“And stay out!” says the Senate to partners of gay Americans.
As neutral an article as I can find.
I understand poliitics. I get that compromise is necessary, so there’s no real debate here. This is just a mundane, pointless thread to whine that I’m taking it personally and I’m upset that once again, America has affirmed that I’m not welcome in my own homeland unless I ditch my husband.
I’m sorry that your interests have been sacrificed for political necessity. If DOMA is repealed, will that have any effect on your situation?
IMO, the silver lining to all this is, this just shows how desperate the Repubs are to get a win in their slowly but surely losing battle against all things gay.
80% of 20 somethings don’t give a damn if gays want to boink or get married. The old codgers one the right don’t have long and the world will be a better place once they’re all gone.
Enjoy your eleventh hour bastards.
I would think so, so this whole thing might be moot in a couple of weeks. Which, in a way, makes it all the more disheartening. But yes, I think it’s a last gasp of a dying issue, which is encouraging in the big picture.
Just out of curiosity, where’s your other half from?
ETA: speaking of dying gasps, despite the rabid frothings of some diehard Tories, CoE representatives and DUrP MPs, the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons in the UK yesterday by a wide margin (366-161). On to the House of Lords, which should be an entertaining debate.
He’s from the UK: the timing is quite amusing. We’re in Canada now.
I think they’re assuming we’ll forget all about this by the next election. Not bloody likely. I’m just glad my partner was born here. Relocating to his country would be a bitch; he’s Persian (Iranian).
I went to Charles Schumer’s website (the one shedding crocodile tears in the press). On the email form, when you choose an honorific (“Mr” “Ms” etc.) you can choose “Mr. and Mrs.” or “Dr. and Mrs.” but no same-gender combinations and no “Dr. and Dr.” or “Dr. and Mr.” (I guess he assumes that if you’re a woman who has a doctorate, you are unmarried. )
Probably not hugely significant, but kind of a fascinating window into the mindset of him and his staff, anyway.
Listening to Dan Savage’s latest podcast, he starts off with a laundry list of recent anti-gay violence and persecution (I won’t list them all but there have been a couple of shootings in NYC, the 18y.o. being prosecuted for rape in Florida, the divorced woman in Texas banned from living with her lesbian partner etc) and points out that, to some extent, this is backlash against the perception that slowly but surely gays are winning the fight for equal rights. In retrospect it’s not that surprising that those who define themselves as virulently anti-gay would act out in this manner once their legitimate means of discrimination start to disappear.
I’m not sure that’s much comfort to the victims of these acts and their families, but it does put them in perspective.
Assume the Dream Act got thrown under the bus?
This is a Federal immigration bill. So far the legality of same-sex marriage is an unsatisfactory patchwork of various state approaches.
The issue needs to be settled at the Federal level to have real meaning. My lesbian friends says this is why the state initiatives are so meaningless that they will not get married. State sanctioned same-sex marriage does nothing to address such things as Social Security survivors benefits, and this immigration issue is just another example. Even reciprocity agreements between states do not address these Federal items.
But, you have to start somewhere and I guess a mish-mash of states that provide some level of recognition is that, a place to start.
Many issues like this one, are not addressed by the states and really need a Federal resolution.
I think this attitude is misguided. The Supreme Court, for all its protestations of political neutrality, pays attention to what’s going on in the states (and the polls, to some extent). If the majority of the states (or states comprising a significant majority of the population) legalize gay marriage, SCOTUS will have little choice but to force the Feds (and, by extension, the other states) to recognize it.
If nothing else, the patchwork of laws pretty much forced the Court to take the Prop 8 and DOMA cases this year.
On the immigration bill: this too shall pass. With the House under GOP control and the GOP having a big enough minority in the Senate to block anything it cares to, there is no way to get any kind of comprehensive reform through with the gay partner provision. Unfortunately, morally correct does not equal politically possible. As it is, the bill has too much crap about border security, but it’s better than nothing.
Quick story: My daughter graduated high school the other day. One of her friends gave one of the student speeches. First words in the speech were “I’m gay.” This was not a coming out–he’d been out since 8th grade. But he was expressing good feelings that just about everyone in high school was either thrilled for him when he came out, or couldn’t care less about it. And the latter outnumbered the former. In 20 years, only a tiny minority will give a shit what anyone’s sexual preference is (except, perhaps, that of the people they are attracted to :)).
Yes, but there are real people with real lives on hold while we wait. By now it’s obvious that I’ll never live in the USA again, because there’s a limit to how many times you want to change cities and jobs and restart your network of friends. If gay immigration had been possible five years ago, you might have one more educated, hardworking, law-abiding people contributing to your society, but now you have one less.
Even taking all the gay binational couples into account, this is negligible for the country as a whole, I know: that’s why I put it in MPSIMS. It bothers me now, and even when it’s sorted and solved I’ll live with the consequences of the choices I had to make in the years when it wasn’t.
I think the “gay sponsorship” amendment was put in there as a win-win for Dems and the pro-gay movement overall. If it passed, win. If the Republicans killed it, it’s yet another example of party-wide bigotry and very publicly exposing that conservatives are on the opposite side of public opinion here.
I have no doubt that you’re right. I vote, and my choices are:
Not great options.
In this case, part of me wishes the Democrats had let the bill fail and the called the Republicans on their bigoted obstructionism. But then, the bill as it stands will in fact help a great many people, and the more mature part of me recognizes that the publicity the issue is getting by being cut will actually help in the long run.
It sounds like I’m actually wrong on this. It looks like most of the wrath of the LGBT activist community is coming down hard on the Democrats for throwing them under the bus.
The Dems sure didn’t put up much of a fight on this. If they wanted to make the Republicans look bad (like they did during the fight over the VAWA), they totally did went about it backwards, and just gave them all the cover they need. Of course, the bill’s not entirely finalized yet, so there’s still some room for political outcry to have some effect on stiffening the spines of a few of the Democrats.
Dr. Drake, I’m sorry your native land treats you and Mr Mallard this way, but I’m very pleased that the two of you have graced us with your presence here in Canada. Thank you for joining our great mosaic!
Thanks, Northern Piper. We’re very happy here! And the US will come around soon, I know: long-term, all the signs are great. Gays have come so far so fast it’s astounding. I just like to whine about the setbacks periodically.
I whine about it, and I’m not personally affected. For you, pure rage would be perfectly justified.