Immigration Equality just broke the news announcing Senator Patrick Leahy will convene a Congressional hearing on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). The hearing, set for June 3, 2009, is a huge milestone for those who want to eliminate discrimination by giving same-sex partners of American citizens and lawful permanent residents the same rights as heterosexual couples to obtain residency. From Immigration Equality:
The June 3rd hearing will not only be a milestone on our path to victory in Washington, but it will also be a watershed moment for ensuring that our families are part of the national conversation on immigration reform. This will be a powerful moment – and a significant step forward – in our work to educate lawmakers about our relationships and engage Congressional leaders on the issue. Members of Congress are traditionally reluctant to pass legislation that has not been discussed and weighed in at Congressional hearings, so a hearing is critical to UAFA’s future success, and its inclusion in comprehensive immigration reform. The hearing is, quite simply, one of the most significant moments ever in our work to secure full equality for lesbian and gay binational couples.
The Uniting American Families Act was first introduced in 2000, and recently reintroduced on February 12, 2009 by Sen. Leahy and Rep. Nadler.
Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Comments
I hope it can pass very soon…I am moving to Toronto(August 09) cause my partner which is an american citizen can not sponsor me! leaving his family/friends jobs .
And in a future maybe we will come back to the US or other couples like us never will go tru what we have .
I hope it passes very soon too. My partner who is a US citizen and I are going through an extremely tough time trying to keep our LONG DISTANCE relationship from falling apart. Three years of being a world apart and trying to keep it alive is taking its toll. I’ve never been so depressed in all my life.
I’ve been living abroad for the past seven years with my partner and I have been torn between my country or my man. I hope I may return to my country triumphantly with my partner on one arm and a waving flag in the other in the near future.
Me and my partner have lived for over 15 years in The Netherlands where the law and love embraced us. We are now separated because of american immigration laws. I am dutch and cannot find a job as the economy goes bad and as a dental technician I don’t even bother waiting in the line for the scarce H1 type of visa, because the law also discriminates my profession. My american partner moved back to the US because he lost his job here. I have spent 4 years in school there but now we cannot afford it and I can’t find a higher education in my area. UAFA would be better for us than marriage. By the way, I do not agree that gays want to adopt an institution of the religion to compare themselves with married people. Civil rights that UAFA would give us is what counts! Hopefully it will pass and I have been observing it since it came to exist. I live now in exile.
I really hope this is the beginning of change, this bill needs to pass soon. I have been in a long distance relationship for 3 years with my US born partner. In 2 weeks I am flying out for another visit and I can’t wait, but until this bill passes my life is on hold, waiting for the life and future I long for. I am suffering depression right now from feeling my life isn’t in my hands. It is so tough on us both to feel we can’t move forward and live our lives to the full together. Homophobic people even though you deserve it, just be thankful we aren’t like you and you will never be forced to live this way.
How the UAFA could end up passing:
Congresspeople are divided into three camps – those staunchly for legislation who are co-sponsors (102 in the house) or known allies, those staunchly against legislation who are known adversaries (i.e. previously this was Jesse Helms); and those on the fence.
The democrat-controlled House may have more promise now of passing any pro-GLBT legislation than at any time in the past eight years. There is a good chance that UAFA will pass in the House by a decent margin.
The democrat-controlled Senate also has promise, but not as much as the house with 60 democrats to 40 republicans. However if the House passes the bill, with a good margin, then there is greater likelihood that the Senate might follow. The biggest fight will be in the Senate, but I put the margin at passing, 55 to 45, mostly along party lines.
Peripherally there is good news: five states now recognizing same-sex marriage, three added in the past few months (Iowa, Vermont and Maine), plus two in the works (NH & NY), which included on unanimous ruling and two veto overrides in both Vermont and Nevada (for DP). Plus to boot we have Barrack Obama himself explicitly expressing his support of UAFA (while remaining silent on DOMA) and even former vp Dick Cheney throwing out his message to fellow conservatives promoting individual freedoms. A strong message is now being sent from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, Nevada, Washington State plus New Hampshire and New York regarding GLBT same-sex marriage. The president of the United States is also behind the message.
If the co-sponsors of UAFA can reach out to conservative democrats who are worried about their constituencies in heavily religious communities voting them out of office and reassure them that -
1) Public support of same-sex marriage is growing at an alarming rate. What previously took years, twice as much progress has now occurred within a few short months.
2) UAFA would not legalize same-sex marriage at the federal level or expand any additional states from legalizing same sex marriage, only recognize it in states and other countries where it is already legal and allow for one single federal provision of immigration. More conservatives are willing to buy-in to just recognizing from other entities where it is already legal in those states, but not taking any official action at home to open the floodgates to promote official Federal same-sex marriage for everyone, which means undoing DOMA which is a big step. Conservatives could see this as both a compromise and an interim step towards eventually undoing DOMA if public support is there in the future. Despite the frustration and tons of money spend, sometimes progress happens in interim steps.
3) The Child Card: Every congressperson can go back to the constituencies and legitimately state that they needed to pass UAFA to provide the economic welfare of the children of bi-national couple, even if they personally did not agree with the same-sex living arrangements. So making it all about children, and by stating that they did not expand other states from recognizing same-sex marriage only recognized only the bare minimum, that they effectively protected the welfare of American children. Even the most ridiculous homophobe would have little credibility to assert that breaking up a family with children to be headed by a single parent is a bad idea. It is downright silly to assert that a member of the opposite sex would just happen show up at the doorstep of the now-broken previously same-sex bi-national partner’s family and that a heterosexual family would suddenly emerge from the rubble. By conservatives taking children down with through their own prejudices, they are increasing the risks that even other conservatives will state that are limits as far as one can go with being punitive towards gays. Children are sacred cows and few people will kick the gays if children also get kicked in the process.
4) Going on record against UAFA makes conservatives to be anti-family and anti-child. Even through previous years anti-gay propaganda portrayed the entire GBLT community as anti-family, now even conservatives are realizing that they are fighting against their own core values of family and children just to appease their own greater prejudice of being punitive against gays. Eventually some are beginning to realize that there is no need for divisiveness that we are all on the same side trying to work together and cooperate, despite the ick-factor which is a private arena anyway. Some invariably will hold out until the very end, and would even go so far as to denounce their own religion if meant that they could get in another punch at gays to satisfy their need to hurt the stereotype that they are so convinced is the living reality.
5) UAFA gives the GLBT constituency something to tide GLBT over until DOMA or DADA can be repealed. While many in the GLBT community will insist on everything now, most reasonable people will know that 2009 was a good year at the state level and that the congress reflected the will of the states with passing UAFA.
6) UAFA might be on the radar for many religious conservatives, but not all. This is not another state going blue for same-sex marriage. This is only recognition of what already exists, not federal-endorsement or federal expansion beyond bi-national immigration. This only puts the United States on par with 16 other countries and keeps the United States from being an embarrassment of always being behind the curve of individual freedom and liberty which we profess as our values, but do not always deliver. The more often that UAFA fails, the more the European community will take note. There are 1,100 federal and state benefits afforded to heterosexual couples, UAFA grants only one of these, a far cry from Federal same-sex marriage. Few congresspeople will lose their seat voting for UAFA, while there is greater progress to be made with repealing DOMA/DADT, the stakes are also higher with repealing DOMA and DADT which will make this much more difficult in the future. Voting for UAFA could pave the way with shoring up public support for the future.
House and Senate Republicans most likely will be united against UAFA, however it possible that some might defect, and it is good to reach out to those as well, especially in order to promise that some other their own legislation will get democrat support. UAFA is a small price to pay, this is not DOMA (yet) and many Republicans might quietly reach across the aisle, especially in light of a groundswell of recent same-sex marriage support. UAFA would still remain off the radar and conservative Republicans can still go on the record grudgingly stating “we had do to this to protect the children”. We still don’t like GLBT people and will still assert our religious condemnation against same sex marriage, but the children are more important.
Follow-on to the above –
Authors of UAFA were smart to use the terminology ‘permanent partner’ and leave marriage out of the equation. In this situation, the bill can be sold as no different than a domestic partner/civil union situation, which grants limited rights and responsibilities, and steers clear of the word ‘marriage’ which has religious connontations. So their strategy should be to see this as a DP type bill, and while a slim majority of Americans may not support same-sex marriage – nonetheless an outright majority of Americans do indeed strongly support domestic partnerships and civil unions.
One incentive for conservatives to also sign on is the fact that President Obama himself is trying to introduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). If UAFA does not pass, then a UAFA provision could be earmarked into CIR which could go beyond the original scope of UAFA itself. With UAFA, then conservatives know what they are getting. If they take the chance and wait for CIR, sure they could also against CIR, but if their constituency has a high hispanic or latino population, then they are taking the risk at alienating even more demographics beyond GLBT people just to prevent UAFA legislation.
It is safer for conservatives to let UAFA pass than take a risk with an earmark provision CIR as with UAFA, conservates will at least know what they are getting.
In a perfect world, then there would be no DOMA, DADT and there would be GLBT marriage equality and civil rights protections everywhere. However in a realistic world, UAFA is one of many great first steps. I encourage and greatly hope for the passage.
Sincerely,
Mark
mgerardy@gmail.com
I find it interesting that the US State Department has recently provided benefits for same sex partners of State Department employees. This begs the question: Is the UAFA next. http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/us-visa-immigration/us-state-department-grants-same-sex-benefits-is-the-uniting-of-american-families-act-next/