At a townhall meeting this past weekend I asked Congresswoman Jackie Speier (CA-12)—who represents my district—about immigration reform as it pertains to bi-national same-sex couples.

Speier is one of 97 co-sponsors for the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which provides a path to citizenship for bi-national same-sex couples where one of the partners is not a natural-born or naturalized citizen. I asked Speier what was the best method of passing UAFA, either as a stand-alone  measure or as a part of more comprehensive immigration reform. I framed the question  around the story of Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado, a local bi-national lesbian couple nearly split apart by deportation. Speier responded directly:

So the only way that bill is going to get passed is if it’s part or larger immigration reform measure. That’s the intention of Zoe Lofgren who chairs the subcommittee and who will be moving the bill once one is actually crafted, and that’s the way we are going to see it happen.

Speier then began to speak at some length about the Tan and Mercado family:

The Tan family was in the office yesterday; they came in to thank us for the effort we had made. I’ve got to tell you this is a wonderful family with two thirteen your old boys that love both their parents and were frightened that they were going to lose their mother. So Senator Feinstein introduced a private bill which would prevent deportation.

…

They are now home and have two years of breathing space. This deportation will occur in two years unless Senator Feinstein reintroduces the bill. So hopefully we can address this issue [UAFA]. For those of you who don’t know about this… does anyone not know about this issue?

A smattering of nods and few voices in the affirmative…

Our immigration laws provide that if you are a naturalized or natural-born citizen and you marry some one who is not, that you can petition to have that individual stay in this country and receive a green card. Now, if you happen to be a gay or lesbian couple, that does not apply.

So in this case, this couple had been together 23 years, had been married locally, had two sons—the egg came from one spouse and was carried by the other spouse. The two of them are very committed physically, and emotionally to these children. And they’ve lived their lives in Pacifica… and their two sons were about to lose their mom. She was going to be deported mid-April.

We got a stay and we were able to do more due diligence, and finally Senator Feinstein said she could introduce the bill, so they now are an intact family.

And I did a home visit, because as part of the due dilligence, I wanted to find out if it was real or if it was a sham. And I looked through probably 6 picture albums, over the course of 13…15 years and there was never a more intact family, more committed family, more loving family. And they shouldn’t be discriminated against.

Pure and simple.

What followed was a resounding applause, perhaps the largest of the event. It filled me with hope and optimism, that this crowd of strangers felt empathy and support for the plight of Mercado and Tan family.

While not well-versed in the intricacies of getting legislation passed into law, I am concerned that UAFA will be bundled as a part of larger immigration reform. UAFA and the protections it provides is just the kind of the line item that can easily be scratched from a bill in order to get it through committee and eventually passed, particularly when contentious Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats may take issue with it. Senator Charles Schumer is optimistic comprehensive immigration reform may come before year’s end.

Never-the-less I applaud Speier’s support of UAFA and the Mercado and Tan family. In addition to UAFA, Speier continues to be a strong ally for the LGBT community, having co-sponsored HR. 1283 which would repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and voting for hate crimes legislation for LGBT, transgendered and disabled persons.

Same sex-couples from neighboring states are making the trek to Iowa to take advantage of state’s recent ruling allowing gay marriage. Seventeen couples from St. Louis traveled 250 miles by bus to Iowa City and were married Friday one-by-one in a 90 minutes ceremony. “It feels great,” said 58-year-old Mike Fienup, who married his partner of 15 years, Gerry Humphreys. “We’re citizens. We pay taxes. Why can’t we be treated equal?”

On Sunday, ten gay couples arrived by bus from Davenport, Minnesota to exchange their vows. “If I have to go to Iowa first because that’s the first opportunity I have, then I am going to take it,” said Johnny Hedgepeth, one of the men getting married. “I say where ever you are married, you are married and the law will just have to catch up with reality.” The beginning of their journey is documented in the video below:

While the marriages performed will be officially recognized in the state of Iowa, they will not be considered valid in their home states. Currently there are no official counts on the number of same-sex weddings thus far, on the surface it appears that out-of-staters make up only a small percentage. Hardly sounds like gay marriage mecca to me…

Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), expressed hope and optimism this past week that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, particularly in light of recent polling and the recent same-sex marriage victories in other states.

From Kendell’s blog:

With its groundbreaking marriage decision a year ago, the California Supreme Court set us on a path that – despite some setbacks – has led to one marriage victory a week in the past month: A first-ever unanimous state supreme court ruling in Iowa; a huge victory in Vermont, where there was strong enough support for marriage equality to override their Governor’s veto; and tremendous movement in the legislatures of New Hampshire and Maine, with similar progress likely in the months ahead in New York and New Jersey. The result has been a profound sea change in public opinion, including my own view of what the next month will bring here in California.

Just this week, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed “a sharp shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage. Forty-nine percent said it should be legal for gay people to marry” – an 11 point shift from a similar poll conducted by the Post just three years ago.

I have always believed the California Supreme Court should strike down Prop 8 because the law is so overwhelmingly on our side. But I feared that other factors might result in an adverse decision. That fear has now been replaced by hope as courts and legislatures – as well as public opinion – have moved sharply in our direction. The Court can cement its legacy by overturning Prop 8 and upholding our Constitution’s promise of equal protection. Or it can cause untold pain and hardship to our community and forever undermine the independence of the judiciary and the historic role of the courts in protecting minority rights.

I believe the Court will do the right thing.

In April I heard Kendell speak at an Equality California “looking forward” townhall, where she described what it would take to bring marriage equality back to California. The advice is worth repeating, even in light of recent victories and whether the courts overturn Prop 8 or not.

“Because if the 350,000 people we need to move to our side next time, whether it’s 2010 or whether it’s later, do not sense that we are part of their human family, they are not going to change their vote. So I don’t care how it happens, I don’t care what medium people use, but everyone in this room, has to be uncomfortable—Every. Single. F@cking. Day. Every single day you have to be made uncomfortable, whether it’s a conversation with a cab driver, or the person you drop off your dry-cleaning to, or your neighbor or a family member. If every single day you are made uncomfortable, and butterflies in the stomach, by the conversation that you are having, where you risk your privilege by talking about the reality of your life, we could win in 2010. But that is what it is going to require. And it’s you and every single person you know, that must be willing to have that conversation every single day.”

In the end its more about changing hearts and minds for a lasting victory than any court ruling or vote.

A number of gay and liberal bloggers have expressed grave concerns that Obama has not been the “Fierce Advocate” for LGBT rights he claimed he would be in these first 100 days. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, former Clinton adviser on gay issues Richard Socarides expressed those concerns:

What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven “change moment” in our country’s history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.

It is the memory of 1993’s gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president’s advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical “right time” to move boldly.

This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.

And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get “undecideds” to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, “If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew.”

First, let’s consider that 100 hundred days of the Obama presidency accounts for a whopping 6.8% of his entire first term. In all likelihood we will have hate crimes legislation written into law before we reach 10%. Certainly that must count for something. If Obama takes a firm stand on LGBT-supportive issues like gay marriage, as Socarides and others would have him, I fear the consequences would be more damaging than not, unifying the Republican party and religious conservatives in such way as to make them even more obstructionist, while simultaneously attracting more of the faith-based crowd who are typically apolitical. And it would alienate those people on the right who have drifted toward the middle and who likely voted for Obama in the past election.

There is also the notion that since Obama has admitted that his administration is capable of “multitasking” on multiple fronts,  that there should have been more focus on LGBT-supportive issues during his first 100 days. Honestly, with banks failing, homes foreclosing, unemployment rising, violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan increasing, car industries collapsing, carbon dioxide levels rising and the economy failing… I think I am going to give Obama a pass for now.

I do think there is truth in the idea that the Obama administration is just standing back, watching gay rights take root throughout the country. States are already moving in the direction of granting marriage equality or similar, and are becoming more amenable to LGBT-supportive issues. The passage of Prop 8 in California may have served as a catalyst of sorts swinging the pendulum of same-sex equality back in the opposite direction, energizing the gay rights movement.

Change is always more palatable when it comes from within, as opposed to being forced upon from the outside.

Another element of Socarides’ argument that I take issue with is that the administration should take advantage of the electorate while they are distracted by the war and the economy as to move the LGBT agenda forward. Didn’t the Bush administration distract the public with 9/11 and the war on terror, while they methodically stripped away many of our civil liberties and basic human rights? I liken it to dentist diverting your attention just as he plants the long needle into your gums. It’s uncomfortable and frequently hurts like hell, and it often leaves a bad memory.

Finally, all of this comes from person who provided advice to Clinton on gay and lesbian issues during his presidency. Did anything favorable come out of that advice? Hmmm?

So I’d suggest giving Obama a bit more time before denying him the title of “Fierce Advocate.” But all of this of course is coming from a bit of a political layman. I’m certainly open to having my mind changed, just not by Mr. Socarides.

Thankfully, I’m not the only one who thinks Obama is doing an alright job.

But to be honest,  Obama’s first 100 days hasn’t exactly been a bed of roses either. His handling of torture thus far has left much to be desired, and that he has five (four of which are LGBT-unfriendly) pastors on speed dial which he calls every time he has a crisis of thought, really, really bugs me. Tell me, why isn’t Gene Robinson at least on that list? And why is there an F’ing list at all?