Moving video shows how anti-gay DOMA pulls families apart – Tim and Jamie

Tim and Jamie been together since August 2006.

But in June 2009 they had their experience with how their international relationship would be tested: Jamie, a native of Scotland, was detained at SeaTac Airport due to visa problems and was denied the right to call Tim. He was sent back to Scotland the next day after Tim waited for hours in the airport without a chance to see him.

They married in June 2012.

Currently, Jamie and Tim’s marriage in Canada is not recognized legally in the United States because of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. Because they cannot be together in the USA, they are considering moving to South America so they can live together as legal spouses.

This is why the Supreme Court decision on DOMA is so vitally important for families like Tim and Jamie.

Holding strong to the hope that DOMA is struck down in the next week.

Rachel Maddow and Tom Goldstein read the SCOTUS tea leaves

On Friday, Rachel Maddow discussed the upcoming decisions from the Supreme Court regarding DOMA and Prop 8.

Her guest, SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein, shares his “informed opinion” on when the decisions may happen and where the decisions may land:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

LGBT-inclusion will definitely NOT be a part of immigration reform bill

As the current immigration reform legislation was being considered last night by the US Senate Judiciary committee, it became clear that GOP opposition to inclusion of LGBT rights would kill the bill. After months of threats to derail the legislation, last night the Republican senators on the committee made good their promises.

As such, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the committee said, “I take the Republican sponsors of this important legislation at their word that they will abandon their own efforts if discrimination is removed from our immigration system,” Leahy said. “So, with a heavy heart, and as a result of my conclusion that Republicans will kill this vital legislation if this anti-discrimination amendment is added, I will withhold calling for a vote on it. But I will continue to fight for equality.”

Sen. Leahy asked those who stood against the amendment to add LGBT protections to the bill to address the issue.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that “the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart” if the amendment was adopted. “It would be a bridge too far,” Graham said.

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake: “It would certainly mean this bill would not move forward.”

The fear of losing the entire bill proved too much for some Democrats on the committee. Senators Feinstein, Durbin and Schumer all expressed their sadness at the lack of LGBT inclusion but said the loss of the full legislation outweighed the amendment.

Said Schumer, “They’ve made it perfectly clear that if this provision is included … they will abandon [the bill.] …  If we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away. … The result: no equality, no immigration bill, everyone loses. … Much as it pains me, I cannot support this amendment if it will bring down the bill.”

The committee voted 13-5 to move the immigration-reform bill for consideration by the full Senate, which is expected to take up the legislation in June.

LGBT advocates were immediately vocal.

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin: “Instead of working to achieve common-sense solutions, Senators Graham, Flake, McCain and Rubio threatened to derail the entire immigration bill to appease a small but vocal group of anti-gay social conservatives that will do anything to stop progress for lesbian and gay couples. We are extremely disappointed that our allies did not put their anti-LGBT colleagues on the spot and force a vote on the measure that remains popular with the American people.”

Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, co-director of GetEqual: “Today it became clear that our so-called ‘friends’ don’t have the courage or the spine to stand up for what’s right, and are content to buy into the false choice that Republicans created — holding a sorely-needed immigration bill hostage in order to cement inequality into law.”

(source)

George Takei responds to “traditional marriage” fans

Matt Stopera of Buzzfeed asked protesters who gathered during March Prop 8/DOMA hearings outside the Supreme Court to express their opinions on a pad of paper. The ever-fun and funny George Takei took the time to respond to some of these folks who proudly stand up for denying marriage rights to LGBT Americans.

From the above pic: “I support marraige between man and woman because as my God says, I believe.  As a true follower I beleive of him.  And I love him.”

George’s response below:

From above pic: “Because against God law, is a deadly sin.”

George’s response below:

Check out more from George and Buzzfeed here.

(via Good As You)

How DOMA hurts families – David and Jason

The anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act keeps legally married same-sex couples from having their relationships recognized by the Federal Government. Over 1,100 rights and benefits are denied these couples.

As an American, you are granted the right to obtain a green card for a foreign-born spouse – unless you are gay.

The DOMA Project works to stop deportations, separations, and exile of gay and lesbian binational couples caused by DOMA.

Meet David and Jason, a binational couple who have been separated 17 times under DOMA rules — despite being legally married in New York.

The Bravery Tapes – Eric and Juan

Eric and Juan are a gay binational couple featured in The Bravery Tapes, a project that profiles stories of human courage.

Via the Los Angeles Times:

For some same-sex couples, the issue is made even more complicated by our country’s immigration laws. In his video Op-Ed “Eric and Juan,” Jens Erik Gould introduces us to a same-sex couple who got married in 2008, during the brief time when gay marriage was legal in California. Though Eric and Juan have built a life together here, DOMA prevents Juan from applying for a green card through marriage. It is among the many federal benefits the two are denied.

“Juan has had so much adversity in his life,” Gould says. “Someone tried to kill him in Mexico because he was gay. Now, not only does he still experience discrimination for being gay in the U.S., he’s also living undocumented here. Many people in this situation hide in the shadows. But despite all the adversity and risk, he’s publicly fighting for what he believes in because he wants to be an example for his community.”

Seventeen years ago today: DOMA introduced in Congress

DOMA – the “Defense of Marriage Act” – was introduced in Congress 17 years ago today.

I can’t tell you how much I hate the legislation, what it stands for and how strongly I feel it does NOT represent the best of America.  It is counter-intuitive to what America was based on: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

With the decision to repeal DOMA in the hands of the US Supreme Court, there are 53 days left in this year’s term.  The decision by SCOTUS could come sooner, but no later than 53 days from today.

(h/t JMG)

An Open Letter from a same-sex parent to the Supreme Court

Beautiful and thoughtful open letter to Supreme Court Justice Scalia & company.

Jack Montgomery and his husband adopted three African American siblings from D.C.’s Child and Family Services, and were caught sideways by some of the conservative justices musings last week that social science has yet to return a verdict on the “consequences” of marriage equality and same-sex parenting. The word “deleterious” was of particular note to Montgomery.

Full text of the video:

Dear Justice Scalia as well as your distinguished peers serving on the Supreme Court,

First let me thank you for hearing the historic cases this week on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). My husband, Kelly Vielmo, and I adopted three beautiful siblings from DC’s foster care system last year. Being an inter-racial, same-sex family we are used to being conspicuous and sometimes the center of attention on a local level depending on where we happen to be. With the cases being heard in the Supreme Court this week our family is now on debate at the national level. With that said I am following with interest your ruling on these cases. One comment that stuck with me was the speculation of potential “deleterious” effects of kids having same-sex parents. After I looked up deleterious (adj. causing harm or damage) I had to reflect on the harm and damage that has been done to my children. I know that you are listening to these cases from a nationally-scaled legal point of view, but the intent of this letter is to offer you the lens and point of view of one individual family your rulings will affect.

Children who are placed in the care of foster systems throughout this nation have suffered from either the neglect or the abuse of their biological families. For all intents and purposes, we will call this deleterious parenting. Sadly my children were born into these circumstances. They further had statistics against them. The adoption rates of both African American children and sibling pairs (not to mention trios) are greatly reduced. When my husband and I looked at our options for growing our family, DC’s Child and Family Services Administration seemed to be our natural choice. We knew we wanted siblings, had no racial preference for our children, and living in the District were able to help our local community at the same time.

I do not want to go into too much detail of my childrens’ history for the sake of their privacy. When our children arrived we welcomed a five-year-old who was not potty trained, a two-year-old who was withdrawn, and an almost two-year-old who never learned to walk. Please understand that there were no biological impediments to the development of these children. Their situation was entirely brought on by deleterious parenting. Since their arrival our children quickly graduated from the need of any additional services to include physical, speech, and play therapy. They are now happy and active members of their community.

I do not tell you these facts to paint ourselves as the saviors of these children. These children have done more for us than we have for them. Having the extraordinary privilege of watching these childrens’ souls grow and thrive despite the obstacles placed before them has been the lesson of our lives. I tell this story to establish myself as an expert witness to the effects of deleterious parenting. As you prepare your response on Proposition 8 and DOMA you now have the opportunity to decide what further obstacles will face these children. What are the deleterious effects your decision will have on my children? What states within our nation can these children live in and still declare their family legal? Next year during tax season will their parents have to hire a CPA to determine who and how to list the children as dependents? When the first of their parents passes away will their family’s assets and property be preserved and passed between parents as a married family or be treated as legal strangers?

I am not naive enough to think that any verdict of your court will change the opinions or hearts of the individuals we encounter on a daily basis. I accept that the stares our family receives walking down the street on a daily basis elicits both judgment and inspiration. What I do not accept is that the United States of America is willing to devalue my childrens’ family more than others and have a separate grouping of laws and benefits. I pray that as you rule on these cases that you keep Cardel (6), Raine (4), and Ravyn (3) in your hearts and do all in your power to keep deleterious obstacles from their lives.

Respectfully Yours,

Jack Montgomery

President Obama speaks to Hispanic news networks about same-sex marriage cases

President Obama spoke with the largest Hispanic television networks this week on the topic of the Supreme Court and marriage equality.

Speaking with Telemundo, the President said, “I think it is time for the justices to examine this issue.” In the interview, Obama reiterated his position that the federal government should recognize the unions of couples in states that allow gay marriage:

“I certainly believe that those states that have made a decision to recognize these couples as being married, that the federal government has to respect that decision by the states,” he said. “That’s traditionally been how it works. States have defined marriage and the federal government has followed the lead of the states.”

“I think not only is it right and fair but also consistent with our Constitution to recognize same-sex couples,” added Obama, a former professor of constitutional law. “It doesn’t mean everybody has to agree from a religious standpoint about this issue. It does mean that it is very important for us to remember that we’re a nation where everybody is supposed to be equal before the law.”

On Univision, the President wouldn’t predict the SCOTUS decisions, but spoke from his experience as a constitutional law professor:

“I never predict what the court will do,” Obama said. “But I used to teach constitutional law, and there is certainly a strong basis for determining that in this age, given what we now know, given the changes that have been taking place in the states around the country, same-sex couples should be treated fairly and have the same rights benefits, be able to transfer property, all the rights and recognitions that heterosexual couples do.”