This is why we need same-sex marriage rights on the federal level. This is just disgraceful. You'd think with all those dangerous medical marijuana dealers Homeland Security is hunting down, they'd be too busy to deport lawfully married spouses:

A lesbian couple in Vermont has been thrust into the national spotlight. They are legally married here, but not at the federal level. Now one of them is considered an illegal immigrant and is facing deportation.

Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda met in college and have known each other for 30 years. They have shared countless dinners, laughs and tears. "I knew that she was the one," Ueda said.

After college Ueda returned to Japan and started a life with a husband and new home. But after a visit from Herbert in 1999, her life changed again.

"When I die, when I put my one leg into a coffin, I don't want to regret," she said.

Ueda divorced and moved to the United States. The couple have been living together ever since and married last year. But in December -- another change.

They received a letter from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which denied Ueda's request to stay in the county, a right granted to heterosexual spouses of different nationalities. Sadness quickly turned to anger.

The letter states that because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines a marriage as one man and one woman, Ueda had to go. "How can our country, with a President who knows discrimination in his core, how can they continue to uphold DOMA?" Herbert questioned.

Vermont's congressional delegation, including Congressman Peter Welch, who recently gave a speech on the house floor highlighting the issue, is urging Homeland Security to reconsider. "The United States has always recognized the law of a state when it comes to marriage. So why shouldn't Washington recognize what Vermont has done, what Massachusetts has done," he said.

[h/t scarce]

Congratulations, Washington State! On Monday, Governor Christine Gregoire signed legislation legalizing same sex marriage between couples in the state.

Via SeattlePI:

Gregoire's voice broke as she descrbed conversations with her two daughters, who told her that marriage equality was "the civil rights issue of their generation . . . Thank you to that younger generation and my two daughters."

The governor presided at a ceremony in Olympia, joined by legislative leaders and the longtime same-sex partners of such lawmakers as Sen. Ed Murray and Reps. Jamie Pedersen and Laurie Jinkins.

The law goes into effect on June 7, unless opponents succeed in gathering 120,577 valid voter signatures to force a referendum in November. If so, marriage equality would be held up pending a decision by Washington voters.

She's right. In a few more years, people will wonder what the big deal is. My 17-year old daughter does not understand why people want to bar committed same-sex couples from affirming their commitment legally and publicly. The difference? She understands because she has long-term friendships with gay friends. The ignorance factor just doesn't exist.

Of course, this will not stop the haters from trying as hard as they can to pull a Proposition 8 move in Washington State. They're already launching their campaign, and I'm sure they've got plenty of help from the Mormon and Catholic church members in that state.

Ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, a scathing critic of marriage equality, will meet this afternoon in Olympia with opponents of the bill Gregoire signed into law. The Republican presidential candidate holds a rally with supporters tonight at the Washington State History Museum in Tacoma.

The Family Policy Institute and the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle had asked followers to call on Gregoire to veto the marriage equality bill. A statement by diocesan bishops, critical of the law, was included Sunday in Catholic parish bulletins.

The Family Policy Institute is one of NOM's front groups and regularly emits fits of hysteria over same sex marriage. They also really like using culture war issues like this to try and get out the vote for conservative candidates. It's a common tactic of theirs.

Stand firm, Washington State, and in the meantime, congratulations to all of the couples waiting to get married. I look forward to seeing wedding albums.

Congress is back with a triple serving of crazy. As I watch C-SPAN on one screen and Occupy Wall Street protests on another, it makes me wonder if this is what it feels to be on a bad acid trip. Do these Republicans actually ever look beyond their ideological blinders at what is going on in this country? Surely not.

Here's a shining example: Eric Cantor has declared he will not bring President Obama's jobs bill up for a vote. Jobs, you know. That thing not enough people have and because they don't have it, that thing that is pushing economic growth down. Those. And even though the jobs bill is just a dent in a very large bucket, it's a jobs bill. It does things. Like repair roads and pay for teachers and things like that. So of course, Cantor wouldn't bring it up for a vote. Why would he?

But look at what they are voting on today!

Defund Planned Parenthood and NPR - AGAIN

IB Times:

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are again trying to defund Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio, this time through a draft bill to fund several departments and agencies.

Planned Parenthood would be banned from receiving federal funds unless the organization certifies it will end abortion services under the House Appropriations Committee's draft legislation released Thursday. The proposed spending bill would also cut all funding to a family planning program, known as Title X.

Meanwhile, the proposal includes a provision preventing the Corporation for Public Boradcasting from using federal money to support NPR.

Oh wait, there's more:

Continue reading »

I am writing this at 9:05 PM PDT on September 19th. Five minutes earlier, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal was effective (Midnight EDT), and there can be no more discrimination in our armed forces against people for their sexual orientation.

This is a BFD, and a long, hard slog.

Huffington Post:

It took nearly a year for the President's plan to jell. And it would be another painful year before the winning votes on Capitol Hill. And after that, another seven months would pass before Jeh Johnson would hand-deliver the signed Gates and Mullen certification to the White House for the President's signature and transmitted to Capitol Hill. All in all, not that long for a successful legislative and military operation, but inordinately protracted for advocates and especially long for gay and lesbian service members being discharged every day under DADT and for those serving in silence.

And make no mistake. The President directed his forces with precision, methodically insisting all options be examined and re-examined. He realized almost from the beginning that success would depend upon the military, that he would need Gates and Mullen and his senior commanders and the troops with him to bring about this change. And he also knew that would take time. He was determined not to be rushed. The last time this was rushed without a plan and military support the results had been disastrous. He would not make that mistake.

Indeed. He didn't make that mistake, and today that horrible, discriminatory, brutal policy is gone. There's still work to be done with DOMA and treatment of transgendered individuals. But today represents real, tangible progress.

Jonathan Capehart:

There are still issues concerning benefits that have nothing to do with the legacy of DADT and everything to do with DOMA, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. For instance, because of DOMA, the surviving same-sex spouse of a service member is out of luck in receiving the same considerations a surviving straight spouse. You better believe there are plans in the works to right this wrong.

Greg Sargent nailed the larger significance of the demise of DADT in a post earlier this afternoon. “It was an extremely hard-fought win — a massive victory for common sense and decency over bigotry and legalized discrimination,” he wrote. “At a difficult moment, it stands as a sorely needed reminder that progress remains possible. Let’s not forget it.”

To those who served in silence: Thank you for your service, your sacrifice, and your patience. Welcome to the light.

At first Rick Perry had no problem that gay marriage became legal in New York state, telling reporters that it was fine with him. But as soon as he was interviewed by the extreme religious right's Family Research Council, he flip-flopped and announced he was against it.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), one of the country's most prominent defenders of the 10th Amendment, is making an exception when it comes to gay marriage. After initially telling reporters that it's "fine with me" if states like New York legalize same-sex unions through their own legislature, Perry is pulling a 180 and calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Perry, who is flirting with a presidential bid, clarified his position to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in an interview.

"I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue," he said. "Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed."

Perry said he supported changing the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage, a position that he characterized as supportive of states' rights even as it would overrule New York's own decision on the matter.

"The real fear is states like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas," he said. "That is the reason the Federal Marriage Amendment is being offered. It's a small group of activists judges and really a small handful, if you will, of states and these liberal special interest groups that are intent on a redefinition, if you will, of marriage on the nation for all of us, which I adamantly oppose. Indeed, to not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment would impinge on Texas' and other states' right not to have marriage forced upon them by these activist judges and these special interest groups."

His latest statement represents a major about-face and may be a preview of how he might court social conservatives should he run for president. At a fundraiser in Colorado last week, Perry was extremely clear in his support for New York's right to determine their own definition of marriage.

Think Progress writes: Rick Perry Tosses Tentherism Under The Bus To Placate Anti-Gay Hate Group

Perry’s claim that he supports states’ rights to govern themselves, while simultaneously supporting the anti-gay “Federal Marriage Amendment” is impossible to reconcile. The FMA provides that:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

So Perry’s position is that we should ram his anti-gay views down New York voters’ throats by rewriting the Constitution to make marriage equality illegal in all 50 states. The states can have any law they want, so long as Perry approves of them.

Perry’s attempt to impose anti-gay bigotry on progressive states is also a stark contrast to his stance on economic issues. While Perry is perfectly willing to let the federal government force New York to discriminate against gay couples, he believes that Texas should have the right to flout Medicaid laws, ignore federal education laws and thumb its nose at environmental regulations.

In other words, Perry doesn’t actually care one bit about the 10th Amendment — he doesn’t even care all that much about his own twisted tenther interpretation of the 10th Amendment — he just wants to force everyone to live the way he wants them to live.

Does America really want another Governor from Texas elected as President? He certainly shares the flip-flopping quality that defines Mitt Romney's political career. But his kowtowing to the religious right is straight out of George W. Bush's playbook.

Sen. Al Franken made FOF's Thomas Minnery look like a blithering idiot by calling him out of his faulty use of a study that he mischaracterized to attack gay couples.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) took on a representative of the conservative group Focus on the Family for mischaracterizing a study on "nuclear families" at a hearing on a bill which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Ac.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Sen. Franken noted that the group's testimony listed the benefits of children "living with their biological and/or adopted mothers and fathers" as surpassing those of children "living in any other family form." He observed they listed a Department of Health and Human Services study as backing that up.

"I actually checked it out," Franken said in reference to the study FOF's Thomas Minnery has cited. He then observed it uses the term "nuclear families" without specifically mentioning "opposite sex married families."

"Isn't it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?" Franken asked.

"I think that the study, when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife," Minnery said.

"It doesn't," Franken said, getting laughs from the audience.

"The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family," Franken continued. "And I frankly don't really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways."

Much of the Televangelists that are engaged in the DOMA debate do not care much for truth or accuracy. They only see their hatred of the gay community and play the Game of Thrones Nixon or the politics of dirty tricks that Nixon helped define.

The Conservative Top of The Ticket blogger writes:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) needed a better defense witness than Tom Minnery could provide Wednesday after Rep. Al Franken exposed him for misrepresenting a study.

Franken, the former "Saturday Night Live" cast member and now a Democratic senator from Minnesota, used some of his comedic skills and razor-sharp timing to take down the Focus on the Family representative.

He also used the curious technique of actually reading the study his witness cited. Hilarity ensued when Franken discovered that Minnery had misrepresented a Department of Health and Human Services definition of a "nuclear family" to better fit FOTF's conservative worldview.
--
The Defense of Marriage Act was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday introduced a new bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, that would repeal it. President Obama has endorsed the new act.

Once again the use of satire cuts to the heart of the matter better than long winded explanations.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. Chris Hayes anchored Rachel Maddow's show and led off with this segment and interview with Martha Coakley.

We begin tonight with breaking news out of Massachusetts. A federal judge ruled that the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro decided that the defense of marriage act violates the fundamental principles of this nation.

With that, the judge made advocates of marriage equality very happy. One of the rulings involved seven couples and three widowers, all of whom who had been ineligible for the federal benefits that come with being lawfully wed thanks to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. That law required the federal government to ignore for federal purposes any marriage not between a man and women.

Same-sex wedded couples have no access to family health insurance, no social security survivor benefits, no joint filing of federal taxes.

There are two salient things about the ruling. The judge granted the plaintiffs what's known as summary judgment. Both sides filed their arguments and the judge decided he didn't need to hear another word.

The remarkable part of the ruling is the reason for it. In addition to ruling that DOMA violated the equal protection clause, he also invoked the Tenth Amendment, which Chris Hayes points out as the "holy grail" of conservative thought:

Judge Tauro saying the rationale strains credulity. Judge Tauro ruled that a key part of the bill violated a couple's right to equal protection. Judge Tauro also ruled for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, saying the federal government wrongly forced it to discriminate, writing "the federal government, by enforcing DOMA encroaches on the province of the state and offends the Tenth Amendment.

The tenth amendment is the "don't tread on me" amendment. It's the one conservatives are using to repeal health reform. It's Texas governor Rick Perry's favorite battle cry. Now, today, the Tenth Amendment means gay couples are one step closer to being treated equally in this country. Don't tread on them either.

I believe the Obama administration concurred with the judge's ruling, which is why the President issued his executive order protecting the rights of gay couples with regard to health care and ordered benefits extended to same-sex partners.

It does, however, place the DOJ in a weird position. Since the DOJ is responsible for enforcing the laws on the books, they're going to have to appeal this judge's ruling, even if the opinion inside the administration is that the judge was right. This is their duty under the law, and it carries the risk that this case will go to the Supreme Court for a final resolution. When it's appealed, don't assume the administration is against the ruling simply because DOJ is doing its job.

If it reaches the Supreme Court and Elena Kagan is confirmed, it affirms the wisdom of her refusal to answer the question about DOMA's constitutionality. Had she answered that question, she would have had to recuse herself from any proceedings that related to it, which would have left an unbalanced court to decide the case.

In any event, this is a landmark decision which sets a much faster pace for the eventual repeal of DOMA.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has introduced a bill that would repeal the reprehensible Defense of Marriage Act:

Civil Rights advocates and LGBT Americans herald new legislation to overturn one of the nation's most discriminatory laws

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), with a total of 91 original co-sponsors to date, introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.

The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.

The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation’s leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples. Read on...

This legislation is long overdue. Three cheers for Rep. Nadler and the other Democratic co-sponsors in the House! Pam's House Blend has a list of responses from the LGBT community. You can read them here.

This is inspiring. Hopefully, we can look forward to the day when civil rights aren't a matter of geography and campaign strategies:

Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first state to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.

"In enacting DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state said in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court in Massachusetts.

The lawsuit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage was legal in 2004 "and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state."

[...] The lawsuit argues that DOMA, which was enacted in 1996, precludes same-sex spouses from a wide range of protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.