Obama Says Gay Couples Deserve Equal Rights But Insists It’s Not a Federal Fight

It’s a big day to be gay in New York! Pride is underway, Obama’s visiting, and something may or may not happen with gay marriage in the State Senate tonight/tomorrow.

President Barack Obama hosted a $1,250-a-plate fundraising gala at the Sheraton earlier tonight, apparently part of a larger Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender leadership gala in the city. From NY1:

… Obama said “that gay couples “deserve the same legal rights” as all couples, and that New York State is having a proper, democratic “debate” on the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Obama told a very receptive crowd of about 600 at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender leadership gala at the Sheraton that while he is personally against discrimination based on sexual orientation, the final battle for marriage equality should take place in the state Legislature.

The president noted how much lawmakers accomplished during his term, including the passing of a hate crimes law and the repeal of the military’s former “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that banned openly gay service members.

Americablog has a full transcript of the president’s remarks, upon which they commented:

The President just concluded his remarks at the big LGBT fundraiser in NYC. And, it’s confirmed, he didn’t evolve on marriage.

Here’s two videos from Think Progress. In the first, Obama discusses his opposition to DOMA:

In the second video he gets interrupted:

Outside “dozens of LGBT community supporters” gathered to encourage Obama to take a prominent stand in favor of same-sex marriage. After his gig at the Sheraton, Obama moved on to a private fundraiser at Daniel Restaurant, “where participants have paid $35,800 for a seat.” They will enjoy a special fundraising performance of the Broadway musical Sister Act and then Obama will address the audience. Seriously.

So what do you think? Is this — and all the progress the Obama administration has made in the are of gay rights — enough? Personally I’ve been unable to think negatively about President Obama since the Correspondent’s Dinner when he played The Lion King video, which was hands-down the best joke of 2011, but we could really use his full explicit support right now — and Christ, he could certainly use ours!

As AmericaBlog says:

…looks like we’ll need to keep up the pressure. Remember, we’re doing this for his own political good. The President is already behind the curve of public opinion on marriage, particularly with young voters. He looks out of touch. It’s still early. There’s still time for Obama to evolve. It will be another political calculation on his part. Hopefully, he’s beginning to understand that it’s good politics to be on fully on our side.

IRS Finally Apologizes To Gay People For Making Taxes Extra Terrible For Them

Taxes aren’t fun for anyone, but they’ve always been a double headache for gay couples. For any given gay couple around tax season, it’s likely that they haven’t been able to legally wed, and so their taxes have to be filed as if they were the “roommates” their families have always tried to pretend they were. Even for couples whose marriages are recognized by their state, DOMA means that they’re still not recognized by the federal government, so state and federal taxes have to be filed differently. It’s a nightmare no matter how you look at it.

For some couples, it was even worse this year. Efforts to deal with the legal inconsistencies of the situation have, shockingly, made everything incredibly messy:

To deal with one of these conflicts, the I.R.S. said last year that same-sex couples in states with community property laws (California, Nevada and Washington) should combine and then split their incomes for their federal returns. The motivation behind the change was fairness: heterosexual married couples can combine incomes, which can lower tax brackets and overall taxes paid if one spouse earns more.

Which would have been nice if it worked. Instead, many couples were forced to hire outside tax assistance to help put together the now enormously complicated return, which was too much for any DIY tax return software to handle. A few actually did save money with the new system, but since some had accounting fees as high as $4000, the net benefit of the new rule is debatable. Experts say a “significant number” of same-sex couples did not comply with the new rule at all; the hassle wasn’t worth it to them.

All this would be frustrating on its own, were it not for the infuriating letter that at least 300 taxpayers received from a mysterious manager within the IRS, which rejected their return entirely. It read: “Your return includes income or tax liability for more than one taxpayer, other than husband and wife.” Signed by “J. Bell,” a person whom the IRS doesn’t know about or doesn’t seem willing to divulge anything about, the letters would have to feel very much like a personal dig. In a statement this week, the I.R.S. said that the letters had been “incorrectly sent” because of a processing error and that it “apologizes for this mistake and sincerely regrets any inconvenience to taxpayers.”

So far the origin of the letters seems completely mysterious; the IRS is saying only that he or she is a manager whose signature was “system-generated.” The families who received it are, understandably, angry; tax consultants are confused as well.

How the errant letters started is unclear. Tax experts who brought the letters to the attention of the I.R.S. weeks ago had wondered if anti-gay I.R.S. employees were acting out of malice.
“It’s either intentional or ignorance,” said Pan Haskins, an Oakland tax consultant who had been tracking the letters.

It’s difficult to tease out which is the most befuddling part of this story – the fact that a government agency has screwed this issue up so royally, and that at least one person involved may have done so intentionally, or the fact that a government agency was trying to make the situation more fair for gay people in the first place, and that they apologized when they instead made things worse.

Especially in light of the ongoing Prop 8 controversy in California and Obama’s recent declaration that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, the open admission of this kind of mistake seems significant. It seems like we’re seeing a commitment to ending inequality for gay families on a level never before seen from the government. It’s not only in terms of talk about ending DOMA, although obviously that’s important; it’s that there seems to be an unprecedented understanding of what the real-world day-to-day issues are with marriage equality.

On Friday, Obama’s administration made an important step towards ending the discrepancies in Medicaid benefits that same-sex families currently experience because of DOMA; the city of Cambridge has announced that it will offer state-issued stipends for gay couples to make up for the money they lose by not being recognized as couples by the federal government. The fight for marriage equality has always been about the symbolic value of equal treatment, but also about ending the outrageous number of legal and financial hurdles that gay families have to overcome just to live normal lives. It’s taking a while to address the former, but it really appears that in the meantime, the government is doing a pretty genuine job of trying to address the latter. Really, it’s not news that gay families are being screwed by the IRS; it is news, though, that the IRS has finally apologized for it. It’s not the same as anything really being okay, but it is good news that it looks like someone finally wants it to be.

Obama Really, Really Wants Some Gay Best Friends, Ideally Registered Voters

On a scale of 1 to 10, how are you feeling about Obama this week? Here’s the thing: he wants you to feel really good about him. I mean really, get ready for some rainbows. Here’s the opening banner to the thing which the White House sent out via email and is apparently termed an “e-blast:”

Well! Sure, Mr. President, that sounds great. I would like for us to be together in this fight too! Slightly misleadingly, however, this email is not precisely about fighting but about a dinner party situation called, puzzlingly, the “High Tea Party Express train to the Obama Gala.” Which is a thing you pay to go to. Which is a thing that by paying to go to, you contribute fairly large sums of money to Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The White House’s party invitation also contained this:

(The color scheme is nice, no?)

And the “e-blast” also said this:

I used to get so fed up with people who said “We have made progress. Just look — they let us visit the White House!” or “Holy smokes, can you believe we get to be in this room?” That kind of measure of progress is ancient. It is important but it is a given, not a gift. A million smiles and handshakes do not equal progress.

That sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it? It kind of sounds exactly like a lot of the criticism Obama has received from the queer community over the past few years. It sends the message that he knows what our concerns are, and he knows how we’ve been feeling. He’s saying that he may not be a perfect president as far as queer issues go, but he does know what’s up. And he’s not out of office yet.

The truth is, although some will surely disagree, that’s a fairly impressive list of accomplishments. The ones not in bold are almost more worth noting – although they tend to be less sweeping and symbolic, they seem like they might be more meaningful in terms of the real issues. A National Resource Center for gay and lesbian elders. Ensuring that trans people can have accurate passports. An Institute of Medicine study on LGBT health. Clarified that the Family and Medical Leave Act includes LGBT families. Ended the ban on people with HIV/AIDS entering the country, and proposed more funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and education, as well as bullying and suicide prevention. Put millions of dollars of federal funds towards supporting homeless LGBT youth. That’s not everything we could ask for, but it’s far from nothing.

The email from the White House says that “In just two years he has done more than all Presidents combined in our history AND he has done something no other President has done: passed laws. Not talk, not platitudes, not nice intentions: laws.” Those are strong words of praise. But they’re also a warning: even if you don’t think what President Obama has done is enough, it’s a pretty sure bet that no other presidential candidate that is running against him will take up the torch if he’s not re-elected. So, while we’re asked to imagine what could be accomplished in the next six years, the flip side of the same question is left unspoken – what could we lose in the next six years? It’s a complicated intersection of politics and the ideals behind it, the refusal to compromise that has made the queer activist movement so successful in the past and the necessity of compromise that permeates the arena of national politics. Right now, Obama is asking for your money – and while almost none of us have much to give, the question of our votes still remains.

The Obama Adminstration’s War On Gay Teen Homelessness

As the 2012 election gets ever closer, the back-and-forth on Obama in the gay community gets more and more intense. Has he done enough? Has he done anything at all? Everyone has very different answers to those questions, but if you’re looking for something to add to your “things Obama has done for us” column, this might work. The federal government is putting pressure on the child welfare and foster system to live up to its promise to gay kids, something that could finally make a difference for thousands of children and teens who are otherwise powerless.

Anyone with any experience with foster care or the adoption system knows that there are major gaps – all kids are at risk for unsafe homes, endless bouncing around from placement to placement, and lack of adequate attention or understanding from social workers. Frequently these kids are left without any resources or support once they reach the legal age of adulthood and are no longer supported by the state – they’re suddenly homeless adults instead of orphaned kids, and have no options besides the street or a shelter. Clearly this should matter to everyone who cares about kids or other human beings, but why is this an issue for the gay community in particular? Because an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of kids in the foster system are queer or trans.

[ACF Commissioner Bryan Samuels] cited a numbing list of statistics showing just how vulnerable LGBTQ youth are in the system. Although five to 10 percent of the general population is estimated to be gay, anywhere between 20 and 40 percent of homeless youth are gay, according to the National Network of Runaway and Youth services. They are also far more likely to age out of the child welfare system without finding an adoptive family.

Horrifyingly, these numbers are made up of all the children and teens thrown out of their homes or disowned by their biological families for their sexual orientation or gender identity, or who have run away themselves to escape the abuse or anger they face. They have no other support system or family to turn to, and in an unconscionable echo of their first abandonment, their experiences in foster care are often very similar. There are countless stories of teens abused repeatedly by foster families in an attempt to punish or change their sexual orientations or gender identities, or who are given up by families who don’t want to care for a gay kid. While the statistics that show kids are coming out at a younger age than ever may be good news in terms of our culture’s increasing awareness of queer identity and its normalization among the next generation, it also means that more and younger kids are experiencing abuse and abandonment in the foster care system because of it. Shockingly, experts say that some gay kids abandoned by both biological and foster families end up at least temporarily behind bars in juvenile detention, just because there’s nowhere else for them to go.

So what is the administration doing? Well, like everything else in the government, it starts with a memo. It has some standard and unsurprising language about making the safety of LGBTQ kids a priority, and acknowledging the fact that those kids face a compounded level of crisis. But it also mentions something more unexpected: it explicitly states that LGBTQ foster and adoptive parents should be considered as placements. This is huge news, and could be instrumental in the fight to reverse situations like that in Florida, where gay and lesbian families are completely banned from adoption. But aside from being the ethical and American thing to do, it would also be the most obvious way to ensure that queer kids had at least one option where if the placement didn’t work out, they could be sure it wasn’t because of their sexual orientation. Which really doesn’t seem like that much to ask.

What’s more, the administration is putting millions into a five-year pilot program in LA County which is aimed at aiding and providing support to queer youth in the foster system. Programs that are supported by federal dollars are under great pressure from the government to provide quantifiable results; hopefully LA County will develop policies and strategies that can then be implemented across the country. And if the administration’s support for queer adoptive and foster families remains this strong, it could have repercussions for families all across the country as well.

Without overstating the issue, it may not be too much to say that this is one of the most important things the Obama administration has ever done for us. It remains to be seen how effective it will be, but the choice of issues to take up represents an understanding of the issues that the queer community really faces that previous Presidents haven’t been willing to pursue. Marriage equality will be an important milestone, but in truth it’s largely symbolic, and there are those in the queer community for whom it represents assimilation, not progress. An effective repeal of DADT will be momentous if it ever really goes through, but it affects only those and their families in the armed forces – who are courageous and admirable and who deserve our thanks and respect, but whom are also there by choice. Homelessness, especially for kids and teens who have no power or agency on their own, is a hugely pressing issue for the gay and especially trans communities. It’s not a very cool or sexy cause to get behind, but it’s an epidemic, and it hits those who are the absolute most helpless members of our society. And for decades, there’s been virtually zero interest from any previous administration in improving their lot – until now.

Under the previous administration, advocates couldn’t recall the phrase LGBTQ being uttered once. It was as if those kids just didn’t exist.
“Literally in the last administration you were not allowed to talk about this,” explained Gerald P. Mallon, a professor at New York’s Hunter College School of Social Work who began researching LGBTQ kids in the mid-’90s. “If you put ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’ in a workshop, you were guaranteed it wasn’t going to be approved. It’s night and day.”

If Obama does manage to repeal DOMA or DADT while he’s in office, that may be what he’s remembered for in the history books. But if his initiatives to support queer teens in the child welfare system are effective, that’s what he’ll be remembered for by generations of one-time teen child welfare recipients for, as a hero.

Obama Gives the Gays Their Own Page on WhiteHouse.gov

In preparation for his 2012 re-election campaign, Obama has been sprucing up his web page to highlight his major accomplishments as president. For the first time ever, LGBT issues have gotten their very own landing page. AND IT’S CALLED WINNING THE FUTURE.

The page is also part of Obama’s celebration of LGBT Pride Month. He also made a proclamation about Pride, which ends with “I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.” It’s some good reading, if you’re into that sort of thing.

On WINNING THE FUTURE (all caps necessary), Obama lists the many things he has done for us so far, which Pam over at Pam’s House Blend was patient enough to type out (the list is in PDF format, unfortch). Obama mentions a lot of things, but the main categories are:

+ Preventing bullying and hate crimes against LGBT Americans
+ Supporting LGBT families
+ Ensuring equal access to housing for LGBT families
+ Supporting LGBT health
+ Supporting job creation among LGBT-owned businesses
+ Setting precedents in hiring and business for LGBT people
+ Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
+ Providing global leadership for LGBT Americans
+ Honoring LGBT history
+ Supporting LGBT progress

Check out the individual issues listed under those topics over at Pam’s page (linked above) or by downloading the PDF here.

Obama signing the DADT repeal in December

The comments on Pam’s article about this were almost entirely negative, picking apart Obama’s list of accomplishments, asking why more was not done, expressing disbelief that this actually means anything. Find fault where you want, his record isn’t perfect, but President Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any other president in history. The last guy who was supposed to help us out ended up signing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act into law. Even if Obama had never lifted a finger, it would have been better than Clinton’s presidency.

But he did lift a finger. He worked really hard on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It took a while because he spent a lot of his momentum on the health care bill, but honestly, that’s completely fine with me. There are other things I care about beyond LGBT issues, just like there are other parts of my identity beyond my sexuality. When health care was done, he turned to DADT and he got it repealed. I wish that repeal was taking effect more quickly, but he has the House to deal with.

Obama telling Americans It Gets Better

Then Obama started attacking DOMA. In the past few months, his position went from “my office has to defend it in court because it’s my job” to “we won’t defend it in the Second Circuit” to “we actively support its repeal in Congress.” If Obama can advance that far on DOMA so quickly, who knows what he’ll be fighting for by 2016.

Obama is not perfect. There are important things that he has not done, and marriage equality is not the only LGBT issue that matters. But he has gone a long way toward erasing the damage done by Clinton, and he becomes a stronger LGBT advocate every day. Finally, we have a president who is willing to call himself an ally. He has stopped undercutting that with mutterings about religion or with concessions to the religious right. He is on our side.

So yeah, this is just a silly web page that he launched to cater to LGBT voters. But I say, bring on the flattery. What other president has ever been so willing to vocally support us, to tell the country that LGBT Americans are worth his time?

In a world where I am forced to vote for the Democrat every time because the Republican party wants to string me from a flag pole and strip all of my rights, it is nice to be able to vote for a candidate that actively supports my equality. I’m tired of putting up with Democrats who are just less evil than the other guy. Obama is not simply the better choice, he is a good choice.

Log Cabin Republicans and Other Gays Ditching Obama, Voting Republican

The Log Cabin Republicans are not happy with Obama. Bob Kabel, the former LCR national board chairman, thought Obama’s administration ended up being “a disappointment,” and wanted to see the President do more to reach across the aisle:

“I, frankly, was one who really believed that perhaps we were at a moment in history where his sort of optimism and sort of self-stated ability to bring people together would actually make a difference.

“But what we’ve seen in the execution during his administration has really been very disappointing – it’s actually the opposite. He’s extraordinarily partisan, he’s extraordinarily liberal, he’s really made very little effort, if any, to bring certainly Republicans and more conservative people together to resolve the nation’s issues.”

But are the LCR actually onto something? More gay people than ever are now supporting Republican candidates: 31 percent of gay and lesbian voters during the midterm House races voted for the GOP – an increase from the 19 percent who did the same in 2008. And Republican candidates are experiencing an increase in gay support by over 10 percent since 2008. Gay people who are not die-hard liberals might actually exist, everyone, and the LCR is depending on them to oust Obama from the White House in 2012.

The cohesion of the LGBT voting bloc has officially been disrupted. Over what? Kabel wants Republicans to capitalize on the economy and stray from social issues when appealing to The Gays this election season, especially since Obama is the man who repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and kind of got working on the Defense of Marriage Act. And as we’ve already observed here at Autostraddle, gay voters are super important in this upcoming election: Obama needs our money to succeed. And well, we need his support to get gay rights legislation moving anywhere. But gay voters shifting away from Obama are not alone – there’s a lot of liberal discontent with his first term. (Not that gay discontent is really a Thing. After all, the HRC already endorsed Obama.)

There are a few things to think about after the LCR’s assertion that Obama should no longer serve, like where are all of these gay people voting for Republicans? And who exactly do they plan on putting into the Oval Office who would actually care about gay rights? Do gay rights have to be the only thing you care about as a gay person? And no, really, who exactly do they plan on putting into the Oval Office, and why?

Your gay vote is more important than ever right now. Isn’t that exciting?! The only thing you have to do by election day is decide who you’re voting for. That might be a little harder for some LGBT voters than it was last election, or the election before.

House Passes Bill Aimed at Slowing DADT Repeal, Obama is Officially Upset

The U.S. House passed a defense bill that includes not one but THREE anti-gay amendments. Hey, at least they’re being efficient with the hate these days. Let’s tackle these one at a time, shall we? (Keep in mind that these amendments would have to pass the Senate before they would become effective.)

Amendment one aims to slow the DADT repeal by requiring all four service branch chiefs to sign off on the policy change. It seems that is a departure from the current plan, which involves a cooperative decision by the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The amendment adds in four other people who are probably less likely to give the repeal the go-ahead. It basically gives the armed services a free pass to say no thanks and keep DADT in place. Once again, let’s point out that DADT does not prevent gay soldiers from serving, it just hurts them once they sign up. There have always been and will always be gay service members, no matter what Congress does.

Amendment two restates that the Defense of Marriage Act still applies to the Department of Defense. You know, in case anyone had forgotten that there is a federal ban on recognizing same-sex couples. Just fyi guys, purely informational, you know! The government still hates the gays, write that down.

Amendment three prohibits same-sex weddings on military property. Ok, seriously? This is just mean. It looks like a backstop measure in case they can’t prevent the repeal of DADT. So instead of letting everyone be equal when that happens, America is going to throw one last “fuck you” at our own soldiers? Classy.

Obama signing the DADT repeal in December

Obama is not happy about this bill. His office released a statement a few days ago objecting to all three of these sections. On DADT:

“The Administration strongly objects to any legislative attempts (such as section 533) to directly or indirectly undermine, prevent, or delay the implementation of the repeal, as such efforts create uncertainty for servicemembers and their families.”

And on DOMA:

“The Administration strongly objects to sections 534 and 535, believes that section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory, and supports DOMA’s repeal.”

That’s right, he said he supports DOMA’s repeal, not just that he will not defend it in the Second Circuit courts. Obama has become a stronger gay rights advocate every day of his presidency. I cannot wait to see how those issues play out during the next election. One thing we already know is that the HRC has officially backed Obama already — a move not everybody’s happy about.

For now, this bill moves to the Senate. Let’s be honest, it would have no chance there, even without Obama’s statement. I, for one, am tired of the House taking cheap shots at gay rights that have no chance of becoming law. I don’t understand why they don’t just focus on fixing the deficit or addressing the thing they complain about. At least I could respect that.

Rhode Island House Approves Civil Unions, But With Restrictions

Yesterday, the Rhode Island House approved a bill legalizing civil unions with a 62-11 vote.

The Rhode Island Senate will now vote on the bill. Most news stories about this aren’t concerned about its chances there or on the governor’s desk, so it is hard to tell what the odds are that civil unions will actually become available. The Advocate reports that the Senate leader supports the bill, and a 62-11 vote in the House is clearly across party lines, so maybe it will pass.

Unfortunately, a very restrictive religious exemption was included in the bill. Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a New England LGBT rights organization, has come out against the bill.

“The religious exemption amendment goes much further in allowing religious charitable and educational organizations – such as social service providers, hospitals, and educational institutions – to treat legal civil unions, authorized under Rhode Island law, as invalid for any purpose,” GLAD wrote in a news release today.

Openly gay Rep. Frank Ferri told the Providence Journal: “I believe that it is a step forward… There are many couples that need these rights and, today, they know now when they go to the hospital, when they go to a nursing home, their property is protected, they have rights that they didn’t have — as soon as the Senate passes it and the governor signs it.”

If it does turn into law, then Rhode Island would be the fourth state to enact civil unions, behind Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey. Some lawmakers, such as Rep. Ferri, have made it clear this is just a step along the way toward total equality. They hope to make Rhode Island join the five U.S. states that have legalized gay marriage.

And on the federal front, things look much better for gay marriage than they did a few years ago. Obama’s refusal to defend DOMA in a federal court a few months ago is a big step forward. U.S. Rep Barney Frank thinks the president might take things even further: “This is just my intuition, but I think the President will be supportive of marriage in the states that offer it before the 2012 election,” Frank said.

That’s a pretty qualified statement, but it would be much better than Obama’s stance on marriage equality in 2008 and would at least silence a few critics. Maybe it could pave the way for same-sex marriage in states like Rhode Island, the ones on the brink  of equality.

Obama Needs Money, Gays Need Rights, Let’s Get Together And Feel Alright

i feel like this "politician/businessman" looks like a lesbian

As you may or may not know, almost everything that happens in government is related to someone somewhere wanting more money and power in order to acquire shinier things, sex, and airplanes. If you don’t believe me, you should watch a documentary. Any documentary, really. Pretty much every documentary available for consumption, including the ones about dolphins, are about small groups of rich people fucking things up for large groups of not-rich people (e.g., the entire country of America).

So, if you want a politician to do a thing, you give him money. It works!

Lucky for us, Obama is very interested in our money this year and is in fact “banking on gay donors” to make up for the cash he’s losing from other wealthy donors, like the left-leaning super-rich who supported him in 2008 but now have too many feelings about his recent performance. For example, Wall Street executives are switching sides because they’re sick of being told how much they suck, some pro-Israel Jewish donors don’t like Obama’s pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, and many miss the Clinton-era perks like late-night bull sessions, personal flattery and personal visits.

So, how is Obama gonna snag the gays for 2010?

In 2008, Obama’s finance committee, like network television, had only one gay man on it. But now there’s 15 raving homos on his team including top California gay fundraiser Rufus Grifford as campaign finance director.

This probably wouldn’t fly as recently as a year ago, when we were still annoyed with Obama dragging his feet on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and refusing to speak out against DOMA. We erred on the side of “optimistic” and wanted to like him despite his confusing behavior) Now Obama has repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (though apparently it’s still being enforced) and Obama’s justice department has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. There’s also the little things like enabling gay partner hospital visits and expanding hate crimes legislation to include gender identity.

David Mixner told Politico:

“It’s ironic — a year ago there was no constituency more unhappy. There was a sea change. You not only will see a united community that will contribute to Obama, but they will work their asses off.”

Politico also points out that “professional gay men, with a personal stake in politics and less likely to have children or college funds that would consumer their disposable income” have always been a demographic that banks for the Democratic party. For example, did you know that Howard Dean’s 2004 rise was enabled by “blockbuster fundraising from gay donors who appreciated his support for civil unions, then a cutting-edge policy”? I did not know that.

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign:

“Our community has tasted change, and it’s hard to conceive of going backward. It’s hard to conceive of that coming to a screeching halt or reversing — and so it’s a subject of great energy for members of my community and especially those with great resources. Any reservations that a significant number of donors might sit this out have been answered by Donald Trump and the fools in the Republican Party. They have become so vehemently anti-gay.”

We’ve heard “wait ’til the second term” a lot in these homosexual parts — that Obama will come out advocating for us big-time as soon as he secures the second term.

There’s also likely more hope in general that Obama’s second term will generate more positive legislation because he won’t have to worry about getting re-elected. Some might consider a pro-marriage equality stance to be a “far left” issue, but as we’ve discussed, the right has certainly proven that the passion of a radical base (and the money that comes with that) is, apparently, stronger than any moderate could sustain with a more balanced set of policies. So I think Obama should go radical left, legalize marijuana, legalize gay, health care for everyone, education for all kids not just rich kids and then we have a block party. I think that would be fun.

In the 2008 election cycle, 5 percent of gay rights lobbying money went to Republican candidates. That might be different now, with candidates like Fred Karger targeting Obama’s base and the Log Cabin Republicans, always a top donor on LGBT issues, raising its public profile, but it’s unlikely those statistics will budge too much.

What do you think? Did you give to Obama’s campaign in ’08? Would you be more or less likely to do so now?

The Deportation Hokey Pokey: Are Binational Gay Couples In Or Out?

One of the extra special magical funtime experiences of DOMA, and the limbo status that DOMA currently exists in, is the issue of what it means for gay binational couples. Historically, since same-sex marriages aren’t federally recognized, even legal marriages aren’t enough to grant a non-native citizenship, and even legally married gay couples can face deportation and permanent separation by the government unless they both decide to relocate to another country. When Obama declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, it was an admission by the government that the premise on which these deportations are based is faulty. So they should be done now, right? Well!

It’s complicated, obvs. For a little while immediately after the DOMA announcement, it seemed like they might be over. But then it seemed like maybe it wasn’t at all. But in the meantime, binational gay couples go on existing, and go on hoping against hope to be allowed to live in the same country! And with each case that goes up, there’s the hope that this will be the time when it changes. And sometimes, like this week, that hope seems somewhat justified.

Attorney General Eric Holder has “vacated the decision” of the Board of Immigration Appeals on the case of Paul Wilson Dorman, an Irish citizen living with his partner in New Jersey where they have had a civil union. What does this mean for other binational couples like Josh Vandiver and Henry Velandia? Well, not that Velandia, who is a Venezuelan national, isn’t necessarily going to be deported. It means that Holder is basically noting his personal specific reservations to the Board of Immigration – for instance, the fact that discriminatory treatment of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional – and suggesting that maybe they take a second look at cases like these. As Queerty puts it:

Now, this doesn’t mean that anything has been decided. The BIA could still take a careful look at DOMA and civil unions and decide, “no, we’re still going to deport gays.” But it’s equivalent to your boss saying “are you suuuuuuure you want to do that?” So if nothing else, it’s likely to give them pause… in other words: Holder is saying to the BIA: “stop this specific deportation. Look at what’s going on with DOMA. Think very long and hard about whether you should be deporting a couple that has a civil union.” (Our words, not his.)

This is potentially great news for Vandiver and Velandia, whose case has drawn so many supporters that a protest is staged for today at 11 am in New Jersey for Velandia’s immigration hearing. But it may have implications that go beyond their family – plenty of people are wondering whether this signals a change in policy mandated from higher up, possibly by Obama himself.

“This development could be a sign that the Obama administration is looking for a way to protect gay and lesbian binational couples who are currently barred from the regular marriage-based immigration process by the Defense of Marriage Act,” said Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations and Immigration Equality.

Of course, there are also those who see this move as less than redemptive, given the fact that it’s still very possible for Velandia to be deported, and given that some hold Obama personally responsible for the fact that we still have gay deportations at all:

On February 23, 2011, the Attorney General released a statement in which he indicated that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ‘will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch.’ In his statement, the Attorney General made it clear that ‘the President has instructed the Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA… Please note that it was Obama who ordered agencies to continue deporting same-sex, foreign-born spouses.

The agencies involved have gone back and forth on this issue plenty of times already, and whatever the result of Velandia’s immigration hearing today, it seems unlikely that his fate will represent a firm and permanent stance on the subject of deportations of binational gay couples. The legal standing on this issue will likely change, and change again, and then be rocked once more by whatever eventually pans out with DOMA. But for the time being, we can hope that one couple will be able to to stay safe and happy together for at least the present, and that eventually, more people like them will be able to do the same.

VIDEO: Obama, Seth Meyers Are Funny at White House Correspondents Dinner

The White House Correspondents Dinner is my favorite thing ever! Ever since Stephen Colbert roasted George W. Bush a few years back, I look forward to this like CHRISTMAS. Two years ago Wanda Sykes was the guest comedian, last year it was Jay Leno, this year was Seth Meyers.

If you’re unfamiliar with the White House Correspondents Association Dinner then here’s the scoop: Starting in 1920, the White House Correspondents Association (an organization of journalists who cover the White House and the President of the United States) holds a dinner on the last Saturday in April at the Hilton. Usually the president and vice president will go. Before World War II, the dinner included singing between courses, a movie, and an hour-long, post-dinner show with big-name performers. Over the past several years they’ve switched to hiring comedians who basically roast the President.

Past comedians have included Sinbad, Conan O’Brien, Jon Stewart, Drew Carey, Jay Leno and Cedric the Entertainer. After the year where Stephen Colbert embarrassed him, George W. Bush had his wife do the funny bits and it was very lovely.

In addition to the actual press in attendance, lots of movie stars come to these things. This year’s famouse people included Eric Stonestreet, Jesse Tyler Ferguson. Jane Lynch, Mira Sorvino, Kate Hudson, Amber Riley, Alyssa Milan, Felicity Huffman, Rashida Jones, Chelsea Handler, Cee-Lo, America Ferrera, Sean Penn, Anna Paquin, Mindy Kaling, Chris Colfer, Jon Hamm, Eliza Dushku, and DJ Samantha Ronson. The complete guest list is here, except it’s not really complete.

This year’s speech did not disappoint, especially the King’s Speech parody video, The President’s Speech.

++

Barack Obama the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner

+

++

Seth Meyers, head writer of Saturday Night Live at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner

+

Jane Lynch:

Boehner Hires Really Expensive Lawyer to Defend DOMA, Is a Real Anti-Gay Go-Getter

Hey remember all those threats from Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner that he was going to use government money to defend DOMA in court? Which is confusing because the government, albeit a different part of it, was also responsible for deciding not to defend DOMA in court. I know. Anyways, good news, that is apparently not just a threat anymore! If John Boehner has his way, this is on like Donkey Kong.

PAUL CLEMENT

Boehner and the House of Representatives have hired Paul Clement of the King & Spaulding law firm. Clement is a former US Solicitor General; interestingly, Prop 8 trial lawyer Ted Olson was the US Solicitor General that came before him, making for some neat symmetry. He’s also shared a client – the NFL – with David Boies. It’s a small world when it comes to high-profile litigation around same-sex marriage, apparently.

Clement has been referred to as “the LeBron James of law firm recruiting,” and at one point was tapped by George W. Bush to be the future Attorney General. It was speculated that in a potential John McCain presidency, he might be a Supreme Court justice. His most recent high-profile case was defending the NRA in McDonald v. Chicago. It seems relatively safe to say that in addition to being a talented lawyer, Paul Clement has some genuine socially conservative leanings, and that his appointment to this case was not a coincidence in that regard. (Although it’s worth noting that the website for King & Spaulding states that “King and Spaulding is committed to having the brightest and most diverse lawyers it can find, including members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)community,” and also that for employees of its firm, “Domestic Partner benefits are offered for same-sex couples.”)

Paul Clement’s King & Spaulding law firm is objectively described as “blue chip;” Clement is rumored to be in the $5 million per year bracket. We probably won’t be told how much the House is paying Clement, but we do know where Boehner wants the money to come from:

“The burden of defending DOMA, and the resulting costs associated with any litigation that would have otherwise been born by DOJ, has fallen to the House.Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA. It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”

His idea seems, at best, willfully ignorant of the fact that the reason the DoJ has given up “the burden of defending DOMA” is because it has ruled the amendment unconstitutional and therefore an irresponsible use of the government’s time and money. His whole scheme seems pretty willfully ignorant in general, in fact, given the fact that the government almost shut down because of a lack of funding, and is still limping along on a lot of talk about compromise. Just for the sake of full disclosure, here are some of the current headlines about John Boehner and the government’s budget:

While Boehner’s maneuvering in the budget negotiations in Congress have been lauded by some, others are harshly critical of his allowing more spending in the final budget than he originally promised conservative voters. Do those voters fear same-sex marriage enough to approve spending money we don’t have in order to fight it? That’s what Nancy Pelosi wants to know: she says that the House still hasn’t provided an actual cost for hiring Clement, nor has anyone been allowed to see his contract. Clement will receive $520/hour for his services, and some reports indicate that this is a deal and the firm typically makes up to $900/hour. It seems like creating 50 new $10/hour jobs for American citizens would be a better way to spend that money, but I digress.

“Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel,” Pelosi wrote. “Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged.”

This is just really special on so many levels!

After a few Presidential terms in a row of jokes about secession and dividing up the country between red and blue, it’s still shocking to see this play itself out in Congress; bipartisanship is one thing, but the relationship between the House and the rest of the legislative and executive branches is starting to look like an all-out war within our own government. Which is maybe unsurprising; the current GOP has been identified as a party of warhawks for a long time now.

But it’s never been so clear that winning what they’ve decided is a cultural war has trumped what’s always been the basic tenets of the Republican party: reducing government spending, cutting taxes, and making sure that the White House stays out of our homes and our lives. When did that happen? And how long is it going to last?

P.S. Maybe go sign this petition real quick: Tell Law Firm King & Spalding Don’t Defend Bigotry Against LGBT People

Budget Compromise Happens, U.S. Government Still Exists But Is Still Mad Tho

After weeks of vicious bickering between Congress Democrats and Republicans about what’s worth spending the government’s money on, their latest stop-gap measure of a temporary budget expired at midnight last night. There was a real fear that if a long-term budget couldn’t be agreed upon, a “government shutdown” would have to occur – a suspension of federal government agencies that would have required the government to “furlough an estimated 800,000 government workers, close national parks, passport offices and other operations, and suspend an array of federal services” without the money to keep them running.

Republicans urged cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, largely because it provides abortions to some women, although (as many pointed out) abortions make up such a small part of Planned Parenthood’s work that in effect, the measure would mostly have cut access to contraception and treatment for STDs. Nor does any federal money directly fund abortion services SO IT’S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Last night, Democrats and Republicans finally managed a compromise that didn’t please everyone, but that will enable the government to remain in business while they continue to bicker about the details of the agreement.

In the end, budget cuts totaled $39 billion, and many of the cuts Democrats had feared most did not come to pass. Some of the things that did not get cut include:

+ Planned Parenthood will remain funded in the compromise, although there will be a separate vote about it later in the Senate. (It is not expected to be defunded in that vote either.)

+ NPR. GOP threats to defund public radio were dropped.

+ The Affordable Care Act. Obama’s health care law will remain funded, although there will also be a separate vote on it in the Senate – especially in light of the fact that judges earlier this year found part of it unconstitutional, there may well end up being changes to the law.

+ The EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency will remain funded to regulate the level of greenhouse gases.

+ The FCC. A provision from the Republicans that would have barred funding for the FCC to implement “net neutrality” rules was dropped.

At least one new provision was created – a school voucher system for low-income children of the District of Columbia. Just like any compromise, though, everyone had to give something up. Some things were bills that people had worked very hard for and that would have helped a lot of people, and they were cut anyways. Some of the things for which funding was banned:

+ Funding to transfer prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to the US mainland.

+ The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created last year and which Republicans have been widely critical of, will now have to undergo an annual audit on its use of funding.

+ Funding for abortions in the District of Columbia will be banned. (If you are confused by this because federal funding for abortions was already banned in general, you are not alone.)

+ Free Choice Vouchers. This was the bill sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and it would have helped people for whom health insurance coverage costs between 8 and 9.8% of their annual income by letting them take their employer’s health insurance contribution to an insurance provider that costs less.

+ In the new compromise, Obama is prohibited from additional funding for the IRS, which could affect the agency’s ability to actually enforce the healthcare law. The compromise also calls for several new studies on the effectiveness of the health care law – its “impact on premiums, the waivers the administration has given to limited-benefit health plans, the comparative effectiveness research funds in the law and the 2009 stimulus package, and the cost of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law.” Republicans hope that they can eventually defeat it if it’s proven to be less effective than Democrats had hoped.

Although Democrats were able to protect many of the federal and cultural institutions that they value most, this was still a good day for Speaker of the House John Boehner. Although he’s been under heavy criticism from conservatives and especially the Tea Party for not pushing as hard as they wanted on budget cuts, although one could argue that the Tea Party’s expectations in this regard were less than reasonable. Now, however, Boehner seems to have won them and the conservatives of America back as a group, and is being hailed as the ‘winner’ of the budget fracas.

Fox News headlines on the subject include “Who Won The Shutdown Showdown? It Wasn’t Even Close” as well as “How He Did It: Three Keys To Boehner’s Budget Victory”. If you are interested in hearing a socially liberal interpretation of what “victory” for Boehner means for the rest of the country, try Melissa’s post at Shakesville: “Not only is the US government pursuing an austerity strategy, which is a terrible idea in every conceivable way, and will fail to stimulate growth while simultaneously creating a greater strain on underfunded social programs, but this “success” has come at the expense of women’s reproductive rights.”

Boehner has already become the face of the Republicans of Congress and of the Republican House’s animosity towards the Senate and President, and it will be interesting to see how his ‘budget victory’ affects his standing and his goals for the new fiscal year. In the coverage of the compromise, he is set against Harry Reid, each of them described as champions of their respective parties, with Boehner’s priority being reduced government spending and Reid’s being access to healthcare, especially for women. (Reid claimed that the stall in closing the deal came from Boehner’s insistence on attacking the Title X program, which provides family planning services for low-income women, while Boehner claimed the issue was ‘spending levels.’)

The bill isn’t in effect yet; ironically, the government is still actually using one more ’emergency stop-gap measure’ to keep things going while they work out the details of the new agreement. Not everyone supports or endorses the compromise; a few Republicans have said they will vote against it “lacks many of the important bipartisan policy provisions my colleagues and I supported: stopping Obamacare, rolling back the job-killing EPA and defunding Planned Parenthood,” as Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas says. Nancy Pelosi has stopped short of endorsing the bill also, saying only that “House Democrats look forward to reviewing the components of the final funding measure.” Although there will be more voting in Congress on the subject of how to spend the government’s money, it seems unlikely that these provisions will change significantly.

The financial compromise is welcome, and it’s comforting not only that the government will have the money to keep running, but that the people who are in charge were able to on some level put the continued function of our nation’s leadership above their personal priorities. The conflicting stories already being told the next day about the process of compromise, however, tell a different and more unsettling story. When one side uses the language of “coming together” and the other is still using the language of “showdowns” and “victory,” it raises more questions than answers on what the continued functioning of the government is going to look like.

85 Nations Agree: Gay People Deserve Protection From Discrimination

85 countries signed a statement by the United Nations Human Rights Council to support gay rights on March 22.

By signing the statement, nations “call on States to take steps to end acts of violence, criminal sanctions and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, encourage Special Procedures, treaty bodies and other stakeholders to continue to integrate these issues within their relevant mandates, and urge the Council to address these important human rights issues.” While the statement acknowledges that there has been some progress recently in human rights w/r/t sexual orientation and gender identity, it also acknowledges that there’s a lot left to do.

Earlier this month, Obama called for international support in fighting discrimination:

“Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love. The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence.”

And he (and the U.S., which is a member of the Human Rights Council and is trying to renew that membership despite concerns about its “biased and disproportionate focus on Israel”) got it. From 85 countries. The U.S. ambassador Susan Rice called the statement “historic.” In a joint release, Amnesty International, The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Watch called it “unprecedented.”

But predictably, not everyone supported defending gay rights.

+ Before signing the (non-binding) statement, the ambassador from South Africa proposed creating a new group to study “new concepts such as sexual orientation” before trying to integrate them into international policy. Groups such as Lawyers for Human Rights and the Gay and Lesbian Equality Project contested this, obviously. South Africa eventually signed along with everyone else.

+ The ambassador from Nigeria spoke against the statement, reportedly on behalf of the Africa Group, invoking heterosexuality, God, and saying that both men and women are needed to make babies. The Africa Group was previously behind a vote to remove sexual orientation from a resolution that protects against arbitrary execution. However, the ambassador still said that sexual orientation should not be criminalized. Nigeria did not sign the statement.

+ The ambassador from Pakistan, speaking on behalf of 57 nations in which Muslim people are a majority, argued against the statement and didn’t sign.

+ The Russian ambassador reportedly said that “these people” do not deserve “special rights” and also didn’t sign.

But! Countries such as Dominica, Honduras, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the Central African Republic did sign. Which is awesome, and makes it seem slightly more likely that the vision of a unified global stance against anti-gay violence can become a reality.

All Of The Gay Marriages: This Week’s Roundup

It’s Wednesday afternoon, do you know where your marriage rights are? You’re about to, because this is a gay marriage roundup.

HOW HAVE WE NEVER USED THIS STOCK IMAGE BEFORE??

If you live in Rhode Island, your gay marriage has someone in its corner! Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin is travelling there to support a same-sex marriage law, and he knows the business of marriage well: as leader of his state’s Senate, Shumlin was integral in passing Vermont’s civil union law. He wants lawmakers in Rhode Island to know that even though the opposition is vocal, the law is valuable and worth considering, and that the risk is worth taking. (Many legislators who supported the civil unions in VT were defeated during the next election cycle.) He says:

“I just want to go down and add my voice, tell about our experience, just let them know that at least in Vermont’s case not only can you do the right thing, not only can you have your state be a place where you treat everybody with the dignity and equality that they should expect, but that there isn’t political fall out and frankly a lot of people appreciate you for having the courage to stand up.”

The better news? It looks pretty certain that the bill will pass the House with loving embraces all around, and the new Rhode Island Governor is an Independent who appears very supportive of the measure. It is still questionable whether the bill will make it through the state’s Senate.

And as if powerful friends don’t warm your heart enough, students in Rhode Island are also taking action on the issue. Rhode Island College students partnered with Marriage Equality Rhode Island to host an on-campus rally last week supporting same-sex marriage. And it sounds like it was quite a party:

Despite the cold weather that day, the rally received a good turnout of both students and faculty, from both RIC and the public. About 100 people attended. The rally provided lunch for participants. The representatives from MERI also brought shirts, buttons and bumper stickers with them which they handed out to attendees. Rhode Island College’s interactive circus group, EPIC, performed and provided entertainment for the event.

Participants at the rally were asked to call representatives and ask for support of the bill and also to pledge to support the representative for supporting the bill. The representatives from MERI brought pre-paid cell phones for participants to use. At one point there were ten people in line waiting to use a phone.

See, Rhode Island? Good days are on the way! But don’t lounge at the pool just yet – get out, or I guess stay in, and call your representatives to keep that marriage bill safe and warm! Otherwise, knowing the way these things work, it might get lost along the way or have a bad hair day or something.

ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION, RHODE ISLAND? PAY ATTENTION.

There’s sort of a similar celebration brewing in Colorado, where gay marriage has been described as coming “in a matter of time.” So how much time? Well, Mike Littwin of the Denver Post said it’s happening in “double quick real time.” This is because the state Senate recently passed a civil union bill, and not just with a majority, but with relative silence on behalf of its opponents. And not only is this good news for people in Denver and the rest of the The Centennial State, but for YOU, too:

As late as the 2008 election season, it was still considered too dangerous for serious presidential candidates to come out in favor of gay marriage. And so you’d see liberals like Barack Obama settle on civil unions as a compromise position.

Now Obama says he’s rethinking the marriage issue. My guess is that he’s not really rethinking the marriage issue — that he was, in fact, already there — but rather recalculating the politics.

And while people “rethink” gay marriage and “civil rights” and why we only finally started having that conversation, Basic Rights Oregon is giving you some primetime television advertisements that will totally sway you if you weren’t already in line to get gay married holding those lace-up boot cake toppers in your hands. And the better news is, gay marriage is making even more friends in Oregon! Basic Rights Oregon is trying to get a measure for gay unions on the 2012 ballot, and this ad is intended to bring in new support – so it appeals to straight people, and pretty damn well:

So repeat after me: good days are on the way! But don’t send out save-the-dates just yet… especially if you live in Montana or Indiana.

In Montana, gay sex is illegal. I know this sounds really weird, and maybe even too silly to be an important political issue – there are more states than you might think that still have ‘unnatural intercourse’ laws from like 1823 – but gay sex is illegal in Montana. And to be honest, you’d be right to rule it out as a heavy political issue: in 1997, the law was struck down. It just remains on the books. (Thank someone for the nineties – before the ruling in 1997 gay sex meant lesbians and gay men could face fines and legal punishment for doin’ their thing.) However, the House recently blocked discussion on the issue – and apparently lawmakers in Montana are still debating whether the law banning gay sex was unconstitutional. The charge to put a bill into motion that re-states the 1997 ruling is being led by a lesbian, too! Her name is Diane Sands. She is making friends with your gay marriage, or I guess with your gay sex life:

In her closing, Sands said she knows that many representatives consider homosexuality to be a sin, which is their right. But she said the court has ruled the law unconstitutional and so the language should be removed from Montana law.

“You know, we are members of your family and your community,” Sands said. “We sit next to you in your pew at church and in some cases we’re your pastor, whether you know it or not. We care for your parents in nursing homes. We’re your nieces and nephews.

“We fill the potholes on your streets, and we even serve beside you as members of the House and the Senate. These days we serve beside you in the House and the Senate as out members of the lesbian and gay community, partly because we were not under the threat of this law.”

Meanwhile in Indiana, the Senate took it a step further, and moved to ban gay marriage altogether. As you can now see, this is why you shouldn’t be kicking back deciding on wedding cake flavors:

The Indiana Senate voted 40-10 in favor of a measure that would allow Hoosiers to vote on an amendment to prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying or having any legal status “substantially similar” to marriage.

The House of Representatives passed the same measure, House Joint Resolution 6, by a vote of 70-26 last month, but it’s only halfway toward being placed on the ballot.

And as if this doesn’t seem depressing enough, the idea of a constitutional ban is actually just a dramatized version of the existing situation: gay marriage has been banned by law in Indiana since 1986. The extra push for a constitutional ban in the state is being put forward in preparation for all these new-fangled gay rights that people keep finding all over the place.

The moral of today’s gay marriage roundup is that nothing is certain, still, but things are good, still, and some things are not, still. So do what you can to talk to who is listening – it’s starting to pay off! (And also, if you live in Indiana or Montana, I am sorry and I love you. You look great today and if you want to visit, you just have to ask me really nice.) We can still cuddle.

CUDDLING: STILL LEGAL PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE WE THINK

Deportation Adjournment Good News For Lesbian Couple, Bad News For DOMA

Amid the celebration of Obama and the Department of Justice’s decision to no longer defend DOMA in federal court, there have also been warnings not to forget the attendant grain of salt: that this decision was not the same as a repeal, and that an actual repeal would be very difficult, given the stubbornness of the Republican-majority House on much less controversial issues. But this week we see what might be the first real consequence of the DoJ’s decision, and it’s more than even staunch optimists had hoped for: a bi-national gay couple has been granted an adjournment of deportation as they try to have their marriage recognized by the federal government.

Monica Alcota and Cristina Ojeda have been together for four years and married for one, a marriage that was recognized on the state but not the federal level. Since Ojeda is a recent immigrant from Argentina, this is a scary thing – Ojeda has already been detained with the possibility of deportation once:

That’s exactly what happened to Ojeda –– for three months at least –– in 2009. As the couple traveled through upstate New York by bus to bring Ojeda’s belongings from Buffalo, where she had just finished up a master’s degree in social work, to Queens, where the two women now live, a spot border control check resulted in Alcota being detained by immigration officials. She ended up in a privately-run detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, from which she could have been deported at any time.

The threat of deportation has always loomed for the couple, and seemed to have come true when the hearing with Judge Bain was scheduled. The couple was in the process of submitting a Form I-130, a formal petition to have the government grant Ojeda permanent residency based on her relationship with Alcota, just like a heterosexual couple. In a deportation hearing yesterday, Immigration Judge Terry A. Bain ruled that Ojeda’s proposed deportation back to Argentina should be adjourned at least until December, allowing the couple time to pursue residency with the claim of their Form I-130.

The judge’s ruling is staggering, because it implies a belief that their request for recognition by the government could be granted. Bain’s decision means that, given the current status of DOMA, she sees at least a possible foreseeable future where Ojeda and Alcota’s marriage has the same legal status as a corresponding heterosexual couple’s in the eyes of the federal law. “It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of what happened in there,” Soloway said immediately after the hearing. “An adjournment based on an I-130. It would never have happened a year ago. I don’t think I even would have filed it.” Steve Ralls of Immigration Equality, which advocates for families like Ojeda and Alcota’s, says he’s hopeful that Bain’s decision might set a precedent for other cases; it would be welcome news to all of the other binational gay couples who also have to constantly fear deportation.

This ruling is excellent news, and tells us that at least some people in the know believe that the repeal of DOMA might not be far off. It’s not necessarily the ruling anyone expected, but as the couple’s other attorney Noemi Masliah says, it’s also “realistic in light of recent developments.” In declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, Obama has made his plans for it fairly clear: to the extent that it’s possible with the attitude of the House, he wants it repealed. Even if he isn’t able to complete it before the potential end of his presidency in 2012, it seems unlikely that any political candidate can persuasively argue for its continued existence. As Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out, keeping DOMA alive is (literally) more than the government can afford right now, as is losing the millions of dollars that gay marriages would mean for the country’s economy. As the budget/union debacle in Wisconsin effectively demonstrates, even strong social conservatives aren’t willing to stand by Republican lawmakers if they play fast and loose with their constituents’ jobs, benefits or taxpayer money.

Ojeda and Alcota’s adjournment is until December; we may not see the end of DOMA by then, but it’s just as likely that they’ll simply be granted another adjournment at that time. Judge Bain is like a judicial canary in a coal mine; we may be finally reaching the point where it’s generally accepted that DOMA isn’t defensible on a legal, financial, or moral basis.

Obama Asks the World to Be Nice to Gay People, Support Gay Rights

Despite the fact that the U.S. government does not, at this time, really all-the-way fully support “the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence,” The Obama Administration on Tuesday called on the U.N. Human Rights Council to “fight discrimination against gays and lesbians around the world.”

“Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love. The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence.”

Despite the resentment implied by our opening paragraph, the truth is that American Gays are really lucky compared to a lot of the world. Sure, we’re no Canada and we can’t just yet register at Crate & Barrel, but at least our government doesn’t openly sanction the rape, torture and murder of gay people! It’s also worth noting that George W. Bush consistently sidestepped this topic and never spoke up for gay & lesbian rights. Probably he was on vacation. You know?

Suzanne Nossel, deputy assistant secretary of State for international organizational affairs, said:

“It is a really pressing issue globally that there continue to be killings on the basis of sexual orientation and persecution on that basis. I think this will stimulate dialogue and increase recognition of the importance of the issue among governments.”

The President of Communications at The Human Rights Campaign said “the U.S. was finally stepping into the role it should have held all along as a worldwide leader in promoting equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

Oh also? Last weekend when President Obama was in Brazil hanging out with the President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, Obama announced that he’ll be creating a government position to monitor gay rights in the Western Hemisphere. Gayest administration ever, I’m tellin’ ya.

This is a rough estimate based on our calculations of what The Executive of Gay Rights in the Western Hemisphere will look like:

Once More, With Feeling: DOMA Repeal Bill To Be Introduced Wednesday, Celebrities Petition Obama

ALERT THE MEDIA! CALL YOUR FRIENDS AND YOUR LOVED ONES! GO PICK OUT CUTE CAKE TOPPERS! (Do they make toppers of girls in lace-up boots? I hope so.) And best of all, PICK OUT THE ALCOHOL FOR YOUR OPEN BAR!

Because now it’s time for our 1,456th shot at getting our gay marriage rights against all odds! But this time there are slightly better odds, because Obama doesn’t want to defend DOMA anymore.

A bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a pinnacle piece of anti-same-sex marriage legislation, will be introduced this Wednesday. New York Representative Jerrold Nadler will be introducing the repeal legislation. A good summary of the situation is that this is not the first time, but it could be THE time.

President Obama’s declaration that DOMA is unconstitutional gave the “Respect for Marriage Act” new life:

Nadler introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would end DOMA, the Clinton-era law that bans federal agencies from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples and allows states to ignore such marriages from other states, in September, 2009. The measure quickly rounded up 100 co-sponsors in its first 30 days and then fizzled without a companion Senate bill.

Nadler will be joined on Wednesday by openly gay House members Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis, and David Cicilline, as well as civil rights leader Rep. John Conyer. Also in court will be some of the plantiffs from DOMA cases who are currently being hurt by DOMA, like Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau.

Things in the Senate are also looking better than last time! Dianne Feinstein of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have signed on to similar legislation already in the Senate. Hopefully, this means it will get easier to get the Act through Congress and straight to the desk of our biggest fan (that was hyperbole, calm down) Barack Obama.

Once again the liberal Hollywood elite has stepped forward to voice their support of this repeal. The Freedom to Marry campaign has pulled out its heavyweights with a letter urging the President to repeal DOMA.

Mr. President, marriage matters. In law, in love, in life, marriage says “we are family” in a way that nothing else does. Marriage is the coming together of two lives, marked by a public promise of love and responsibility in front of friends and family. And marriage brings not only public respect and personal significance, but also a safety net of legal protections, rights, and responsibilities for which there is no substitute.

The signers include Ellen DeGeneres & Portia DeRossiDeGeneres, Anne Hathaway, Jane Lynch, Rufus Wainright, Lily Tomlin and Martin Sheen. Speaking of Martin Sheen, let’s watch this video again:

Now go sign the petition, seriously, it’s important.

Obama Hires Gay Social Secretary to Join the Gayest Presidential Staff Ever

Obama announced on Friday that he will be hiring a dude to be his Social Secretary — the first man ever hired for this position. But not just any man. It’s a GAY MAN. He’s replacing Jessica Smoot, who needs to get back to work on Obama’s re-election campaign, having replaced the previous Social Secretary who screwed up and let those Reality TV Show people into that dinner party.

Jeremy Bernard, a former Democratic fund-raiser and active member of the gay rights community, is a senior adviser to the U.S. Ambassador to France and once upon a time had worked for Bill Clinton’s President’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. In addition to being one of Obama’s closest connections to the gay community and a key campaign fundraiser, Bernard served on the board of ANGLE (Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality) and the National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. He’s also worked on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advisory committees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles mayor’s office.

The White House says:

“Jeremy shares our vision for the White House as the People’s House, one that celebrates our history and culture in dynamic and inclusive ways.”

Jeremy says: 

“I have long admired the arts and education programs that have become hallmarks of the Obama White House and I am eager to continue these efforts in the years ahead.”

The White House Social Secretary is “responsible for the planning, coordination and execution of official social events at the White House” which basically means throwing parties and hiring famous people to come play music and so forth and deciding who gets to sit where. He works on non-political and political functions for the Prez, his family, and senior political staff, and events can range from “Tea with the First Lady” to “big huge dinner.”

There’s a really interesting article about Jeremy Bernard in the LA Weekly from 2008 called Obama’s Gay Gold Mine in which Jeremy and his boyfriend/business partner are credited with “keeping the Barack Obama presidential campaign alive and competitive” and being two of “only a handful of people in [West Hollywood]” with “the contacts and relationships to deliver the big checks.” Their prime reason for going into fundraising:

“…gay issues are central to their own political agendas, and they know from years of experience that money gives them unique and up-close access to power. They have the luxury, after climbing to the top, of throwing their deep-pocketed connections only behind candidates who closely match their politics.”

Anyhow — you guys, Obama hires a lot of gay people. Could this be part of his secret stealth agenda to slowly give us what we want? Not even counting The Supreme Court (coughcough), the man has been filling Washington with homosexuals, assuring that most everyone who works with him will be able to say they have a gay friend.

In 2008, after the election, Obama hired seven gay people. In June 2010, after granting federal employees with same-sex partners many more benefits, 365gay reported that Obama had already hired over 100 openly gay and lesbian staffers, which is more gays than existed in Bush & Clinton’s staffs together. Obama hired openly gay Kevin Jennings to be the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, which made all the conservatives super-upset and they ran around saying that Jennings promoted homosexuality in schools and wrote openly about drug abuse and sex. He also re-hired a lesbian who’d been fired for being gay by a previous administration: Leslie Hagen, the liaison between the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys’ committee on Native American issues, got her old job back when Obama needed to fill that position. Furthermore, Obama hired a transgender woman to serve as Senior Technical Adviser to the Commerce Department, the first (openly) transgender presidential appointee in history.

Okay, let the “gays throw great parties” jokes commence!

Obama Administration is Over DOMA (UPDATED: Sen. Feinstein Will Now Introduce DOMA Repeal Legislation!)

President Barack Obama has decided that he will no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act against constitutional challenges. In addition, it is his recommendation, based on an understanding of queer people’s historical oppression and experience of discrimination, the classification of sexual orientation should be looked at with heightened scrutiny (a term that our legal beagle explains at length in our Prop 8 Gay Marriage Trial Explained: How Do We Win This Thing?) That’s actually a ton of extremely important and beneficial political change wrapped up in two sentences, so we’ll break it down further for you. Let’s start with DOMA.

Section 3 of DOMA is the part that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton, who we thought was our friend, but apparently was not.

DOMA prevents couples living in states where they can be legally married from getting federal benefits or having their marriage recognized for tax purposes. Obama’s change of position means that the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 in the ongoing cases Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States.

This decision came seemingly out of nowhere. To the best of our knowledge, not even Obama’s staunchest supporters thought this announcement would be made as early as today. Many less optimistic activists didn’t trust Obama to make this move at all before the end of his presidency. The president has always maintained that he wants to see DOMA end, but until today the Department of Justice has continued to defend its existence in court on the basis that it could still advance rational arguments for its continued existence.

Here’s Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement about that:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

The two cases immediately affected by this policy, Pedersen and Windsor, are actually what allowed Obama the opportunity to make this statement, which brings us to the issue of intermediate scrutiny. The cases are both in the Second Circuit of the federal court system. As explained by the AG in the letter to Congress, the Second Circuit has no set standard for how to review classifications based on sexuality. Every other DOMA case that Obama has defended happened in other circuits that use a standard of rational basis review for sexuality. This was the first opportunity Obama has had to voice his own opinion on the appropriate standard. He thinks that intermediate scrutiny should apply, and he doesn’t think the arguments in favor of DOMA are good enough to survive intermediate scrutiny, thus he won’t make them in court.

Keep in mind, no court has ruled that sexuality should get intermediate scrutiny. This is simply Obama policing himself, which is good in that it will result in more favorable verdicts for those of us fighting against DOMA. But this does not set up any precedent for how to treat sexuality in the future, say for example in cases about same-sex marriage. The president’s view is excellent persuasive evidence that may shape this debate in the future, but it doesn’t have any binding effect on courts.

Ultimately, the lawsuits brought by brave souls against the federal government are what brought us where we are today. Of course, the battle is far from over. As the Attorney General notes, Section 3 will remain in effect until Congress actually repeals it, and there’s still plenty of legislature on the books that makes life difficult for same-sex couples who want to live a happily married life.

But this is still an extraordinary moment in history. The past few weeks have seen people all over the world sacrificing incredible amounts for small steps towards freedom from oppression, and from Wisconsin to Libya we are awestruck at the tenacity and courage of the average citizen when the basic rights of a community to freedom from harm and persecution are at stake. This is a victory for gay people in America, but also for the fundamental principles of democracy and human decency. It deserves to be celebrated, and so do we for being part of it.

UPDATE! ETA 12:29 PST:

In the wake of this historical news, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, a senior member of the Judiciary Committe, has announced that she will introduce legislation to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)!

Feinstein says: “My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that. I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed.”

Republican Senator Jim DeMint says:

“It’s increasingly obvious this President cares little about the Constitution, but cares deeply about pandering to liberal interest groups. Traditional marriage is the foundation of America’s culture, and the President’s refusal to defend marriage undermines our nation’s strength. The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land and the President’s administration hasn’t challenged its constitutionality for two years. It’s only in the run-up to reelection that he’s suddenly changed his mind. If the President is seriously concerned about unconstitutional laws, he should abandon his defense of the health care bill.”

So whatever, screw that guy.