Supreme Court building

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday rejected pro-LGBT amendments to the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, and as EqualityOnTrial noted yesterday, four Democrats also opposed inclusion of the amendments. Activists reacted with anger to the exclusion, with some suggesting they were shocked. The amendments were an attempt to protect members of binational same-sex couples from facing deportation, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars recognition of legal same-sex marriages and sponsorship of spouses relies on the definition imposed by DOMA.

The chairman of that committee, Senator Leahy (D-VT) had introduced two pro-LGBT amendments: one is the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would create the category of “permanent partner” in immigration laws as a way to reduce some of the effects of DOMA. The classification of permanent partner would have imposed most of the same requirements as marriages: the couple would have to be in a committed relationship, couldn’t be underage or blood relatives, and couldn’t be married or in a permanent partnership with anyone else. UAFA carves out an exception to DOMA: DOMA would remain the law until repealed or struck down by the Supreme Court, but same-sex binational couples could escape deportation.

The other amendment is a different type of workaround. It would add a section to the Immigration and Nationality Act providing that a marriage will be recognized as legal if it is legal where it was performed. This wouldn’t create any new categories, it would just ensure that the federal government relies on state law definitions for immigration purposes.

Neither amendment was included in the bill by the committee, but yesterday Greg Sargent reported in the Washington Post that Democratic aides are saying that the amendments may be reintroduced after the immigration bill reaches the floor of the Senate. The report suggests that the amendments may reappear in time to coincide with the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in United States v. Windsor, Edith Windsor’s constitutional challenge to Section 3 of DOMA. If the Court strikes down the law, it would make UAFA mostly inoperable. But this Court is unpredictable on social issues and any decision could hinge on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote. At oral argument he seemed most convinced that Section 3 of DOMA violates federalism principles, but most of the moderates seemed to find an equal protection holding more appealing while the conservatives disagreed with both. If the Court leaves DOMA intact, it’s hard to see how Congress would repeal it any time soon. The House is majority Republican and the Senate usually proceeds on the assumption that 60 votes will be required due to obstruction.

Introducing the amendments right before the Court’s ruling could change the conversations over LGBT inclusion: if Section 3 of DOMA is struck down, the amendments would be seen as largely unnecessary, but if it’s upheld and the amendments aren’t included in the bill, same-sex binational couples will not get any relief from this immigration reform package. Interestingly, Sargent’s piece suggests that Democrats actually want to force the issue:

And so, if Dems wait until the DOMA decision comes down, they could find themselves without any real need to push the LGBT issue in the immigration reform debate. At the same time, though, this is a fight Democrats — and the White House – want to have, for substantive and political reasons. So they may introduce the amendments before the DOMA decision comes down — forcing a public battle with the GOP over gay rights.

That would theoretically gin up the right wing base, forcing Republicans to rail against — and vote against — the simple act of extending a bill many of them support, i.e., immigration reform, to cover gay married couples, too. That would again reveal the GOP’s unwillingness to evolve on gay marriage along with the rest of the country, at a time when even some Republican officials and strategists are urging the party to develop a more tolerant and inclusive aura, something that is being made impossible by the refusal of most Republican voters to accept the inevitable.

[emphasis mine]

It’s a bigger challenge to get the amendments in the bill on the floor, of course. It will take 60 votes for the Senate to include the amendments on the floor, whereas if the committee had included it, Republican opponents would have needed 60 votes to strip the amendments on the floor. If there’s a serious push, it may happen, but if it’s just to “forc[e] a public battle with the GOP over gay rights[]” then inclusion of the amendments would ultimately be more about discussing the issue of LGBT inclusion and less about doing the work to include LGBT people. The Court’s ruling, expected by late June, may be a critical factor in Congress’ decision.

AP file photo

Freedom to Work filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights yesterday alleging that Exxon Mobil Corporation discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in its hiring practices, in contravention of the state’s Human Rights Act.

The complaint, written by two lawyers from the D.C. civil rights/employment firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, was based on the company’s treatment of a pair of ‘test’ resumes that Freedom to Work submitted on behalf of fictitious applicants to an Exxon job located in Illinois.  This is the first time an LGBT group has conducted a resume test.  As Freedom to Work describes in its filing, the two applicants received dramatically different treatment by the company based on their sexual orientation:

“[W]hen a highly qualified LGBT candidate applied to work as an administrative assistant for Exxon in Illinois, Exxon refused to invite the applicant for an interview and never contacted her about her interest in the position. In stark contrast, during the same time period a less qualified non-LGBT applicant applied for the same position and Exxon responded by contacting the less qualified non-LGBT applicant on three separate occasions to ask her to interview for the position.

“On the third occasion that Exxon contacted the non-LGBT applicant, Exxon’s representative even suggested that the position would be held open for the non-LGBT applicant for four days until the applicant could contact Exxon. And even after the non-LGBT candidate failed to respond to Exxon’s request for an interview, Exxon did not contact the better qualified LGBT candidate for an interview.”

Freedom to Work’s complaint asks the Department of Human Rights “to enjoin Exxon from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in Illinois, to require Exxon to amend its equal employment opportunity policy to expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and to require Exxon to educate its managers and workforce on how to ensure that its employees and applicants are not subject to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Exxon Mobil remains one of the few Fortune 500 companies without an LGBT non-discrimination policy; the oil company received a score of -25 in the Human Rights Campaign’s 2013 Corporate Equality Index.

Exxon will hold its annual shareholder’s meeting next week in Dallas, where shareholders will vote on a resolution to adopt an anti-LGBT discrimination ban.  A similar proposal failed last year when 80 percent of shareholders rejected it.  Only 12 percent of Fortune 500 companies do not have such a policy.

Freedom to Work conducted a similar resume test in Texas, Exxon’s home state, which returned the same results as the Illinois test.  However, Texas has no LGBT employment discrimination law, so Freedom to Work was only able to challenge the company’s hiring practices in Illinois.

“Exxon broke the law, defies industry standards and continues to betray the American people’s sense of fairness,” Tico Almeida, Freedom to Work’s president, said in a statement announcing the complaint.  ”This case is one more reminder that Exxon stands virtually alone in the Fortune 100 in denying qualified gay and transgender Americans a fair shot to get a job based on their talents and hard work.  Exxon must obey the Golden Rule and do onto others as they would want others to do onto them.”

Read the full complaint in Freedom to Work v. Exxon Mobil Corp. below, via Equality Case Files at Scribd.

Capitol Hill

- The biggest news of the week is yesterday’s action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where most Democrats joined all Republicans to oppose inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), a compromise pro-LGBT bill that would have allowed binational married couples of the same sex to remain in the United States together, in the “comprehensive” immigration bill. Jacob covered it today, and linked to lots of commentary. Earlier this month, immigration attorney Lavi Soloway explained UAFA and the potential effects of an eventual repeal or court decision striking down DOMA. He pointed out that simply getting rid of DOMA would not fix the situation.

- Last we Towleroad profiled a same-sex binational couple. Lavi Soloway did as well.

- LGBT activists react angrily to the lack of LGBT inclusion in immigration.

- What’s next in the marriage fight?

- A poll in Tennessee shows that 62 per cent of people in the state think gays and lesbians and their partners should get health and other work-related benefits, and also shows that 49 per cent support some sort of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.

- Last week, President Obama gave a commencement address at Morehouse College that included pro-LGBT remarks. The video is here.

- Freedom to Work has filed a discrimination complaint against Exxon Mobil in Illinois.

In a stunning and disheartening defeat, Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee chose yesterday not to include protections for binational same-sex couples in the comprehensive immigration reform bill currently making its way through Congress.

Republicans on the committee had publicly and privately stated that including the measure, known as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), would force them to withhold their support from the entire bill.  UAFA would have created a classification of ‘permanent partners’ through which U.S. citizens in binational same-sex relationships could sponsor their partners in immigration proceedings.  A related amendment would have extended immigration protections to married same-sex couples in spite of the Defense of Marriage Act.

During yesterday’s committee markup, four crucial Democrats–all of whom support marriage equality, in theory–spoke of a difficult decision in withdrawing support for the amendment but defended the move in light of Republican threats.  ”If we make the effort to make [the protections] part of this bill, they will walk away,” New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said during the hearing. “They’ve said it publicly. They’ve told me privately. I believe them.”

The other three Democrats on the committee who pulled their support of the amendment were Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Al Franken of Minnesota. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who had introduced the UAFA amendment in the first place, was the only Democratic Senator who spoke in favor of the measure unreservedly.  ”I don’t want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the life of their life and the love of their country,” he said when introducing the amendment, but later said he would withdraw it “with a heavy heart” given its lack of support in the chamber.

The committee eventually voted 13-5 to send the comprehensive immigration reform bill to the full Senate.  The UAFA amendment could be considered by the full Senate in June when the immigration reform legislation comes up for a floor vote, although it would likely require 60 votes to pass, making its chances of success exceedingly slim.  The measure could also be taken up as a stand-alone bill, but such a path would also be sure to falter in the face of a 60-vote threshold.

“Despite the leadership of Chairman Leahy, Judiciary Committee Democrats have caved to bullying by their Republican colleagues,” Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality Action Fund, said in a statement after the vote. “There should be shame on both sides of the political aisle today for lawmakers who worked to deny LGBT immigrant families a vote. Despite widespread support from business, labor, faith, Latino and Asian-American advocates, Senators abandoned LGBT families without a vote.”

LGBT immigration advocates pointed out yesterday as reports surfaced that the Leahy amendments might be tabled that they were essentially burned three times by Democratic Senators on the issue.  ”It is important to note,” Immigration Equality’s Steve Ralls told Metro Weekly, “that, when the Senate immigration framework (which Schumer and Durbin helped write) did not include LGBT couples, both Senators assured our families they would be in the base bill. When the base bill (which they also helped write) was not inclusive, they assured us we would receive a vote in Committee.”  Of course, no such committee vote ended up occurring.

The immigration protections debate underscores the vital importance of understanding that, while the LGBT community’s successes on the marriage equality front in the last few months have been remarkable, there are still many issues on which politicians still need to be pushed.  Even though all four of the Democrats in question on the Judiciary Committee support marriage equality, that support did not carry over to support for same-sex couples’ rights when it comes to immigration.  It’s worth asking these senators whether they support LGBT equality categorically, or in words only.

Illinois Unites For Marriage, the state coalition for the passage of the marriage equality law, said today that former President Bill Clinton is calling on state legislators to pass the bill before the Assembly adjourns on May 31. Clinton said in a statement:

“Our nation’s permanent mission is to form a ‘more perfect union’ – deepening the meaning of freedom, broadening the reach of opportunity, strengthening the bonds of community,” said President Clinton. “That mission has inspired and empowered us to extend rights to people previously denied them. Every time we have done that, it has strengthened our nation. Now we should do it again, in Illinois, with marriage equality.”
[...]
“Since the days of Abraham Lincoln, Illinois has stood for the proposition that all citizens should be treated equally under the law,” President Clinton said in Tuesday’s statement. “Lincoln himself came to Springfield in search of opportunity, and he dedicated his life to securing equal opportunity for all citizens. I believe that for Illinois and for our nation as a whole, in the 21st century that must include marriage equality.”

In recent weeks, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has reiterated his support for marriage equality, telling the state House to send the bill to his desk. And yesterday it was reported that LGBT leaders in the state have said they have obtained the votes required to pass the bill, and that there’s no reason it shouldn’t be voted on before the session ends.

Clinton has shifted his views on marriage equality over the years, and he wrote recently that the Supreme Court should rule that DOMA, which he signed in 1996, is unconstitutional. He had previously asked North Carolina’s voters to oppose Amendment 1, the anti-gay marriage ban that passed last year.

If the House passes the bill, Illinois will become the 13th state with marriage equality for same-sex couples. With only days left in the session, the vote would be expected soon, if it’s called.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

After a contentious day of debate and several votes, the UK House of Commons added amendments to a proposed marriage equality bill and avoided additions seen as poison pills to kill the legislation, the Guardian reports.

In February, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed the House of Commons by an overwhelming margin of 400 to 175.  During yesterday’s debate, however, LGBT advocates were concerned that an amendment proposed by Tim Loughton, an anti-marriage equality Conservative Member of Parliament (MP), might derail the bill.  Loughton’s amendment, which would have made civil partnerships available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation, rather than only same-sex couples, was voted down 375-70.

Critics of Loughton’s amendment, among them Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative government, said that the measure would add £4 billion to the cost of the marriage equality bill (in the form of pension payments to civil partners) and could have delayed implementation of the change for several months.

While Cameron and his supporters were ultimately successful in defeating Loughton’s proposal, they were nevertheless forced to make a dramatic last-minute request to Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, who was planning to abstain on the measure, to move against the amendment.  Many Labour MPs had expressed support for the proposal, and in return for Miliband’s support, Cameron’s government agreed that it would begin an immediate review into whether civil partnerships should be extended to opposite-sex couples.  That review, which equalities minister Maria Miller said might result in the abolition of all civil partnerships (after the passage of marriage equality), was initially to take place no more than five years after the marriage bill’s passage.

In another dramatic move, more than 100 Conservative MPs voted against Cameron by backing an amendment that would have permitted registrars to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.  Another vote intended to protect the religious beliefs of any opponent of marriage equality also failed.  According to Pam’s House Blend, two friendly amendments were approved: one which would protect religious officials from lawsuits and another which could pave the way for same-sex weddings in the Church of Wales.

The House of Commons will consider additional amendments today and will then hold a third reading and final vote on the bill.  If it is approved, it will proceed to the House of Lords in two weeks time for further consideration.

Minnesota passes a marriage bill, bringing the total to twelve states with the freedom to marry. Can we make it thirteen? Time’s running out for Illinois to pass its marriage bill this year. And even with public support for marriage soaring, numerous states may be stuck with marriage bans for years to come.

It’s going to be a busy summer. Marriage equality goes into effect in Minnesota and Rhode Island on August First, and in Delware on July First. About 53 million people now live in states with marriage.

But work in those states isn’t done. Many of the lawmakers who stood up for equality will face challenges in elections from anti-LGBT candidates. It’s important to defend the politicians who voted in favor of the freedom to marry. Minnesotans United for All Families has announced that they’ll convert the organization into a political action committee that will work to make sure those supportive lawmakers are re-elected.

Over in Illinois, the legislative session is scheduled to end in less than two weeks. Time is quickly running out for a vote on that state’s marriage bill, which Governor Patrick Quinn has pledged to sign. Visit EQIL to learn more and to find out how you can help.

Polling in Illinois is strong, with 50% for marriage and 29% opposed. And national support continues to grow as well, with a new Gallup poll showing 53% favor marriage to 45% opposed. This is the fifth consecutive Gallup poll to show marriage equality at or above 50 percent.

We have several additional surveys this week that show growing support in more conservative states. In Michigan, it’s at 58.6 percent, an increase of 12 and a half points in just the last year. In Virginia, it’s 55 percent, a ten point increase in two years. And it’s 55 percent in Arizona, with 35 percent opposed.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that all three of these states — and twenty seven others — have constitutional amendments banning marriage equality. That means that even with a majority of public support, those states are still stuck with marriage bans for the time being. Changing those state constitutions will be a slow and expensive process.

In Nevada, for example, a repeal of the state’s constitutional ban just passed an Assembly Committee and now heads to a full floor vote. It’s expected to pass, but then it’ll have to wait two years before it can advance to the next round of voting. And then it’ll be 2016 before the repeal finally makes it to the ballot.

But there are other avenues for marriage equality to win. In Nevada and Hawaii, for example, there are lawsuits challenging the state’s constitutional ban. Because they’re covered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawsuit’s on hold pending a Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8. If the court upholds AFER’s previous victory, it could dramatically accelerate the marriage equality process in Arizona across the entire country.

And we’re closer than ever to a resolution on Prop 8. The deadline for the Supreme Court to rule is the end of June. Subscribe here on YouTube and at AFER.org for breaking news alerts and to find out how you can help support the cause of equality for all.

Cooper-Harris v. USA plaintiffs. Attribution: The Washington Blade

On Friday, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, a federal district court judge for the Central District of California, heard arguments in Cooper-Harris v. USA, a military servicemember’s challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In February, the judge had denied attempts to halt the proceedings by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the Republican-led House legal group defending the law in court, and to dismiss the case entirely, a position taken by the Justice Department, who argued that federal district court was the wrong place to hear challenges related to military benefits. Since the judge ruled the case should continue, arguments were scheduled. The case is one of the few still going on while the Supreme Court deliberates over the issue of Section 3 of DOMA’s constitutionality in United States v. Windsor. Another challenge, related to DOMA’s effects on binational couples in the immigration context, had been put on hold in April.

In the Cooper-Harris case, which was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a written opinion is expected, since the judge did not issue one from the bench after the arguments. This hearing was on motions for summary judgment on the merits of the constitutionality of DOMA and the other military-related law at issue.

Cooper-Harris is a veteran who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and the VA ruled that it was acquired likely as a result of her service. If she were in an opposite-sex marriage she would be entitled to seek spousal benefits, but she is in a legal same-sex marriage and Section 3 of DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing the marriage. Another federal statute related to military benefits is also challenged in the case: it defines marriage as opposite-sex only.

The SPLC issued a statement after the arguments:

A federal court in California today heard arguments from SPLC attorneys challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Title 38 – statutes that prevent the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from granting equal benefits to gay and lesbian veterans and their spouses.

The case, Tracey Cooper-Harris v. USA, is the only challenge to DOMA that is proceeding at the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court considers the statute’s constitutionality.

It will be the first case to decide whether married gay and lesbian veterans and their spouses should receive the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. The judge did not issue a ruling at today’s hearing.
[...]
“Today we asked the court to declare these laws unconstitutional so that the federal government can honor Tracey’s service and Maggie’s sacrifice by providing them the same benefits other married veterans and their spouses routinely receive,” said Caren Short, staff attorney for the SPLC. “Our nation has a proud history of honoring service members and their families for their sacrifices. All who have served honorably must be treated fairly by our government when their service is complete.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor is expected at the end of June, so it’s possible that Cooper-Harris could be decided, if only in district court, before the Supreme Court says anything about the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA.

Ian Waldie/Getty Image

By Jacob Combs

Kevin Rudd, an Australian Labour party politician who led the country as prime minister from 2007 to 2010 announced his personal support for equal marriage rights today in a lengthly post published on his personal blog.  The post, titled “Church and State are able to have different positions on same sex marriage,” represents a pronounced shift in Rudd’s policy position on marriage equality.

In 2009, Rudd’s Labour government rejected a proposal to allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, arguing that such a move would be tantamount to offering full marriage equality and inconsistent with the public’s view that marriage should be for opposite-sex couples only.  Last September, Rudd voted against a marriage equality bill introduced by a member of his own party.

Debate on equal marriage rights for same-sex couples has raged in Australia since late 2011, when the Australian Labor Party (of which Rudd is a member) voted to amend its platform in support of marriage equality.  Australia’s current Labour Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is a personal opponent of equal marriage rights, and pushed after the platform change to allow marriage equality legislation to come up for a conscience vote, in which lawmakers could vote based on their personal beliefs rather than the party position.  Last fall, a federal marriage bill failed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, largely on the votes of Gillard’s supporters.

In his blog post, Rudd made clear that he does not plan to take any leadership position on marriage equality going forward.  ”My core interest,” he wrote, “is to be clear-cut about the change in my position locally on this highly controversial issue before the next election, so that my constituents are fully aware of my position when they next visit the ballot box. That, I believe, is the right thing to do.

Below is an excerpt from Rudd’s post, which can be read in full here:

“I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. For me, this change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith.

…

“The Church must be free to perform marriages for Christian heterosexual couples without any threat of interference from the state. Just as the state should be free to perform marriage services for both heterosexual and same sex couples, and whether these couples are of a religious faith or no religious faith.

These issues properly remain matters of conscience for all members of the Parliament. Labor provides a conscience vote. The Liberals and the Nationals do not. They should. If they don’t, then we should consider a national referendum at an appropriate time, and which would also have the added advantage of bringing the Australian community along with us on an important social reform for the nation. And for the guys and girls, like the former staffer who came to see me recently in a state of genuine distress, we may just be able to provide a more dignified and non-discriminatory future for all.”

Attribution: Raw Story

- France’s constitutional court has approved the marriage equality bill today. After it was passed by the assembly, the opposition party challenged the bill, before the bill is signed into law. Now that the court has approved the bill it is expected to be signed quickly.

- A former Obama administration official, who is gay, is calling for an executive order preventing anti-LGBT discrimination by federal contractors.

- The Puerto Rican senate yesterday approved a broad anti-LGBT discrimination bill.

- It’s the ninth anniversary of marriage equality in the United States.

- Portugal’s parliament passed a law that lets gay couples adopt.