June 27, 2009

Where’s Our Harvey? Or Do We Need One?

Jeremy W. Peters makes some good points re: Why the Gay Rights Movement Has No National Leader:

Gay people have no national standard-bearer, no go-to sound-byte machine for the media. …

One explanation is that gay and lesbian activists learned early on that they could get along just fine without one.

Well, yes, that’s been true, but only as long as “gay activists pursued a different approach, focusing on issues pertinent to their local communities”:

City councils and state legislatures are where domestic partnership laws and legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians originated.

That’s the way it’s always been — until now. Now, we’re on the national stage.

Tweet This Post!

When They Call You A “One-Issue Voter”

It’s annoying enough to hear the “You’re just a one-issue voter!” line (what do they do, issue a list of talking points at Bigot Central?) from an openly hostile Anti-Gay, but when you’re on the receiving end of the same thing from someone who’s supposed to be LGBT, or an ally… it’s downright maddening.

That said, here’s an excellent response (particularly the first paragraph), by gayjaybird, overheard at Pam’s:

Tweet This Post!

June 18, 2009

Whaddya Think the Righties Will Emphasize: That He’s a Mormon, or an Immigrant?

Riverside Police Department (PDF, with photo):

Child Molestation Investigation

Riverside, CA — On Wednesday June 3, 2009, detectives from the Riverside Police Department’s Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Unit arrested Edilberto Esquivel Olivares (AKA: Eddie Esquivel) on several counts of child molestation.

Olivares a 39-year old, non-resident alien had been in the United States on a Work-Visa and was under investigation for several months. During the years 2001 through 2005, Olivares was a Boy Scout Assistant Leader for a troop affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS De Anza Ward (5900 Grand Avenue in Riverside). Two independent male juvenile victims have come forward and disclosed multiple victimizations that occurred between 2002 and 2008. There is no connection between the victims and investigators believe there is a possibility there may be more victims.

Anyone with information pertaining to this child molestation investigation should contact Detective Michael Barney (951) 353-7121 or Detective J. Wood (951) 353-7125.

Tweet This Post!

June 15, 2009

Joe Solmonese’s Open Letter to Barack Obama

June 15, 2009
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I have had the privilege of meeting you on several occasions, when visiting the White House in my capacity as president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization representing millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across this country. You have welcomed me to the White House to express my community’s views on health care, employment discrimination, hate violence, the need for diversity on the bench, and other pressing issues. Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

So on behalf of my organization and millions of LGBT people who are smarting in the aftermath of reading that brief, allow me to reintroduce us.

Tweet This Post!

U.S. Mayors Do What POTUS Doesn’t Have the Guts to Do

NEW YORK, June 15, 2009 — The U.S. Conference of Mayors today passed a resolution in support of ending the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. The resolution, titled “Equality and Civil Rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans,” included support for the freedom to marry along with endorsement of federal bills such as Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Tweet This Post!

June 7, 2009

What’s the Hold-Up on Lifting U.S. HIV Travel Ban?

One of the very few good things (and maybe the only good thing) George W. Bush ever did was signing PEPFAR into law last summer, which, among other things, lifted “the HIV travel/immigration ban, which bars foreign travelers with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States unless they obtain a spouse or family waiver.”

So why can’t Canadian Martin Rooney cross the border to go shopping — or do something a wee bit more important, like passing through the U.S. to get to Mexico, where he does awareness- and fundraising for AIDS Tijuana? (”To access Tijuana,” Rooney explains, “you have to go through San Diego, and basically the bottom line to this is very simple — I cannot do my humanitarian work.”)

Tweet This Post!

June 3, 2009

UAFA Senate Hearing This Morning

Today’s Congressional Record isn’t available yet, but when it is, it will be here.

In the meantime, The Washington Blade has a rundown of the proceedings:

Tweet This Post!

May 28, 2009

Senate Hearings on Uniting American Families Act June 3rd

Details at Immigration Equality.

Wow. Keep your fingers crossed!

Tweet This Post!

May 22, 2009

Texas Mayor J.W. Lown: What He Did for Love

Texas mayor resigns for gay partner

The mayor of San Angelo, Texas, has resigned just ten days after a landslide re-election victory to pursue his relationship with his gay partner, an illegal immigrant.

J W Lown was elected in 2003 as the city’s youngest ever mayor at the age of 32. He has been re-elected three times, gaining 89 per cent of the latest vote, held ten days ago. …

Lown said he had chosen not to take the oath of office while “aiding and assisting” a person who was illegally in the country. …

Even if Lown married his partner by proxy in a state that allows gay marriage, the federal government does not recognise same-sex marriages for immigration purposes.

Tweet This Post!

May 20, 2009

Who is Yasmin Nair, and Why Does This Alleged “Queer Lesbian” Parrot Right-Wing Anti-Gay Talking Points?

If you haven’t had the unfortunate experience of running across Yasmin Nair before, consider yourself lucky.

My luck ran out when The Bilerico Project decided to allow this woman (who calls herself a “queer lesbian who loves c*ck,” whatever that means; to me it sounds like Nair is bisexual, doesn’t want to be, and assuages her own internalized biphobia by insisting she’s a lesbian) to whine about how she was criticized by readers at Queercents.com, after she posted a baseless, insensitive, and positively senseless op/ed denigrating the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), and the gay and lesbian couples torn apart by current U.S. immigration law.

And if that doesn’t get your hackles up, this will: She’s dead-set against marriage equality, this so-called “queer lesbian.”

Tweet This Post!

May 14, 2009

Andrew Sullivan Lets Loose on Obama

Cick to embiggen
© AmuseYourself.com

Mind you, I don’t like Andrew Sullivan — in my book, he’s still a neocon Republican enabler, and I take an extremely dim view of his irresponsible promiscuity (while no one ever “deserves” HIV, there’s a very good reason Michaelangelo Signorile calls him “Bareback Andy“).

That said, when Sullivan is right, he’s right, and this is one of those times he’s right — at least when he’s not making Obama’s inaction on LGBT rights all about himself:

Tweet This Post!

March 16, 2009

WaPo Keeps Binational Couples in Spotlight

A short but solid argument in favor of same-sex immigration rights:

Tweet This Post!

December 1, 2008

World AIDS Day 2008: Addressing the Epidemic

WASHINGTON, D.C. — December 1, 2008 — On this World AIDS Day, as 33 million people worldwide live with HIV, we pause to recognize the magnitude of the HIV/AIDS crisis in our own country and to call for action commensurate with this domestic crisis.

AIDS is the number one killer for black women between the ages of 25 and 34.

Black women are now almost 15 times as likely to be infected with HIV and 23 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS as white women.

The HIV rate in Washington, D.C., our nation’s capital, is 1 in 20-the same as the overall rate in sub-Saharan Africa.

A total of 56,300 people in the United States were newly infected with HIV in 2006, a number 40 percent higher than previously estimated.

Fifty-three percent of new HIV infections in 2006 occurred in gay and bisexual men of all races and ethnicities.

African Americans, who make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population, now make up more than 45 percent of new infections.

If African Americans in the United States constituted their own country, that country would rank 16 in the world among those with the highest number of individuals living with HIV.

The number of African Americans infected with HIV now exceeds the number of HIV-positive people in 7 of the 15 countries targeted by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

The United States has increased its PEPFAR commitment for international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment by $48 billion over the next five years.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would need $4.8 billion over the next five years to reduce the annual number of new HIV infections in the United States.

Only 4 percent of the current share of HIV/AIDS domestic funding is devoted to prevention programs.

As a new administration prepares to move to Washington, we urge them to be more than simply aware of the numbers. We want them to move quickly to address the U.S. epidemic. It is time to develop a National AIDS Strategy that includes:

1. Early and ongoing care to people with HIV by passing the Early Treatment for HIV/AIDS Act and reauthorizing the Ryan White Care Act.

2. Programs based on solid, evidence-based public health principles, including removing the ban on funding for syringe exchange and discontinuing funding for abstinence-only education.

3. Participation and leadership on the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS from the most vulnerable communities by including people of color, women, and gay men who are living with HIV/AIDS.

4. More funding to the Minority AIDS Initiative to address the disproportionate effect that HIV/AIDS has had on communities of color.

5. An end to the unnecessary discrimination that prohibits people with HIV from entering the United States as either visitors or immigrants.

We must continue the admirable work to fight HIV/AIDS around the world, but we must also seriously address the root causes of our own AIDS epidemic that allow the epidemic and the stigma attached to it — poverty, discrimination, violence, homophobia, and stark racial and gender inequities — to persist and grow here at home.

The Center for American Progress is a think tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We combine bold policy ideas with a modern communications platform to help shape the national debate, expose the hollowness of conservative governing philosophy, and challenge the media to cover the issues that truly matter.

Tweet This Post!

November 24, 2008

Despite Constitutional Marriage Ban, Australia Still Skips Ahead of U.S. on Federal Equality

Australia approves rights for gay couples

The Australian government has passed legislation recognizing same-sex couples under a large number of laws, but the measure falls short of granting either marriage or civil unions.

The omnibus bill mounted its final hurdle Monday, winning approval in the Senate. The legislation passed the House in September. It still requires the signature of the Governor General, a formality, before going into effect.

The Same-Sex Entitlements Bill removes discrimination against same-sex partners in areas such as immigration, taxation, veterans’ pensions and aged care. It also abolishes discrimination against children of same-sex couples by granting equal rights to both parents.

In total, it amends 68 Commonwealth laws.

“They deliver on a very important election commitment on an important day for us,” Labor senator Penny Wong, who is openly gay, told the Senate during Monday’s debate.

“They will deliver the sort of equality before the law that same-sex couples have never previously experienced.”

Green Party Leader Bob Brown, who also is openly gay and a long-time campaigner for same-sex rights, called passage of the bill a major step forward. …

More at the link.

Tweet This Post!

November 23, 2008

Dianne Feinstein is Starting to Feel a Little Love for Teh Gays

Maureen Dowd wrote an unusually good column yesterday:

Marriage on the Rocks

Dianne Feinstein is not sure she’ll ever be able to watch the movie “Milk,” even though she’s in it.

There is 1978 footage of a stricken Feinstein in the opening minutes of the new Gus Van Sant biopic of Harvey Milk, her colleague on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the first openly gay elected official in American history. …

“I was the one who found his body,” the California senator told me Friday, on route from the airport to her home in San Francisco. “To get a pulse, I put my finger in a bullet hole. It was a terrible, terrible time in the city’s history.”

The movie, chronicling the rancorous California fight of gay activists against church-backed forces in the ’70s to prevent discrimination against gays, is opening amid a rancorous California fight of gay activists against church-backed forces to prevent discrimination against gays. …

I asked Senator Feinstein, who became mayor after the tragedy, if she would see the movie.

“It’s very painful for me,” she replied. “It took me seven years before I could sit in George Moscone’s chair. It took me a long time to talk about it. I was only recently able to talk about it.” …

The piece is worth reading in full, for Feinstein’s (and Jerry Brown’s) takes on Prop 8 and the validity of existing marriages (“You can’t redact it,” she said. “You can’t blot it out. It’s so intrinsic to the Constitution that you cannot remove it by a vote of the people”), but most of all for DiFi’s own attitude toward queers, which may have changed for the better:

“I think as more and more people have gay friends, gay associations, see gay heroism, that their views change.” …

“I think people are beginning to look at it differently, I know it’s happened for me,” Feinstein said of gay marriage. “I started out not supporting it. The longer I’ve lived, the more I’ve seen the happiness of people, the stability that these commitments bring to a life. Many adopted children who would have ended up in foster care now have good solid homes and are brought up learning the difference between right and wrong. It’s a very positive thing.”

That — as well as her better-late-than-never TV ad for No On 8 — is a far cry from 2004, when she jumped on the blame-the-gays (and blame-Gavin-Newsom) bandwagon for the re-selection of George W. Bush (earning her a well-deserved Pink Brick). But we’re not quite ready to forgive and forget just yet. DiFi has a lot to make up for to LGBTs. Left in SF sums it up:

While all agree that she is not an enemy to the LGBT movement and has been supportive on some issues, Joey Cain, President of the LGBT Pride Committee, explained that her comments right after the Presidential election about same sex marriage infuriated many in the LGBT community. She essentially blamed the re-election of George Bush on same sex marriage and said, progress on the gay marriage front “has been too much, too fast, too soon.”

These comments are consistent with prior statements and actions she has made over the years. Recently, she has refused to support legislation that would protect immigrant same sex couples. The Permanent Partners Immigration Act introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) would protected couples from separation. Estimates are that 10,000 couples would benefit.

In the past, she vetoed the first domestic partners legislation which was introduced by Harry Britt in the 80s. …

And then there are her Yes votes on the Iraq War Resolution, and the USA Patriot Act, and for Bush’s FISA bill, and for condemning MoveOn.org over its Petraeus ad, and her deciding vote to confirm radical right-wing racist and homophobe Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit… To anyone whose core values lie anywhere to the left of Genghis Khan, those votes are inexcusable.

Nevertheless, it sounds like Senator Feinstein may indeed be experiencing a small glimmer of enlightenment late in life, as least where us ‘mos are concerned — or it could be simply that she’s shoring (or whoring) up LGBT support for her likely 2010 gubernatorial run. Either way, we’re just glad to hear her say what she’s saying right now. We’re not foolish enough to trust that she’ll experience as much remorse about all the rest of her past transgressions, but we’re glad about this one small thing (which isn’t such a small thing when it’s your future on the line).

In any case, do read the rest of Dowd’s piece — it’s quite good, and ends with a short exchange between Dowd and Larry Kramer, last of the great gay activists.

Tweet This Post!

October 9, 2008

Thank You, Sun-Sentinel, for Keeping the Plight of Binational Couples in the News

There’s so little movement on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), formerly the Permanent Partners Immigration Act — the bill first introduced by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler to correct discriminatory federal law that prevents United States citizens from sponsoring their foreign-born, same-sex partners for immigration, and which has been languishing in the House for more than eight years — it is often difficult, especially for those directly impacted, to maintain one’s hope of ever seeing the UAFA passed. (Of course, if we had full marriage equality, the UAFA would be moot.)

But the personal stories — of anguish at being forced to choose between love and country, betrayal of one’s birthright, and sure knowledge that our love and commitment to one another is not valued as highly as everyone else’s — never end, and must be told as they come to light. Luis F. Perez did just that yesterday in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

U.S. immigration won’t allow family
unification for same-sex couples

As soon as Terrence Smith saw his partner step off a plane from England three years ago he knew he had found a soul mate.

It’s a modern day love story, starting with an Internet hello. After weeks of online chatting, they met in Atlanta. A long-distance relationship ensued. Then Smith proposed.

If Smith had asked a woman to marry him, he would simply ask immigration officials to grant his wife permanent residence here. It’s called family unification and it’s the most common way for immigrants to gain legal status in the country. But federal law prohibits same-sex couples from that right.

So the 43-year-old Hollywood lawyer and Halil Akkor, 39, of London, remain separated. So do 36,000 of other same-sex couples across the country, according to Immigration Equality.

Actually, I believe 36,000 is a vast underestimate, and a bit misleading.

There may be 36,000 couples known to Immigration Equality today, but there are many living underground in the United States, risking deportation, fines, and prison time, who cannot afford to make themselves known.

By my own estimation some eight years ago (when I was far more deeply involved in the fight for immigration rights), the number of known binational couples in which one partner was a U.S. citizen, whether separated or living in another country, was 60,000 — and that was my most conservative estimate.

My calculations came from extrapolating numbers derived from such disparate sources as Immigration Equality (when it was still the National Gay and Lesbian Immigration Rights Task Force) to the U.S. State Department (when the Department of Homeland Security was still the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service), and the final total did not include either 1) couples in the U.S. hiding an “illegal” resident, 2) immigrants in sham marriages with members of the opposite sex (gay, sympathetic, or for pay) in exchange for a green card, or 3) couples in which the U.S. partner had emigrated to the foreign-born partner’s country, but was now “invisible” to the United States, usually due to deliberately allowing all ties with the State Department, the IRS, Social Security, state voter rolls, the DMV, etc., to lapse, eventually vanishing without a paper trail — and in a few very rare cases, by voluntary revocation of one’s United States citizenship. (Even the State Department has no idea how many Americans “drop off the radar” every year; total estimates at the time I did my calculations ranged anywhere from 1.5 million to more than 5 million self-”disappeared” Americans; you can figure the number of gay citizens from there by percentage, and then the number of potential binational “invisibles” within that number.)

Too, even couples who remain in their respective home countries but visit one another — frequently or infrequently, but always within the law — cannot afford to be too “out” about their relationships. If there is any question in the mind of the customs agent processing the visitor’s arrival that the visitor is not a “visitor” at all, but attempting to establish residency, there’s always a chance the visitor will be put on the next plane back home — and may have trouble ever visiting that country again.

Of all the (non-lawerly) advice I’ve ever given to couples traveling back and forth to see one another — and, as I used to head an informal group of binational couples, there were hundreds asking for help — I have always advised that the traveling partner “de-gay” him/herself and all baggage. The sight of a rainbow pin on a lapel, or a copy of The Advocate for onboard reading material, is more than enough to provoke an overzealous customs agent to pull you out of line and take you into the back room for a little talk. This is always a danger, regardless of whether or not the country in question offers same-sex immigrations rights, or even full marriage equality.

Anyway, in the end, I was fairly certain the number of known U.S./”other” binational couples was around 110,000 (or 220,000 individuals affected), but I chose to leave my estimate at the most conservative number, 60,000 (or 120,000 individuals affected). (Yes, if I can ever find my original study, I’ll present it here — but don’t count on my finding it. For me, that period of my life was… a lifetime ago.)

Back to the article:

“U.S. immigration law intolerably discriminates against gay and lesbian Americans by denying them the same rights received by heterosexual couples,” said U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D- Boca Raton, a co-sponsor of the Uniting America Families Act. “This is offensive and unacceptable.” …

Critics say granting immigration benefits to same-sex couples would be a step toward gay marriage.

“Americans basically support marriage between a man and a woman,” said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a church lobbying group.

Up until 1990, homosexuality was grounds for not allowing people into the United States, said Victoria Nielson, legal director of the New York-based Immigration Equality, an immigration rights group that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive individuals.

Current immigration law focuses on uniting families. But the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships, Nielson said.

So many foreign-born partners of American citizens turn to renewing temporary work or student visas, asking for asylum, difficult-to-get employee-sponsored residency or staying illegally. Some leave the country.

Durrell Watkins, senior pastor of Fort Lauderdale’s Sunshine Cathedral MCC, called immigration benefits for same-sex couples a “human rights and civil rights” issue. He has witnessed the current law’s effect on couples. Watkins recalled a colleague who moved out of the country to be with her partner and spent the last year of her life abroad.

“She had to die in Spain,” he said.

Friends and family held a funeral in Canada in September so her partner, who overstayed a visa and was deported from this country, could attend. …

More at the link.

And do read it, even if immigration equality isn’t your big issue. You never know — someday it just might be.

Tweet This Post!

October 1, 2008

How Stupid Is John Cain? He Wants Us Chickens to Consider Voting for Colonel Sanders

Unbelievable interview in the Washington Blade:

‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me’

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, sorry, couldn’t help that. Let’s do go on.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.” …

BWAHAHAH—! Damn. Sorry.

McCain reiterated his long-held position that he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be retained or repealed. …

Yeah, and he said he’d leave marriage to the states, too — until he realized he needed to suck James Dobson’s Bible bookmark a lot harder to win over the evangelamentals.

Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?

I can answer that! Your North Vietnamese captors were “pretty damned sadistic” homosexuals who seemed to get a “big bang” out of torturing you.

John McCain: I have known former Congressman Jim Kolbe for 25 years.

That punk?! Mr. Forced-Out-of-the-Closet, who won’t even co-sponsor the UAFA because he’s got the connections to keep his Panamanian lover in the U.S. as long as he wants? That Jim Kolbe?

Don’t make me laugh — Jim Kolbe isn’t gay — he’s just a homosexual. And he’d still be a Larry Craig-style homosexual if he hadn’t been outed by Kurt Wolfe.

… When he came out in 1996…

Was forced out.

…there was no question that I would stand by him. He’s a friend and a patriot and has been an admirable public servant, and a good example of why someone’s sexuality should not be relevant in public life.

Yeah, you wouldn’t want your screwing around on your first wife or the Vicki Iseman story to be made “relevant in public life,” would you, Johnny?

I have also known former Tempe Mayor [Neil] Giuliano for many years.

A Log Cabinette. A Jew for Hitler.

He headed Mayors for McCain in our 2000 campaign. …

Like I said, a Jew for Hitler.

Blade: Do you have any role models who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?

McCain: I had the humbling experience of speaking at Mark Bingham’s funeral after the attacks on Sept. 11. Mark had supported me during the 2000 campaign.

That’s sad to hear.

Unfortunately, I barely knew him, but our country learned about him after 9-11. He was one of the heroes on 9-11 who tried to retake control of United Flight 93. His efforts along with the other brave patriots could have saved hundreds of lives. I honor and respect Mark. …

What, a queer has to die saving his country before you can “honor and respect” him? You sure don’t “honor and respect” those of us still alive and living with your party’s vile attacks on us every day of the week.

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice, cabinet member or other appointed position just because the person is openly gay?

McCain: I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?

McCain: I will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution, not judges who legislate from the bench. Legislators pass laws; judges interpret them. Unfortunately, too many judges have become confused [about] their role. …

Just the answer I expected: a non-answer.

Translation: “I’m gonna pack SCOTUS with all the Scalias and Thomases I can dig up, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it, so kiss your ‘rights’ goodbye, pansies.”

Then he pats himself on the back for supporting PEPFAR, and then he avoids the question of whether he’d have a LGBT liaison in the White House:

I have already publicly stated that there will be no White House Office of Political Affairs in my administration — professional politics should be at the party committees, where it has a rightful place, not in the White House. I intend to be a President for all Americans. …

Except gay ones.

He also won’t give a straight answer on ENDA or DADT (you expected him to?).

Blade: Would a McCain administration be willing to meet with and work with gay leaders to discuss matters of interest to the gay community?

McCain: I have met with leaders of Log Cabin Republicans in my campaigns. I am always willing to listen to all viewpoints and that will continue if I become President.

Dog whistle: “I’m only willing to meet with fag— er, Uncle Tom— er, Republican homos. The rest of you can bite me.”

Next, he says he appreciates the endorsement of the Log Cabinettes, and then delivers the punch line:

I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me. The stakes are high in this election. I will have an inclusive administration and I will be a president for all Americans.

My Aunt Fanny you will.

Next, he goes back to paying lip service to “states’ rights” and marriage equality, driving his homophobia home for the benefit of the religious extremists:

However, at the same time, my own view is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. That’s what I supported in Arizona. I realize this is a controversial issue and we must conduct this debate in a way that respects the dignity of every person.

There’s no “debate” on equal rights — you’re either for equality, or you’re against it. It’s clear where you stand, McCain.

And you wouldn’t recognize the “dignity of every person” if it bit you in the ass. (Tell me, have you stopped using the word “gooks”? And do you still stand by “I will hate them as long as I live”?)

He then points out that he voted against the FMA, because “this should be a state matter, and not one for the federal government — as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.”

Next, the Blade corners him on his opposition to LGBT adoption:

Blade: Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, you have been quoted as saying you don’t believe it’s appropriate. Can you elaborate?

McCain: I hope my comments are not misinterpreted. I respect the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian people who are doing their best to raise the children they have adopted. As someone who adopted a child, Cindy and I know better than most couples the amazing satisfaction that comes from providing love to an unwanted child. I believe a child is best raised by a mother and father because of the unique contributions that they make together to the development of a child. …

Taking your talking points from Maggie Gallagher then, are you?

As I did in my home state of Arizona, I support the effort in California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the people of California will ultimately decide this issue, and I’ll of course respect the decision of the voters.

Homophobic little jerk.

Lots more of the same, and then:

Blade: Del Martin died on Aug. 27. She and Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years, got married in the first legal gay union in California in June —affording Phyllis many of the basic protections and rights granted to married couples, such as hospital visitation and estate planning issues. Do you envision a time when all GLBT citizens will have similar basic rights? During your administration?

McCain: I respect that Del and Phyllis spent a lifetime together. As I stated earlier, however, I believe that issues regarding marriage and family laws are best decided by the states and not the federal government.

Never mind that Del and Phyllis were far more successful at marriage than you could ever hope to be, McCain. Jealous much?

Next, he tries (and fails) to justify voting against the Matthew Shepard Act, and finally dodges a Boy Scouts question.

Now, all you homos and ‘phobes voting for McCain, raise your hands — I want to know who you are so I can avoid getting the stink of you on me.

Tweet This Post!

APALC Urges UAFA Passage, DoMA Repeal

By Kathy Drasky, Out4Immigration

LOS ANGELES — September 30, 2008 — The Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California (APALC) called for an end to immigration discrimination against same-sex binational couples today in a detailed report, “A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs.”

The 40-page report calls for Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 2221; S. 1328), a bill that would allow gay and lesbian US citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the US. It also calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which it describes as “an obvious and necessary step to ending federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.” The full report is available online at: www.apalc.org/… (PDF).

“This landmark call to action by APALC is a much needed boost for basic immigration reform in the US, and specifically for the rights of same-sex binational couples,” said Mickey Lim, Vice President of the national grassroots organization Out4Imigration, which advocates for equal immigration rights.

“Fair and just immigration reform seems to have dropped off the radar in this presidential race,” said Lim. “Like APALC, Out4Imigraton knows of 40,000 same-sex binational couples denied the same rights as opposite-sex couples when it comes to being able to stay together with your partner in the US. We are especially grateful to APALC for going that extra mile and calling for a repeal of DOMA, which prohibits the US from recognizing same-sex relationships at the federal level, despite laws in California, Massachusetts and around the world that recognize our marriages.”

The complications brought on by DOMA affect US immigration laws for gay and lesbian Americans. Because DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, defines marriage in the US as only “that between one man and one woman,” the word “spouse” can only be used by married heterosexual couples. This affects 1,138 laws at the federal level – including immigration law – that use the word “spouse” to provide and enact benefits. Groups like Out4Immigration often work at advocated for change of one specific law, like the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), to add the words “or permanent partner” wherever the word “spouse” appears to remove the barrier set in place by DOMA.

“No one should have to choose between their partner and their country,” said Lim. “But without legislation like the UAFA in place, that’s exactly what’s happening to gays and lesbians in the United States.”

The UAFA currently has 118 co-sponsors of this legislation in the House (H.R. 2221) and 18 for the bill in the Senate (S. 1328). Unfortunately, there is little hope that these bills will come up for a floor vote before the end of the current Congressional term. Work will begin again immediately in 2009 to re-introduce the legislation, which has been proposed in Congress in every term since 1999 (formerly as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act). An Obama Administration and a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress would likely see more movement on this legislation than in the past.

GLBT advocates are hopeful that the repeal of DOMA could also be part of an Obama Administration. The presidential candidate has said he supports full repeal of this legislation that will ultimately be challenged by freedom to marry laws in states like California and Massachusetts.

For more information:

Out4Immigration

Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California (APALC)

The Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221)

The Uniting American Families Act (S.1328)

Out4Immigration addresses the widespread discriminatory impact of US immigration laws on the lives of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and HIV+ people and their families through education, outreach, advocacy and the maintenance of a resource and support network. For more information, visit www.out4immigration.org. To schedule interviews with same-sex binational couples who are available to speak with the media on this issue, including Spanish-speaking couples, please contact Amos Lim, amos@out4immigration.org, 415-375-3765 or Kathy Drasky at kathy@out4immigration.org, 415-606-2085.

Tweet This Post!

September 22, 2008

A Mormon Fails to Convince Me to Submit to the LDS Church

I received a response to my post, “Another Question for Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8: Do You Follow the Doctrine and Covenants?” (which I suggest you read before continuing). I’m replying here so that the discussion doesn’t get buried in the comments.

norcal_t writes:

I find it interesting that one person attempts to interpret scripture for an entire religion that they don’t appear to be a part of.

I find it stunning that one church — especially one whose beginnings are inextricably rooted in persecution by the state for a marriage “tradition” well outside the norm — is dismissing its own longstanding doctrine and attempting to force me to live by its rules.

If I’m interpreting scripture for your church, it’s because your church has done a pretty lousy job of justifying its own interpretation as a basis for interfering with my rights.

You’ll find one recurring theme throughout my reply to you: I don’t want to belong to your church. I don’t believe what you believe. And I don’t care what you believe — until your beliefs start interfering with my life.

Tell me: If I were in power, and decreed that, because I reject Mormonism, all Mormon temple marriages were invalid, what would you do about it? Sit back and take it? That’s what your church is telling me to do. That’s what you are telling me to do.

If this proposition kept gay couples apart I would agree with you,

I don’t believe you. Are you trying to tell me that if Prop 8 did keep gay couples apart, you would oppose your church on the matter? I don’t think you would. Not for a minute.

Also, do you support the Uniting American Families Act? After all, current U.S. immigration law does indeed keep committed gay couples apart, and the UAFA would change that.

So, if forced separation is your criterion, do you support the UAFA unconditionally, regardless of your church’s position on it?

but thats not the point, it’s defining marriage…again. Its about defining it as between a man and a woman like the ammendment says.

No, it is about eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, like the amendment says.

We have the right to marry in California. You are trying to take that right away from us by redefining marriage.

The Church has said repeatedly that they do not object to any inheritance rights, hospital visiting rights, tax exemptions rights, etc…

Separate but equal — and I mean in the eyes of the law — is not good enough. I can give you countless examples showing you how, but that’s not the point.

The point is this:

I don’t care what your church objects to or not. I don’t care what rights your church is willing to allow me to have, or not. Your church does not govern me. Period.

Tell me: If your church decided tomorrow that we were worthy of inheritance rights but not hospital visitation rights, how would you justify that?

While I enjoyed you’re quotes about the race issue they don’t really belong in this discussion…

Why not? Because you believe being black is inherent, and being gay is a choice?

…and I found interesting that you didn’t quote once from any Scripture or canon or even from a talk given at a Church function…

You want me to quote scripture? I can do that in my sleep. But if you want me to defend my rights using your church’s post-biblical canon, forget it. I keep telling you: I’m not a Mormon, I don’t want to be a Mormon, and, until the Mormons decided to attack my people, I never cared a whit what went on in your temples, or at your “church functions.”

You are attempting to put me on the defense and explain to you why I deserve the rights you want to take away from me, when in reality it is the Mormon church that needs to explain and justify this unprovoked attack on equal rights. You — and your church — cannot do that, and so you try to turn the tables. It’s an old debate tactic, and often effective, but it won’t work here.

Mormon Doctrine has even been changed since the exerpt you cited, but it doesn’t matter since its not Church publication anyway.

What do I care if it’s a church publication, or if Mormon doctrine changes every time it rains? What you do in your church is your business — but when your church decides to exert its nonexistent authority over me, then you and I have a problem.

Let me try and explain why we LDS maintain the idea that homosexuals make a choice.

Let me remind you that religious opinion is completely irrelevant (or should be) in civil matters. But go ahead anyway.

When referring to attraction, we are discussing a feeling, not a color.

Oh, OK, so you are still stuck in the “gay is a choice” mindset.

We feel all sorts of things, anger, frustration, happines, sadness, joy, excitement, etc.. We choose our reactions to those feelings. The Churches position is that acting on feelings of same-sex attraction isn’t right.

Again: So what? I don’t care if your church thinks it’s “right” or not. I happen to believe that Mormons having large families isn’t “right.” I believe it is irresponsible and morally wrong to have five, seven, a dozen children. I believe Mormons contribute directly to the problem of overpopulation, and in doing so are very poor stewards of the earth’s natural resources.

You choose to have large families. Do I have the right to stop you? Should I have the right to stop you — no matter how irresponsible I believe you’re being, or how much harm I believe you are causing the planet?

Of course you don’t choose the color of your skin at any point(although I have my doubts about Michael Jackson) so its not quite the same. Whether the feeling was a natural occurrence or not is really irrevelant from a doctrinal standpoint, the idea is that we choose what we do and a same-sex lifestyle is a choice, regardless of the origin of the feelings.

So, let’s see where you stand: You believe being gay is a choice — and if it’s not a choice, it doesn’t matter, as long as gay people remain celibate.

Thus, you’d rather I forfeit love, companionship, and a fulfilling quality of life in order to… what? To make your church happy? Your church can’t be satisfied unless it knows I’m alone and in pain? No, thanks — if I knew that’s what life held in store for me, I would rather be dead.

I guess you don’t want to talk about suicide among gay Mormons, do you?

Also, explain to me how Mormonism is anything but a “lifestyle choice,” based on “feelings”?

You are obviously well aware of the Churches opinion on the matter.

Absolutely. But again, I don’t care what the church’s opinion is, any more than I care what the Pope thinks, or what the Ayatollah thinks — as long as none of them attempts to impose his beliefs on me. But that is exactly what you are doing.

I’m really not trying to “regurgitate” anything but it seems pretty clear to me at least that there is a difference between skin color and the people we choose to have sexual relationships with.

You slay me with the way you twist things so, and expect me to buy into it. Nobody (but you) is talking about innate traits (skin color, homosexuality) versus “the people we choose to have sexual relationships with,” and you know it. It’s a fallacious non-argument, and, frankly, I’m insulted you think I’m so stupid as to fall for it.

Fail.

Its fine to debate whether the act is right or wrong, but unless you can agree on what version of ethical philosophy you want to use, even that discussion won’t get far.

I’ll tell you exactly what “ethical philosophy” I use.

The are two kinds of laws:

1. Laws that stop people from causing harm to others (murder, rape, speeding, littering);

2. Laws that stop people from doing things that cause no harm to others, yet exist because either:

A) they offend someone else’s “moral values” (walking around naked in public, selling sex toys in Alabama, selling liquor in New York on a Sunday), or

B) the state hasn’t yet figured out how to regulate and tax a specific activity (e.g., recreational marijuana use), and until it does, it’s more financially beneficial to the state to keep an activity illegal.

The question is: How does same-sex marriage cause harm to others?

If you can show me how my marriage hurts you, then we can talk.

The catch is this: You can’t bring any of your religious beliefs into it, because they are completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t care if you believe that the legalization of my marriage somehow loses you points in heaven, or prevents you from having spirit children in the afterlife, or whatever. Your church “law” is not civil law.

I want you to explain how I am causing any measurable harm whatsoever to you, or to your church — here, now, in this life that you and I are forced to share.

When you give up trying, get back to me, and I will show you how you and your church are causing measurable harm to me and my people.

And, in my book, there ought to be a law against what you’re doing — not against what I’m doing.

As far as your reference to President Kimball..Does anyone know what he meant besides him?

I certainly hope someone in your church knows what he meant, unequivocally — else you’re telling me that you are following the edicts of your church blindly and without question. What happened to “free agency”?

We can speculate all day, but that won’t bring us to any sort of truth.

So you admit you’re not sure of the truth.

This leads me to believe that we don’t have all of the information on the subject,

Then how can you be so sure that you’re doing the right thing? Are moral values immutable, or do they change as you receive new “information”?

especially now in 2008 when its really not an issue at all since we know that regardless of your color you can attain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.

One last time: I don’t believe in your “celestial kingdom.” Why do you keep dangling that carrot in front of me as though I thought it were real? You may as well tell me to be good, or Santa Claus won’t come. That is how much I believe in your “celestial kingdom.” And that is how relevant your beliefs should be to my civil rights.

Since thats the case there is really no need to be concerned about the color of my skin and only worry about my actions.

Then you should be worried, because your actions are wrong — morally and ethically wrong.

I have one more question for you, norcal_t — and for all Mormons reading this:

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by denying me the right to marry?

Do you believe that by forcing me to live by the tenets of the Mormon church, you will be able to convert me to Mormonism?

Or are you just punishing gay people for refusing to live by your beliefs?

With each new day, and each new argument, I am more convinced that your church is punishing us, because it cannot change us.

And you, faithful Mormons, are just in denial about that.

I used to be in denial about the atrocities of the Catholic church, too.

Tweet This Post!

August 26, 2008

I Hate, Hate, HATE Agreeing with Chris Crain

So, take a screenshot of this post; it’s one of those rare moments I’ll say he’s right (and not just “Right”).

In discussing the 2008 Democratic and Republican campaign platforms, Crain is the one of the very few gay bloggers I’ve seen so far who hasn’t waxed poetic over the oh-so-”inclusive” Democratic platform, instead calling it like it is: another crumb to the queers, which doesn’t amount to… well, anything more than a crumb.

Granted, Crain is a conservative, so he’s going to be far more critical of the Dems — but does it always take a conservative to show us where our own house needs cleaning?

Four years ago, the [Democratic] party platform read like a good GOP plank would this year: “repudiating” Bush’s marriage amendment and saying the states should decide. But the platform was silent on civil unions as an alternative, much less advocating the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act — even though John Kerry, the nominee, had voted against it back in 1996.

Barack Obama made a point of distinguishing himself from Hillary Clinton by favoring DOMA’s full repeal, so the platform should make that explicit. Much more important, however, would be a plank that specifically lays out what the Democratic nominee has said repeatedly about gay relationships — whether recognized by the states through marriage, civil unions or not at all — being afforded fully equal treatment to heterosexual marriage under federal law.

For this gay American, stuck living in exile because of unequal immigration rights, the plank would include specific support for the Uniting American Families Act, which allows us to sponsor our partners for residence the same way heterosexuals do in the U.S. — and as both gay and straight citizens can in Canada, Australia,* Brazil and almost all of Western Europe.

Trans activists will also be pressing hard for including their agenda in the Democratic platform, since they were turned away by the Kerry camp four years ago. This time, with lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin on the platform committee, they’re likely to get a much more welcome reception.

Even so, any trans rights plank should avoid taking sides in the bitter fight last fall over whether gay measures like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should only be adopted if the votes are there for “gender identity” as well.

Lisa Keen puts it even more bluntly:

Heading into the Democratic National Convention … the LGBT community is confronted with two stark ironies:

One: Under the presidential nominee who has uttered the words “gays and lesbians” in a supportive way more than any other candidate on the campaign trail, the Democratic Party has completely eliminated those words from its platform.

And two: A long line of LGBT leaders have only praise for the platform that dares not speak their name.

That’s right: The 54-page Democratic platform for 2008 does not mention the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” or “transgender” even once.

And yet Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), a lesbian and a champion of inclusion, calls it “by far the most pro-equality platform in Democratic history” and one that “makes very clear our party rejects discrimination … including, very explicitly, discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

True … But the 2008 platform is the first time since 1992, when the party first included the word “gay,” that the document has omitted explicit mention of the words or any identifiable acronym for the LGBT community. …

The 2000 and 2004 platforms promised the party’s support for full inclusion of “gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation,” compared to the 2008 platform, which supports “all families.” …

And unlike the 2004 platform, the 2008 platform promises Democrats “will fight to end discrimination based on race … sexual orientation, gender identity … in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in.”

But the 2008 document also includes a new section, “Fatherhood,” that reads more like a platform statement from the Republican Party. The section claims that “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to commit crime, drop out of school, abuse drugs and end up in prison.” The sweeping nature of the statement, while perhaps true of families headed by heterosexual couples, is not supported by research that has examined the well-being of children in families headed by lesbian couples. …

Yes, by comparison to the Republican platform, the Democratic platform is fabulous.

But it’s not good enough.

* That Australia has fully-inclusive same-sex immigration should instill deep shame in the United States; Australia also has the sort of federal, constitutional ban on same-sex marriage the Repugs yearn for here — yet (and even with its long history of treating immigrants as criminals) still manages to recognize the validity of de facto same-sex unions between its own citizens and their foreign-born partners. Meanwhile, we can’t even get the UAFA passed.

Tweet This Post!

August 22, 2008

To “evolve,” Bob Barr would have to learn to walk on his hind legs first.

The Washington Blade tells us that the supporters of failed Republican-turned-Libertarian candidate and hypocrite extraordinaire Bob Barr say he’s “evolved” on such gay-rights issues as marriage and immigration.

We’ve written about this before; one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that this “evolution” is genuine; there’s no question in our minds that “Barr was told he wouldn’t get the [Libertarian] nomination unless he changed his position on DOMA.”

Barr’s flip-flop is clearly opportunistic — and half-baked. For instance:

Would the hundreds of federal benefits of marriage only be given to gay couples who live in states that allow gay marriage, forcing gay people who live in states like Georgia to move to Massachusetts or California if they want their relationships treated equally under federal law?

Barr did say he supports allowing a gay American who legally weds a foreign partner to bring his or her partner into the U.S. as a legal family member. But whether the federal government would recognize the marriage if the second portion of DOMA is repealed is unclear.

“The response from the campaign staff is we won’t answer hypothetical questions,” said Barr’s campaign manager, Russell Verney, who also managed Ross Perot’s presidential campaign.

There’s nothing hypothetical about it to the more-than 60,000 binational couples waiting for federal marriage recognition so foreign-born partners can immigrate to the U.S. legally and permanently.

The part of DOMA Barr still supports — which says that states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states — relates to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

Gay rights advocates have argued that the clause means states should have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. But Barrr argued that Congress has the authority to define exactly what comes under the clause.

“I don’t think it’s a question of gay marriage or non-gay marriage. The states, through a referendum or the court system, should decide their own definition [of marriage],” Barr said. “It is fundamental and appropriate for the people of each state to decide.”

You can’t say you support immigration rights for legally-wed couples and say you support “states’ rights” on marriage equality — immigration is a federal issue, period, and if all 50 states passed full marriage equality tomorrow, not one gay American would be able to sponsor his or her foreign-born partner for immigration, as long as the fed doesn’t recognize those marriages.

Now, Barr, if you support the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) but not marriage equality on the federal level, that’s another story. It’s a wrongheaded, unfair position (and it’s the position taken by all politicians — including Barack Obama — who don’t want to piss off gay voters, but are still skeezy about full marriage equality), but it would make more sense.

Georgia resident Rob Calhoun nails the conflict:

Having to go state-by-state to get same-sex marriages legalized is a piecemeal way of governing.

“It sounds like that would be complicated,” [Calhoun] said. “The government needs to recognize all marriages across all states. But that’s what the right-wingers fear.”

But it is typical. The Radical Righties keep screaming about “states’ rights” — yet when a state does make a decision in our favor, they scream about “activist judges.”

Bob Barr hasn’t “evolved”; he’s just floating around in the same primordial ooze as ever, while trying to look like he’s standing erect.

Tweet This Post!

August 6, 2008

Just Get Back in the Closet, and Your Country Won’t Kill You, American Judge Tells HIV+ Pakistani Facing Deportation

Gay HIV+ man faces deportation from U.S.

(Falls Church, Va.) A Pakistani man with HIV is fighting deportation from the United States and seeking asylum.

The man, who wishes to be identified only by his initials, S.K., fears persecution based on his sexual orientation and HIV status if he is returned to his homeland.

Under Pakistani law, being gay is punishable by death. LGBT people are forced to live in secrecy and constant fear of exposure, a legal brief said.

An Immigration judge disputed the risk and denied S.K.’s application for asylum.

The judge held that S.K., who has HIV and was in a committed relationship with a man in Minnesota, could avoid persecution by hiding his sexual orientation, marrying a woman, and having children. …

Tweet This Post!

August 4, 2008

Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) Gets 100th House Co-Sponsor

By Kathy Drasky, Out4Immigration

WASHINGTON, DC — August 4, 2008 — Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) became the 100th Congressional co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 2221) on August 1, 2008.

The UAFA is a bill before Congress that would make a small change to existing immigration law to close a loophole barring gay and lesbian Americans in committed relationships with foreign partners from sponsoring their partner for a green card. These same-sex binational couples are denied the right that opposite-sex couples have been afforded for decades — the right to legally keep their families together in the United States.

“We need the UAFA to become law because the United States does not recognize same-sex relationships at the federal level,” explained Michael Lim, Vice President of the national grassroots organization Out4Imigration. “Gay and lesbian couples are denied the protections of more than 1,100 federal laws that come with a federally recognized marriage – one of the most critical of these being immigration rights.”

According to a Human Rights Watch report, there are more than 36,000 committed same-sex binational couples in the United States who would benefit from passage of the UAFA. Many more have been forced to live in exile — to leave behind their extended family, friends, community, homes and careers — in order to be with the person they love in one of the 18 countries that recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. Others, not having a safe alternative country to go to, have been forced to make heart-wrenching choices.

“No one should have to choose between their partner and their country,” said Lim. “But without legislation like the UAFA in place, that’s exactly what’s happening to gays and lesbians in the United States.

“Out4Immigration is encouraged that we now have 100 co-sponsors of this legislation in the House and 14 for the bill in the Senate (S. 1328), but there is a lot more work ahead if these bills are going to come up for a floor vote. To those lawmakers sitting on the fence with this legislation, we ask them: If you were forced to choose between your country and the person you love, what would you do?”

The UAFA was re-introduced in the House and the Senate by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in May 2007. It has been proposed in Congress in every term since 1999 (formerly as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act). If it fails to pass before the end of this Congressional term, it will have to be reintroduced again in 2009.

The legislation would add three words to existing US immigration law, “or permanent partner,” wherever the word “spouse” appears. This would close the loophole imposed by the federal government that does not allow gays and lesbians to use the word “spouse” to define their relationship.

© Amos Lim. All Rights Reserved.

Tweet This Post!

August 1, 2008

PEPFAR Signed — But for Binational Couples, There’s Still a Fly in the Ointment

By Kathy Drasky, Out4Immigration

WASHINGTON, DC — July 31, 2008 — President Bush signed the President’s Emergency Program [PEPFAR] into law yesterday at the White House.

The landmark bill, which passed in both the House and Senate by wide margins earlier this month, provides $48 billion over the next five years for the global fight of AIDS. Within the legislation is a directive to lift the HIV travel/immigration ban, which bars foreign travelers with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States unless they obtain a spouse or family waiver. That ban is blatantly discriminatory, particularly against gay men and lesbians with the illness, because under current US immigration law, their partners do not qualify as spouses or family.

While the President’s signature on this bill is a first step toward working to end immigration discrimination, one more barrier for HIV-positive visitors and immigrants must be removed. US immigration laws require the Secretary of Health and Human Services [HHS] to maintain a list of diseases that render people unable to enter the United States. HIV remains on that list.

“Out4Immigration applauds the US government’s continued commitment to the global fight against AIDS. We are especially pleased by the provision in this legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Gordon Smith in the Senate and Congresswoman Barbara Lee in the House that repeals the draconian ban against people with HIV entering our country. We hope that the Secretary of Health and Human Services acts quickly to remove HIV from the list of diseases that prevents entry into the US as is dictated by PEPFAR” said Michael Lim, Vice President of Out4Immigration.

“Today we all know that HIV/AIDS is a preventable disease and that people who are living with the illness can take proven precautions to prevent its transmission.” Out4Immigration is a national grassroots organization dedicated to raising awareness about the discrimination gay and lesbian Americans face under current US immigration law. Because the United States does not recognize same-sex relationships at the federal level, gays and lesbians are shut out from many federal benefits that would protect their families. One of the most devastating consequences of this is lack of immigration rights.

“Prior to PEPFAR, and what we hope will be a swift removal of HIV by the HHS, an American gay person in a relationship with a foreign partner with HIV/AIDS could be permanently separated from their partner because the foreign partner did not have the right to travel in and out of the country because of the HIV travel ban,” explained Lim.

“On the other hand, heterosexuals married to a foreign partner with HIV/AIDS could obtain a waiver, based on the fact that they were assumed to be in a committed, monogamous relationship that would prohibit the spread of the disease to the community at-large. This was blatant discrimination against gays and lesbians.”

The PEPFAR legislation, with the lifting of HIV by the HHS, will now treat all foreign visitors and immigrants with HIV/AIDS the same. “It is an important first step to end immigration discrimination in the US,” said Lim. “According to a Human Rights Watch report, we still have more than 36,000 committed same-sex binational couples who are denied the right to a green card because our country does not recognize their right to be together.”

These couples would benefit from legislation called the Uniting American Families Act [UAFA], which would effectively add the words “or permanent partner” to existing immigration law wherever the word “spouse” appears. The bill currently has 99 co-sponsors in the House and 14 in the Senate. It needs many more in both chambers to come up for a vote that would have the kind of overwhelming support PEPFAR had to insure the president’s signature.

For more information:

Out4Immigration

About PEPFAR

Human Rights Watch Report: Family Unvalued: Discrimination, Denial, and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples under US Law

The Uniting American Families Act [H.R. 2221]

The Uniting American Families Act [S.1328]

© Amos Lim. All Rights Reserved.

Related:

U.S. Discriminatory Travel and Immigration Ban on HIV-Positive Individuals Set for Repeal
March 13, 2008

PEPFAR: $48 Billion Landmark Bill Reauthorized; Millions of Lives to be Saved
July 17, 2008

U.S. Senate Approves Repeal of Discriminatory HIV Travel and Immigration Ban
July 17, 2008

Bush Signs Bill Repealing Discriminatory HIV Travel and Immigration Law
July 31, 2008

Could the International AIDS Conference Come to D.C.?
August 1, 2008

Tweet This Post!

Could the International AIDS Conference Come to D.C.?

HIV Travel Ban End Could Bring Conference Back to the United States

By David Mariner, Temenos.net

For more than two decades, the International AIDS Conference has taken place every two years in countries around the world with the exception of the United States.

The International AIDS Society does not hold its conferences in countries that restrict short-term entry of people living with HIV/AIDS and/or require prospective HIV-positive visitors to declare their HIV status on visa application forms or other documentation required for entry into the country.

The United States made news around the world in 1989 when Dutch AIDS activist Hans Paul Verhoff was denied entry into the United States because of his HIV status. The ban was codified into as part of the NIH reauthorization in 1993.

But this era has gladly come to an end. Thankfully, the reauthorization of PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief which was signed into law yesterday. It included a provision to repeal discriminatory HIV travel and immigration law, raising the possibility of the International AIDS Conference coming to the United States.

Could the International AIDS Conference come to Washington DC? Well it won’t happen in 2008 when the conference will take place in Mexico city. And it won’t happen in 2010 when the conference will take place in Vienna. But it could happen in 2012.

Previous DC HIV/AIDS Director Marcia Martin suggested the conference come to DC should the travel ban be lifted at an event in 2006.

There are many reasons it makes sense to do so. First, with one in 20 DC residents living with HIV, this conference could potentially shine an international spotlight on our devastating HIV/AIDS statistics. Second, with so many decisions that impact HIV/AIDS around the world being made in our nation’s capitol, the possibility of bringing HIV/AIDS advocates from around the world to DC has exciting potential. Third, a conference of this size could be a huge economic boost to the District.

As plans are made for the 2012, the International AIDS Society has an opportunity to make a powerful statement by bringing the conference back to the United States for the first time in twenty years. I hope they do so by holding the 2012 conference in the United States, and give serious consideration to holding the conference in Washington, DC.

© David Mariner. All Rights Reserved.

Related:

U.S. Discriminatory Travel and Immigration Ban on HIV-Positive Individuals Set for Repeal
March 13, 2008

PEPFAR: $48 Billion Landmark Bill Reauthorized; Millions of Lives to be Saved
July 17, 2008

U.S. Senate Approves Repeal of Discriminatory HIV Travel and Immigration Ban
July 17, 2008

Bush Signs Bill Repealing Discriminatory HIV Travel and Immigration Law
July 31, 2008

Tweet This Post!