reBlog from lezgetreal.com – I wrote this and ask you to pass it on – we must display -now or never
Anger aside, what is truly most hurtful to me is my own ebbing trust; a tide that is pulling me farther and farther out to sea and with every “NO you cannot,” my wedding cake icing, “Yes We Can” flails in its hopeless glaze, as my excruciating retort from the failure of the Democratic Party to hone a faithful and authentic crew, edges to that part of the ocean that slips beyond the horizon.lezgetreal.com, The Good, the Bad, and the Gutless ….., Dec 2009
Are we still waiting for Barney Frank to have his day with DADT before pushing for the very legislation that serves as the essence of who we are ? The critical repeal of Defense of Marriage Act? (DOMA;) the legislation that denies our relationships, with the one that calls for its RESPECT- which defines who we are? I believe that Hate Crimes, ENDA, DADT, UAFA, CIR would be a relative breeze if the psycho-politico-socio recognition of our most basic civil right- the de jure recognition of our de facto relationships was at the helm of our struggle!
I wrote this Article for Lez Get Real and have received many anti-gay comments.:Feel free to go to LGR site and comment – thanks for your support
UPDATED: By now we have all heard about the Manhattan Declaration put out by various religious right figures and groups urging, among other things, non-cooperation with laws that in any way recognize same sex couples. It has been condemned in many circles and for good reason. Wayne Besen of Truthwinsout.org said the following:“This is a disturbing call for anarchy from a group of radical clerics and activists who believe they don’t have play by the same rules as other taxpaying Americans.” And according to the blog Instaputz, there is another reason to not only oppose this document but also raise the alarm about it. Some of the names those signing the declaration aren’t a surprise. They are the usual folks who oppose lgbt equality – Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher, Gary Bauer, etc.Bill, The Manhattan Declaration- where does it lead? Church’s Hate Gay Agenda, Nov 1940
Melanie Nathan’s comment:- While some organizations focus on fundraising and remain furtive in their strategy, citing “we know best” while purporting to advance the cause of binationals in their self appointed autocracy, Out4Immigration remains consistent in its plan – a transparent one- and as always made public here is a note from OUT4Immigration posted by Amos Lim, unpaid volunteer at the helm:-
“Out4Immigration is an all grassroots organization and our letter writing campaign is now in its 34th week. We have had successes in our campaign by getting more cosponsors on board. We are also constantly adapting the campaign from feedbacks that we received from our members and from our allies. There are people who are interested in doing more than just simple cut and paste and after some discussion, we are incorporating those request into our letter writing campaign.
You now have three options in using the names and addresses of the targets we provide:
1) Send the Out4Immigration form letter (posted here) by changing the areas in bold only. If you choose this “form letter” option, you can sign the letter as a member of O4I and use O4I letterhead.
2) Write your own letter to these targets telling your personal story. If you choose to do this, please know that you must do this as an individual, not a member of Out4Immigration, and you cannot use the O4I name, letterhead or any other branding.
3) Send each target a self-made booklet that tells your story, shows pictures of your family, includes letters from your employer or others in the community identifying their support for you and the UAFA. Again, you should send this an individual, although you can use news clippings and links to organizations that advocate for same-sex binational couples like O4I, Marriage Equality, – See our toolkit: http://tinyurl.com/o4i-toolkit1 for more ideas. Obviously, this option will take up more of your time and money — and will have to be sent via snail mail.
Each week we try to provide a general email address that will accept emails from anywhere in the world (not just the representative’s constituents). However, some Reps and Senators have chosen to limit their email and you won’t get through unless you live in their district. That’s why we also provide a fax number and the snail mail address.
Whichever option you choose (and please, choose at least one!) know that you are making a difference — and please don’t give up!”
Please join out4Immigration in its quest to help our gay and lesbian families in exile, in hiding or living in uncertainty. we should not have to choose between our heart or home. Also remember we are all one heart beat away from falling in love with a foreigner.
When a most unusual October mega storm left our Bay Area, with downed electrical lines and trees in it’s a wake, we breathe a delightfully fresh aroma with another unique event– but this one we like…for the first time a Federal Judge in San Francisco asked the backers of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens straight marriages. Much to my personal delight the lawyer for the supporters of Prop 8, Charles Cooper acknowledged he did not know.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, wants to examine other issues that are part of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage but rarely surface in courtrooms. Among the questions he plans to entertain at the trial are whether sexual orientation is a “fixed or immutable characteristic, whether gays are a politically powerful group, and if same-sex marriage bans such as Proposition 8 were motivated by anti-gay bias.”
This refreshing exchange between the Judge and Cooper, came during a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the measure as discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution. Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail.
The judge not only refused to toss out the case, but asserted that when the case goes to trial in January, Cooper and legal team are expected to present evidence showing that “male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal”. …We love it….!
The Judge noted that the ban on same sex marriage proposes that gay marriages are not “naturally procreative relationships,” and so we must have an answer to the question “What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” Walker asked. “My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.
Moments later, after assuring the judge his response did not mean Proposition 8 was doomed to be struck down, Cooper tried to clarify his position and tried to fluff out an amended yet unconvincing response.
Lisa Leff, of Associated Press reports that “Walker pressed on, asking again for specific “adverse consequences” that could follow expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Cooper cited a study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, showing that straight couples were increasingly opting to become domestic partners instead of getting married. “Has that been harmful to children in the Netherlands? What is the adverse effect?” Walker asked. Cooper said he did not have the facts at hand.”
Then came the ridiculous notion “But it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk,” he said.” I personally loved this part of the banter:- “Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?”
In allowing the case to move forward, Walker said significant questions remain about whether the California measure, which was approved by 52 percent of voters in November, unlawfully violates the rights of gays and lesbians to equality and due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The measure overturned a state Supreme Court ruling earlier in the year that legalized same-sex marriages. As one of 18,000 gay couples wed before the law took effect, I remain in a state of discomfort as my special status highlights the fact that others cannot marry.
I am ecstatic, that not only did the Judge rule that the case must be heard but also that he is challenging years of conservatives homophobic and unsubstantiated rhetoric which has served only to steal our inherent rights. That is what will be on trial- the Bull-poop that is spewed as fact by those who simply cannot face the fact that we are who we are and we are absolutely and equally entitled. Their fear engendered hate can no longer hide behind the rhetoric that fuels it.
Although this does not denote a decision in favor of Gay marriage, to me given the challenge it is a huge victory, because the Court finds it necessary to keep unconstitutionality in play against a voter based assault on our inherent constitutional rights.
I have blogged this before but in the face of new developments in D.C. and the introduction of the Repeal of DOMA legislation by Jerold Nadler, (The Respect for Marriage Act) I plan to repost this piece. I will do so once a month until we have repeal of DOMA.
Before the California Court ruled I asserted in my blog “The fate of California’s same-sex marriage hangs in the balance, as the Justices prepare their ruling on the challenges to the validity of Proposition 8.” Now is has ruled and the impact is so egregious that the most unlikely suspects are taking it to the highest Courts. I truly believe it will be ditched and we will gain equality. However in my probably lunatic attempt to influence the spiritual and ‘ karmatic’ I remind the Universe of the story of my children….. and republish this article…… first published May 20, 2009. at http://lezgetreal.com/?p=13261
In my house of two married moms, we remain overtly safe from this decision as long as it is not declared invalid retroactively. How will I explain that to my children? If the result is not favorable, I am fight and my quest to faced with having to inform my children that gay and lesbians are no longer allowed to marry under the law of this State. The unfairness of being placed in this bewildering wait triggers memories of the pre-Prop 8protect my daughters from the worst pain imaginable “your family is not a family!”
My daughter, HC, is as well adjusted as any child; she has been around the world a few times, hence her sophistication belies her short twelve years. She is engaging and endearing and born to lead. Kind, loving and perceptive, when a toddler she earned the name “little Buddha.” A keen, astute student, each year she adores her assigned teachers and tends to hold them in the highest esteem. They are her heroes and in turn she is their delight. This is a kid who never wants to miss school. She loves it! When the California Court first ruled favorably for same-sex marriage we were the first lesbian couple to be married by our Rabbi, at our congregation temple. My kids had a great time and together with twenty other kids all dressed in white walked down the aisle toward the ‘Chuppah’ in most traditional fashion. It was a big event for our community and family came from around the world. My children were so invested in the wedding as for them it presented a validation and celebration of our little family of four.
Three months of gay marriage and then enter Proposition 8 together with the egregious advertisements facilitated by the millions of hateful dollars sent from Utah’s Mormon community to California, intent on promoting the proposition that would serve to outlaw same-sex marriage. The very idea of it, least of all a yes vote, served to insult our recently acknowledged family.
About two weeks before the November 2008 election and the impending prop 8 vote, HC and I were driving our route to school. We noticed that overnight what used to be one lone “No on Prop 8” on Central Avenue had morphed into a “NO on 8” at each and every home down our neighborhood’s main street. Later we found out that the lone sign outside the home a lesbian mom, kept getting torn down; day after day she would restore the sign until eventually overnight the entire neighborhood put up the NO sign in support of their neighbor. I remember remarking how amazing it was to see everyone in our midst against prop 8.
As we drove through the reasuring tunnel of “no on 8’s,” our comfort was short lived as we exited the micro and entered the macro – yes that nasty world at large reared its beastly head as amidst our usual morning tussle between Stephanie Miller and Radio Disney, an advertisement popped on the radio.
“……and your children will be forced to learn about homosexuality and gays it will be taught in the schools; ….. your churches will be forced to marry them… blah..”
I glanced at my child and noticed an odd expression on her usually placid face, one which I will not easily forget, and she asked, “Mom I don’t get what is wrong with other kids learning about my type of family?” I was stunned! The advertisement had placed a perspective calling for this very question; but why my child? We have lived our lives so openly and relish the good fortunate of our supportive community, where our ‘same-sex-ness’ is the least of our day to day issues.
It was as if HC had received a slap across her face. The advertisement had clearly hurt my child; its viciousness was not something she had been subjected to before. What could be worse than adults lashing out like that at children? It was direct and personal and having heard it before, was not personally outraged as when I realized the irresponsibility and how damaging those lies were to my babies. Now I had to come up with an answer to this ferocious fanaticism. I explained, “Hun, we live in a world where peoples are often so full of fear which is usually because of ignorance, – there are all sorts of different families – but they have usually only experienced their own. The unknown teririfies them; so they lash out in this way. What you heard on that ad, was unfair and contorted, but that is how the people who are against the idea of same-sex marriage think they can get other people to join their way of thinking.”
I provided more reassurance as best I could. A few more questions and answers later we arrived at school, and went on with the next two weeks, during which time HC and my four year old accompanied me to various “NO ON 8” rallies; “no on 8, no on 8,” a battle cry still performed by my 4 year old whenever she sees the number 8, whether in the market, at school or in the movies.
So came the vote: The “Yes” win was a shock and a huge upset; I had a lot more explaining to do; “mom is our marriage okay are we still married? (Our marriage is clearly viewed by my kids as a family event!) Then came one of the saddest moments in my life, on the day after the election, when HC came home from school and told me that her class teacher had told the group she had voted for John McCain. Living in Marin County California, I do believe the kids found this quite odd, and I explained we all have the right to vote as we choose. But then she announced, “Mom it is sooo weird Mrs. Ray also told the class that she voted “yes” on Prop 8; but I think she must have been just joking!”
Well long story short, she was not joking – and my child was completely and utterly shattered. Trying to hide her emotions for the next three weeks, I noticed a big change. She was not so keen about school. In fact after a week with a substitute teacher she came home devastated that he was leaving. I realized it was less about the loss of the sub teacher and more about Mrs. Ray’s return.
Despite my promise to HC to keep hush, “I flew like a bat out of hell” to see the Principal, who, ironically an “out” lesbian, was not surprised to see me show up on the issue; she mentioned that I was the fourth parent to complain about this lack of discretion on the part of the teacher. I explained that my child was extremely conflicted in trying to reconcile her respect and admiration for her teacher with her love and pride for her family. My child moved classroom and she adores her new teacher.
Fortunately, HC is back to being her happy self, but a deep and profound wound has been inflicted on her free and safe spirit. If proposition 8 is upheld by the pending judicial decision, I truly believe that my child will suffer more emotional harm, through the perceived aberration of her family. It is so unjust and so unfair. Our children do not deserve to be the political pawns of the divisive and fearful bigots and religious right in our country. We arefamily values and we are entitled to equality. My children are facts of life and they cannot be relegated to some second class category that diminishes us as a family. As a Mom I vow to carry on fighting for the sameness my babies, by virtue of their very existence deserve.
I have to show my child that our family is worth fighting for and that anything short of complete equality is simply not good enough. I think this story illustrates the far reaching effects of de jure disqualification and the de facto reality of inequality. Whether we receive equal rights or not, nothing will derogate from the fact that we are here; us, our wives and our kids and nothing can or will ever change that simple fact.
Until such time as DOMA disappears, Prop 8 ditched- every US State allows gay marriage -our children will be marginalized as my daughter was when her teacher basically told her –‘You are not the same – you are not entitled.
So good forces I leave it to you….. remember we are all deserve our little bit of the “right to pursue happiness”
UPDATE; The case was lost – yet I am feeling good. Its failure and the passage of 8 has awakened the beast and it has brought attention to LGBT equality in a big way. It has highlighted the complexity of piecemeal legislation and the need to provide legislation that is uniform to provide civil rights and equality for all LGBT people in the USA.
Re-BLOG and as amended- Lezgetreal -770 views on this post
In your acknowledgment herein-below of our de facto existence is it not time to equate with more than a mere nod, with our de jure rights?
Now that Rep. Jerrold Nadler has provided the vehicle, by way of Respect for Marriage Bill- you have the opportunity, Mr. President to speed up this repeal of DOMA. I call on all our leaders, the progressive Democrats, our Senators who care, to throw caution to the wind, to show courage and to implore upon the President and Congress that this state of affairs, namely silence, omission and inaction is tantamount to the condoning of the hardship the LGBT community suffers each and every day.
There is no time to wait – equality is an issue of paramount importance. It is fundamental to our standing in the global community. It is imoerative to our human rights record. What could be nore important than equality of all citizens and residents of his Country. The only legitimate argument against marriage is the religious one – and that excuse for denying rights is tantamount to merging church and state.
In this Statement from the White House you acknoweldge us as (sam-sex) parents – yet for long as you remain unmoved and inactive regarding our ability to marry, you are overtly denying the very children you tout concern and care for, a very basic right – to have their parents marry. Have you also fallen prey to the notion that it is okay to acknowledge us ‘de facto’ but to disregard us ‘de jure’? This White House Statement reflects the USA condoning this serous inequity. As a lesbian mom with two small children, as one of the special 18,000 whose marriage holds precariously legal in California, I ask you to “please MOVE THAT BUS” so we can see the renovation you were so eager to promise!
So Please Mr. President keep your word and provide children of same-sex parents with equality by way of recognition.
“THE WHITE HOUSE”
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 28, 2009
FAMILY DAY, 2009
- – – – – – -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Our family provides one of the strongest influences on our lives. American families from every walk of life have taught us time and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things. Today, our children are confronting issues of drug and alcohol use with astonishing regularity. On Family Day, we honor the dedication of parents, commend the achievements of their children, and celebrate the contributions our Nation’s families have made to combat substance abuse among young people.
The 21st century presents families with unprecedented challenges. Millions of women and men are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs with the needs of their families. At the same time, our youngest generation faces countless distractions in their social environment. They are coming of age in a world where electronic devices have replaced the playground, televisions have preempted conversation, and pressure to use drug and alcohol is far too prevalent. Parents bear significant stress and burdens to protect their children from harmful influences.
It is our responsibility to talk with adolescents about the risks of abusing alcohol, tobacco, or prescription and illicit drugs, and other harmful behaviors. These substances can destroy the mind, body, and spirit of a child, jeopardizing their healthand limiting their potential. Active parents, voicing their disapproval of drug use, have proven themselves to be the most effective preventative method for keeping our children drug-free. A strong and engaged family can make all the difference in helping young people make healthy decisions. By coming together as a family and discussing the events of the day, parents can foster open communication, share joys and concerns, and help guide their children toward healthy decisionmaking. A strong nation is made up of strong families, and on this Family Day, we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every American family has the chance to build a better, healthier future for themselves and their children.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 28, 2009, as Family Day. I call upon the people of the United States to join together in observing this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor and strengthen our Nation’s families.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
From the International Summer School’s 2009, International Cultural Evening. Music composed and performed by Alex Molchanov (Russia) who celebrates being able to come out since his great-grandfather – Tchaikovsky could not.
Firstly Brit, living in Norway who brought this to my attention and Madison who is a Binational living in hell in the US until his partner can join him – another casualty of USA inequality
BRIT – “I got to see this live at the International Summer School in Oslo. What struck me most was how when they were announcing the piece and the history behind it there were many in the room who laughed, snickered and were less than receptive by the time that the piece had ended the room was silent. The student body mind you was 500 students from 83 countries and some people had never actually met an LGBT person. This man, my peer, and now my brother stood up in front of many of the worlds young leaders and said this is who WE are an this is what OUR struggle sounds like. It made me weep. It helped me mourn my own struggles and helped me be proud of the woman that I am. Alexy is my brother, as is every young LGBT person in the world they let me know that I will never be alone no matter where I am, and that I must live in solidarity always with them.”
Madison - ”Russia’s soul is intense. I am so attracted to that intensity, which is their way of expressing their deep feeling. Americans have been so wrong about Russian-Slav people. Their intensity and total non-B.S approach to life frightened us, but theirs was for very different reasons; not at all because they do not feel very deep love. They need us to love them and understand them, and we really need them to help us understand ourselves and learn about another dimension of love.”
I found this fascinating quote today: Go to link….. Mel 680 hits in 4 hours… its the slant….
So we can slant this in our favor, my LGBT friends in Texas, if the AG, Abbott fights this he will be doing us a favor, a big favor, because they will be impounding their own Constitution by allowing LGBT organizations, et al, to weigh in on the Constitutionality of the Texas State Constitution’s ban on Same-sex marriage; whereas if they simply let it this divorce occur unoticed, the Constitution would in all likelihood remain untouched for now. Silly them!lezgetreal.com, Silly Them! AG in Texas takes Risk Fuelled by Homophobia, Sep 2009
I was in DC this past week and spoke to a top staffer of Barney Frank. It was the day before the ENDA hearing. He told me the Congressman does not want to support the repeal until the passage of ENDA and Hate Crimes because, I was told, it is too much for the opponents to grasp. That if ENDA and HATE passes, repeal of DOMA would be easier from a strategy perspective.
I just dont get it. It made no sense to me. The Frank office is very prickly when quized on this. I wonder if there is ego in the mix. ENDA is Barney’s baby after all. I am less concerned about his power because he has one mere vote. and it is hard to imagine that he would actually argue against it or try and influence others not to vote for it. I believe he wants the result it will bring but simply does not believe this is the best way to go. Since when were we afraid of losing?
I spoke to a good few members of congress directly, all of whom who support the repeal legislation as introduced by Rep. Nadler of New York; and they are going for it without regard for Barney’s strategy. Remember President Obama is on Board too.
The other concern for the Frank Team is the transportability clause. They think it is definately too much of a pill for the moderates to swollow – yet look at the case in TEXAS today where a judge agreed to hear a divorce of gay marriage, despite the fact that Texas constitution outlaws gay marriage. This speaks to why transportability is necessary – because of the great anomaly evidenced through the ability of States to authorize or outlaw marriage in relation to where we stand at any given time with federal legislation and benefits. I am posting my analysis of the Texas case on www.lezgetreal.com tonight. Just aiting for Publisher to do her part. If it does not g up tomorrow, I will place it on this BLOG.
Breaking – President Clinton retracts on DOMA and its Impact on Immigration Equality
09/26/09-by Melanie Nathan
It was just several months ago that White House officials were promising that President Obama would address immigration reform before the end of the year. It seems as if the LGBT immigration equality leadership has continued to hang its top hat on the passage of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, as being the only way the LGBT community can earn recognition in the immigration system, through the incorporation of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in the larger reform legislation.
When UAFA was introduced again this year in January by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, it was hailed by the organizations and money was raised from our community in the name of this proposed stand-alone legislation. We were all excited and on board for the big push.
However a mere six months later, (4th June 2009 ) even with a majority charged democratic congress we find the very leadership that had touted UAFA as the home run now touting Immigration Reform as the sooner mechanism for UAFA to become law. The idea was that the LGBT community would lend its supporters of UAFA to the BIG immigration reform and then we would benefit from the reciprocity engendered by the larger BILL.
My earlier posts, stemming back to June of this year, will reflect my critique of Immigration Equality’s strategy and fear that we were being sold off and now my fear is further endorsed by one serious and dangerous miscalculation that not even I anticipated at the time.
Unfortunately what they never banked on was the strategy chosen by the White House. Why Health Care reform ahead of immigration reform. Since the commencement of Health Care reform negotiations, town hall meetings, confusion it has become an unanticipated debacle that will no doubt impact any and all attempts at immigration reform which will in turn put our Binational in yet another long haul wait.
To come out and say that UAFA has no traction in Congress and so we must rely on CIR is nothing short of defeatist on the part of those who took our money to fight for UAFA. According to an article written for CNN this week by Ruben Navarrette Jr. Immigration Reform is clearly not top on President Obama’s reform agenda. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/25/navarrette.obama.immigration/index.htm
“One thing that has thrown a wrench into the prospects for health care reform is the Joe Wilsonian concern that illegal immigrants might get free health care as a result of the reform process. Had that issue been addressed beforehand by giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization, that controversy might have been defused. Now Obama might walk away with nothing. The political math for both kinds of reform only gets more difficult if Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate in next year’s midterm elections, as is expected to happen.”
Somewhat scathing in his commentaryNavarrette continues “ And the same President who seems to understand that the longer he waits to accomplish health care reform, the more difficult it will be to get, doesn’t seem to understand the same is true with immigration reform.”
The President decided to attempt health care reform before immigration reform. An obvious mistake which our LGBT leadership failed to apprehend when boarding the CIR train- a train not only without cars but also without access to any tracks! They’re well-aware of the resistance out there to giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization, which some refer to as amnesty – so now if health care fails or succeeds immigration reform will be hampered undoubtedly by the questions pertaining to immigrants and healthcare.
So unhappily I must report that we, the bi-national community are in dire straits. We have so much going on in D.C. that is positive and encouraging yet at the same time, one track strategy sets us flailing in the wind. The worst thing one can offer a Binational is no hope of being in their homeland safely with their beloved. How many are living as I write with fear of deportation, desperation to return from exile or success in renewing or obtaining a visa, as the case may be!
After spending a week on Capital Hill, I have come to the conclusion that all the strategy in the world will not help those in desperate need now. What has added to the quandary is the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act which seeks to repeal DOMA. Reading prior posts on this site, you will not its difficult in the eyes of Rep. Barney Frank. However I for one disagree with the Congressman. When speaking with a staffer this week, I was informed that Congressman Frank does not want to entertain a repeal of Doma until ENDA and HATE CRIMES pass. Of course the latter is imperative. But strategy schmategy what could be more important than recognition of our relationships; how can we be expected to have our sexuality recognized when the relationships that provide credence to our sexuality is denied by the law?
So now lets add to this fast developing scenario – one where maybe Binationals can see a glimmer of hope to their ever-fading sun… Since the introduction a mere two weeks ago of the Repeal Act, an architect of DOMA, has spoken against it and fully retracted his support of DOMA expressing his regret and how he felt duped. (See Huffingtom Post Blog )
Last night President Bill Clinton, who horrified us all, by signing the Bill, has now fully retracted his penmanship to DOMA by saying that he fully supports the rights for gay people to marry.
I predict more will come forward and if one looks at the tally, and I can report more later, it is apparent that some who have already in this short spate of time signed on RMA were not signed on to Uniting American Families Act, the immigration legislation. this is the uplift we need. Imagine if our in fact marriages were in fact recognized by the law - hence our relationships – at this level. DADT -ENDA-HATE CRIMES-UAFA- all will be psychologically rolled into this one BIG ENDORSEMENT! I believe mere introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act provides that respite, to some extent; it also gives us a sturdy leg to stand on! The irony of which we cannot but bemuse; in this vein we can say thank you to President Clinton, not for reversing his stand on DOMA but for signing it in the first place. Crazy as this may seem, but without the overt ACT of denying our relationships, we could never have had the opportunity to have and ACT that (in effect) will serve to VALIDATE our relationships and hence our standing in Society.
I have a lot more to say on the subject so consider this Part one of an extensive series yet to come… please keep your eye open for PART TWO…. thanks for reading, mel.
Shirley tan and Jay Mercado with Melanie Nathan and the Twins
When all was lost and there was no “next step” for Shirley Tan, about to be deported within mere weeks, Molly McKay of Marriage Equality called my office to see if I could be of assistance. Unfortunately Shirley’s was a losing case and she was told that there was nothing anyone could do to help her stay in the US with her partner of 23 years and their twin sons. A native of Philippines, Shirley had been unable to receive any help as there were no groups or organizations that could take this to the next level. Most people do not know how to advocate for themselves at the higest of levels and it is probably a service that is unavailable to most.
Having gone through the pain of being a binational myself, I offered to help and had no idea where this would lead, but was willing to stop everything to keep this family together. The saving of Shirley from deportation took a life of its own. I had the idea that we should ask Senator Feinstein for a Private Bill and against all odds and contrary to the recommendation of those who had more experience , we asked Senator Feinstein for a Private Bill.
During this time, and through my advocacy and coordination, Marriage Equality, Love Exiles , Julie Kruse of Immigration Equality , OUT 4 Immigration, GLAAD, People Magazine, all jumped on Board and helped with advocacy and strategy meetings. Great commendation must go to Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her help and to Senator Feinstein’s office and her extraordinary group of Staffers.
SO who would have thought the utterance of my words on the very first day I spoke to the Family when I said “ This case is going to blow the roof off UAFA. If I take it on, and it will be at no charge, will you be willing to stand up for UAFA.”Jay said, “Melanie, if we can keep Shirl here we will do anything,” would lead to this:-
Shirley and Jay have came through on their word a good many times. In June of this year, Shirley testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing; the family have been key note speakers at numerous important conferences in both the LGBT community and Asian American communities, culminating in this week in their meeting with White House Staffers, Senator Feinstein and other members of Congress.
This adventure to D.C., now their second was sponsored by Immigration Equality. Who would have imagined where that one call by Molly could lead. It just goes to show what going that extra mile can do. This should be a lesson to all - there is always hope as long as one takes it to the ‘n-th degree.’
So well done Tan Mercado family you have been true to your word and your community.
This is what we need to see more of – We should urge all those who voted for DOMA to now co-sponsor its repeal under the new Respect for Marriage Act introduced this week by Rep. Jerrold Nadler.
Proudly changing my position on DOMA (Rep. Earl Blumenauer By Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) – 09/16/09 10:22 AM ET - referenced from The Huffington Post and The Hill Blogs. “On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values. I’ve been a strong champion of civil rights and protections based on sexual orientation since I chaired the first legislative hearing on anti-discrimination legislation in 1973. Even worse, this vote was cast after careful consideration.”
He goes on —–
“It should have been obvious to me that we would not be able to quell this assault based on sexual orientation. Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry. Once Congress had put its imprimatur on DOMA, it was a logical step for the homophobes and political cynics to intensify their efforts and make permanent a ban on gay marriage in both the U.S. and state constitutions — spawning many state initiatives and intensifying the assault.” …..
Please read the entire post its a worthy read – then look up the vote of your RE P on DOMA and send them a copy or link to this Post – and ask them to Cosponsor Nadler’s RFA – asap – as a matter of correction and redemption. If your Rep voted NO on DOMA – ask them to ensure their support for RFA.
List of commentary on his issue:
Changing Their Tune On DOMA
President Clinton, Bob Barr and seven sitting members of Congress who supported DOMA, now oppose it.
Barr, Clinton, and Blumenauer – Legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally restricts marriage to heterosexual couples, was introduced Tuesday in House of Representatives amid a growing chorus of people who have had a change of heart on the matter.
““When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter,” Clinton said in a statement. “Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”
Barr, who was a member of the House at the time, joined Clinton, saying, “This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted.”
Melanie Nathan
My own comments to other blog comments on this issue:-
Barney Frank has made a big mistake on this one; it is important that REPEAL of DOMA is tackled in every way possible. This is a MUST DO Bill. There is nothing more onerous to civil rights than a piece of legislation that specifically excludes members of our society- so Barney get off your strategy crap and embrace this legislation – NOW. The question this begs “what is the point of State autonomy on marriage if the Federal government fails to recognize it?
What stops us from the fight? I don’t give a farthing about the numbers in Congress – now or then or then or now…. How could anyone think that not standing up for or introducing a Correction BILL such as Nadler’s RFA is negative to the cause. It is severely a MUST DO!! What fight was ever won without taking the ultimate risks, least of all on civil rights issues. I believe Barney may be right that the Courts will ditch DOMA long before RFA passes. But unlike Barney, strategically I think RFA is a must do nonetheless. It’s mere introduction emphasizes the fight and provides legitimacy to the fight by endorsing the fact that equality on a federal level is a civil rights issue.
Before the California Court ruled I asserted in my blog “The fate of California’s same-sex marriage hangs in the balance, as the Justices prepare their ruling on the challenges to the validity of Proposition 8.” Now is has ruled and the impact is so egregious that the most unlikely suspects are taking it to the highest Courts. I truly believe it will be ditched and we will gain equality. However in my probably lunatic attempt to influence the spiritual and ‘ karmatic’ I remind the Universe of the story of my children….. and republish this article…… first published May 20, 2009. at http://lezgetreal.com/?p=13261
In my house of two married moms, we remain overtly safe from this decision as long as it is not declared invalid retroactively. How will I explain that to my children? If the result is not favorable, I am faced with having to inform my children that gay and lesbians are no longer allowed to marry under the law of this State.
The unfairness of being placed in this bewildering wait triggers memories of the pre-Prop 8 fight and my quest to protect my daughters from the worst pain imaginable “your family is not a family!”
My daughter, HC, is as well adjusted as any child; she has been around the world a few times, hence her sophistication belies her short twelve years. She is engaging and endearing and born to lead. Kind, loving and perceptive, when a toddler she earned the name “little Buddha.” A keen, astute student, each year she adores her assigned teachers and tends to hold them in the highest esteem. They are her heroes and in turn she is their delight. This is a kid who never wants to miss school. She loves it!
When the California Court first ruled favorably for same-sex marriage we were the first lesbian couple to be married by our Rabbi, at our congregation temple. My kids had a great time and together with twenty other kids all dressed in white walked down the aisle toward the ‘Chuppah’ in most traditional fashion. It was a big event for our community and family came from around the world. My children were so invested in the wedding as for them it presented a validation and celebration of our little family of four.
Three months of gay marriage and then enter Proposition 8 together with the egregious advertisements facilitated by the millions of hateful dollars sent from Utah’s Mormon community to California, intent on promoting the proposition that would serve to outlaw same-sex marriage. The very idea of it, least of all a yes vote, served to insult our recently acknowledged family.
About two weeks before the November 2008 election and the impending prop 8 vote, HC and I were driving our route to school. We noticed that overnight what used to be one lone “No on Prop 8” on Central Avenue had morphed into a “NO on 8” at each and every home down our neighborhood’s main street. Later we found out that the lone sign outside the home a lesbian mom, kept getting torn down; day after day she would restore the sign until eventually overnight the entire neighborhood put up the NO sign in support of their neighbor. I remember remarking how amazing it was to see everyone in our midst against prop 8.
As we drove through the reasuring tunnel of “no on 8’s,” our comfort was short lived as we exited the micro and entered the macro – yes that nasty world at large reared its beastly head as amidst our usual morning tussle between Stephanie Miller and Radio Disney, an advertisement popped on the radio.
“……and your children will be forced to learn about homosexuality and gays it will be taught in the schools; ….. your churches will be forced to marry them… blah..”
I glanced at my child and noticed an odd expression on her usually placid face, one which I will not easily forget, and she asked, “Mom I don’t get what is wrong with other kids learning about my type of family?” I was stunned! The advertisement had placed a perspective calling for this very question; but why my child? We have lived our lives so openly and relish the good fortunate of our supportive community, where our ‘same-sex-ness’ is the least of our day to day issues.
It was as if HC had received a slap across her face. The advertisement had clearly hurt my child; its viciousness was not something she had been subjected to before. What could be worse than adults lashing out like that at children? It was direct and personal and having heard it before, was not personally outraged as when I realized the irresponsibility and how damaging those lies were to my babies. Now I had to come up with an answer to this ferocious fanaticism. I explained, “Hun, we live in a world where peoples are often so full of fear which is usually because of ignorance, – there are all sorts of different families – but they have usually only experienced their own. The unknown teririfies them; so they lash out in this way. What you heard on that ad, was unfair and contorted, but that is how the people who are against the idea of same-sex marriage think they can get other people to join their way of thinking.”
I provided more reassurance as best I could. A few more questions and answers later we arrived at school, and went on with the next two weeks, during which time HC and my four year old accompanied me to various “NO ON 8” rallies; “no on 8, no on 8,” a battle cry still performed by my 4 year old whenever she sees the number 8, whether in the market, at school or in the movies.
So came the vote: The “Yes” win was a shock and a huge upset; I had a lot more explaining to do; “mom is our marriage okay are we still married? (Our marriage is clearly viewed by my kids as a family event!) Then came one of the saddest moments in my life, on the day after the election, when HC came home from school and told me that her class teacher had told the group she had voted for John McCain. Living in Marin County California, I do believe the kids found this quite odd, and I explained we all have the right to vote as we choose. But then she announced, “Mom it is sooo weird Mrs. Ray also told the class that she voted “yes” on Prop 8; but I think she must have been just joking!”
Well long story short, she was not joking – and my child was completely and utterly shattered. Trying to hide her emotions for the next three weeks, I noticed a big change. She was not so keen about school. In fact after a week with a substitute teacher she came home devastated that he was leaving. I realized it was less about the loss of the sub teacher and more about Mrs. Ray’s return.
Despite my promise to HC to keep hush, “I flew like a bat out of hell” to see the Principal, who, ironically an “out” lesbian, was not surprised to see me show up on the issue; she mentioned that I was the fourth parent to complain about this lack of discretion on the part of the teacher. I explained that my child was extremely conflicted in trying to reconcile her respect and admiration for her teacher with her love and pride for her family. My child moved classroom and she adores her new teacher.
Fortunately, HC is back to being her happy self, but a deep and profound wound has been inflicted on her free and safe spirit. If proposition 8 is upheld by the pending judicial decision, I truly believe that my child will suffer more emotional harm, through the perceived aberration of her family. It is so unjust and so unfair. Our children do not deserve to be the political pawns of the divisive and fearful bigots and religious right in our country. We arefamily values and we are entitled to equality. My children are facts of life and they cannot be relegated to some second class category that diminishes us as a family. As a Mom I vow to carry on fighting for the sameness my babies, by virtue of their very existence deserve.
I have to show my child that our family is worth fighting for and that anything short of complete equality is simply not good enough. I think this story illustrates the far reaching effects of de jure disqualification and the de facto reality of inequality. Whether we receive equal rights or not, nothing will derogate from the fact that we are here; us, our wives and our kids and nothing can or will ever change that simple fact.
Until such time as DOMA disappears, Prop 8 ditched- every US State allows gay marriage -our children will be marginalized as my daughter was when her teacher basically told her –‘You are not the same – you are not entitled.
So good forces I leave it to you….. remember we are all deserve our little bit of the “right to pursue happiness”
I listened to Rachel Madow’s replays of Obama’s LGBT message yesterday. While sad and disappointed I am hopeful. I once heard someone say, “half measures avail us of nothing..” or something like that. That is how I feel about this token change by giving limited Federal benefits to LGBT.
As I continue to receive letters from the Democratic party and my Senators and Move On Org, et al, asking for donations and my support of a myriad of issues, I have decided that no one , and no issues (except LGBT) will get any support from me until I am treated with dignity by being given equality under the law of my Country. I am asking for nothing more, nor anything special, only equality in every respect for me, my spouse and my children.
The fact that there are laws that EXCLUDE a group is apartheid. It occurs in the USA through DOMA, the Defense of marriage Act,DADT, don’t ask dont tell; and PROP 8. At no time should a legislature take away inherent rights, and at the very least fail in some way to compensate, by special legislation in return. This ought to be a priority and until it is, I ask you all not to send me any letters or requests for support about anything except about MY RIGHTS and the validation of my wife and our beautiful children.
I just received an email addressed probably to all of President Obama’s supporters asking for support on health care. I am not lending my suupport to anything until I get the promised repeal of DOMA. As selfish as it sounds, I am sick of our community being taken for granted. Use us and then abuse us? Look at Clinton signing DOMA. Now what have we done played ourselves for fools again? I would not be his angry but for the recent Department of Justice Brief – see below. If you have homophobic legislation then expect homphobic behavior by the government; if you have dsicriminatory legislation then expect discrimination.
Since Julian Bond’s testimony at the UAFA hearings this month, I thought we would have some recognition beyond fruitless proclamations and shallow promises. Mr. Bond of the NAACP decalred in his historic statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that gay rights are civil rights. Wake up Mr. President please… now you have to quicker expecially that your adninistration is perpetuating the perverse behavior that results from inequitous laws.
President Obama where are you? This is very serious to the millions of us who voted for you. Now we feel forgotten AND mistreated by your administration. You really need to do something. .
Marty Rouse, the Human Rights Campaign’s National Field Director, pulled his attendance from next week’s DNC $1,000 a person gay fundraiser, is the fundraiser effectively dead? The White House’s homophobic DOMA brief equated gay marriage to incest.
Per GayPolitics.com – Blog:
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin released the following statement today regarding the Justice Department’s filing in a DOMA case that brought condemnation from LGBT advocates:
“Last week the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration. I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal of DOMA. I also recognize that he cannot do it alone. Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation that would give the opportunity to the President to keep his word and ensure that all married people, including those in same-sex marriages, enjoy the same rights under federal law.”
Congressman Jared Polis today said he is outraged by language in a Justice Department filing in a case involving the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The brief infuriated gay rights groups when it came to light late last week. In a statement released this afternoon, the openly gay freshman characterized the filing as a serious error:
“I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change…. Read further at
Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply.”
“Today’s decision, while heartbreaking, doesn’t end the historic struggle for marriage equality. It renews our dedication to making sure all California families can again enjoy the dignity, commitment and responsibility of marriage.
I commend the California Supreme Court for validating the rights of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who married last year before Proposition 8 passed. These couples and their children will continue to enjoy the full security and legal protection of marriage.
Within the next few years, I know California will restore legal, civil marriages for gay and lesbian couples. The California Democratic Party will play a leading role in ending marriage discrimination in California and I look forward to the day when that happens.”
Spot the mistake!
TODAY I WROTE TO CHAIRMAN BURTON POINTING OUT THE VERY SERIOUS MISTAKE IN HIS ANNOUNCEMENT:
Dear Chairman Burton;
It is with much respect that I must point out the inacuracy reflected in your statement today. As I fall into the ‘anomylous’ (my word) category of the 18,000 acceptable gay marriages, I believe I am bound to call for an amended announcement that provides an accurate depiction of the impact of gay marriage in any State, be it California or elsewhere. My assertion is that nowhere should it ever be mentioned that any one single lesbian or gay married couple has security in this country, until DOMA is is repealed and/or Immigration rights are provided equally to every married American. To say we enjoy security is a complete misstatement of the facts. As a married Californian, I am missing 1,038 Federal rights that straight married couples receive. As a married Californian, I am unable to petition for my California Spouse to remain in the country where our children were born. I think this is a great opportunity to educate your members about the impending hearings June 3rd where for the first time UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) will have its day before he Senate Judiciary Committee.
The fate of California’s same-sex marriage hangs in the balance, as the Justices prepare their ruling on the challenges to the validity of Proposition 8. In my house of married two moms, we remain overtly safe. However if the result is not favorable, then I am faced with having to inform my children that gay and lesbians are no longer allowed to marry under the law of this State.
My children will undoubtedly suffer from the confusion engendered by this fight; first we could not marry, then we could, and now we cannot. Regardless of whether the prior 18,000 California marriages, including my own, are retroactively upheld or invalidated, the mere fact that L and G marriage is effectively ‘outlawed’ establishes for my children a communal disdain towards the marriage of their two moms and our status as “family.”
My twelve year old daughter is a well adjusted child; she has been around the world a few times and is quite worldly for her years; she enjoys a wonderful reputation with teachers and friends alike. She is kind and astute; loving and perceptive – and as a baby earned the name “little Buddha.” HC is a great student; she makes it a point to adore her teachers. She holds them in the highest esteem. She reveres their knowledge and they are “always right!” She is always described as a pleasure and delight in the classroom. This is a kid who never wants to miss school. She loves it!
When the California Court first ruled favorably for same-sex marriage we were the first lesbian couple to be married by our Rabbi at our congregation temple. My kids had a great time and together with twenty other kids all dressed in white walked down the aisle toward the ‘Chuppah’ in most traditional fashion. It was a big event for our community and family came from around the world.
Three months of gay marriage and then enter Proposition 8 together with the egregious advertisements facilitated by the millions of hateful dollars sent from Utah’s Mormon community to California, intent on promoting the proposition that would serve to outlaw same-sex marriage and serving to insult my family and our values. About two weeks before the Nov 2008 election and the impending prop 8 vote, HC and I were driving our route to school. Amidst our usual morning tussle between Stephanie Miller and Radio Disney, an advertisement popped on the radio. As I listened to the twisted misrepresentations, “……and your children will be forced to learn about homosexuality and gay relationships; ….. your churches will be forced to marry them… blah..” (I am relying on faded memory here,) I glanced at HC and saw an unusual expression on her usually placid face, one which I will not easily forget, and she asked, “Mom I don’t get what is wrong with other kids learning about my type of family?” I was stunned! The advertisement had placed a perspective calling for this very question by my child and those of us who have lived our lives so openly and most fortunate to have accepting communities, where our ‘same-sex-ness’ is the least of our day to day issues.
The advertisement had clearly hurt my child; its viciousness was not something she had been subjected to before. Now I had to come up with an answer to this ferocious fanaticism. I explained, “Hun, I do not know why our kind of family is a problem for other people. Maybe fear on the part of those who think things always have to be one way, their way. But, we do live in a world where people have differences of opinion. What you heard on that ad, was unfair and contorted, but that is how the people who are against the idea of same-sex marriage think they can get other people to join their way of thinking. Most smart people are not taken in by it.” I added with certainty. A few more questions and answers later we arrived at school, and went on with the next two weeks, during which time HC and my four year old accompanied me to various “NO ON 8” rallies, a battle cry still performed by the little one whenever she sees the number 8, including at school.
The “Yes” win was a shock and a huge upset; I had a lot more explaining to do; “mom is our marriage okay are we still married? (Our marriage is clearly viewed by my kids as a family event!) The day after the election, HC came home from school and told me that her class teacher had told the group she had voted for John McCain. Living in Marin County California, I do believe the kids found this quite odd. Then she said, “Mom its so weird Mrs. R. also told the class that she voted “yes” on Prop 8; and I think she must have been just joking!” Well long story short, she was not joking – and my child was completely devastated. For the next three weeks, being in that class and at school become a difficulty for HC and I realized that despite my promise to keep quiet, I needed to see the Principal. The Principal (who happens to be an “out” lesbian, was not surprised to see me show up on the issue; she explained that I was the fourth parent to show up complaining about this lack of discretion on the part of the teacher. The Principal decided to move HC to another home class and explained that it was not because of HC, but rather because of the teacher.
Fortunately, HC is back to being her happy self, but I am sure this has had a deep and profound effect on my child. If prop 8 is upheld by the pending judicial decision, I truly believe that my child will be further harmed, emotionally, by the perceived abnormality of her family. It is so unjust and so unfair. Our children do not deserve to be the political pawns of the divisive and fearful bigots and religious right in our country. We are family values and we are entitled to equality and this Mom will carry on fighting regardless of the outcome.
I have to show my child that our family is worth fighting for and that anything short of complete equality is simply not good enough. I think this story illustrates the far reaching effects of de jure disqualification and the de facto circumstances of inequality will never change until the law does. Until such time our children will be marginalized as my daughter was when her teacher basically told her –‘ You are not the same – you are not entitled.’
NOTES roposition 8 amends the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. It is an attempt to fundamentally alter our state Constitution — to deny certain rights for certain citizens. No matter what one’s personal feelings on gay marriage, I believe the idea of institutionalizing any form of discrimination in a document that is supposed to protect us all equally under the law, is an affront the spirit of equality and justice and tantamount to apartheid.
The context: Under current immigration law, committed same-sex foreign partners of US citizens are unable to use the family immigration system – a system that accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the US. According to the most recent census, approximately 36,000 bi-national, same-sex couples are living in the US. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals.
UAFA would allow lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the US. The bill (H.R. 1024), introduced on February 16th, 2009 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in the Senate and by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House, would add “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” after the words “spouse” and “marriage” in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Yasmin Nair describes herself as an academic, activist, and writer.” Which, she states, “ simply put, means that she struggles to pay rent while living the glamorous life of a freelance writer. Her work appears in Windy City Times, where she is a book reviewer, columnist, reporter, and photographer.” Uhuh supposedly she “speaks explicitly about and for sex, and identifies herself as a queer lesbian who loves cock. ” (Expression of Gay man or straight woman? I dont know I AM a lesbian – how would I know.)
She titles the BLOG: Uniting American Families Act: Facts, Fiction, Money and Emotions -Posted by: Yasmin @ 4:23 pm and then slaps off sme crap that bears no thesis and no conclusion that remotely relates to the Title, which in my assumption was crafted in the hope that her quest to denounce UAFA, would fit into this unrelated forum .
So anyway this Nair, the activist then expounds the ‘dis-virtues’ of Uniting America Families Act, purports compassion in responses, but fails, even when others beg for answers, to provide alternatives. The narcissistic attempt to thwart this legislation is tainted beyond measure with flaws and contradictory messages. Our Chicago academic cannot make a case for her unfounded notion that UAFA would be bad for us.
She prefaces her blog – “NOTE: The information presented here is based on research, community discussions, and conversations with lawyers. It does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know has legal issues like the kind discussed here, please seek the expertise of a qualified attorney. This is the first of a series on immigration reform and its effects on the LGBTQ community. “
Sheez I cant wait for the rest of the series or is it dead in the water Serena what do you think? The only quote I recall in Ms Nair’s post is a one and a half page article in People Magazine – none of the updated quotes or articles are referenced and Ms. Nair attacks Ms. Tan based on this flimsy notation. What about the research she alludes to in her preface? and so she posts:- http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/ YASMIN NAIR SAYS ON QUEER CENTS BLOG (QUOTE) “Shirley Tan came here in 1986 as a tourist. Then, she overstayed her visa, supposedly after meeting her female partner Jay Mercado who was, like her, originally from the Phillipines. Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented. They have been domestic partners for a while, according to a People article, and even wed in 2004. Tan gave birth to their twin sons who are both citizens. In 1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister. In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it. Finally, this year, on January 28, ICE agents showed up at the couple’s Pacifica California home and arrested her. Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010 and a private bill on her behalf has been issued in Congress.
Immigration Equality and other supporters of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) have made Shirley Tan and her family members the poster children for a piece of legislation that, they claim, would guarantee that binational couples like the Tan-Mercados are able to stay together. Why is this important? Under existing law, in many circumstances, heterosexual married citizens or permanent residents are able to sponsor their partners for immigration….. : AND SHE GOES ON…..
Then she she says she is against UAFA for a number of reasons, QUOTING AGAIN, ”not the least of which is this: even if immigration through marriage/permanent partnership is a solution, who says it’s the ideal solution anyway? And why push for a law that guarantees rights to a privileged few while leaving the plight of others unquestioned? ” Is this , Ms. Nair a GOOD REASON FOR DISCRIMINATION?
Nair goes on to say, ”As an immigration rights activist,( LOL) my concern is with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The current immigration crisis has come about because the United States feeds on cheap labor and the exploitation of millions, the very people it chooses to dispose of quickly and crudely via the mechanisms of raids and deportations. It does this because it knows that there is more cheap labor to be had because of the conditions of “free trade” it has created, conditions that guarantee a breakdown in the economies of countries like Mexico. These conditions, in turn, guarantee the flow of people desperate to find a living here.” Ok so I ask Nair, is another reason to deny equality to LGBT through UAFA? AND FURTHER states :- “you know the ones we mean – the day laborers who move from job to job, underpaid and overexploited; the low-paid workers who build suburban houses for us on the cheap as opposed to living in them, and so on.” (What a ridiculous assertion- of course Rachel Tiven is concerned about all immigrants, however it happens that her organization advocates for Lesbians and Gay couples who do not have rights equal to straight couples.)
Ok enough: So I wrote a response:-
Melanie Nathan Says: On the Queer Cents Blog: May 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm QUOTING Myself ON HER BLOG:
“Share and Enjoy” you say – how can I when you insult my client, and my own right to equality..
“…..and not all straight marriages are automatic routes to citizenship…..” and therefore I presume Jasmin , that you intend that to mean that lesbian and gay couples ought not have an equal opportunity to not have this route marriage…..okay maybe I am stretching what may be unintended interpretation of your statement, but as a blogger and the person who played a pivotal role in obtaining the introduction of Private Bill # 867 for Shirley Tan and her family, kindly allow me to make some corrections to the mistakes and inaccuracies in your reporting:
1. “Phillipines” is spelt ‘Philippines’;
2. “Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented” –Inaccurate – Tan has always had a valid work permit;
3. Jasmin’s misrepresentation: “1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister.” Shirley Tan came to the USA when the person who shot and beat her to near death and murdered her mother was released from prison due to political connections. She was not safe. We brought the case files, prison record and hospital files from Philippines to prove her story to Senator Feinstein- there is no doubt as to the validity of these facts – you may effectively delete the “according to her.”
4. You say: “ In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it.” I am informing you that in April, prior to receiving the Private Bill, ICE withdrew the deportation order on the basis that Shirley had never been served with the deportation order. That is tantamount to an admission. So her status is legal and not illegal. She was then given a few weeks to voluntarily leave the USA, by May 10th; Dianne Feinstein introduced the PB on 4/22.
5. Then you say: “Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010” ; There was a great deal more work than mere press coverage; this is from the horses mouth. Personally I worked non-stop for five weeks, ten hours a day exclusively and pro bono on this case. Then almost every LGBT organization with Immigration Equality concerns chipped in their talent and efforts. You have to be quite naïve to think that it was merely press and “abra cadabra shim shalabim” a private bill; pow! You say you research and speak to attorneys etc. You sure did not speak to me; nor did you speak to Shirley – nor did you speak to anyone. You read a one page article in People magazine; well at least that is all you quote.
6. Jasmin, Jasmin, Jasmin – this takes the cake. …. “upstanding suburbanites. Why, she’s even a stay-at-home soccer mom! Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality drives the nail home in a quote: “They are exactly the kind of people you want living in this country.” Right. The others can just rot in hell” Well that is an inflammatory and insulting statement – Rachel Tiven and others at IE work very hard for equality, whether you agree with the legislative format or not. There are many organizations that work for immigrant rights, it so happens that Immigration Equality, has LGBT immigration equality as their mission statement. The donors and funding for this non-profit expect their money to be used in terms of their mission statement. To think that advocating for one person or a group precludes help or concern for the others is simply a ridiculous notion and in no way helps to support your argument.
7. He rest of what you posit , staring with “This is only my first problem with UAFA – it doesn’t really change the paradigms of immigration. It fixates……” is simply a load of nonsensical hogwash and your entire posting begs the question…. EQUALITY.
8. UAFA simply provides language to correct DOMA, which akin to apartheid serves to institutionalize discrimination. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, you miss the entire point. Equality Under the law. The language of UAFA equates same-sex couples to different-sex couples and that is it. The opportunities for fraud are there whether gay or straight. Fraud comes with huge consequences and many straight people have been deported or fined as a result. To deny legitimate couples their rights simply because others break the law is a disingenuous argument and discriminatory in itself.
9. As far as CIR- Reunification of Families and the Honda initiatives, hopefully this too will include Lesbian and Gay families after all why should we be discriminated against.
10. I too am a binational couple. The consequences of my not being able to sponsor my wife resulted in me having to choose to leave my country with the love of my life (for past eight years) and our 4 year old daughter whom we had together or to stay in the US with my 11 year old child who I share custody of with an ex. What would you have done? . Had I been straight, the passage of the law you deny as relevant would have been MY BEST PATH to her immigration and keeping our family in tact. Fortunately we managed with 12 hours left to illegality, $15,000 in legal fees later, and stress beyond belief to complete our process that kept her here.
PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME or my friend Martha who is living in exile ( loveexiles.org) that you think UAFA is a bad idea. It is irresponsible, unproductive to equality as well as to the fight on behalf of all immigrants, not to mention he lack of merit both de facto and de jure in your argument.
That said I invite you and your readers to my blog (www.oblogdeoblogda.wordpress.com) Read the post on Bill #867, Shirley’s Bill and note that this gay issue provided a forum for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s first ever public mention of the PLIGHT OFF ALL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; she acknowledges in essence the support of Reunification and CIR and it was Shirley Tan and her courage that for the first time shows a marriage, if you will, between the unfairness of all Immigration Law as it pertains to gays and straights.
Because you are ‘ an immigration activist’ I encourage you to seek harmony and unity in your efforts, rather than looking for divisive means to make your point– even if you disagree with the form of legislation please do not put down the courageous fighters amongst us and please do not stand in the way of my right to equality. Melanie Nathan
—————————
Yasmin NAIR responds to Melanie – there are many responses by the way which can be read on the QueerCents Blog.
Yasmin Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 am John and Mattilda,
Thanks for your comments, and for the tenor of your posts! Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who has written, even in disagreement, in a tone that’s fitting for public discussion. Many of you who’ve disagreed have still managed to do so in a productive way, and I hope that will continue.
Madison,
With all due respect, I suggest you write your own blog and not use the comments section to do so.
Melanie,
I think it’s hilarious that you correct my spelling of Philippines, but keep referring to me as Jasmin. Multiple times.
I’m really, really glad I’ll never have to call on your services (although I’m not sure you’re her lawyer – a blogger and a person involved in introducing the bill – what does that make you, exactly?) Your inflammatory language and vituperative tone are not helping anyone, and it really doesn’t help your reputation. DOMA is akin to apartheid? I know an entire country, South Africa, that might beg to differ.
As for the facts of the case, um, if you have any issue with what I presented, go talk to the People Magazine reporters.
I cited the article quite emphatically. I’m not sure how to break the news to you but this is …
a BLOG! Part of the blog’s point is to use a case that’s emblematic of the issue at hand and then to discuss the issue.
It’s interesting that you criticize me for not having contacted you — after having just shown that your temperament here shows why that would never be a good idea (and you still haven’t indicated who you are, exactly, ahem) — and then you go on to happily and unethically combine my critique of UAFA with some imagined personal criticism of Shirley Tan.
My point here was to look at the representation of an “ideal/good” family and then ask us to look UAFA more closely. This was not meant to be an airing of your client’s perspectives (and again, in what capacity are you acting on her behalf, exactly?). You need to do that job, not me. And, by the way, you need to do it elsewhere, not here.
Have I already mentioned that your tone is vituperative and quite unlike what someone’s public advocate should adopt? I know dozens of lawyers, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just used. I also know a lot of advocates and publicists, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just adopted. You’re just screaming at me.”
Now I was not the only one who did not agree with her. I think out of 44 responses (excluding her own defensive responses) no one agreed or understood what the heck she was saying.
Anyway Madison, Great Blog too – you did it justice on this one
Today I was picked up by a BLOGGER that sees Gays and Lesbians as lesser Americans Michigan Redneck II - (yes that is what the blogger calls him/herself) – - or so I presume from the postings.
THIS IS WHAT SHE WROTE ON HER BLOG AND I QUOTE: note her words are in red
THE MICHIGAN REDNECK IS A WOMAN AND THIS IS WHAT SHE SAYS-
Immigration News Daily; Earlier this morning I posted a few articles found in Immigration News Daily. But this one I figure deserves a post of it’s own.
Sometimes I just find things that just make me say, “WTF!”. And I feel like posting on such things, but don’t really know how to make a big wordy post. From now on, I making this a serious when I find issues that make me give the above reaction.
The Feinstein story about the Philippino lesbo got me started on a few searches. I found this one blog by someone who supports the gay agenda who is all excited about the Shirley Bill. This “Although it does not help the myriad (36,000) binationals living in fear or exile” got me to wondering what is binational. So I did a Google Search for binational and some of the things made me say, “WTF, I didn’t know about that.” Like;
Also in the Feinstein/Philippino article was something called UAFA. I wanted to do a Google Search on that too. Here is some of what I came up with. This one really shocked me:- Uniting American Families Act - The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424) is a U.S. bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.[1][2]
Most of the blogging and MSM news on this issue is gay agenda support. This is an issue that I will be checking up on in the future. Most of the blogging and MSM results have a gay agenda support of it. I am surprised that there is barely any Conservative talk on the bill. When the gay agenda enters into the immigration arena, conservatives leave it alone. But not me. Now that I know about it. I will collect more info and inform y’all.
How could this “She applied for asylum in 1995 because she was afraid of a cousin in the Philippines who had killed her mother and sister and critically wounded her when she was a teenager.” even be considered a valid reason for asylum? This is nothing more than family issues. Applying for asylum should be based on political issues. The United States should not be the World’s policeman. If one of my crazy relatives was trying to kill me and/or other family members no other country would take me in.
What did Feinstein win? I mean seriously is there some contest going on to see who can be the most lefty in politics?
Just one more day and one more reason I’m so glad I don’t live in People’s Republic of California.
Unreal. US Senators are elected to serve American citizens and support our laws. Not give amnesty to illegal lesbian immigrants. I’m gonna be dry heavin over this one for a while.
Melanie responded to the above BLOG as follows. :- Maybe I am naive – but I did take the step of providing my perspective in a reply on the blog and then it went further:-
“Thank you so much for helping us to spread our Gay agenda. It is very kind of you. Yes we do have an agenda indeed and the agenda is quite simple – Equality for all Americans, including people who have loving relationships with someone of the same-sex. Now while you are researching and doing all you can to create your own definition of the gay agenda, I highly recommend doing some serious research that makes sense and you will se that our founding fathers ( and that they were!) were brilliant in their recommendations and dialogues that led to our wonderful and insightful constitution.
In 1790 George Washington declared, “As mankind becomes more liberal, (so I guess he expected and wished for it) they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
That said, please do not be afraid of gay people – the Shirley Tan case highlights the importance of family. Her catholic church priest wrote a supporting letter to the Senator, stating what an amazing family this is, how well adjusted the twin boys are, the valuablecontributions they have made to the entire community. This is an example of good family values. These are amazing people entitled to a peacefull and equal life. Americans shouldnot have to leave the USA simply because they happen to love someone of the same sex.
I would like to invite a dialogue with you and help you see that this is really not an important issue for you – but as a lesbian mom it is an important issue for me. I know letting go of this may make your site less worthy if you are unable to continue to assist other conservatives feed into the fear and promote false rhetoric, but truly there are other issues – ones tha do not hurt your fellow Americans. There are issues that you can take up that will remain in keeping of the vision of our founding fathers – PEACE , FREEDOM AND JUSTICE for every single American.
I’m happy to help you with your research on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). If you’re an American, if you truly believe in American values and the right we all have to the pursuit of “life, liberty and happiness”, then I think you can help us support equal immigration rights for all American citizens. WTF — you say!? American citizens need immigration rights? Well, yes we do. You, for example, live up in Michigan. Near the Canadian border. Probably not too hard to meet an attractive Canadian lassie (or lad) up there and fall in love. Want to get married and live with your Candadian sweetie in your own country. If you’re both of the heterosexual variety, snap, get married (heck, just get engaged to get married) and the US government protects your right to be in America with the one you love. Gay and lesbian American citizens (and yes, gays and lesbians are American citizens — which means, according to our founding documents, we are all created equal — esp. the men : – )) do not have the same rights to sponsor their Canadian partners (or, horrors(!) Mexican partners — or Australian, Romanian, Indian, Japanese, Egyptian…you name it). Even those Americans who have been married in a fair-minded country (or state) that permits same-sex marriage cannot stay in America legally with their foreign partner until we pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Here’s a short list or organizations who will be happy to educate you and your readers further on how you can help: Out4Immigration, Marriage Equality USA, Love Exiles, Immigration Equality, Love Without Borders. You might also want to call Rep. Jerrold Nadler at 202-225-5635 and ask him to give you more information. He is the sponsor of this legislation and has done extensive research on the “gratuitous cruelty” lack of equal immigration laws has inflicted on countless Americans. Sincerely, Kathy Drasky
so it’s a piece of politics that you don’t agree with. that’s allowed, obviously. i just wanted you to know that it’s more than that for some of us. i was born and raised in the u.s. (and still pay taxes from afar…), but because my partner is from paraguay and of the same sex, i can’t sponsor her to come live in my country. so, we live in argentina.
i support UAFA…just because i want to come home. that’s all.
-kathryn griess
April 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm My partner and I- a bi-national same-sex couple, of which one is from a European country- also thought:
WTF, why can’t we stay together in the US, when our American friend can bring his wife from France to live in his home state?
We are married and living together in exile in Europe, as many other couples are, as this country ( as well as over 20 countries worldwide) provides equal immigration rights to straight and gay couples.
The UAFA would merely provide us the same rights as straight couples have. And it would force us to prove our commitment to each other in the same way as straight have to.
Why are you so opposed to this?
We would appreciate it if you could explain your arguments.
April 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm Let me put it in terms you can understand:
WTF You MF, CS,Conservative Right Wing AH.
I am a Viet Nam Vet, Tax Payer, Home Owner, and member in good standing in my community. BUT yet I am not afforded the same protections under the law a you because I AM GAY.
If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed. As far as the Government is concerned we are total stangers.
The UAFA would simply change the wording of the immigration policy to allow permenant partners to sponsor the same sex partners, we would be held to the same strict regulations as straight couples. There would be no greater chance of fraud than there is with straight couples.
You mentioned “the GAY Agenda” several times, would you like to know what the GAY Agenda is? Really? Are you sure you can handle it?
OK so Here it is plan and simple:
LET US THE F ALONE and let us live our lives in peace, stop dening us our civil rights. Keep your Evangelical Noses out of our business. We will answer to a higher power when we reach the Golden Gates, but we will not answer to you.
April 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm After reading “All You Need to Know About Michigan Redneck” I was surprised to learn you are a self proclaimed “Chick” you write like a Dude.
There may be a “Lesbo’ hiding in there somewhere… :0)
There may be hope for you yet.
Thank you for helping spread the word about the UAFA.
Randy
California
Since I am so thick skinned not only did I allow both your comments to post, you actually gave me a good laugh. And no, I am not laughing at you. I’d like to think I am laughing with you. While I am still trying to gather more info from all sides on the issues I will address the other comments soon. But your’s is light enough that I can comment to you now. Until then, I would please ask that everyone give me time to respond and please don’t jump to conclusions. I stated that I just recently heard about this and want to learn more.
First, I want to thank you for serving this great country, in uniform . As you can tell from the right hand corner, I am a fan of Barry Goldwater. He was more of a fis-con than so-con. I can’t remember the exact quoting or where I read it, but he did say something along the lines of it not mattering if a person in uniform was gay or straight. I am glad to hear you are a good standing member of your community. I think that is good for both gays and straights.
I see you wrote “If I were you I could sponsor Australian Bride for a permenant resident card, but because we are of the same sex I am not allowed” before you read the about me. So obviously I could not have an Australian bride. I am not even a big fan of heteros bringing in foreign spouses. There are cases where it may be valid, but generally it seems like one side or the other can easily take advantage of the other. I despise those stupid mail order bride situations. I will address that later.
As I said, I am still trying to get all views of the UAFA.
Next off, I am not an Evangelical. Christian yes, Evangelical no. Evangelicals scare me. Since you are not a regular reader, I will inform you that I am a Fiscal Conservative. It may surprise you to know that I get irritated with Republicans who only talk of pro-life stands and for a federal amendment stating of marriage between one man and one woman, yet they shimmy around the issues of welfare and immigration. For the record, I am pro-life. I have nothing against gay people. I am accepting of all people.
Why should you be offended by the phrase “gay agenda”? Everyone has an agenda. I am more upset by conservatives not talking on the UAFA agenda. Regardless of whether they support it or not, they should say so. I hate chicken shits and hypocrites.
Lastly, the last comment you entered actually had me laughing. I like to consider myself balanced. I am not the flowery type chick. I do not write flowery words. Too much of a realist. If you notice, the pic included with my comments is of a sewing machine. I write occasional posts about sewing. I don’t think those would be considered writing like a dude. I think modern girls are too sissy. I do not like bimbos or either feminists. Funny how Republicans want women to be old fashioned, yet they would think that someone like Ma Ingalls on Little House would be a feminist. Due to the fact that she didn’t get all primped up. Old fashioned women needed somewhat of a “dude” persona. Men knew that there was a large percentage of leaving the mother of their children a widow. They needed someone who could pull a plow, take care of the farm and support the family should anything happen to him. Sorry, I got off topic.
April 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm I am thrilled at all these postings- I bet this lady had no idea about the world out there. Michigan Redneck now has us “lefty lesbos” explaining our existence because she has never met one before, and on her site at that. I bet all of you picked this up off my blog and I am glad you did. Lets keep the discourse sweet and friendly and lets focus on the edification of conservatives as you have all mostly done. I just want to clarify that I am not ooffended by word GAY AGENDA – I am offended by ignorant defnitions as to what it IS> WE WANT EQUALTY that is our ONLY AGenda.
April 27, 2009 at 3:24 pm Actually “this lady” has met a few lesbians. Don’t know if any of them are/were lefty. After all there is the Log Cabin Republicans . Only knew them as friends of friends. I even had one ask me to dance at a bar. I merely said thanks, but no thanks. I would do the same with a man I was not interested in.
I am a fiscal conservative too. It was one of the hardest choices I have ever made to decide who to vote on for President in the last election. I am however gay and want to be a full citizen (not liberal in my mind, very conservative position). I’d be a Repulican if I weren’t gay.
I believe literally in the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Well not as literally as they did pre-1920 when the populous thought men literally meant men and women were not allowed to vote. Also don’t take Creator to mean just the Christian God of Evangelicals and Baptists. My church, Universalist Unitarians has been around since the late 1500’s; this kind group of straight people advocates for gay citizens having equality.
All that said, the real thing is, imagine, how ever it came to be, you and the one you loved most couldn’t be together. Imagine you paid taxes just like the gal next door, and the government took those words above seriously and let her pursue her life, liberty and happiness–she is able to love and choose anyone in the world–she is not limited as a citizen of the USA. But here you are, locked in to living as a proud American without your partner/family in the good ‘ole USA, or leaving and giving everything up….like your medical license in my case.
That’s pretty much what the Uniting American Families ACT is about. Just a simple bill to let a US citizen have the one they love in the same home with them. I don’t really it as a big agenda. It is a pretty simple one that almost anyone can understand if they think about living across an ocean isolated from the one they love the most. I do think it should be done legally and those who sidestepped the rules shouldn’t get special favors. Just asking for equal treatment of my own interests–very conservative thing to do wouldn’t you agree?
Thank you for your level headed comment. I am glad to receive a comment from a gay Conservative. Not that I dislike the comments from the “lefty gays”(paraphrase from Oblog…,)I want to hear from all sides. I brought this subject up to bring it to light and start a dialog. I would love to have this be picked up by Conservatives, both for and against UAFA, whether gay or straight. I have stated on many issues, within the past 2 years that the Republican Party needs to shut up or put up on all issues, social AND fiscal. “Preaching to the choir” has it’s time and place, but those who truly believe what they say would have AND should have the balls to speak out to those who are not part of the choir. While many of the commentors to the UAFA issue probably would not have reason to continue to become regular readers. I would like to invite you to become a regular reader and check my archives. You will notice that I interchange the words Conservative and Republican. There is a reason for this. But sneaky as I am, I leave it up to the reader to figure it out , tee-hee. Oh, where was I? Yeah, I was replying to your comment.
OK, it was hard for me to choose who to vote in the presidential election. Well maybe not. It was not between McAmnesty and Obummer. I ended up voting for Bob Barr (Libertarian). I just could not get distracted by McAmnesty’s shiny objects (read Sarah Palin and “Joe the Plumber”). Those two did not shit roses, like the Evangelicals acted like. Yet, they were not evil like the libs acted like.
I am going to be honest here, I do not know a whole lot about Universalist Unitarians. It gives me another something to search about, argh ! Another honesty, I do believe in equality for everyone. But I dissent on Gay marriage. If someone is gay, that’s fine. Live with whom you want. I just don’t agree with that choice or lifestyle.
I think the laws for hetero international-marriage immigration need to be made stricter, first. I don’t think we should allow situations with some fat, short, old, bald guy sitting at his computer or reading his “bride catalog” wanking off to “Tiana-I coot/hot Russian girl. I wan be bride in America. I cook. I clean. I do what you say. I your girl. You silly boy. You coot.” Let me state that one of my grandmothers was a German “war bride.” God rest her soul. I do not think she was taking advantage of my grandfather. After all, he was a sixth grade graduate from Arkansas. And she was an educated teenager who knew at least three languages, including German. If she were to use a soldier to get to the states, she could have found someone more educated. I do not think my grandfather was trying to take advantage of some Euro-girl. He was very handsome and could have married any Arkansas girl when he arrived back in the states. My grandfather left for the states with his troop without her. She had to come in on a different boat, with other brides. She went through a lot of scrutiny to get on that boat. Again, I got a bit OT.
But under the UAFA what is to stop me from a possible situation where I were to spend maybe a year in Europe, or other continent, and I become friends with a foreign girl. Under said hypothetical situation, I like hanging out with her. The two of us devise a plan to tell U.S. and her country’s officials that we are “partners” and I want her to join me in the U.S. She arrives in the U.S. as my partner. Somewhere along the way one of us meets a man. One of us is attracted to him. Go through courtship. Gets married. Or even under current laws, I meet a man who is simply a platonic friend. We get married in his country of nationality or tell officials we will get married in the U.S. he gets to the U.S. and we divorce and go on our own ways?
Thank you for the links. I have read those. Those are the links on this post.
Regardless of whether or not I end up supporting the UAFA, two VERY important things; I do have empathy for your cause AND most importantly, all of us have a write to our own thoughts and opinions and being able to speak on those.
BTW, I read somewhere about a gay REPUBLICAN candidate running for something or another in Florida or Cali who is fiscally conservative. I want to check out more about him, and possibly post about him. But him being gay is not a reason to support or not support him. It is where he stands on the issues.
April 30, 2009 at 2:06 am Thanks for your receptiveness. My family worked hard to go from working class poor family of the depression to get me into med school and to build something to pass on to our posterity/legacy. Not keen on government taking it away after doing the work.
Responding to your comment about gay marriage and lifestyles, I don’t support a Klu Klux Klan lifestyle, nor being a Communist. I hold our national value of each being able to have equal access despite their choices or circumstances higher than my distaste for those lifestyles (I could go on a long path talking about chosen lifestyle vs. been born this way–lots of prayers and wanting to die because never could convince my sympathetic nervous system that it was a choice). I digress. The idea in the Declaration of Independence, from my study, was government promoting Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness for those from checkered protestant and Catholic backgrounds. This was between colonies that very different beliefs no more than 200 years before our Declaration of Independence was written. It was certainly not written by a group of conservatives. They were overthrowing status quo and moving toward englightment. Away from monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy. But people try to compulsively repeat the past. The King of Romania at the time was at the Center of the Universalist Unitarian group. He was tired of people being killed as heretics because they didn’t believe in the trinity but saw God, son, spirit all as one. Imagine…dying over such a thing today… Guess it still happens in the Middle East.
Allowing Klu Klux Klan members to have their beliefs and practice their rituals is one of my highest values though I vehemently oppose that lifestyle. Conversely limiting others rights and killing people are not acceptable … beliefs and rituals are different matter, they are guaranteed in the Country I support. Now gay marriage. I support that a group of people should be able to declare homosexuality an abomination in their church and refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to. I feel that way about the Klan. But 4 States (Mass., Conn, Iowa, Vermont) and 7 Countries later (Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden), heterosexual marriage still looks pretty much the same.
Look at the science, the most recent UN stats on divorce rates: Canada 2.2/1000 Belgium 2.8/1000 Netherlands 1.9/1000 Spain 1.7/1000 Sweden 2.2 / 1000. US Stats aren’t listed. CDC reports US average is 3.6/1000. Conn. 3.2/1000, Iowa 2.6/1000, Mass. 2.3/1000, Vermont 3.6/1000. Of the 11 provinces (countries and states) that have legal gay marriage, 10 have a lower rate of divorce than the U.S. average and the remaining one ties that average. Don’t forget Galileo was put under house arrest for life because he made the unpopular lifestyle choice of publishing a scientific document showing the Earth wasn’t the center of the solar system.
Regarding your grandmother and grandfather, would you have wanted to limit their freedom to pursue their happiness. Doesn’t sound like handcuffs were on either party. And you are the wonderful outcome of that freedom to choose. They had things to offer each other. I’m not balding but in your example maybe the balding guy has something to offer the Russian bride and vice versa. Maybe their progeny will be more successful than either of ours. Who am I to interfere with their free will to choose?
Regarding the rules of UAFA. I would hope they would be the same as for heterosexual couples. Same timeframes leading to rejection of the greencard if a separation of the permanent relationship resulted–this act would require proof demonstrating that was the nature of the relationship, permananent. And if you want to lengthen those timeframes for all, more power to you. I wouldn’t disagree our citizens shouldn’t be used to get into the country. And I wouldn’t support fraudulent use of immigration. Same monitoring should occur for all.
What else stands in your way of supporting me as your fellow citizen being with the person I love most? And making sure I have a legacy through his progeny. He’s unbearable cute to me. He’s doing very well in his country too. We’ve got other paths to get him here than UAFA because of that. I am cute as well so I’m told. My wisdom, knowledge and family wealth passed to his progeny… Well that is my dream. Sure doesn’t sound worse than supporting the Klan being able to have their lifestyle…which you do I’m counting on.
Thanks for your time in really listening to all of us. That’s true charity/love in my book.
I admit to not having all the answers. I wish I did. I will say I am glad that you found someone you care about. There is no black and white answer to any issue that one can name. The prob is that no one can judge what is another person’s heart, regarding the immigration issue of bringing in a spouse or partner to the U.S. Sometimes it is true love, sometimes not.
I do know for a fact that I do not support gay marriage within the confines of a religious ceremony. As for Civil Unions, I think it should be up to the voters of the ind. states. And whatever the result, no whining.
I am saddened by divorce rates the world over. But that is a whole other can of worms.
As for the KKK, obviously I do not agree with what they stand for. But as you say, they should be allowed to say what they want.
oblogdeeoblogda said
April 28, 2009 at 2:35 am I take umbrage with your rewritten history here MR (I mean Michigan Redneck); Kindly allow me to remind you of the following:
1. Your first post about Shirley Tan led to your acknowledgment and so called research that yielded UAFA to your lexicon;
2. I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;” also your assertion of a Gay agenda as being a negative one;
3. I wrote you a detailed response, despite my busy schedule, inviting you to discuss this with me.
4. I then posted everything you said and I commented on in my oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com blog;
5. You then sent me a comment stating you did not have time to answer me, that you would get to it and that you were too busy;
6. Then suddenly all the good people that came to my Blog, wrote on your Blog too, after visiting mine and being directed to you;
7. You then communicate only with those who can beat your drum –in great detail, I must add, for such a busy gal who has STILL not taken the time to respond to me, Melanie, the one who started the discourse! – Nor have you apologized for your demeaning and offensive remarks – instead in your response to others- you throw out token remarks such as “I was once asked to dance by a woman and… – … which simply exacerbate your original insults!” What are you running away from? You cannot face me with a straight (no pun intended of course) answer?
8. The many gay people who have written so eloquently on your site have been polite and stated their positions and all you can do is go off on crazy irrelevant tangents.
OKAY that all said I now challenge you to answer the following:-
1. Are you sorry that you used the word “lesbo” and do you plan to continue to use that word? I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language includingthe “F” word and WTF – I know you have a 1st amendement right, but for as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us – especially now that we tell you its offensive to us
2. Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA and then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?
3. Why the hell cant people fall in love with people from other countries- straight or gay? How do you think you got here? I know you have the word RED in your name – but I did not think you were pure blood native American – maybe I am wrong – only then can you have the chutzpah to be anti spousal immigration.
Lets leave gay marriage for another day and another time.
If you do not take the time to answer me, neither I nor my blogging friends will waste their time coming back to your blog, rest assured an honest discussion involves dealing with the things you need to apologize for… Melanie Nathan
April 28, 2009 at 3:35 am I am just now starting to respond. I really, really am trying to get your comments. There has only person who has responded that is against UAFA. The others support it. And my responding has been going down the line, as opposed to the date I received them. In my responding to them, I am trying to add a bit of humor. You and all the commentors have given me a lot to think about and I thank all of y’all for that. So I just want to lighten the situation. That’s the way I work. Once the situation has been lightened. We both know that if this were another Conservative blog the commentors would be vilified. I am trying to be fair and diplomatic, yet, like Carrie Prejean (Miss California), I can have my own opinion. I will get to addressing exactly what you have addressed soon. And I am sorry that I did not address your comments sooner.
RE: 1.“..so called research…” How do you know if my research is so called or not? Are you or someone you know hacking my computer to see what search results I am Googling?
RE: 2.“I responded highly offended at your use of words such as “lesbo” and racially charged “Filipino Lesbo;”” Perhaps I was a bit hasty in using the word lesbo as shortened form of lesbian. What is wrong with the word Philippino? Isn’t that her nationality?
RE: 3.“I wrote you a detailed response,…”Which I am trying to get to as soon as I can. You do have an advantage over me. You know more about this than I. I should be allowed a little time to learn, via searches, comments and personal contacts.
Answering questions;
RE: 1.I want an apology and a committment that you will stop that disgusting language…” Please do not ask/demand for an apology. I have already changed the words. I honestly did not know that people find “lesbo” offensive. I merely assumed it was short for lesbian. Just like hetero is short for heterosexual. As for “…includingthe “F” word and WTF…as long as you continue to use such language you hate gay people and want to alienate us…” The F word and WTF have nothing to do with whether or not I hate gay people, which I don’t just for the record. If you re-read the intro to this post, I am using it for anything that surprises me, gay or not related. As you can tell, WTF is a new series I am starting. Plus, the first three Google search results have nothing to do with gay. They were things that made me say “WTF” Whoa, I didn’t know that. This can include anything, like something I may read about Elvis, like a famous actress he may have dated or silly name for one of his horses. Just an example I could throw out there.
RE: 2.“Are you going to continue to refer to the GAY AGENDA…” I am going to refer to any agenda I find out about, whether my reaction to it is negative or positive. “…then pretend to be interested in promoting UAFA?” Not once did I pretend to promote anything. I said I wanted to find out about what it was and decide from there.
RE: 3. Instead of just posting your question and then answering I will plain ol’ address that. People from other questions can fall in love. But we can not just let people in willy-nilly. No, I am not FULL Native American, that is correct. I have done research on my family line, other than the previous example I gave, my other ancestors met in this country.
I like you and all, I think your a great person and do a great job forwarding the Conservative message. And please do not think I am chastising you or anything. After all, I did ask for help with a Conservative voice in this issue.
But I will say that this blog is and always has been open to discussions from all sides. I still want to hear from Conservative DEEP THOUGHTS on this specific cause. I hope you are willing to come back once you learn about the UAFA and let everyone know your thoughts, whether pro or con. Everyone needs to think for themselves, regardless of what political side they are on, on any issue.
April 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm Good answer to the the host Michigan Redneck – I appreciate it and your visit to my site – now let us put that behond us and concentrate on a discussion about UAFA and other issues, of American Equality.
Thanks I really appreciate your post, your apology and your willingness to engage and remain open; it takes a strong person to do that! What do you think of Specter? Looks like he is seeing the light too…actually he always has -its just that he has now chosen to move into it!
Or would you prefer me using your first name? I was always raised to more formal names towards people of professions such as law, medical, religion, etc.
That being said, I am quite hungry. Bought a fish, on sale at that, yesterday. I should probably cook it, knowing fish that is on sale . Every time I plan to get up to stick it in the toaster oven, something happens on the internet. Yeah for live feed on Yahoo, NOT! But I will get back to you soon about what you have said, i.e. Specter and other stuff. Maybe I will send an email sometime. I do guard my privacy, and my email addy will let people know my real name. I am the same way with everyone. I have learned my lesson, even in Conservative and/or Republican situations.
I will sometime write a post on the UAFA. Most likely in series’. Sort of like a follow along online diary. Look at me, planned to be quick, oops.
April 29, 2009 at 1:12 am I am and always have been open minded. I do believe in American equality for everyone. I do not think anyone should be considered more or less of American. I think everyone’s voice should be just as loud as the next guy or gal, regardless of ethnicity and/or orientation. But at the same time, if someone disagrees they should be allowed to say so.
What do I think of Specter? Hmm…From what I have been seeing, I think he is correct on the Republican Party moving to the right…on social issues. Wrong on the fiscal issues. I think the Republican Party is moving left and/or silent on fiscal issues. This whole “Compassionate Conservative” irritates me. I was not too keen on George Bush’s Faith Based Initiative. Even if monies do go to Religious Organizations, it is still MY tax dollars. Certain Religious groups may give money to causes that I don’t believe in, like immigration related. I should have the right to give to what Religious Organizations I want. Since I am more pro-adoption than pro-life, meaning that don’t just stop at pro-life, but do something about like helping bio mothers find loving families for the child. Back to Specter. In this current unemployment and economy situation, I am against the H1 and H2 B programs. Specter supports H-2B.
“Looks like he is seeing the light too” Exactly what do you mean by “too”? I have never been much into social issues. I have beliefs, but I separate those between religion and politics. As for other things, I will never been won to the other side.
April 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm Hey this looks like a healthy debate! This is the way I look at it, what you do in your bedroom is only your business and the other adult you get nasty with. However, once it enters into the political arena, Katey bar the door.
If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble! This is exciting to see such a vibrant and interactive discussion here on this great blog.
Michigan Redneck, your a good friend and blogger and I salute you for eliciting a great response. Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!
Hey regardless of their Socialist Squirrel status or sexual orientation, it is great to have the discussion. However, when it gets Nuts as Socialist Squirrels often do, you no longer have to respond. Just move on and keep getting out there great content and message you are delivering.
I would take this response as a pat on the back, you are hitting them where their political agenda hits the road. Bravo! Keep getting Grizzly!
One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.
That is one things those of the political pro Gay agenda have over us. They move this message and agenda forward in a pack mentality. The Grizzly Groundswell actually has learned from those of our enemies in the political agenda realm.
Hey I am sure on a personal level we are all Americans and I am sure I can stand around my Raku kiln and bullshit with about anyone. But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty. So that is why this is such a flash point issue.
So battle on, but don’t loose your sense of humor. This is all politics and anyone who takes it beyond that will be dealt with in like measure under the rule of law.
Get Grizzly Michigan Redneck, I hope this great opportunity has shown you who your friends are.
…For being a Conservative with a concise voice. Well HoosierArmyMom left a was clear and concise also. I have read your comment fully. As I told Ms. Nathan, I am hungry and trying to cook my fish. As any long level-headed comment deserves a feedback, I will get back with you as soon as I can.
Before I go “Remember, you do not have to post all comments, but I applaud you for doing just that!” Yes, even when I don’t agree, my unspoken rule is that as long as no one is threatening or violent, most all posts are allowed. But I understand if some bloggers opt to be more stricter. Free speech on all sides. Free to choose what gets part of the convo. So long as it is the people who choose, NOT the gubmint!
I hope you don’t think me a Socialist Squirrel, but here goes.
In your love letter above to MR, you did have a few kernels that are worth replying to:
“If you want to infringe on the rights of others while seeking your own rights, then you have to get ready to rumble!”
This is interesting for you to say. It seems, from reading the rest of your post, that you believe that those who are advocating for immigration sponsorship rights for Americans in same-sex relationships are infringing on your rights. If I am wrong in this, I apologize. However, if I am correct, as I think I am, then exactly which rights are we supposedly infringing upon?
I can tell you which rights current laws infringe upon – the rights of my American husband. My American husband cannot sponsor his legally wedded spouse for immigration as you would be able to yours (assuming it was a woman). My American spouse cannot receive Social Security death benefits should I die first (nor me his), as you can should your wife die before you, even though we’ve been paying into the system just as you have. I could go on – there are 1,138 rights in all that we don’t get that you do, but I hope you get my point.
“But, this is a political agenda, and it deserves opposition because there is no end in sight of the demands this agenda lusts after. It demands rights that erode others liberty.”
Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy? Why exactly does this deserve opposition? We’re not looking for what some may call ’special rights’. We’re demanding equal rights. We see our relationships as equal to yours, and demand rights from our government that honor that equality.
I have recently come across, thanks to Melanie Nathan, a fantastic quote, written in a letter from George Washington on March 12, 1790, addressed to “The Roman Catholics of the United States.” In it, he writes:
“As mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of the civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality.”
I suggest you read the whole letter, study its historical context, and can see that we are, in essence, akin to the 1790 Roman Catholics. We are law-abiding, tax-paying, positive forces in our community, just as (I hope) you are in yours. Why, exactly, are we not equally entitled to the protection of the civil government?
I hope I wasn’t too ‘nutty’ for you to be able to reply and offer some examples as I have asked for them. This is a learning experience for me, too, and I look forward to hearing the replies of the apparently more socially conservative who contribute to and enjoy reading this blog.
I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. I don’t like to see people breaking the law, nor do I like to see them no pay for doing so. But this country was founded on a principle of equality for all, and as I believe strongly in this, this tends to override many of my fiscally conservative tendencies. I am what you would probably consider a social liberal, although I consider myself socially moderate at most.
On the Geo Washington quote, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, I think it depends on the definition of Liberal.
“I would consider myself a fiscal conservative – I don’t want to see the government, big business, or even charitable organizations take my money and waste it. I’d rather they spend it on the things that matter to me, and even on those that don’t, I want to see it spent efficiently and wisely. This is exactly why I think political parties need to stay out of social issues. I have nothing against politicians talking about their social views, but it should not be a litmus test. It is also why I, and others, find myself leaning toward the Libertarian Party. They don’t care about social issues. That is up to the church and families. It is like the old school Republican Party.
In terms of your responding to Chad, I think it is good for all of us to be able to have conversations agree or disagree. I think all sides come into the convos with their own condensed views of an issue, along with their own condensed views of what others may or may not think. When a conversation takes place with everyone from all sides, we may or may not change our views, but at least we know where the other side is coming from.
Now we may or may not agree, but this is why I am against the Hate Crimes Bill. I could get into that more on another post, but to summarize, ALL crimes are motivated by hate. It actually patronizes “minorities.” I believe any moron has the right to speak out on their hate. Then others can pick up on this and speak out. That is true power to the people! Oh God, I sound like a Ron Paul-er.
April 29, 2009 at 4:51 pm MR, on the Geo Washington quote, he did say ‘liberal’ (small ‘l’) and ‘liberality’, which some online dictionaries define as “the quality of being broad-minded”. In his day, it was broad-minded to extend equality to Roman Catholics, something that we would say, well, of course! In our day, LGBT’s who are upstanding members of our civic community deserve the right to equality just like the RC’s of the 1790’s did. As society becomes more broad-minded, we will allow equality to more and more whom we realize deserve it.
As to Chad and his like-minded friends, I encourage him in my post to talk about his beliefs and to explain himself as I have done with mine. Talking points and inflammatory rhetoric, which both sides of every issue use, do nothing to advance the discussion. I’d like to hear what exactly his list of supposed lost liberties looks like, especially when put up next to my husband’s list.
A final note: I don’t know that any of us have truly been concise. Mr Everson rambles around how much he misses you on other blogs without offering anything substantive. Your HoosierArmyMom friend is not terribly concise, either. It’s like they are trying to come up with a reason to oppose this legislation that uses facts, rights, etc., and can’t. Like you, I’d like to hear, from either a fiscal conservative or a social conservative, an actual reason why this bill that keeps families together and Americans in their homes and jobs should not become law. Isn’t that the basis of the ‘family values’ folks – to keep families together? and isn’t that the tenet of the fiscal conservatives – to keep Americans in their homes and jobs? How does sending an American into exile do either?
April 28, 2009 at 11:48 pm“Hey this looks like a healthy debate!” Yeah, except I wish some So-cons had come on to defend whatever their positions may be. That is my problem with the So-cons in the Republican Party. They are willing to say one thing within their circles, yet when they are given the chance to speak with another side with another view, poof.
“One thing that you are finding is that you have felt all alone, but you have not submitted to Grizzly Groundswell blog networks in a while. Of course you are going to feel alone if you do not network with fellow conservatives that give a shit.” You are correct there. As you know, I had gone into hiatus, again for a while. Somehow, I have to figure out how to be able to work on my sewing and blogging.
April 28, 2009 at 1:14 pm Thanks for the update on my blog, I will approve it as soon as I can. That said yes e-mail would be great – I am not afraid to have my name out there – I used to be – maybe that is my naivity because I live in a community where there is no prejudice – or at least I like tio think so; maybe it is limited. Here we all champion common causes such as poverty, the environment, fair treatment for all under the law. By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.
That said, I do not think children should suffer; once there is a de facto situation – that is if it “IS” then children should come first and all else forgotten. It is not a reward to keep children with their mothers and/or fathers, it is a G-d given right, regardless of borders.
So if two things could happen in conjunction – give children their intact families and allow Americans to live in America including all American kids, regardless of so called “anchor-baby-syndrome” and at the same time firm up borders, then over 100,000 families would be united again and illigal immigration will decrease dramatically.
Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.
So we think alike – except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders TIGHT!
April 29, 2009 at 1:39 am“By the way I also believe that our borders should be strengthened so that illigal immigrants cannot get through so easily.” The prob is that neither side wants to get serious about the borders. They both have reasons to be for it, behind closed doors (read ass kiss to lobbyists).
I really do have empathy for the children. Don’t get me wrong. The Libertarian in me says that everything really needs to be thought out. Unfortunately, there are many outside our borders who know our laws and take advantage of it. Of course there are American women who live in trailer parks, going out to the bar, pick up some guy, any guy, get knocked up, check off father unknown, collect welfare. Then repeat for the next three or more generations. I think if we get rid of the welfare system, a lot of probs can be solved. Again, both parties advantage from keeping people on welfare.
“Especially now with Swine flu – its extra important to protect our borders.” Yes, you’re correct! I have not talked about that because so many other bloggers and news sources are talking about that. I try not to repeat something, unless of course it is something that I have strong beliefs on. Other than that, I try to find things others are not talking about, or their is not conservatives talking about it.
“…except I do believe in amnesty together with closing borders” Amen, not that I agree. But at least someone who is pro-amnesty is willing to use that word.
Oh BTW, I see you spell out “G-d” instead of God. Here you are allowed to use any word, just nothing threatening or violent. If that is your personal choice, that is fine. But if you are doing that for my benefit, don’t worry.
April 29, 2009 at 12:01 am I concurr with Chris; and find MR’s point about “poof…. ” interesting;yes, seems away he went! Chris I am so glad you were directed here from my BLOG; and that you are so established in your truth that you are able to come back and revisit the comments. I challenge Mr. Everson to return here and answer the big question : “Again, exactly which of your liberties are being eroded by my American husband having rights that you currently enjoy?” If he fails to answer, it is clearly unanswerable and in that event MR, you will see completely unfounded/
MT thanks for keeping this dialogue alive and allowing the discourse; its unusual and rewarding – that said I hope a lot more join in. But more than anything else I hope Mr. Everson eturns to back up his tstaements and answer these questions, because if he does not you will either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends. Melanie.
April 29, 2009 at 2:13 am In Chad’s defense, not that he needs, I do know him via internet and know that he is busy. Not that any of the commentors who have come back aren’t. We all choose when and where we want to respond. That being said, I will say he does think on his own and his views on many issues are well thought out. I think he will be back, in his own time. The ones I was talking about regarding “poof” are regular readers or other conservatives who may have just landed here.
“…either be truly lonely or have succeeded in finding some new friends.” I hope to neither be lonely AND also have some new i-net friends. And I hope that everyone can converse on any issues that I may post on. I hope that everyone can keep it civil, when disagreeing. In girl scouts we used to sing a song about make new friends and keep the old…
MY COMMENTS – Melanie Nathan. (Private Courts, Inc.)
All I can say is wow. I read the wording of the Bill and was astounded by its implications, not just for Shirley Tan but for the entire immigration community, and the Lesbian and Gay, Same-sex couples community. This Bill ties us together as allies with a common cause; our children! This is an opportunity for Gay and straight organizations and concerned citizens to form alliances – to support each other to protect our kids. No child should be separated from a parent and no American child should ever be ordered to depart this Country.
In fact that brings me to the fact that NO AMERICAN should be forced to leave this Country simply because they love another person of the same sex. This is a human rights issue – once a citizen is compelled to exile. At home its an issue of discrimination, of apartheid – its unconscienable to force an American to leave his/her job, home, career, language, family and of course I can go on,.
Please read the wording of this amazing BILL. I take off to Senator Feinstein and note her courage in many aspects of this BILL. Although it does not help the myriad (36,000) binationals living in fear or exile, it places before the congress expressions of dismay, expressions of concern and flagrantly points out the fact that the USA does not have laws to “protect married people.” Even though the Senator falls short of referring to Jay and Shirl as a lesbian couple, she alludes to the fact; after all what other type of couple could possibly be married and not have a right to petition for the non-citizen spouse! Very interesting anomaly. Here maybe for the first time, ever, we have mention in congress, of gay marriage, expressed in legitimate terms!
Then ther is this maybe also rare mention by Senator feinstein of the plght of immigrants in general.
All said and done – this points to the desperate need for the passage of the UAFA – Uniting American Families ACT. It has got to happen. Even though I was the person who initially contacted Senator Feinstein’s office requesting a PB for Shirley Tan, I know that it cannot be done for everyone. The only legitimate floodgate will be UAFA.
Please read the BILL which I have copied below. I will also provide the link so it can be read in its original PDF format. It is absolutely fascinating and I simply cannot say enough in thank yous to the Senator and her extraordinary staff. I will also soon be displaying some of the amazing letters of support.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 867. A bill for the relief of Shirley
Constantino Tan; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President,
today I am introducing a private relief
bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan’s behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, ( my notes: because there is no law for same-sex couples – if tere was this would not be the case- we need UAFA) this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan’s safety and her children’s wellbeing may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress’ special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.
Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor’s visa in 1989.
Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government’s position on Ms. Tan’s case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a
reply brief in her client’s favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S. Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order.
The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody. In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney’s negligence.
Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct. One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine. These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ‘‘ideal’’ students—‘‘the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.’’ One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ‘‘model’’ parent, one who ‘‘attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys’ teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.’’
However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.—their birthplace and the only country they know to be
home.
All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country. A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know—that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes. This is the situation facing the Tan family.
While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status…..
Today Senator Feinstein introduced a very rare private bill on behalf of Shirley Tan; Shirley will not have to leave the USA for now and hopefully never. The essence of its introduction is that Tan does not have to leave the USA on May 10th, in terms of the voluntary order issued by DHS. This enables her to stay in the USA, legally, until the private bill passes ( a rare occurrence)- and if it does not come up for a vote then she can stay for the duration of this Congress’s session, which has approximately a year and nine months left. However Shirleys ultimate saviour will be UAFA and nothing else!
This is unbelievably miraculous and indeed an extraordinary measure on behalf of the family. This also gives all our wonderful activists, LGBT organizations, and community supporters an opportunity to hit the streets, the phones, the faxes, the e-mails, the blogs etc. and to fight like crazy for the Uniting American families ACT (UAFA) – in truth the only real long term option for Shirley and the 40,000 other couples/families in this dire situation.
Hence the fight has truly just begun. We now have a face and a family to the desperate situation of all Binational families. With the make-up of this congress perhaps we do not need to hide for fear of the conservative wing Republican sabotage and filibuster.
A great big thanks from the Tan-Mercado family to Rep. Speier and her amazing staff as well as Sen. Feinstein and her staff, all of whom showed extraordinary solicitude and diligence through the process. A special mention to the organizations that provided guidance and support; Marriage Equality, Immigration Equality, Out4 Immigration, Love Exiles and all the Media that remained so patient and supportive.
Senator Boxer is co- sponsoring UAFA and we now hope that Sen. Feinstein will do the same as many many others are in as bad a predicament as Shirley Tan has been.
When I spoke to Jay today she was crying with joy and said the whole family including the boys were absolutely overwhelmed with emotion. The news was conveyed to her directly by Senator Feinstein’s office. It has been a long and arduous process and so a very special thank you goes to Attorney Phyllis Beech, San Francisco and Fresno. I will write more later – but now I have to call and tell everyone the good news.
A great big thanks to all the offers of support and help – please join the fight for UAFA as there are many couples suffering the lack of rights. A special thanks to the straight Felipino Organizations and mainstream Press who came forward and recognized the importance of family and offered all out unconditional help for Shirley and Jay.
A very special thanks to Mike Swift at the Mercury News, San Jose,
2005-2009 – Little did they know….. A visit to the White House and meeting Senator Boxer to detention to Private Bill #867 to testimony at Senate Judiciary Committee to Batman posters signed by Senator Leahy – these young twins now land at the desk of Senator Feinstein – who saved their family 2009.
I am in touch with the litigants who are about to let leash, or so I have been told. Any queries please contact me directly at nathan@privatecourts.com and watch this space for updates.
Universal Life Church MonasteryFights for Minister’s Rights to … The Universal Life Church Monastery (www.TheMonastery.org) has announced a legal defense campaign that will take action in all states that have enacted unconstitutional same-sex sacramental marriage restraints. The Universal Life Church Monastery reports that it has retained two constitutional law firms, which include Arizona-based DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, and Seattle-based Carney Badley Spellman. I spoke with George Freeman yesterday and he mentioned that none of the Gay organizations had been contacted with regard to this litigation. I was wondering if any of the activists and representing organzations knew about this and what hey thought about this move. I am curious how it impacts the current endeavors and if this is viewed in a positive light.
On April 10th, Shirley Tan received good news and bad news on her rollercoaster ride to or from permanence in the USA. Shirley received notice from the BIA that a deportation order was re-issued giving her 30 days to voluntarily leave the USA.The good news is the admittance that the prior order was not properly served, thereby endorsing Shirley’s claim that she knew nothing about it.This ‘cleanses’ her status, if you will, as she is now not out of compliance as had been painted by her detention.
The bad news is that she is out of options.Her application to BIA has been turned down and she is ordered to leave. There is no legal procedure to assist her in her desire to remain in the US with her wife and American children. The only way she can stay would be through extraordinary measures.If you support Shirley and her family, please feel free to e-mail Melanie Nathan at nathan@privatecourts.com to express your support.Cards can be sent to Tan-Mercado c/o Melanie Nathan, Private Courts, 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Ste 112, Larkspur, CA 94939.
Please call/ write/ e-mail/ fax your congress representatives/ Senators and urge them to read about the hardship to the Mercado Tan family.Ask them to cosponsor the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and to do what they can to help bi-national couples and their children.In the long term this is the only measure that may allow the Mercado Tan family to live as such in the USA.Be on the alert for more help that we may call for soon.
This picture was taken before Shirley Tan knew that she was in fact out of legal status in the USA. The family had requested a visit to the White House and were apparently cleared – while there was an deportation order in effect. They had no idea! LESBIAN MOTHER FACES DEPORTATION
IMMIGRATION RIGHTS IN THE USA - Why should our Children Suffer? by Melanie Nathan - breaking news…
Shirley Tan will be deported on April 3rd 2009. The only way she can stay in the country is if a private bill is passed by congress or her case is adjudicated to be reopened, the latter which may not happen in time to prevent the deportation. (see erlier post on 3.27/09) http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/family-to-be-torn-apart-due-to-failure-the-us-laws-to-protect-equally/
We now are hoping for the passing of a special private bill by congress. If you are in support of this, and want to help this family, please send a supporting letter via e-mail to Senator Feinstein c/o Melanie Nathan -at
At the request of Mr. LEAHY, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. MERKLEY) was added as a cosponsor of S . 424 , a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.
PLEASE CONGRESS 36,000 AMERICANS AND THEIR CHILDREN DESPERATELY SEEKING UAFA….
Most Americans have barely any insight into immigration law and its intricacies; the rigidity of certain regulations that serve only to create extraordinary hardship – and the saddest victims are most often our American children – the very souls who we purport to protect through our laws and our Courts.
Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric has been guised in fallacious moronic (Mormonic..mmm) talking points, where the proponents insist that gay couples do not need marriage to be equal.This in itself denotes an argument in favor of ‘special rights’ (such as UAFA) and yet the same groups oppose ‘special rights for gays,’ the latter, their coinage!This paradox attempts to negate the de facto existence of gay relationships, regardless of marriage. However gay relationships will always be and hence the de jure must follow.Immigration law must change. Congress must wake up to the reality; it must acknowledge the de facto existence of these emotionally legitimate families, and that we are Americans, for as long as it does not, American citizens and their families are being discriminated against, whichever way the opponents try to spin it.Now is the time for every American to stand up against discrimination and suffering.It is so important to spread these stories to the eyes and ears of those who have no clue. This is not about marriage – of course we want the right to marry and of course we want DOMA to disappear, its about one particular right that bi-national gay families do not have and that is the right of one person in love to petition for the person he/she loves to reside in his/her home country.
These stories, though briefly told reveal a measure of the hardship:- I just received a link from a new friend visiting from Netherlands. We have never met face to face but will on Monday. My new friend is American but has been forced to leave her home because she cannot sponsor her same-sex spouse to live with her in the USA. This is archaic. So many countries regard this as a fundamental abuse of civil rights; personally I regard it as an abhorrent violation of basic human rights.
This is not the first taste of the sordid invalidation by my own Country. My spouse and I have suffered our own immigration hell, and thankfully with the help of an extraordinary attorney, Kip Steinberg, were able to navigate the deep tempestuous sea of immigration laws and regulations; with mere hours from the sun-setting of a law that we had relied on for 5 years to get to the point of completion. With the assistance by our Senator’s office we were able to expedite the application before the law disappeared over its seductive horizon.
Now we must all fight for the others… those who are living the hell and there are many. This month I have encountered two terrible cases- similar to the one in the Article.
In each case the same sex spouse of a US citizen was taken into custody by ICE, for deportation – treated so badly- and their lives altered forever. My friend, a Psychiatrist who was the regional head for the California Penal system, committed suicide- could there be any relationship between that and the fact that deportation of his beloved was imminent?
This week an associate asked for my help with a two mom family- 23 years living together- twin sons, aged 12, born through donor sperm, egg of one mom invitro and carried by the other mom who is now about to be deported – next week.
The family is in agony – they do not know what is going to happen – one son wrote to Senators Boxer and Feinstein stating that he cannot live without his mom.I have not told it all, and it is bad, very bad,If the mother returns to her country of origin, she fears the same fate as her mother and sister, brutally murdered some years ago.This story will be highlighted in the next few weeks, but I cannot now, do to sensitive timing.
Here is a mother of two American children and the California spouse of an American citizen, who is about to be deported because there is no Federal law to protect this family of 23 years. Unlike couples whose marriages are recognized by the Federal law, gay couples are excluded because of DOMA – and UAFA (Uniting American Families Act) is barely hobbling through congress.
LOS ANGELES, CA– Fred Karger, Founder ofCalifornians Against Hatetoday filed a supplement to the complaint against the Utah-based the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
In a 9 page letter, Californians Against Hate alleges that the Mormon Church established theNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE(NOM) as itsCalifornia front group in the summer of 2007 for the sole purpose of qualifying and passing Proposition 8 in 2008. Karger alleges that none of the costs associated with secretly establishing NOM was reported by the Mormon Church as required byCalifornia election law.
In official, extensive and detailed Mormon Church documents, one can see how NOM was very likely modeled after the Hawaii front group — “Hawaii’s Future Today” – which the Mormon Church set up to defeat same-sex marriage in Hawaii in 1998. Californians Against Hate submitted these official Church documents along with the complaint to the FPPC today. All the documents as well as the complaint are posted on its new web site: http://www.mormongate.com
Californians Against Hate asks the FPPC to investigate the “obvious underreporting” in the Mormon Church’s January 30, 2009 campaign report.
“I have carefully reviewed the late filing by the Church,” said Karger. “It seems just to be the tip of the iceberg as far as what they spent in support of Prop 8. They have admitted errors publicly in press accounts after their filing.”
“The Church’s report actually raises more questions than it answers. It is particularly odd since they (the Church) announced their active involvement to pass Proposition 8 in a letter from Church President Thomas S. Monson on June 29, 2008 read to all Church members. Now they claim that they did not spend any money in the form of non-monetary contributions until the last two weeks of the election campaign,” Karger stated in his letter to the FPPC.
The complaint outlines an additional 6 specific charges and substantial areas of likely Mormon Church activity that should be investigated as reportable non- monetary expenditures.
Californians Against Hate’s original complaint to the FPPC against the Mormon Church led to the Commission’s ongoing investigation of the Church which was announced on November 21, 2008 (FPPC FILE NO. 08/735). This additional information is to help with that investigation.
The Court has taken the matter, as submitted. Prop 8 is on the decision block. It seemed to me by listening to the questions of the esteemed Justices that proposition 8 may be adjudicated, valid. I feel despondent.
Yet, I thought Ms. Stewart’s argument was articulate and clear and its jurisprudential profundity seemed to outweigh that of the opponent, I think his name was Star… The inability of the opposition (my opinion) to address the harm to already married gay couples, may serve to enlighten a teetering Justice. Their Counsel relied on semantics that did not in effect serve to answer the questions posed by the Judges.I could not understand the difference between retroactivity as opposed to asserting that our marriages are simply invalid; but not ab initia?What is the difference – the effect is the same and surely the Justices will see that. This is where I am proud to be one of the 18,000 and that is why it mattered so much to get married as soon as we all did.
As far as I am concerned, my marriage counts even if a mere statistic at this juncture. But it is indeed a statistic that by virtue of its proportion engenders conscience and significance by exacerbating the potential for possible prejudicial treatment. No group of 18,000 or more or less has ever had their valid marriage taken away from them.
That said it is now another waiting game.If this works we are okay if not I guess we will be back as second class citizens looking for a PROPOSITION to validate our existence.Lets pick a number; How about PROPOSITION 3 FOR EQUALITY… whereas …. PROPOSITION 8 WAS ALL ABOUT HATE…
O-blog-dee-o-blog-da is authored by Melanie Nathan, a citizen, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a niece, a cousin, a friend, a wise-fool, a volunteer, in the box, out the box, whats the difference its still planet earth, comparative privelege, ever-grateful, trying to feel the pain of others, measured guilt, abhorred by injustice, my glass is half full half the time, too well-read and traveled; lived in Africa, live in USA, mediator, advocate, dreamer, doer, doner, good- better -best, lawyer, CEO, entrepeneur - Vice President of Board – Fair Housing of Marin California; http://www.fairhousingmarin.org ; Volunteer: Superior Court of California / Mediator Panels, Commissioner on Marin County Human Rights Commission. Quote late mother:”the softest part of Melanie – her teeth!”
PRIVATEADVOCACYANDACTION CENTER: Press release quote Equality, USA- Blogging since…. San Francisco, California “This is a good day for this family, but their fight is not over,” said Chris Waddling, Binational Couples Outreach Director for Marriage Equality USA. Shirley Tan, the California mother of two who was to be deported April 3rd has been given a stay of deportation until April 22nd pending the possibility of further action. Thanks to the heroic efforts of her counsel, Melanie Nathan, lawyer Phyllis Beech, Rep. Jackie Speier [CA-12], Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Immigration Equality’s Julie Kruse, Ms Tan, her wife of 23 years, U.S. citizen Jay Mercado, and their two sons will not be saying goodbye to one another just yet.” PRIVATE COURTS, INC. LGBT MEDIATION & LEGAL SERVICES VISUAL CVNathan@privatecourts.com
Advocacy and LGBT Equality Activism - Funding needed for binational advocacy and emergency response; Checks to P.O. Box 1108 Woodacre, CA 94973 payable to Private Courts Inc. (non-tax deductible.)
Sponsorship available- nathan@privatecourts.com
Fair Housing of Marin - http://www.fairhousingmarin.com/
Marin County Human Rights Commission- Sponsorship opportunities for Martin Luther King Award Gala - commissionermn@gmail.com
The dictionary defines a sugar plum as a small round or oval piece of sugary candy. But for most of us, visions of sugar plums dancing in our heads conjures up a far vaster array of sweet holiday treats. From cakes, cookies, and pies, to sugar-laced seasonal beverages, and yes, plenty of sweet confections, the holiday season is arguably the sweetest time of […]
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., Dec. 7 -- A survey just conducted by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) indicates that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) decision to eliminate consultation codes will force four out of five endocrinologists to reduce the number of Medicare patients seen in their practices. Read more... […]
BOSTON, DECEMBER 8, 2009 -- In a recent study conducted by the Center for Connected Health, a division of Partners HealthCare, new data revealed that parents of children with diabetes were receptive to using novel health technology - such as a mobile phone that could collect and transmit the child's blood sugar readings to a doctor - to help manage thei […]
If you have diabetes and are wondering whether you're prepared for a unexpected disaster, then head for the website of the American Association for Diabetes Educators. There you'll find a Diabetes Disaster Response Toolkit that contains an abundance of information on nearly every aspect of getting prepared and helping your local diabetes community […]
Dear Diabetes Health, I am 57 years old. About five years ago, I saw my doctor because I was feeling tired. My waist size was up, and I was not interested in sex. I almost never got an erection. The doctor diagnosed type 2 diabetes and put me on metformin. He also prescribed Viagra, which helped sometimes, but not all the time. Read more... […]
WORCESTER, Mass., Dec 3, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX News Network) -- Published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, an independent review of clinical trials of Generex Oral-lyn(TM) shows that the oral insulin spray has a faster onset of action and shorter duration of action than insulin delivered subcutaneously. Read more... […]
We'd all prefer it if there were no nasty side effects to our treatments, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes it is worth risking a side effect for the greater good of our health. On that note, researchers continue to emphasize that the benefits of cholesterol-lowering statins on heart disease far outweigh any risk that they might slightly in […]
All Articles and Posts on this site are owned and are the copyright of Melanie Nathan, All rights reserved. Written permission is required to re-post or use any material. Please feel free to quote or link without permission. Note the name OBLOGDEEOBLOGDA(TM) is a trademark with rights owned by exclusive to Melanie Nathan.
Oblogdee is a labor of love, Sponsor Ads are designed free of charge. Price of placement is based on size and time and proceeds will be used to maintain this site and to fund my advocacy work. Interested? email me at nathan@privatecourts.com
a2a_linkname="Advocacy for Equality";a2a_linkurl="http://www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com";a2a_show_title=1;a2a_color_main="051c29";a2a_color_border="000000";a2a_color_link_text="272321";a2a_color_link_text_hover="e99720";a2a_color_bg="e5d866";a2a_color_arrow_hover="fff";
Flyer with tips to homeowners on how to avoid scammers targeting people having trouble paying their mortgage. Homeowners can call 1-888-995-HOPE for free personalized advice from HUD-certified housing counseling agencies.
A note to Homeowners tips to homeowners on how to avoid scammers targeting people having trouble paying their mortgage. Homeowners can call 1-888-995-HOPE for free personalized advice from HUD-certified housing counseling agencies.
Deceptive Mortgage Ads:
Foreclosure Rescue Scams:
Explains how various foreclosure rescue scams work, and where consumers can find legitimate help.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8d54f2c2-b6c7-4c01-9476-6d29b28e3f60)
I wrote this Article for Lez Get Real and have received many anti-gay comments.:Feel free to go to LGR site and comment – thanks for your support 
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=68f8fb7d-012f-428b-8678-f479adbdf3cb)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6ac7fbb6-3b7c-4217-b51a-c3bb34b4a3c9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4a1536b5-5e38-4ee3-ada9-796e63c0d3eb)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fb200a8b-1e15-48f4-bd77-2d68c2b908c0)
I listened to ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=923eaa98-5c0f-4c4c-a4e6-9e8c7494d8a1)
I
California Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8
Dear Chairman Burton;
The fate of California’s same-sex marriage hangs in the balance, as the Justices prepare their ruling on the challenges to the validity of Proposition 8. In my house of married two moms, we remain overtly safe. However if the result is not favorable, then I am faced with having to inform my children that gay and lesbians are no longer allowed to marry under the law of this State.
roposition 8 amends the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. It is an attempt to fundamentally alter our state Constitution — to deny certain rights for certain citizens. No matter what one’s personal feelings on gay marriage, I believe the idea of institutionalizing any form of discrimination in a document that is supposed to protect us all equally under the law, is an affront the spirit of equality and justice and tantamount to apartheid.
. As you can tell from the right hand corner, I am a fan of Barry Goldwater. He was more of a fis-con than so-con. I can’t remember the exact quoting or where I read it, but he did say something along the lines of it not mattering if a person in uniform was gay or straight. I am glad to hear you are a good standing member of your community. I think that is good for both gays and straights.
. Only knew them as friends of friends. I even had one ask me to dance at a bar. I merely said thanks, but no thanks. I would do the same with a man I was not interested in.
MY COMMENTS – Melanie Nathan. (Private Courts, Inc.)
I am in touch with the litigants who are about to let leash, or so I have been told. Any queries please contact me directly at 
On April 10th, Shirley Tan received good news and bad news on her rollercoaster ride to or from permanence in the USA. Shirley received notice from the BIA that a deportation order was re-issued giving her 30 days to voluntarily leave the USA.
This picture was taken before Shirley Tan knew that she was in fact out of legal status in the USA. The family had requested a visit to the White House and were apparently cleared – while there was an deportation order in effect. They had no idea! LESBIAN MOTHER FACES DEPORTATION
The Court has taken the matter, as submitted. Prop 8 is on the decision block. It seemed to me by listening to the questions of the esteemed Justices that proposition 8 may be adjudicated, valid. I feel despondent. 
Queercents shuts down new blogger’s first blog to comments….
Have you ever heard of an editor closing the comments down on a Blogger’s post? Serena Editor of QueerCents did just that, and I quote:
“Serena Says: May 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pm Editor’s Note: Due to the nature of many of the comments on this thread, comments have been disabled for this post. For a clarification of our commenting policy, please read our disclaimer and commenting policy. “
The context: Under current immigration law, committed same-sex foreign partners of US citizens are unable to use the family immigration system – a system that accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the US. According to the most recent census, approximately 36,000 bi-national, same-sex couples are living in the US. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals.
UAFA would allow lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the US. The bill (H.R. 1024), introduced on February 16th, 2009 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in the Senate and by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House, would add “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” after the words “spouse” and “marriage” in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
She gets her first ever post on QUEERCENTS blown up…… did she think she could hide from the real activists? Her post can be viewed at QUEERCENTS : http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/ Actually not easy to to find on the Blog site.
She titles the BLOG: Uniting American Families Act: Facts, Fiction, Money and Emotions -Posted by: Yasmin @ 4:23 pm and then slaps off sme crap that bears no thesis and no conclusion that remotely relates to the Title, which in my assumption was crafted in the hope that her quest to denounce UAFA, would fit into this unrelated forum .
So anyway this Nair, the activist then expounds the ‘dis-virtues’ of Uniting America Families Act, purports compassion in responses, but fails, even when others beg for answers, to provide alternatives. The narcissistic attempt to thwart this legislation is tainted beyond measure with flaws and contradictory messages. Our Chicago academic cannot make a case for her unfounded notion that UAFA would be bad for us.
She prefaces her blog – “NOTE: The information presented here is based on research, community discussions, and conversations with lawyers. It does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know has legal issues like the kind discussed here, please seek the expertise of a qualified attorney. This is the first of a series on immigration reform and its effects on the LGBTQ community. “
Sheez I cant wait for the rest of the series or is it dead in the water Serena what do you think? The only quote I recall in Ms Nair’s post is a one and a half page article in People Magazine – none of the updated quotes or articles are referenced and Ms. Nair attacks Ms. Tan based on this flimsy notation. What about the research she alludes to in her preface? and so she posts:- http://www.queercents.com/2009/05/04/uniting-american-families-act-facts-fiction-and-emotions/
YASMIN NAIR SAYS ON QUEER CENTS BLOG (QUOTE)
“Shirley Tan came here in 1986 as a tourist. Then, she overstayed her visa, supposedly after meeting her female partner Jay Mercado who was, like her, originally from the Phillipines. Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented. They have been domestic partners for a while, according to a People article, and even wed in 2004. Tan gave birth to their twin sons who are both citizens. In 1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister. In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it. Finally, this year, on January 28, ICE agents showed up at the couple’s Pacifica California home and arrested her. Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010 and a private bill on her behalf has been issued in Congress.
Immigration Equality and other supporters of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) have made Shirley Tan and her family members the poster children for a piece of legislation that, they claim, would guarantee that binational couples like the Tan-Mercados are able to stay together. Why is this important? Under existing law, in many circumstances, heterosexual married citizens or permanent residents are able to sponsor their partners for immigration….. : AND SHE GOES ON…..
Then she she says she is against UAFA for a number of reasons, QUOTING AGAIN, ”not the least of which is this: even if immigration through marriage/permanent partnership is a solution, who says it’s the ideal solution anyway? And why push for a law that guarantees rights to a privileged few while leaving the plight of others unquestioned? ” Is this , Ms. Nair a GOOD REASON FOR DISCRIMINATION?
Nair goes on to say, ”As an immigration rights activist,( LOL) my concern is with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The current immigration crisis has come about because the United States feeds on cheap labor and the exploitation of millions, the very people it chooses to dispose of quickly and crudely via the mechanisms of raids and deportations. It does this because it knows that there is more cheap labor to be had because of the conditions of “free trade” it has created, conditions that guarantee a breakdown in the economies of countries like Mexico. These conditions, in turn, guarantee the flow of people desperate to find a living here.” Ok so I ask Nair, is another reason to deny equality to LGBT through UAFA? AND FURTHER states :- “you know the ones we mean – the day laborers who move from job to job, underpaid and overexploited; the low-paid workers who build suburban houses for us on the cheap as opposed to living in them, and so on.” (What a ridiculous assertion- of course Rachel Tiven is concerned about all immigrants, however it happens that her organization advocates for Lesbians and Gay couples who do not have rights equal to straight couples.)
Ok enough: So I wrote a response:-
Melanie Nathan Says: On the Queer Cents Blog:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm QUOTING Myself ON HER BLOG:
“Share and Enjoy” you say – how can I when you insult my client, and my own right to equality..
“…..and not all straight marriages are automatic routes to citizenship…..” and therefore I presume Jasmin , that you intend that to mean that lesbian and gay couples ought not have an equal opportunity to not have this route marriage…..okay maybe I am stretching what may be unintended interpretation of your statement, but as a blogger and the person who played a pivotal role in obtaining the introduction of Private Bill # 867 for Shirley Tan and her family, kindly allow me to make some corrections to the mistakes and inaccuracies in your reporting:
1. “Phillipines” is spelt ‘Philippines’;
2. “Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented” –Inaccurate – Tan has always had a valid work permit;
3. Jasmin’s misrepresentation: “1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister.” Shirley Tan came to the USA when the person who shot and beat her to near death and murdered her mother was released from prison due to political connections. She was not safe. We brought the case files, prison record and hospital files from Philippines to prove her story to Senator Feinstein- there is no doubt as to the validity of these facts – you may effectively delete the “according to her.”
4. You say: “ In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it.” I am informing you that in April, prior to receiving the Private Bill, ICE withdrew the deportation order on the basis that Shirley had never been served with the deportation order. That is tantamount to an admission. So her status is legal and not illegal. She was then given a few weeks to voluntarily leave the USA, by May 10th; Dianne Feinstein introduced the PB on 4/22.
5. Then you say: “Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010” ; There was a great deal more work than mere press coverage; this is from the horses mouth. Personally I worked non-stop for five weeks, ten hours a day exclusively and pro bono on this case. Then almost every LGBT organization with Immigration Equality concerns chipped in their talent and efforts. You have to be quite naïve to think that it was merely press and “abra cadabra shim shalabim” a private bill; pow! You say you research and speak to attorneys etc. You sure did not speak to me; nor did you speak to Shirley – nor did you speak to anyone. You read a one page article in People magazine; well at least that is all you quote.
6. Jasmin, Jasmin, Jasmin – this takes the cake. …. “upstanding suburbanites. Why, she’s even a stay-at-home soccer mom! Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality drives the nail home in a quote: “They are exactly the kind of people you want living in this country.” Right. The others can just rot in hell” Well that is an inflammatory and insulting statement – Rachel Tiven and others at IE work very hard for equality, whether you agree with the legislative format or not. There are many organizations that work for immigrant rights, it so happens that Immigration Equality, has LGBT immigration equality as their mission statement. The donors and funding for this non-profit expect their money to be used in terms of their mission statement. To think that advocating for one person or a group precludes help or concern for the others is simply a ridiculous notion and in no way helps to support your argument.
7. He rest of what you posit , staring with “This is only my first problem with UAFA – it doesn’t really change the paradigms of immigration. It fixates……” is simply a load of nonsensical hogwash and your entire posting begs the question…. EQUALITY.
8. UAFA simply provides language to correct DOMA, which akin to apartheid serves to institutionalize discrimination. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, you miss the entire point. Equality Under the law. The language of UAFA equates same-sex couples to different-sex couples and that is it. The opportunities for fraud are there whether gay or straight. Fraud comes with huge consequences and many straight people have been deported or fined as a result. To deny legitimate couples their rights simply because others break the law is a disingenuous argument and discriminatory in itself.
9. As far as CIR- Reunification of Families and the Honda initiatives, hopefully this too will include Lesbian and Gay families after all why should we be discriminated against.
10. I too am a binational couple. The consequences of my not being able to sponsor my wife resulted in me having to choose to leave my country with the love of my life (for past eight years) and our 4 year old daughter whom we had together or to stay in the US with my 11 year old child who I share custody of with an ex. What would you have done? . Had I been straight, the passage of the law you deny as relevant would have been MY BEST PATH to her immigration and keeping our family in tact. Fortunately we managed with 12 hours left to illegality, $15,000 in legal fees later, and stress beyond belief to complete our process that kept her here.
PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME or my friend Martha who is living in exile ( loveexiles.org) that you think UAFA is a bad idea. It is irresponsible, unproductive to equality as well as to the fight on behalf of all immigrants, not to mention he lack of merit both de facto and de jure in your argument.
That said I invite you and your readers to my blog (www.oblogdeoblogda.wordpress.com) Read the post on Bill #867, Shirley’s Bill and note that this gay issue provided a forum for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s first ever public mention of the PLIGHT OFF ALL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; she acknowledges in essence the support of Reunification and CIR and it was Shirley Tan and her courage that for the first time shows a marriage, if you will, between the unfairness of all Immigration Law as it pertains to gays and straights.
Because you are ‘ an immigration activist’ I encourage you to seek harmony and unity in your efforts, rather than looking for divisive means to make your point– even if you disagree with the form of legislation please do not put down the courageous fighters amongst us and please do not stand in the way of my right to equality. Melanie Nathan
—————————
Yasmin NAIR responds to Melanie – there are many responses by the way which can be read on the QueerCents Blog.
Yasmin Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 am John and Mattilda,
Thanks for your comments, and for the tenor of your posts! Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who has written, even in disagreement, in a tone that’s fitting for public discussion. Many of you who’ve disagreed have still managed to do so in a productive way, and I hope that will continue.
Madison,
With all due respect, I suggest you write your own blog and not use the comments section to do so.
Melanie,
I think it’s hilarious that you correct my spelling of Philippines, but keep referring to me as Jasmin. Multiple times.
I’m really, really glad I’ll never have to call on your services (although I’m not sure you’re her lawyer – a blogger and a person involved in introducing the bill – what does that make you, exactly?) Your inflammatory language and vituperative tone are not helping anyone, and it really doesn’t help your reputation. DOMA is akin to apartheid? I know an entire country, South Africa, that might beg to differ.
As for the facts of the case, um, if you have any issue with what I presented, go talk to the People Magazine reporters.
I cited the article quite emphatically. I’m not sure how to break the news to you but this is …
a BLOG! Part of the blog’s point is to use a case that’s emblematic of the issue at hand and then to discuss the issue.
It’s interesting that you criticize me for not having contacted you — after having just shown that your temperament here shows why that would never be a good idea (and you still haven’t indicated who you are, exactly, ahem) — and then you go on to happily and unethically combine my critique of UAFA with some imagined personal criticism of Shirley Tan.
My point here was to look at the representation of an “ideal/good” family and then ask us to look UAFA more closely. This was not meant to be an airing of your client’s perspectives (and again, in what capacity are you acting on her behalf, exactly?). You need to do that job, not me. And, by the way, you need to do it elsewhere, not here.
Have I already mentioned that your tone is vituperative and quite unlike what someone’s public advocate should adopt? I know dozens of lawyers, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just used. I also know a lot of advocates and publicists, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just adopted. You’re just screaming at me.”
Then when I go back to respond CUT CUT CUT…. no more.
Now I was not the only one who did not agree with her. I think out of 44 responses (excluding her own defensive responses) no one agreed or understood what the heck she was saying.
Anyway Madison, Great Blog too – you did it justice on this one
http://lotusopening.blogspot.com/2009/05/yasmin-nair-eat-this.html
May 8, 2009 Posted by oblogdeeoblogda | GAY AND LESBIAN, Gay immigration, UAFA, Uniting American families Act, immigration equality | 000 bi-national, 2009 at 12:47 pm Editor’s Note: Due to the nature of many of the comments on this thread, 36, ALMOST EVERYTHING, bi-national, Bill 867, CALIFORNIA, CIR, comments have been disabled for this post. For a clarification of our commenting policy, domestic partnership, gay and bisexual Americans, GAY AND LESBIAN, Gay immigration, gay marriage, GLBT marriage, homosexual marriage, ICE, immigrant visas, Immigration and Nationality Act, immigration equality, Immigration, UAFA, UnIting American Families Act, Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Lee Danner, legal residency, Lesbian, LGBT, LGBT marriage, Linkedin, loveexile, Madison Reed, martha mcdevitt-pugh, melanie Nathan, nadler, oblogdeoblogda.wordpress, PEOPLE MAGAZINE, permanent partner, please read our disclaimer and commenting policy. ", private bill, Queer Cents, queercents, Same sex marriage, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senators, serena, Serena Says: May 7th, Shirley Tan, UAFA, Uniting American families Act, US citizens, US. The bill (H.R. 1024) | 5 Comments