April 17, 2008
Big gay immigration news from Brazil
Posted by: Chris
Some potentially great news out of Brazil this week. The center-left government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva -- known here as Presidente Lula -- has announced a legislative proposal that would extend to gay Brazilians the same right straight Brazilians have to sponsor foreign partners for temporary or permanent resident visas. It's a Brazilian UAFA (Uniting American Families Act), if you will.
The proposed law would simply remove any distinction of sex from existing provisions that allow Brazilians to sponsor foreign partners. In reality, Brazil is already one of two-dozen countries that already allow gay citizens to sponsor foreign partners for residence, but that right is based entirely on vulnerable judge-made law.
As a result, the process is long, cumbersome and expensive. Presumably this new legislative right would streamline the process and reduce the cost, although it would still require review of each request on a case by case basis.
My partner and I have thus far chosen not to follow that route, partly due to the expense and partly because our goal is to live together in the U.S. But if this proposal becomes law, and it should given Lula's backing, we could at least have a stable life here until we find a way back home to the States.
The article (in Portuguese) is in the jump to this post.
For more about gay immigration issues, click here.
April 03, 2008
Hillary's latest gay press chat
Posted by: Chris
UPDATE: At the end of the post.
Hillary Clinton has once again granted an interview with the GLBT press, and the Philadelphia Gay News has done everything it could to reward her for the effort -- from a redesigned website that features the interview before the rest of the site, to a front page print edition that includes a segment of blank white space to reflect Barack Obama's failure to face questioning.
Unfortunately, like the Blade and Gay People's Chron before it, PGN did not come to the table with completely clean hands. The interview -- and all the website and print trimmings -- were the handiwork of PGN publisher Mark Segal, who has already donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign. Has the gay press joined Fox et al in completely abandoning the idea of neutrality? At least the Blade editor's endorsement was public record; Segal doesn't disclose his Clinton ties to readers.
The interview itself makes little news, asking two or three different ways whether gay couples should get equal federal legal recognition, something Clinton (and Obama) has been on record supporting for almost a year now. I was pleased to see that one of those repetitive questions was pegged to immigration rights, to which she responded:
I think that that’s one of the biggest problems that we’ve got to contend with. Even states that have civil unions, domestic partnerships or even marriage laws are running into roadblocks with the federal government when it comes to federal benefits and privileges. Of course, immigration is a federal responsibility and I am going to do everything I can to eliminate any disparities in any benefits or rights under our law at the federal level so that all people will have available to them every right as an American citizen that they should, and that would include immigration law.
There was no follow-up about why, if she feels that way, that Clinton (like Obama) has failed to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, which would do just that. Despite all the questions about federal recognition, Segal and his co-questioner also failed to ask why Clinton supports repealing only half of the Defense of Marriage Act, when Obama supports full repeal. Considering it's the only actual policy difference between the two on gay rights, the omission is pretty glaring.
Several of the questions displayed a poor understanding of the law, like asking if she could simply wave away "Don't Ask Don't Tell" with an executive order or a "signing statement." No, she explained patiently.
In a humorous aside, Hillary backed away from promising she would march in a Gay Pride parade as president -- do we really still crave affirmation that much? -- blaming it on the Secret Service, as if the Commander in Chief answers to them. The questioner praises her for marching in our parades as First Lady, though she only did so once -- in June 2000 in New York City -- when she was kneedeep in her campaign for the U.S. Senate there.
The highlight of the interview, and the only real news, was an excellent question about what Clinton would do as president in response to governments -- from allies like Egypt and Iraq to enemies like Iran -- that treat their own gay populations brutally. Her answer was strong:
I would be very strongly outspoken about this and it would be part of American foreign policy. There are a number of gross human-rights abuses that countries engage in with whom we have relations and we have to be really vigilant and outspoken in our total repudiation of those kinds of actions and do everything we can, including using our leverage on matters such as aid, to change the behavior so we can try to prevent such atrocities from happening.
The State Department already documents human rights abuses against gays around the world and it is the basis for asylum claims under existing law. But a proactive president like Clinton describes could be of incalculable benefit to gays abroad.
UPDATE:
Mark Segal, the PGN publisher, is digging himself deeper into the credibility hole. Here's an exchange of an interview he gave to the Philly Daily Examiner:
You guys seem to really be behind Hilary …
I did not say we are behind Hilary. I’m personally on the fence. The space was left open to show that we are willing to feature him equally.
You could cut the suspense with the knife, trying to figure out who Segal/PGN will endorse -- there is no separation between editorial and sales since Segal runs roughshod over both. The only real question is whether he'll come clean with readers that all his shenanigans this week were behind a ruse of objectivity, given his previous $1,000 donation.
March 28, 2008
Apology accepted
Posted by: Chris
Here's something you don't see every day.
Remember that outrageous quote from Peter Sprigg, policy VP at the Family Research Council, about why they oppose immigration rights for gay Americans?:
I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.
I'll take a smidgen of credit, ever so humbly, for being the first to publicize that whopper on the blogosphere. Since then, Sprigg has shown up on dozens of blogs and websites for gay rights organizations.
Now, lo and behold, he taking it all back:
In response to a question regarding bi-national same-sex couples who are separated by an international border, I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.
That's refreshing, especially his professed wilingness to at least see the human toll that legal inequality can take. Sure it might not be genuine, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I only wish Sprigg and his fellow travelers would pause long enough to consider what might have motivated that original quote, and whether causing pain and heartache in the lives of gay Americans, his fellow Americans, is really what Jesus would do.
Sprigg goes on to say that FRC opposes the Uniting American Families Act because, "FRC does not believe that homosexual relationships are the equivalent of marriage." Fair enough, but why should that preclude any legal recognition at all for same-sex couples? If Sprigg really respects our dignity, he would see there's no harm in letting us be together with the one we love.
(H/t: Immigration Equality)
March 20, 2008
Say whaaaa?
Posted by: Chris
UPDATE: At the end of the post.
"I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society."
That's how Peter Sprigg, vice president of policy at the Family Research Council, explained the conservative group's opposition to the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans the same right straight Americans have to sponsor a foreign partner for citizenship here.
Just in case you wondered…
(Video here; Spriggs quotes at 1:37)
UDPATE:
Immigration Equality linked to this post earlier today, and later the group's director Rachel Tiven issued this statement:
Unfortunately, the Family Research Council's preference to export lesbian, gay, bisexual and trangender (LGBT) Americans prevails. This policy continues to separate people who love each other, but of course Mr. Sprigg's group doesn't care about that.
I hope, however, that the Family Research Council realizes that when we 'export homosexuals' we also export talented men and women who have made incredible contributions to this country and its economy - THAT is 'destructive to society'. LGBT Americans who are forced into exile from this country are researchers for companies like GE and Pfizer, nurses in the Midwest, teachers in our inner cities and sons and daughters of aging parents who depend on them for care.
The Family Research Council might not care about our families but current immigration laws are 'destructive' to America and I hope that is something they do care about.
March 11, 2008
Testing Britain's heart and head on gay rights
Posted by: Kevin
A European government is about to be tested on how committed it really is to a gay person's most fundamental rights. This test of Britain's Labour government could take on a bigger significance - whether the liberal political and cultural traditions of Europe will truly resist the murderous onslaught of radical Islam when it comes to us gays, or simply throw in the towel.
A 19-year old gay Iranian citizen who was studying English in Britain in 2006 learned that his boyfriend back in Iran had been arrested, charged with sodomy and hanged by Iranian authorities. His family told CNN that they were then visited by police, who were holding an arrest warrant for their young relative. He immediately applied for asylum in Britain, fearing for his life. His claim was denied, and a few days before he expected to be deported back to Iran, he fled Britain in a panic and is now in a Dutch detention center awaiting his fate.
Gay rights activists in Iran, and the British Home Office as well, have said they tried to investigate the gay teenager's claims but were unable to confirm them. The Iranian activists say they did manage to locate the executed boyfriend's family, but none would talk to them.
But the young asylum seeker's family is talking. His uncle lives in Britain and is standing by his nephew forcefully, confirming all the claims that "Mehdi" (not his real name) is making, and adding that the father has "disowned his son for the shame that he has brought on the family."
It should not be any surprise that the claims are hard to confirm. When people are executed for something in gruesome public hangings, why would anyone on the street in Iran dare speak for the accused? But even if Mehdi's story is wholly true or not, the galling part of this story has been what both the Iranian regime and the British government have said in response.
For its part, the Iranian embassy in London told CNN they have "no knowledge" of Mehdi's case, despite its high international media profile. This sounded eerily similar to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement last year at Columbia University: "In Iran, we have no homosexuals." Despite boastful public announcements by Iranian authorities (including from an Iranian government minister on a visit to Britain, no less) that gays are being executed in that country "for the crime of homosexuality", and that Iranian human rights activists report that over 4,000 homosexuals have been executed by the Iranian government since the 1979 Islamic revolution, and the chilling photographic evidence [LINK WARNING: Graphic content] of the public hanging of two gay teenagers in 2005, the butchers running Iran shrug and smirk and play dumb, hoping no one will call them on their subhuman beliefs.
But when it comes to flying in the face of overwhelming evidence apart from the Mehdi case, the British Home Office's reaction was even more appalling in its sweep:
"...although homosexuality is illegal in Iran and homosexuals do experience discrimination, [the Home Office] does not believe that homosexuals are routinely persecuted purely for their sexuality."
This official statement read on the air by CNN today is part of an "outrageous and shameful" pattern by the Labour government on gay asylum cases, says British gay activist Peter Tatchell of the group Outrage!, which seems to be rather alone among most European direct-action gay groups in raising the profile of official government persecution of homosexuals in countries which Europe does business with, like Iran and Russia. Tatchell says that the British government is putting the reduction of asylum cases above their merits, and thereby is less likely to look deeply enough into a case like Mehdi's.
Whether the facts around Mehdi's claims are proven true or not -- either with new revelations, or in the form of a photo of Mehdi hanging by his neck in Iran -- there is one very clear, fundamental fact that the British government concedes: homosexuality is a crime. There is another fact that, despite their astounding double-speak, they cannot refute: that crime is being punished with death sentences, and such practices have been staunchly defended by an Iranian official on British soil.
Will the British public, knowing what they know, agree to send Iranian gays back to Iran? If so, it casts a dark pall over that nation's soul at this moment in history.
March 10, 2008
Marriage mischief of a different sort
Posted by: Andoni
I was struck by today’s New York Times article on Montana's “double
proxy” marriages, in which both husband and wife are
absent from the ceremony and use stand-ins. Montana is the only state in the union that permits
double proxy marriages, which not surprisingly have spawned a cottage industry of lawyers and "professional stand ins."
As someone in a relationship with a foreign partner, my constant worry is how I can arrange our lives so that my partner will be able to live here permanently in the U.S. and get a green card.
One route I keep in the back of my mind is to marry him, should Congress repeal the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, including for immigration rights. If that happens and my partner happens to be in the U.S., we could quickly move to Massachusetts and get married.
But if DOMA is repealed after my partner’s visa expires and he is out of the country, what happens? Could I obtain a "single proxy marriage" because I’m here and he’s overseas? The sad news is that only four states allow single proxy marriages -– California, Colorado, Texas and Montana -- and even in these states the marriages are restricted to military personnel serving in combat zones.
So even though my interest was piqued by this article as a possible route for my partner and me to marry if we become separated, after studying proxy marriage, it will not help us and we do not qualify.
An interesting side note is that U.S. immigration law will not recognize proxy marriages for immigration purposes unless the marriages are consummated. I don’t think this would present an obstacle for my partner and me. We can consummate, whenever the government wishes.
But here’s another interesting point in my research of proxy marriages. They are not universally recognized from state to state. Some states recognize the proxy the marriage of other states and countries, and some states do not.
So here we are in 2008 and still some states are not recognizing marriage licenses legally issued by other states. How can two people married by proxy in California move to New York and find out they are not married there? What does this mean for the future battle for recognition of same sex marriage? What does it mean for the “full faith and credit” provision of the U.S. Constitution?
February 20, 2008
Immigrants are the new gays, con't
Posted by: Chris
Returning to a theme he's raised in private before, Barack Obama highlighted in his nationally televised speech last night in Houston how immigrants and gays have been scapegoated by politicians trying to drive a wedge in the electorate.
Following up on previous posts (here and here) about the extent to which the leading Dems include gay issues in their speeches, Obama's address last night in Houston included this excerpt:
I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other, to use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do. But I also know this. I know this because I have fought on the streets as an organizer, I have fought in the courts as a civil rights attorney, I have fought in the legislature, and I've won some battles, but I've also lost some, because good intentions aren't always enough. They have to be fortified by political will and political power.
If you want to see it on video, it's in the last several minutes of Part 2 of the speech. Here are videos of both halves, which overlap by about two minutes:
Part 1 of 2
Part 2 of 2
For those of you keeping track at home, Hillary Clinton did not mention gay issues in any way in her "concession" speech last night in Youngstown. Then again, she didn't mention the day's primary losses or offer Obama congratulations either.
February 14, 2008
Happy Valentine's Day, 'love exiles'
Posted by: Andoni
It's been a great day so far. I bought my boyfriend a singing card, and he bought me four red roses -- one for each year. We're both very happy and going to our second favorite restaurant for dinner tonight ---- because our first is booked solid until 10pm.
As a binational couple, we're very fortunate to be together. It could have been a lot different were it not for luck.
This brings me to think about our less fortunate friends on this Valentine's Day. These are other gay friends who are U.S. citizens and who have fallen in love with someone from another country but were not able to bring their partner to the America. Thanks to our retro laws, these couples have to live in separate countries, only visiting each other several times a year, or if living together, they do so in exile.
So to our friends Chris and Anderson (at least together after three years, but in exile), Alan and Victor (U.S. and Mexico, four years jetting back and forth), Gus and Philipe (U.S. and Philippines, seven years long distance), and Frank and Gustav (U.S and Russia three years, long distance), I say Happy Valentine's Day and offer hope that this next election will make things better.
Hopefully, if we get the right combination of Congress and president, we may be able to pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) so gay citizens can sponsor their foreign partner just as straight people currently do. Many in the gay community forget about UAFA when thinking about gay issues, when in fact this official U.S. government discrimination affects 38,000 couples according to Census numbers. That also means there are likely to be a lot more since people are shy about telling the census takers everything.
That's 38,000 U.S. citizens whose lives have been totally screwed because of official government discrimination. Note that this figure of 38,000 citizens whose relationships are practically destroyed by our government is more than three times the total number of gay soldiers whose careers have been destroyed by having been discharged from the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," another form of official government discrimination.
I plan to begin a series of posts talking about how bad the U.S. is on same sex immigration and comparing us to other Western countries. I will use the U.K., once one of the most homophobic countries in the West but which has literally turned around itself in less than 10 years, because that's the one my partner and I are looking at when his visa runs out.
So Happy Valentine's Day to all, whether you are in a U.S.-U.S. relationship, a bi-national relationship, or no relationship at all.
Immigration law is an ass, con't
Posted by: Chris
Regular readers of The Citizen know the drama my partner and I have gone through because U.S. immigration law discriminates against same-sex couples, blocking gay Americans from sponsoring foreign partners for citizenship the way straight Americans can. It is one example, if particularly egregious, of how immigration law is an ass.
As poorly as U.S. immigration law treats gays, however, it can't compare to Bahrain, an Arab kingdom in the Persian Gulf. In an effort to crackdown on corruption of locals by foreign gays (since there are none homegrown apparently), immigration agents have been put on alert:
"The Interior Ministry has told us that it already bans suspected homosexuals as they try entering the country from Bahrain International Airport," said committee secretary Jalal Fairooz. However, he claimed the ministry said homosexuals pretend not to be gay by posing "manly" until they make it past immigration.
"They look manly as they come to the airport, but when they get in they return back to their unaccepted homosexual attitude," said Mr Fairooz. "Homosexuals are found in huge numbers at hairdressing salons and beauty and massage spas, which the ministry regularly inspects."
However, he said many homosexuals were slipping through the net because the ministry was having problems determining if they were gay or not.
"Those who look homosexual or offer customers personal services are being caught by police and taken to the Public Prosecution," he said.
If it weren't symptomatic of real persecution, it would be classic Onion material.
February 11, 2008
Is Hillary 'frauding' us on UAFA again?
Posted by: Andoni
As someone who has a vested interest in seeing the Uniting American Families Act passed, I am in constant communication with the various gay and Hispanic organizations who wish to see immigration reform. I was shocked to read in the Washington Blade today that Senator Hillary Clinton said the following about UAFA:
“I’m supportive of it and the strategy was to do it as part of comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. “We still need to do comprehensive immigration reform … that is my preference.”
Chris asked earlier today whether Hillary knew that UAFA was not part of the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that failed last year -- this would be really bad if she didn't know -- or whether she is tipping her hand about a new strategy going forward.
In her Human Rights Campaign, questionnaire, Senator Clinton said she supports UAFA but has concerns over the possible fraud in same sex immigration. Since that survey was published I know that dozens of people have contacted her office and presented her with evidence that fraud will not be a problem.
Has she changed her mind now? If she has, why doesn't she simply say that she now supports UAFA without reservation and sign on as a co-sponsor instead of opening up a new option and say she wants it part of comprehensive immigration reform? Adding UAFA to CIR does make the most sense, but there is a problem -- the Hispanic organizations don't want it there. And it is the Hispanic lobby that controls the CIR legislation in Congress.
So here we have Senator Clinton seemingly removing one obstacle (fraud) from fully embracing UAFA, but sticking UAFA somewhere else where there are more obstacles from the Hispanic community.
Could it be that we are being played? Once again she'll get credit for saying she supports UAFA, just as she did in the HRC questionnaire, but at that time she didn't co-sponsor because of her concerns about fraud. Those concerns have apparently been sufficiently countered since she didn't raise them again. Now she supports UAFA but as part of CIR, which she should know is resisted by the lobby that controls CIR. Is her stating that she prefers to put UAFA in CIR the new "fraud?" That is, is that going to be the excuse for why she doesn't co-sponsor?
Reasonable people can disagree on what Senator Clinton's motives are for this switch. But there is one true way to find out if indeed she does support our community on this issue as she says she does. The way we find out is to put a pen in her hand and ask her sign as a co-sponsor.
If she signs, she's sincere. If she doesn't we should realize that we are once again being de-"frauded."
January 15, 2008
So long and thanks for the tango
Posted by: Chris
OK so we never actually danced the tango, but this morning my partner and I wind up our three months in Buenos Aires exile from exile. Our time here passed by quickly, except for the recent 90-plus degree days in our apartment with no air conditioning.
It was by some measures much easier to be here than I expected and every bit as hard in others. B.A. is everything you've heard it is: very European, beautiful architecture, wide streets, clean, very safe, cultured. Making friends wasn't as easy as in Brazil, but we certainly did -- and we can't thank you enough for your hospitality Flavio and Dario (pictured above, as we welcomed in the New Year with a few thousand of our closest friends), Gustavo, Eric, Javier, Marco, Omar, Romina, Gonzalo, Fede, Steven, Rafaela and Marcelo and many, many others.
Being away from home -- and in my case away from home twice removed -- for the holidays was tough, but our friends here came through, always making us feel welcome and well-cared for.
Now it's back to Brazil -- first a few days in São Paulo and then back to Rio De Janeiro, just in time to set ourselves up in our new pad in Copacabana before Carnival comes to town. If my calendar is correct, the Fat Tuesday is also Super Duper Tuesday in the primaries this year -- so you can guess who won't be live-blogging the results that night.
One final thank you before we leave: to you. Anderson and I have both been touched by all the emails we receive from other couples in our same situation. There is real truth to the old cliché about how much better you feel just knowing someone else is going through the same thing.
So muchas gracias and hasta luego, Buenos Aires, and bemvindo ao Brasil!
January 11, 2008
The Dems on gay immigration rights
Posted by: Chris
The gay rights group Immigration Equality has provided a useful summary of where the three leading Democrats for president stand on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill now pending in Congress that would extend to gay Americans the same right that heterosexuals have to sponsor a foreign partner for citizenship.
The results won't surprise any regular readers of this blog: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all have committed in principle to equal immigration rights and say they support UAFA.
Still, all three also largely dodged the issue until they were put on record in response to the Human Rights Campaign's candidate questionnaire. None of them has signed on as a cosponsor, including Edwards during his Senate tenure. The reason for that, as I've noted before, lies in concerns that UAFA does not do enough to discourage fraud:
Hillary Clinton: While I’m supportive of this proposal in principle, I have been concerned about fraud and believe implementation of this provision could strain the capacity of our Citizenship & Immigration Services.
Barack Obama: As someone who believes that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as married couples and that our immigration laws should unite families, I support the Uniting American Families Act in concept. But I also believe that changes need to be made to the bill to minimize the potential for fraud and abuse of the immigration system.
John Edwards: I believe that all families should be treated in the same manner by our immigration laws.
Immigration Equality leaves it pretty much at that, but I would add a bit more analysis (imagine that).
First off, Edwards gets credit for not hedging his support for UAFA and for being the only one of the three who actually mentions immigration rights (although not UAFA specifically) on his campaign website. Then again, we know that John Edwards has a problem telling audiences what they don't want to hear, so color me somewhat skeptical that his actual position differs from either of the frontrunners.
Hillary Clinton's position raises the most hackles for me because she cites not only the risk of fraud but the "strain" on CIS to implement UAFA. That is effectively saying there is a price tag for our equality and UAFA might be too expensive. If Clinton believes her own rhetoric about equality, then it should be enough that gay Americans are endowed with the same rights, pay the same taxes and deserve the same services from our government as heterosexual Americans.
Both Clinton and Obama raise the fraud issue, and I know it's a sensitive area for Immigration Equality. The concern is considered overblown, since there is arguably more fraud with gay foreigners using fake heterosexual marriages to be with their American partners, but that's hardly a winning political argument. It's also true that with straight and gay relationships as avenues to U.S. citizenship, the heterosexual variety would be the easier route to fake for most.
Unfortunately for us, our own mistreatment under U.S. marriage laws undermines somewhat the case for UAFA as written today. Heterosexual couples have to marry to sponsor a foreigner, and as we know marriage is an institution with an enormous number of legal and financial entanglements. Those entanglements -- like risking half your assets upon divorce -- are in and of themselves a healthy deterrent for fraud.
One way to address that would be to allow gays to marry; but that would obviate the need for UAFA anyway. Since UAFA is a transitionary measure, there need to be proof requirements of financial and legal interdependence that help to provide some of the fraud deterrence that marriage does automatically. That's what Obama's campaign has said in response to inquiries. Clinton's staff, on the other hand, set up a meeting to discuss UAFA issues and then freaked out when news of it went public. Who knows where they are now.
There is, however, a third way, which would also reduce the need for UAFA, though not entirely. If Congress repeals the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, then we could apply for fiancee and marriage visas just like our heterosexual fellow-citizens. All three leading Dems favor repeal of this half of DOMA.
The trick would still be over where to marry, since only gays who live in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Mexico (long story) can marry as of today. If the U.S. government recognized gay marriages from other countries -- Canada, Spain, Holland, Belgium and South Africa -- that would also help considerably. The DOMA avenue wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a "path to citizenship" where none exists today.
So who is best on gay immigration rights? It all depends on which one you think would act most quickly via UAFA or DOMA to address the issue that Barney Frank has called the political perfect storm: gay marriage and immigration all rolled into one. I think you know who my money's on.
January 08, 2008
Kissing babies the Obama way
Posted by: Chris
This just in from Lavi Soloway, a long-time legal advocate for gay immigration equality and a blogger himself:
After his speech [yesterday] in Claremont, NH, Senator Obama made his way along the front row of the audience. He stopped when he reached the spot where I was standing. He smiled broadly and beamed as he reached (at his own playful insistence) for Lily and held her in his hands.
I explained to him that I had brought Lily with me this morning to New Hampshire so that we could witness in person the Senator's historical campaign. I told him that I was a single gay parent, and as such it was important for me that he knew that.
He kissed her on the forehead and said to me: "I am proud of you." He was completely natural, and had clearly moved the audience. They were nuts about him. I predict a landslide tomorrow.
Photos of Obama with Lily (like the one above) have since shown up on several freelance photographer websites.
(Photo by CJ Gunther of the European Pressphoto Agency)
December 27, 2007
Arrested on his own petard
Posted by: Chris
The blog run by Immigration Equality included an interesting tidbit about a heterosexual couple facing criminal charges because the man was helping his Mongolian girlfriend stay in the U.S. illegally. It's unusual to see a hetero facing felony charges for harboring an illegal, much less see it in the news, but the man in this relationship was also a top investigator with Citizen & Immigration Services, previously known as Immigration & Naturalization Services, or INS.
Authorities said Lloyd Miner, an internal affairs chief for U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, knew that his girlfriend, Tsomorlig Batjargal, a native of Mongolia, was an illegal immigration and helped to obtain fake identifications to hide her immigration status. Miner, 49, faces a maximum of 25 years in prison. He has been on unpaid leave since December 2006.
Minor's attorney claims he didn't know his girlfriend was illegal, even though he paid for a plane ticket to fly her to Washington state to get a driver's license. “This is ‘boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, and boy asks her to move in with him,’ ” said Minor's attorney. “There’s no crime in falling in love.”
If anything, Minor's crime here was one of stupidity. As gay couples in binational relationships know all too well, Minor could have solved his girlfriend's immigration problems with a quick trip to the justice of peace. Once married, Batjargal would have been golden -- or green-carded, at least.
For those of us forced to live in exile from the U.S. because we choose not to violate immigration laws, Minor's tale is more cruel than sad.
December 14, 2007
Love is a question of faith
Posted by: Chris
I wrote last week that the second issue of new gay Brazilian glossy Junior Magazine featured a story about six "real life love stories," including a bit about Anderson and me. I've now gotten my hands on a scan of the page about us and thought I'd share it with you. If you click on the image, it will enlarge for you.
The feature was great, and we enjoyed the photos as well. Brazil has needed a professional, porn-free national gay magazine of the likes of Out, Genre or Instinct, and it looks like Junior is making the grade.
My pal over at Made In Brazil will be doing a full review of the second issue and the debut of another national gay mag, DOM, next week and I'll link to it. Both have eye candy, of course. A photo feature on gay swimmers included one athlete (pictured on the right here) who we know from our gym in Rio. DOM featured a fashion spread with model André Ziehe. As always, Made in Brazil has the best of the pics.
Our amigão Marcos Costa has already compared the two -- albeit in Portuguese -- over at Carioca Virtual. His take is that DOM is for the more sophisticated, older gay man, more focused on daily lives than fashion or glamor. Junior is younger, more visual, and stylish. How we wound up in Junior and not DOM, in that case, there's no telling.
Here's my attempt at translating the article from Junior:
Chris Crain, 42, journalist and lawyer, and Anderson Freitas, 32, student, have been together for almost three years and wear rings. In Amsterdam, they were attacked in the street for walking holding hands. Their story was in the newspapers, and the city government even invited them back for the Gay Pride Parade, months later, as a way of apologizing.
"Our relationship is caught between the immigration laws of Brazil and the United States," explained Chris, the American. "The U.S. doesn't recognize gay relationships for immigration, so Anderson can't live with me there. And Brazil doesn't permit foreigners with tourist visas to stay in the country for more than six months per year, which prevents me from living here. In order to stay together, we have to travel to other places so we don't have a fixed residence and all of our things are stored in boxes. We plan to marry in some country that recognizes civil unions between gays to get recognition for our relationship."
"It hasn't been easy living like this. We are always saying goodbye to the other without knowing how much time we will be apart," says Anderson. "But I think when you love someone, barrier don't exist. In the beginning of our relationship, are biggest problem was communication. I didn't speak any English and Chris didn't speak any Portuguese. We were still able to establish a connection because we wanted to so much." Chris agreed completely: "Love is a question of faith"
December 12, 2007
Hispanics are the new gays: Obama
Posted by: Chris
In a private meeting with New Hampshire Freedom to Marry activists, Barack Obama apparently offered his assessment that Republicans are now using immigration as the wedge issue that gay marriage was in the last several election cycles. "You guys have been supplanted by the Hispanics" as the new evil group, Obama is paraphrased as having said.
He's probably right about that, given Tom Tancredo's presidential candidacy and how Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee compete with each other to see who can be more xenophobic. Still, the backlash for writing off the much larger Latino voter bloc is much riskier for the GOP than demonizing the gays. Not a strategy Karl Rove ever would have signed off on; not because of it's divisiveness or immorality, of course, but because it's politically stupid.
Perhaps that's why the only federal gay rights issue that gives Obama and Hillary Clinton pause isn't marriage -- since that's a state issue and both back repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. It's immigration rights for same-sex couples.
It's still worth noting that on this, as on so many other issues, Obama is slightly better than Clinton, committing to a full (not half) repeal of DOMA, which would allow gay Americans to seek fiance or marriage visas for their (er... our) non-American partners.
December 11, 2007
GNW 5: Gay boys and bi fruit flies
Posted by: Chris
Here are the Top Five most popular stories over the last 24 hours on Gay News Watch, along with an Editor's Pick from me at the end:
Gay men fail to break from boy-play: QUICK LOOK:
Some men are gay because they fail to make a crucial break with the
'boys together' stage of childhood, according to a new book. U.K.
anthropologist Desmond Morris argues... (MORE)
Anti-gay carolers bemuse Target shoppers in Calif.: QUICK LOOK:
Christmas carolers wearing shirts advertising anti-gay principles drew
bespectacled looks from store patrons as they sang outside of a
Sacramento Target store, officials... (MORE)
Giuliani says gay acts 'sinful' but homosexuality isn't: QUICK LOOK:
GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani disagrees with his conservative rival
Mike Huckabee over whether homosexuality is a "sinful lifestyle" but
nonetheless said homosexual acts... (MORE)- Pa. man bludgeoned friend to death in gay panic, lawyer says: QUICK LOOK: A Fayette County man fell into an uncontrollable rage and bludgeoned his drinking buddy to death because the victim purportedly made homosexual advances, then threatened to kill him and rape the man's... (MORE)
Changing a gene in fruit flies also turns them bisexual: QUICK LOOK:
A new study is providing insights into the genetics of homosexuality --
at least in fruit flies. Researchers have discovered a gene involved in
homosexual behavior in... (MORE)
EDITOR'S PICK:
- Big issue for '08: gay, illegal and carless: QUICK LOOK: Every election year has them: the provocative social issues that can destroy a candidacy. In 2004 it was gay marriage that upended Kerry-Edwards in close swing states...(MORE)
Comedian Mo Rocca riffed for AOL Newsbloggers about what he sees as the issue of the 2008 election: gay illegal immigrants who need licenses to drive themselves to their own gay weddings.
Adam Francouer, policy coordinator for the gay rights group Immigration Equality, found Rocca's sketch insensitive to the plight of gay binational couples. Rocca, who made his name as a correspondent on "The Daily Show" and as a regular pundit for VH1's "I Love…" series, is no conservative. So it's more than likely that he was poking fun at those who oppose gay marriage and resent immigrants.
Even so, if Rocca is going to make hay about issues that are so serious for so many, he could at least be shaper about it, and funny. His man-on-the-street skit fails miserably on both counts.
Judge for yourself:
November 05, 2007
Dreaming of being disrespected
Posted by: Chris
There's an interesting thread over at Andrew Sullivan's blog about the disrespectful treatment that gay couples, even American gay couples, receive from passport control officers when arriving in the U.S. First to weigh in was conservative gay author Bruce Bawer, who lives in Norway with his partner:
Every time that my partner and I fly to the US and I have to fill out a customs declaration form, it galls me to have to write "0" under "Number of family members traveling with you" given that my partner is, in fact, under the law of Norway, not only my family but my next of kin. So on one recent trip, I wrote "1." At passport control in Newark, the woman asked me where the other member of my family was. I explained that he was a Norwegian citizen and had therefore gotten in line with other non-US citizens. She asked what our relationship was. I explained that we were domestic partners. She spat out, in a vicious tone: "THAT'S NOT FAMILY!" I replied, in a civil tone, "It is in Norway." She said nastily, "Well, it's not here," and, grabbing a pen, changed my "1" to a "0." Not wanting to jeopardize my partner's chances of getting into the country, I chose not to argue with her.
Then Dan Savage chimed in:
I feel for Bruce Bawer ...but try coming back into the US from Europe with your partner and your adopted child. DJ is, as you know, a quick kid. He spends a lot of time around adults, he's not oblivious, he can read adults. And we go to Canada and/or Europe at least twice a year. I can't tell you the number of times we've had passport and/or customs officials literally and audibly scoff when we tell them DJ is our son -- you know, that "uusssggghhhh" sound people make when they're told something they don't believe or are offended by, a cross between groaning and clearing your throat.
Savage and his partner reacted by teaching their young son that, "These people work for George W. Bush, and that George W. Bush doesn't approve of gay families, and he hires assholes that feel the same way."
I don't see the point in teaching their child the double-evil that some people hate his parents, and the implicit lesson that he should hate them back, but c'est la vie. Andrew points out that disdain for gay couples and those with HIV is U.S. immigration policy of long-standing; it's disrespect written into law.
Without taking anything away from any of the above, I would add that for a whole slew of "love exiles" like my partner and me, it is but a distant dream to be treated with disdain and disrespect by U.S. passport control. Checking "0" on "Number of family members"? Sign me up, so long as he isn't turned away.
I can't tell you how many times I've even played out the fantasy in my mind, imagining my partner and me boarding a flight to the U.S. — together. We actually find ourselves smiling longingly anytime we're at an airport and see an American or Delta or United Airlines plane.
Now three countries (Argentina -> Brazil -> Canada) removed from ever being together in the U.S., I would add that passage of the Uniting American Families Act, along with repeal of the HIV ban, are the first steps toward a gay-friendly U.S. border.