration equality in D.C. – who have held themselves out to be the preeminent organization on gay Immigration issues in USA.  All the other groups have stepped back and allowed them to own  this realm of advocacy and in essence followed the lead of  a few brains in D.C. who took a path for an entire cause impacting tens and thousands of us, without any transparency or discussion. They succeeded in shaping the dire path….

Instead of seizing the momentum on June 4th after Shirley testified – IE decided that the bus to UAFA was Comprehensive Immigration reform. They began to lobby for that. (since 6/4/2009) So they poured all their resources and fundraising endeavors into this concept. From day one I was very upset and wrote extensively about it on the Lezgetreal blog- that they had used my client in this way.   Shirley had promised to fight for UAFA –   not for CIR. Had they seized the momentum at the time, we could have doubled the UAFA sponsorship and we could have sorted out the problem that remains with UAFA;”  ( and we probably would have had the traction Rep. Speier mentioned was lacking.)

I sat with Senator Feinstein’s immigration legislation staffer in D.C.; and I know what needed to be done to get her co-sponsorship. That would have spurred this on.  When I approached IE they were not willing to hear what I had to say and when I tried to speak to Rachel Tiven about it over lunch in the Cafeteria of the Senate Building, she was dismissive.   They were not willing to pursue Feinstein as they had determined that she was not willing to help the LGBT cause.  That was so far from the truth- they just did not try. They were not willing to listen to what needed to be done. UAFA could have and should have been a stand-alone Bill. The timing was perfect. But they veered off course taking us all with them.

Immigration Equality show your face here – you have got us into check mate. Do you remember me asking you if we would be the sacrificial lamb?  Do you remember me saying this is a bad route because we will never be accepted by the Immigration community and because the immigration law in itself even without Gay rights will be an uphill battle.  Do you remember me saying you were turning your back on UAFA as a stand-alone? Do you still believe you are doing the righ thing?

Just two weeks ago the LGBT Caucus said UAFA can never be a stand alone! It must be included in CIR.  Yet Gutierrez has excluded it and we know Schumer will too. Is that why you are scrambling Immigration equality and asking us all to pay for a BIG ad in the National Newspapers – ?  Is that what this has come to?

Lawrence posts- “And things only got worse in February when immigration rights activists marched on Washington in the hopes of influencing Congress to take up immigration reform, Supporters of UAFA were a visible presence in the crowd, but march leaders wouldn’t let UAFA activists appear on the dais let alone address the large gathering, adding further fuel to the fire. Since the march, some Latino groups, such as the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, a key Latino civil rights organization, have decided to endorse UAFA.”  I called the organizers myself, the day before the March,  and it is true – however they thought that Congressman Mike Honda could serve the LGBT community because of his inclusion in his small side Bill. Ironically he was the one whose band wagon Immigration equality jumped on June 4^th 2009, when he included UAFA in his side Bill – clearly of no significance now!

Lawrence continues to describe the clash and the clang of immigration reform – “Critics have long charged that the family visa system allows too many unskilled immigrants to enter the US labor market and to end up unemployed and on welfare. And ever since the Jordan Commission of 1995-1996, there’s been a growing bipartisan consensus that the number and types of family visa “preferences” should be reduced. But there’s never been an issue about how to define the immigrant family, or whether to make additional allowances for same-sex couples.”

He says: “Beginning last June, gay rights activists have quietly pushed for a bill, known as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain green cards for their same-sex companions. At last count, the bill had 121 House co-sponsors, including most recently, Democratic representative Maxine Waters, who endorsed the measure on 24 February. Waters is a powerful member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a senior Democrat on the House sub committee that oversees immigration policy.”Well as you can see Mr. Lawrence they should have been but they did not… not in the way you are saying here……. And why should it have been quiet?

At a grassroots level through the tireless efforts of the non funded group OUT-4-IMMIGRATION we told our stories – led by Amos Lim, Tom T. and K.T. Drasky. They strated a letter writing campaign and have been the force behind all the efforts made to Congress for UAFA.  They are still doing this week after week; Unfortunately they were unable to make a stand against the IE plan to pursue CIR as our way to UAFA.

To further endorse my opinion regarding the craziness of the crash course by Immigration Equality,  Lawrence says: “Leaders of the immigration reform push in Congress are clearly nervous about UAFA. Last December, when Democratic representative Luis Gutierrez, a key Latino ally, introduced his comprehensive reform bill in the House, he decided not to include the UAFA provisions, prompting angry complaints from gay rights groups. Church groups have yet to comment on Schumer’s letter. Activists’ in-fighting aside, UAFA faces its biggest test in the full Congress and among the public at large. It’s clearly a big risk.”

When I questioned this aspect  2009, Steve Ralls and Julie Kruse of Immigration Equality both said, basically they will love having us on board for CIR its not going to be a problem and their reasoning was because Immigration Equality was able to promise them so many of UAFA’s co-sponsors and supporter.  I guess they miscalculated the nature of the ant-gay fervor out there.  They must take responsibility for this – their path with in light of such basic precepts was nothing short of reckless.

Lawrence also says in his article –-  “Immigration advocates have largely won the “family values” debate on immigration by demonstrating that family-based immigration has helped, not hurt, the US economy, and that most family-sponsored immigrants not only find jobs, but actually increase their labor mobility, often at a faster rate, in fact, than immigrants who were granted their visas on economic grounds.  And despite some reservations, many Republicans have also been reluctant to attack the family-based visa system. President George W Bush, for example, who twice tried to pass immigration reform in 2007, was fond of saying that “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande”.  To be accused of being “anti-family,” especially with Latinos, is anathema to conservatives, who are anxious to rebuild their bridges with an increasingly powerful group of swing voters. But opposition to gay families is a completely different matter;”  and I ask Immigration Equality why did you not see this? Why How?   And more ….. “Why would immigration advocates risk their fragile support in Congress, to say nothing of their own internal unity, by pushing to include UAFA? Presently, the number of gay couples potentially affected by UAFA is woefully small – indeed, minuscule compared to the number of heterosexual couples. And there are also major procedural hurdles.”

He concludes “Tired of Tea Party attacks on “amnesty” as an affront to American values? You ain’t heard nothing yet!”

I conclude – Do something – the only help I can suggest right now is my idea of a special visa process similar to the R1 Visa, as an interim stop-gap measure to bring some relief to separated partners, exiled citizens and those hiding in fear –  our dear Bi-nationals suffering the day to day impact of this the most flagrant form of discrimination our Country has ever seen since slavery. One where we have to make choices no free American should have to make. We are not free for as long as we cannot pursue our happiness in our own country.

Reference  and quoted  – Stewart J. Lawrence – The Guardian UK.

My Visa Petition can be found with an explanation at www.Change.ORG click here!

TO SIGN PETITION PLEASE CLICK HERE ;

http://immigration.change.org/petitions/view/special_visa_for_binational_lgbt_spouse-perma-partners

By Melanie Nathan
Nathan@privatecourts.com

*BREAKING: SHOCKING REALITY- Senator Chuck Schumer Is Planning To Exclude Gay And Lesbians From Immigration Reform Bill. (lezgetreal.com)d articles by Zemanta

Melanie Nathan’s Bi national Column – http://lezgetreal.com/?cat=5029

The Special Binational Visa  – http://lezgetreal.com/?p=29683

• US immigration’s gay rights divide | Stewart J Lawrence (guardian.co.uk)
• White House Calls for Immigration Reform Dsicussion with Senators Schumer & Graham (lezgetreal.com)
• Congressman Nadler talks UAFA Strategy with Bi-National Activists seeking Immigration Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• BREAKING: Out 4 Immigration Spearheads New All Inclusive Plan for UAFA (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform, Binational Anger Builds – Plea by Reps to include UAFA- (lezgetreal.com)
• Steve Ralls: On Eve of Historic March, Hope for LGBT Immigrant Families (huffingtonpost.com)
• Commentary: HRC at Sunday’s Immigration Rally (hrcbackstory.org)
• reBlog from Melanie Nathan: The Gutierrez Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill -FAILS to include LGBT Families and ignores UAFA (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

Bi-nationals – Take Back your Right to your FIGHT (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

UPDATED   – Kathy Drasky from Out4Immigration is correct when she asserts that we must continue to fight for UAFA and her comments shed further light on the condition of UAFA:

“Thanks for another insightful piece on the sad state of LGBT rights in general and the problems with UAFA and CIR. This “hint” about an after-the-election vote on CIR has been creeping into the media. Tom at O4I first spotted it a few weeks ago. Things have been way tooooo quiet on CIR and with May Day upon us and no bill from Schumer yet, I’m starting to think not to look for another battle royale btwn Dems and Repubs (like health care). If you think health care was ugly, CIR debate will make it look like a day at the beach! So, what can we do? 1) Get more UAFA co-sponsors. It is the immigration bill with the most co-sponsors right now and would be very hard to ignore if we got 20 or 30 more. 2) If you’re in a same-sex binat relationship, tell people. Talk locally to your elected officials and ask them to help you and your partner stay in the US together by sponsoring a resolution or writing a “dear colleague” letter in support of UAFA and sending to your US Representatives. 3) If you have friends or family affected by immigration inequality, read #2 and do the same. 4) Write an op-ed, start a blog (or comment on blogs), Twitter and use Facebook to let America know that she is exiling her own citizens over our inability to add 3 simple words to existing immigration law — “or permanent partner” wherever the word “spouse” appears. And 4) Support Out4Immigration (www.out4immigration.org) — by donating your time! Dedicate 2 hours a week to being a part of our letter writing campaign,city and state resolutions and putting your face on this story. The change is got to come from you and me. We cannot sit around and wait for others to do this work for us.”

I would also add – that we must address the inherent problems with UAFA that has been ignored for far too Long – but that is the subject of another Article which will discuss the Contractual Nexus.

This is what Rachel Tiven Executive Director of  Immigration Equality is doing with our time and our cause and your (not mine) money: Speaking at Latino Immigration Events as if it would help the relationship between the Catholic Bishops and Senator Schumer.

http://events.georgetown.edu/events/index.cfm?Action=View&EventID=75599

My comments on IE site are deleted  as are many others – My e-mails are ignored – SO here are my Questions for Rachel Tiven…

1. Have you ever personally lobbied a member of Congress with a single story for UAFA? If so who and when?
2. Why are you ALL not pounding the doors of Congress to support UAFA?
3. Why are you not working on the legislation with Senator Feinstein pertaining to the missing contractual nexus which is her problem with UAFA.  I spoke to you about his on June 4, 2009, after I had visited the Senator’s Immigration legislative director! You fobbed me off then- a year – you could have had that sewn up and maybe Feinstein on board.
4. Why are you chasing Latina Immigration venues instead of politicians – UAFA is about EQUALITY not immigration.

David Mixner has produced a great article, where he asserts his choice of 20 most powerful lesbian leaders in American Politics.But who may I ask has with with vigor and resolve led us to  “Amend the Civil Rights Act- to include Sexual orientation.”

Indeed a worthy list – and truly all are most deserving, within the limitations of the non-movement to which we have succumbed.

We have been un-led inadvertently from the Harvey Milk possibilities to the mission oriented organizational forms of leadership that by virtue of their structure, having made inroads truly valid for LGBT progress and visibility, have done more to embrace the schism created by competing legislation; in the modality of either: which one is more important than the other and/or maybe we should do Hate Crimes before ENDA -because we are more likely to get it done and then the road is well paved for the rest of the bit-by-bit tortoise pace path to legitimacy! Method? Plan? Grasping at Straws?

But where is our Harvey; where is our Martin Luther King Junior; where is our Cesar Chavez; where is our Messiah? We have sunk them like anchors in a stormy sea – we have failed to allow them to emerge. We have sold the soul of our movement to politics…. to feigned caution…. and at what price?  It has cost us ‘Equality.’ (thus far and for a while if we stay on the same path.)

We could have had 100% equality this sitting Congress, I truly believe that, had we been able to merge leadership into a cohesive movement with a towering personality in whom we could believe, starting years ago!

This critical mistake is blameless – each and every leader who has aligned to an organization I truly believe has done so in the utmost good faith with absolute intention to serve our community needs as honorably as possible.

NCLR , for one, has done an incredible amount of positive work – asylum cases- legal representation in matters of inequality- advocates of change on law – (E.G. SB 54, California)- Amicus briefs in critical cases such as the Prop 8 legislation, just to name a few.  No one would want to derogate from this astounding achievement and hence Kate Kendell is well named in the Mixner article.  I could also say the same for many other groups representing LGBT interests.

However what we do not have is a cohesive ‘master plan’- THE LGBT PINK PRINT.

A leader could helm one composite road map with benchmarks, a pronounced manifest, a concomitant of a team of best brains and an ultimate goal – full and absolute EQUALITY.  If that were the case – how could one imagine, albeit seemingly naïve, the path?  I may be over simplifying things; and that my tendency, I ask that you hear me out:

Piecemeal legislation subscribes to the view and creates the mindset that ‘we are less than’; that wall post says – we will take what we can get until we reach an undefined goal; we must win hearts and minds; which should we do first ENDA –no DADT – no HATE CRIMES… okay which can we get passed with most ease?  All the while at the expense of the BIG ONE – and then to add insult to injury – we are barely able to accomplish the bitsy pieces of Legislation.  Through all the years, and all the salaries and all the money donated, raised and spent – yes we have done a lot – but what do we have?

We have – a Hate Crimes Bill and President Obama ordering that we can visit our partners in hospitals and the right to marry in a few States.   We have speculation – we have UAFA in check-mate; we have Congressman Jerold Nadler’s Respect for Marriage Act swinging on a hammock – while Barney Frank says no time to repeal DOMA – we need ENDA and DADT first!   Should we continue to follow this?

Imagine if the Civil Rights movement of the sixties did not have MLK  (or such persona) at the helm and if they had left the goal out of the fight?  The goal – end discrimination – full equality! If they had done it our way – one organization would have been seeking legislation so that there could be mixed race marriage, another would have been advocating so that all could sit on the same park bench, another on the subject of buses and beaches and yet another for no racial -discrimination in employment or in the Military.  Had that been the case – they would probably still be fighting and there would be no President Obama!  They would have subscribed to the NOT- READY -YET –AMERICA- lets tread slowly view that our LGBT leaders have done.  But they had MLK, they had a movement and they had one mission – CIVIL RIGHTS… END ALL racial DISCRIMINATION and that could only happen one way, an OMNIBUS in effect – A Civil Rights Act that every single organization and every single piece of effort and every available dollar and every foot marched for.  A one-stop Train…

Rewind the clock 5 years – only five – and start again. Imagine if 5 years ago a PINK PRINT – the  LGBT Goal and Mission had been “AMEND the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT -to include sexual orientation.  Just think of all those resources and where we would be now. I believe we would have gained much more acceptance over time, visibility and with one message we may well be closer to an ultimate goal, even more than we are to just one piece of it such as DADT or ENDA.  One powerful goal could feasibly yield one powerful result.

For as long as we have these twenty astounding leaders  (and others unnamed)– why can we not cast caution to the side?  Why can’t we come up with the big merge- of leadership and goal?

I believe we can and I believe that it will take the greatest of risks and I know critics will scream – foul- foul- not possible.

Use all resources to one task – give up advocating now for  ENDA,  DADT, DOMA, don’t fall prey to the allusion of hospital visits (it is a crumb and a ploy to detract from what was used as the trophy right for the repeal of and the right to same-sex marriage,)  and even set aside every piece of State advocacy and everyone of us – should take to the streets with one simple banner, literally and figuratively, in every possible format:

“FULL EQUALITY NOW – WE DEMAND OUR CIVIL RIGHTS” – Goal – Amend Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation before taking one more step forward… on anything else.   I ask with tears in my eyes – what the hell do we have to lose?

We have nothing of worth now; nothing.  President Obama is already in political trouble  and he will be no matter what.  But we do have a majority for another few minutes.

I am  angry that a politicia’’s election is an excuse for us, our families, our friends, our exiles  and our community to be denied our basic and inherent right to equality.   Did MLK look toward a November  day and say – ‘oops, we better wait until there is a better moment?’   What would that have said about the right itself and the people so entitled?

How dare we allow the politicians to expound the view, whether tacit or otherwise that Gay rights are bad rights – because yes that is what happens if its a right that they refuse to fight openly for at every moment in time. The attitude to not take up the issue just yet – only serves to exacerbate the negative connotations attached to gay rights and our organizational  leadership has allowed us to fall prey.    How many of you out there are so over that?

In response to Mr. Mixner’s piece – I say ‘mazeltov‘ to those named and now its time to do the real thing. Who will have the courage? Who is the gay messiah?

So I send my hails and praises to the forgotten but most viable -to those who care to take chances – those of you who have built what is in effect emerging as an astounding movement, regardless of any particular leaders telling you what to do or what you should fight for first. This is a movement in development – it is organic and surfacing from the very frustration I describe above.

People, men and women, teens, lesbian, gay and straight, transgender, bisexual, QI out and not out, allies, family,  from all over the USA, the world,  big cities, woodsy retreats, nooks and crannies, East West, Mid, South North, are linking to each other with one simple word – their banner – “EQUALITY” –!

Hundreds and thousands are using the word ‘Equality’ as their middle name – example ‘Jane Equality Smith’.  I have noticed in particular during this last month that this is soaring.  It is viral. We are ‘friending’ each other and connecting through our common cause and goal – and that one can become full equality – blogging and writing; and getting to know each other at the speed of lighting.  We are seeing that we are all friends in a cause that impacts all of us in a deep and profound way.  We are gaining a grass root facebook momentum,  more and more powerful by the minute.

It is up to us now to link in a way where we can use our numbers as clout to influence the imperative correction – to make this our movement -NOW – to avert away from piecemeal to asking for it all.

Civil rights cannot be won without great risk, courage and sacrifice. You either want it or not! It cannot be won in pieces it is either the recognition that LGBT rights are  civil rights or it is nothing at all.  We have Julian Bond and Ben Jealous all refer to gay rights as a civil rights. these are people who are directly associated with MLK and they who may otherwise have claimed ownership in a sense to civil rights are informing us that we belong!

So with a combination of our organically emerging equality activist community – perhaps we can all let go of our separate interest legislation – perhaps our leaders can come together as one and merge with an NAACP type endeavor that proclaims “EQUALITY NOW – Amend Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation.”

As for the gay messiah – maybe it is Face Book – the one which will deliver us to each other and raise the voice as if one ….. but we all need to act and we need to do it now.

Happy Weekend, Mel.

The List per Mixner

1. Rachel Maddow:

2. Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin:

3. Hilary Rosen:

4. Pam Spaulding:

5. Randi Weingarten:

6. Speaker Christine Quinn:

7. Mayor Annise Parker:  .

8. Rea Carey:

9. Urvashi Vaid:

10. Dr. Marjorie Hill:

11. Kerry Eleveld :

12. Robin McGehee:

13. Torie Osborn:

14. Nancy Sutley:

15. Kate Kendell:

16. Sheila Kuehl:

17. Karen Ocamb:

18. Elizabeth Birch:

19. Lorri Jean:

20. Coya Artichoker:

Post By”

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama: Give Gay Couples Hospital Access (abcnews.go.com)
• Schumer Immigration Reform News – Wake Up Call for Dallas Creating Change Conference (lezgetreal.com)
• David Mixner’s 20 Most Powerful Lesbians (joemygod.blogspot.com)

Circuit Court Judge Chris Piazza said in a two-page ruling issued this afternoon that people in “non-marital relationships” are forced to choose between becoming a parent and sustaining that relationship. He also said the ban cast “an unreasonably broad net”, did not serve the state’s interest and agreed with claims by families who said the ban lessened the number of available adoptive and foster parents to the point where thousands of children could go without homes.

“Due process and equal protection are not hollow words without substance,” Piazza said. “They are rights enumerated in our constitution that must not be construed in such a way as to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.”

Voters approved that law in 2008, after the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned a policy by state child welfare officials that blocked gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents.

The American Civil Liberties Union had sued on behalf of a group of families seeking to overturn the ban.

Jerry Cox, leader of the bans backers, the Arkansas Family Council, said his group would appeal Piazza’s ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fuck Mike Huckabee (slog.thestranger.com)
• Mike Huckabee In the Doghouse (mombian.com)

In a move that is sure to insert the White House firmly into the national debate on same-sex marriage, today President Barack Obama issued an executive memorandum requiring any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow gays and lesbians to have non-family visitors and grants their partners medical power of attorney.

“There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean — a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.”

“Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides — whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated,” said Obama

To ensure that hospitals respect the rights of LGBT patients to designate visitors, Obama has directed the Secretary Of Health And Human Services to make new rules stating “that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy.”

He also called on the HHS Secretary to formulate rules that will “to guarantee that all patients’ advance directives, such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, are respected, and that patients’ representatives otherwise have the right to make informed decisions regarding patients’ care.”

2010rightspatients.mem.final.rel

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Orders Hospitals to Grant Same-Sex Couples Visitation Rights and Medical Power of Attorney (towleroad.com)
• Obama orders same-sex hospital visits (msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama Orders Hospitals To Allow Gays, Lesbians Hospital Visitation & Power Of Attorney (oliverwillis.com)
• Obama bars discrimination against same-sex couples in hospital visitation rights (dailykos.com)
• Obama Orders Hospitals To Allow Same-Sex Visitation Rights (alan.com)

Karel – well known out gay radio personality/host and pro equality proponent blasted the fact that Larry King gets to marry so often and to divorce so often. Karel went on to say that Gay people have  no marital rights under the federal law in the USA.  He makes the point that protecting the sanctity of marriage (for straights people,) an unsubstantiated argument against gay marriage, is impacted by people being allowed to divorce especially as often as the likes of Larry King.

While Karel’s thesis is to restrict divorce, mine is to ban divorce.  His idea is based on the fact that people get to divorce too many times and that surely impacts the so called sanctity of marriage.  However my argument speaks to the fact that same-sex marriage is outlawed under federal law based purely on the mindset and argument that same-sex couples will disturb the sanctity of marriage.

What could be worse to the sanctity of marriage than the couple, who exercised their  legal right to marry, signed the legal contract and even made a religious vow to stay together until ‘death do us part,’ terminating the marriage?   What could be more rift causing, family breaking, troublesome than that?

I guess what to those proponents it is worse if same gender couples marry and stay together until “death do them part!”

So gays and lesbians are denied their inherent right, to marry; and specifically discriminated against by virtue of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) for an absolutely fallacious reason – while the real cause of harm to marriage is a day to day occurrence for many different people and for some a regular occurrence every few years or so.   True Larry King is indeed an old bloke – 80 plus… I do not know so that gives him a marriage every ten years since the day he was born! See my November, 2009 Article  BAN DIVORCE …

Karel’s show: ‘if you want to hear the comments including the authors go to the podcast at www.radiokrl.com or iTunes

Hear and SEE Karel On Green960 KKGN San Francisco, KRXA 540 Monterey, KUDO Anchorage, KYNS San Luis Obispo, iTunes, More To Follow 3pm to 6pm M-F Live!

Thanks to Karel for correcting me – 8th divorce and 7th wife. Even bigger chutzpah he got to marry one twice!

Melanie Nathan

by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• Larry King: Divorce #8, Bye Shawn Southwick! (justjared.buzznet.com)
• Larry King DIVORCE: King, Shawn Southwick Breaking Up (huffingtonpost.com)

4-13-10, Melanie Nathan

An energized crowd of more than 700 people rallied at the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center and marched more than a mile to the Social Security Administration office in Hollywood today to demand an end to the unconscionable discrimination that deprives older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) taxpayers of more than $120 million in Social Security benefits every year.

Representative Linda Sanchez —a member of the House Subcommittee on Social Security—announced that she will author legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples and Rep. Judy Chu offered to co-author the bill. Other political and community leaders who spoke out at the event included Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Laura Richardson, L.A. City Councilmember Paul Koretz, West Hollywood Mayor Abbe Land, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center CEO Lorri L. Jean, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey and AIDS Community Action Foundation President Craig R. Miller.

“We now have quality, affordable health care coming to all. What good is the quality of our health care in America if Americans are not treated equally under all of our laws?” said Rep. Sanchez. “I look at this country—which is great but could be made better—and I see that there is still discrimination … I don’t think it’s right that Americans should be treated differently by the country they love because of who they love.”

Sanchez made the announcement at the Center’s McDonald/Wright building before the crowd marched down Hollywood Boulevard to the Social Security office on Vine Street. There, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center CEO Lorri L. Jean led the crowd in chanting and picketing to demand an end to the discrimination that hurts seniors like Alice Herman, a client of the Center’s Seniors Services department. Herman spoke about being denied benefits after the loss of her beloved wife, Sylvia, even though the two were legally married.

“At the time I was burying Sylvia and grieving her loss, I had to look for a place to live as fast I as could,” says Herman, who was left “a heartbeat away” from living in her car because she could no longer afford to live in the home they shared. Had Sylvia been a man, Herman would have been entitled to receive her spouse’s larger Social Security payments. “This has got to change,” she said.

Herman’s story inspired Jean to speak out on the issue of discrimination in Social Security benefits.

“We must stop the discrimination heaped upon our elders just when they are suffering profound grief after losing a partner,” Jean says. “They shared their lives for 20, 30 even 40 years—and paid into Social Security with every paycheck just like everyone else. But they are cheated out of survivor benefits because their relationships are not recognized by the Social Security system.”

At Rock for Equality, it was announced that “What Kind of Planet Are We On?”—an online video that tells the story of a lesbian alien who is denied Social Security benefits—triumphed in YouTube’s 4^th Annual DoGooder Awards. The video, which won the Best Innovation in Video category, was featured at the top of the YouTube homepage, where it reached hundreds of thousands with its message about the need to stop discrimination in Social Security benefits. By Sunday afternoon the video, which is featured at www.youtube.com/nonprofitvideoawards, had been viewed more than 350,000 times.

The Center partnered with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in coalition with the AIDS Community Action Foundation, to launch Rock for Equality.

“Same-sex couples are being systematically short-changed by unfair Social Security policies, costing our families $2 billion in the past decade alone,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “The shock of this inequity comes at one of the most vulnerable times in our lives: when we lose our partner. Social Security was created to protect all Americans in their later years, but this hasn’t been the case for our families. We thank Rep. Linda Sanchez for committing to author legislation to end this unfairness once and for all.”

President Barack Obama has stated his opposition to Social Security discrimination against same-sex couples, and last week Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed a resolution (introduced by Koretz and fellow Councilmember Bill Rosendahl and unanimously approved by the city council) calling on the federal government to end discrimination in Social Security benefits. Last week the city of West Hollywood passed a similar resolution.

At the rally, Craig R. Miller, Rock for Equality producer and president of the AIDS Community Action Foundation, noted the connection between the health of LGBT people and the government’s discrimination.

“There is an inextricable link between the ongoing HIV epidemic and matters of self-esteem, equal recognition of committed relationships, and a positive view of one’s future,” said Miller.  “We are unwilling to see yet another generation of kids grow up bombarded with messages from their own government that they are less than, that their relationships are less than, and that in the future, their Social Security, their fare share of our country’s social safety net, shall be less than that of other Americans.”

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law has determined that, on average, the lack of eligibility for Social Security Survivors benefits alone has cost the surviving partners of same-sex couples $5,700 per year. LGBT Americans are denied other benefits as well. With more than 1 million Americans living in same-sex couples and an aging generation of Baby Boomers, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers are cheated by this unfair system every day. This discrimination is estimated to have cost the LGBT community more than $2 billion in the last decade alone.

About the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center: Since 1971 the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center has been building the health, advocating for the rights and enriching the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.  Our wide array of services and programs includes: free HIV/AIDS care and medications for those most in need; housing, food, clothing and support for homeless LGBT youth; low-cost counseling and addiction-recovery services; essential services for LGBT-parented families and seniors; legal services; health education and HIV prevention programs; transgender services; cultural arts and much more. Visit us at: www.lagaycenter.org.

About the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: The mission of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is to build the grassroots power of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. We do this by training activists, equipping state and local organizations with the skills needed to organize broad-based campaigns to defeat anti-LGBT referenda and advance pro-LGBT legislation, and building the organizational capacity of our movement. Our Policy Institute, the movement’s premier think tank, provides research and policy analysis to support the struggle for complete equality and to counter right-wing lies. As part of a broader social justice movement, we work to create a nation that respects the diversity of human expression and identity and creates opportunity for all. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., we also have offices in New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis and Cambridge.  Visit us at: www.thetaskforce.org.

About AIDS Community Action Foundation: Founded in 2004, AIDS Community Action Foundation (ACAF) is dedicated to reinvigorating the response of government, media, the private sector, non-profit organizations, and the public at large to the Human Immune-deficiency Virus (HIV) epidemic in the United States.  ACAF is committed to engaging in and/or supporting at the community level organizing, advocacy, fundraising, and education efforts designed to create greater public pressure toward alleviating the human suffering caused by HIV/AIDS. Visit us at www.aidscaf.com .

About MZA Events: Rock for Equality was created and is being produced by MZA Events.  MZA was founded in 1984 by Craig R. Miller and his organization of activists. Miller is the originator of the AIDS Walk movement and has produced hundreds of events throughout the United States, generating more than $400 million for major AIDS organizations and other charities confronting public health and social justice issues. Visit us at: www.mzaevents.com.

By Melanie Nathan
@oblogdeeoblogda
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta