Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 12

Gay-Owned Lobbyist Firm Doing The Bidding Of Catholic Charities

Oh sweet, Holy Jesus. This is a papal face-palm!

From By Lou Chibbaro Jr. at the Washington Blade: 

 Catholic Charities USA, the nation’s largest network of faith-based agencies providing services to the poor, has hired a Washington lobbying firm owned by a gay man to promote a recently launched anti-poverty initiative before Congress and the Obama administration.

In a little noticed development, Catholic Charities USA retained the Sheridan Group, founded in 1991 by social worker and gay rights advocate Tom Sheridan, to coordinate the development of legislation and related advocacy programs aimed at “starting a new national conversation on poverty and opportunity.”

Lobbying disclosure reports filed with the House and Senate show that Catholic Charities USA paid the Sheridan Group $476,750 between April 2010 and April 2011 for lobbying services and advocacy work related to the Catholic organization’s anti-poverty projects.

A reminder it was the Catholic Charities that issued an ultimatum to Washington DC that if they passed marriage equality, they'd turn their backs on the poor and disadvantaged, shutting down their charity services for the District.

Over in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities choose bigotry over placing orphaned children in same-sex households, pulling out of the adoption business since the state wouldn't fund their discriminatory practices anymore. Catholic Charities is having a similar temper tantrum over the gays in Illinois right now.

It's certainly fair to say the Catholic Church is the most formidable force the LGBT community faces in the quest for equality, and Catholic Charities is just a tool in their gay-fighting arsenal. From these legislative extortion tactics, to the Catholic Bishops Conference lobbying the Housing and Urban Development Department not to enact non-discrimination protection, to the Catholic Church being a top funder of the National Organization For Marriage. 

Ah, how ironic a "gay rights activist" should be drawing a big fat paycheck to do their bidding.

Who is Tom Sheridan? He has a bio up at Change.org, which says:

President, The Sheridan Group

A social worker by training and an advocate by trade, Tom Sheridan brings a unique perspective to his work as a public policy strategist in Washington, DC, where The Hill newspaper has called him "A powerbroker for those without a voice."

Tom began his career at the National Association of Social Workers and the Child Welfare League before joining the AIDS Action Council in the late 1980s, quickly becoming the influential leader in establishing the nation's first AIDS lobby, which eventually would involve more than 140 national organizations. He was the chief architect and strategist on the enactment of landmark legislation for the HIV/AIDS community, including the Ryan White CARE Act, as well as the chair of the lobby effort on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

At Change, Sheridan waxed euphoric about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal saying, "We're Winning the Battle of Ideas."

Here's an idea how we can win the battle, Mr. Sheridan: How about not working for the enemy?

"Dr." Marcus Bachmann: "Someone Doctored The Recording."

"Dr." Marcus Bachmann has finally addressed the media firestorm surrounding his family counseling clinic's efforts to help people "Pray The Gay Away."

Speaking with Minnesota's Star Tribune about the recording that circulated over the last few weeks, Bachmann says it's a myth he ever called homosexuals "barbarians."

From the Star Tribune

A doctored recording?
Meanwhile, an audiotape circulating on the Internet depicts Bachmann as calling gays barbarians in a 2010 interview he gave to the "Point of View" Christian radio talk show.

"We have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated,'' Bachmann's voice is heard saying on the tape. "They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn't mean that we are supposed to go down that road.''

Bachmann said that someone must have doctored the recording of the interview, in which he addressed child discipline as well as homosexuality and sex education.

The recording also became a focus of media attention this week, including ABC's "Nightline."

"I was talking in reference to children. Nothing, nothing to do with homosexuality. That's not my mindset. That's not my belief system. That's not the way I would talk," Bachmann said.

Entertainer Cher helped spread word of the "barbarians" quote to her 250,000-plus Twitter followers, ripping him for talking about gays in a "most UNCHRISTIAN way."

Then on Wednesday night, Bachmann was lampooned by comedian Jerry Seinfeld and host Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show."

"I think the strongest myth. ... is the myth that I have ever called a homosexual a barbarian," Bachmann said.

Sure. It's all a big media conspiracy to take you down. "Nothing, nothing to do with homosexuality." Yeah sure.

This bullshit is transparent as your therapy is fraudulent and your wife is crazy.

Bachmannn also says on the topic of his clinic's therapy practices:

"We don't have an agenda or a philosophy of trying to change someone,'' Bachmann said.

Truth Wins Out, who documented their own experiences with the clinic responds:

“Marcus Bachmann is not telling the truth when he dishonestly claims that his clinic is not anti-gay,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen, responding to Bachmann’s new statement in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “Our investigation clearly shows that his clinic has great antipathy towards gay and lesbian people and his therapists work to convert clients from gay to straight.”

“Marcus Bachmann is willfully and wantonly misrepresenting what I experienced during my five therapy sessions at his clinic,” said John Becker, TWO’s Director of Communications and Development, who led an undercover operation at Bachmann’s clinic. “We urge Bachmann & Associates to stop misleading the public and commit to ending the harmful and discredited practice of ‘ex-gay’ therapy.”

Meanwhile news arrives that the nation’s largest “ex-gay” organization, Exodus International will be convening in the Twin Cities of Minnesota for a conference in July 2012.

A big ex-gay convention coming to St. Paul, Minnesota? Well, isn't that convenient? In 2004, then State Senator Bachmann gave a very warm welcome to this very same "ex-gay" group. From Think Progress:

Bachmann not only lent a quote for the group’s press release but also “opened the conference with a greeting and blessing.” From the release:  

“We are so pleased that Minneapolis has invited us back to share again that change is possible for those who are no longer satisfied with their homosexuality,” said Mike Haley, host of the Love Won Out conference, a former homosexual and the author of the book 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality. “In fact, we have been officially welcomed by Minnesota Sen. Michele Bachmann, the author of the state marriage-protection amendment.”

Though her amendment was blocked in the Legislature, Bachmann remains committed to protecting marriage and looks forward to hearing about the causes of same-sex attraction.

“I know that Love Won Out will present the truth about homosexuality,” Bachmann said, “and present it in a compassionate and loving manner. Those of us working to safeguard marriage from redefinition by radical judges must inform our efforts with an understanding of the deep emotional wounds that many in the homosexual community carry. I look forward to welcoming Minnesotans and residents of surrounding states to hear the message of healing that is possible.”

Of course, the "truth" about homosexuality from Michele Bachmann's own mouth is:

"It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It’s anything but gay."

I wonder if Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann will be welcoming them as warmly in 2012 to her state to "tell the truth about homosexuality?"

Oddly, candidate Bachmann, who has built her entire political career on talking about the gays, continues to maintain her silence on the topic of whether the clinic she co-owns with her husband is practicing "gay repartive therapy."

NOM provides the perfect opportunity for family and friends to stand in our shoes

When New York's marriage equality law goes into effect on Sunday July 24, some town and city clerks offices will hold special hours so that couples can immediately get marriage licenses and marry.

According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, "state law requires couples to wait 24 hours after receiving a license before they can be married, unless they obtain a judicial waiver. ...Notably, however, the New York City Clerk's Office will begin issuing marriage licenses on July 24 and judges will be on hand to officiate marriages that day."

Sunday will be one of the happiest days in the lives of loving couples and the family and friends who come to witness their commitment to one another.  But that's not all they may witness.  National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is planning to drop a turd on Sunday's weddings by staging rallies around the state in support of an anti-equality constitutional amendment.  

Who spends their summer Sundays trying to ruin other people's weddings, especially when such a mean-spirited amendment has no hope of being realized in New York?

That's the rhetorical question we equality advocates need to be asking our families and friends in the next weeks.  NOM's plans for July 24 provide us with a perfect conversation starter around why marriage equality is so important to us, and what we're up against in securing and maintaining our equal rights.  

NOM's rallies also provide a unique opportunity for heterosexual family and friends participating in weddings that day to stand in our shoes and experience, for just a moment, what we LGBT people experience daily.  Asking friends and family to reflect on and discuss that experience is an opportunity that should not be missed.  By emotionally injuring our family and friends in this way, NOM will create LGBT allies with a resolve to fight just that much harder for LGBT equality.

Santorum bottoms out

Ok, this is just too good.

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum raised $582,348 for the 2nd fundraising quarter, according to the campaign. That places him near the bottom of the GOP money race.

The Santorum campaign also reported having more than $229,000 in the bank at the end of the quarter.

According to Slog, where I stole my headline, Gingrich raised $2 million in a quarter where his top advisors quit en masse. Bloomberg reports that Romney raised about $18.3 million, Pawlenty $4.3 million, Paul $4.1 million and Huntsman $4.1 million, about half of which came from his personal fortune.

In contrast, Obama raised $86 million in the same second quarter.

I am no fan of President Obama, but I can't stop chortling over who's winning the fundraising vote.

Obama DOJ seeks emergency stop to DADT injunction, reinstating law "by the close of business" Fri.

Of course this is about getting to the heart of whether DADT is constitutional, but it feels like a slap in the face yet again. (Wash Blade):

The Department of Justice has requested a short-term emergency stay from the 9th Circuit Court, which last week lifted its stay of an injunction halting enforcement of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' law barring gay and lesbian military personnel from open service.

Late last year, in the Log Cabin Republicans v. USA case, Judge Virginia Phillips found the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law and policy unconstitutional, and ordered the military to cease enforcing the law by placing an injunction on the policy. The 9th Cir. later placed a stay on the injunction as the Obama Department of Justice continued to appeal the case. Last week the 9th Cir. agreed with Log Cabin lawyers from the law firm White & Case that there was no need to continue enforcing the DADT policy and that the injunction on the policy should be put back in place.

The move comes as the Pentagon moves into the final stages of certifying the repeal of 'Don't Ask,' passed in December and signed into law. Once the Pentagon, the Defense Secretary and President certify that the military is ready to implement repeal, the last steps in the process of ending the law will follow a 60 day Congressional review period.

More, from MetroWeekly:

In its request for emergency reconsideration of the decision to lift the stay, DOJ also asks for "a temporary administrative stay of the injunction" while considering the emergency motion. DOJ is asking for quick action on that request. "We respectfully request that the Court act on this request for an administrative stay by the close of business tomorrow, July 15, 2011," the lawyers wrote to the court.

And the reactions were swift:

From Servicemembers United Executive Director Alexander Nicholson:

"The Administration's response to this latest development in the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit is unfathomable and confusing. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' should be completely dead by now. Certification of legislative repeal has now been dragged out beyond a reasonable time frame, so the court stepped back in to get the job done. The President should just let this law die."

R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director:

"This latest maneuver by the President continues a pattern of doublespeak that all Americans should find troubling. All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, in a statement. "Let me be clear - the president is asking the court for the power to continue threatening servicemembers with investigation and discharge, and the right to turn away qualified Americans from military service for no reason other than their sexual orientation. Even if the administration never uses that power, it is still wrong, and the Ninth Circuit was clear that there is no justification for continuing the violation of servicemembers' constitutional rights. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is an offense to American values that should have been gone long ago. It is shameful that a president who has taken credit for opposing the policy is taking extreme measures to keep it on life support."

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis:

"At SLDN, we are frustrated by this last-minute filing, which could well add more delay and confusion for service members. This development only serves to underscore the need for immediate certification and finality."

I'm enjoying Google+ way too much...

I've been on Google+ , the new more-than-social network almost since the select invites went out. I guess the geeks got the invites early to try to break it and work out the kinks before noobs got in.

The good news is that its concept of Circles -- the way you organize your friends -- is much more organized than in Facebook, which has become a mess. People can be in more than one circle, and it's easy to select which groups of people receive any given post of yours. Security and privacy is overall much more easier to navigate and lock down; Google has encouraged feedback to meet the needs of the requests, for instance, allowing the gender of a user to be hidden.

Tech guru David Pogue had this to say in his review, Google+ Improves on Facebook.

At first, Google+ looks like a shameless Facebook duplicate. There's a place for you to make Posts (your thoughts and news, like Facebook's Wall); there's a Stream (an endless scrolling page of your friends' posts, like Facebook's News Feed); and even a little +1 button (a clone of Facebook's Like button), which may be where Google+ gets its peculiar name.

But there's one towering, brilliant difference: Circles.

On Google+, you put the people of your life's different social circles into - well, into Circles. That is, groups. Categories. Google starts you off with empty circles called Friends, Acquaintances, Family and Following (people you don't know, but want to follow, as you would on Twitter). It's a piece of cake to add new ones. They can be tiny circles ("Granny and Gramps") or big ones ("Family Tree"), organization-based ("Fantasy League Buddies") or arbitrary ("Annoying People").

From now on, every time you share something - a news item, a thought, a photo, a chat invitation - you can specify exactly which Circles receive it. In one fell swoop, Google has solved the layers-of-privacy problem that has dogged Facebook for years.

Google+ already has over 10 million users even with this limited slow-mo opening after just a few days (Facebook has 750 million).

Right: someone on G+ is already sounding the death knell for Facebook with this hilarious use of clips from 300.

The major reason to join it is its tight (and soon to be tighter) integration with all of Google's many ubiquitous applications already out there -- Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Picasa, Blogger, etc. -- a huge advantage over Facebook, since so many people are already using the services and are familiar with the interface. And you will want to try out Google's Chrome browser to get the most out of the experience.

And if you have a Droid phone (I've been on that platform for some time as well), it's a seamless experience to have group chats, you can take pix on your phone and they are auto-uploaded to an area where you can select how to share it.

Even with all that jazz I'm not sure it will kill off Facebook any time soon. If anything it will fade out in a long, slow way like MySpace - people and businesses migrating to G+ as it matures.

There's no reason to abandon ship on Twitter any time soon either, IMHO. It's a different animal, a short form of communication that has its own audience and purpose.

I'll be honest - it's much more enjoyable writing short commentary and passing on breaking news quickly than fretting over writing posts up for the blog, which takes a ton more time relatively speaking. Given I receive more comments on Facebook (and probably soon on G+), it's hard to know whether PHB posts are reaching as many people, or people just like skimming short form stuff I do and comment there. That's why I added the widget in the left column that shows what's going on with my Facebook posts and notes, as well as the G+ feed. Those are updated way more frequently than the blog these days. Posts here are reserved for the more newsworthy items that elicit some sort of reaction from me, or if it's a long-form post or original reporting/essay.

Related:

* What G+ is really about? (a great slideshow by Vincent Wong)

My VA Gender Marker Change Didn't Quite Go To Plan

One can change one's [Veterans Administration] record to reflect one's gender without genital reconstruction surgery.

This was from the National Center For Transgender Equality's (NCTE's)talking points regarding a significant change to the Veterans Administration (VA) policies for transgender veterans. This change of policy on gender markers was clearly intended by the senior leadership of the VA when they put out the new policy document in mid-June, but how the policy is apparently being implemented is different from the initial intent.

In mid-June I applied at the San Diego Veterans Administration Healthcare Center to have my gender marker changed in my Veterans Administration (VA) records. This was after the VA announcement that a new Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) directive (VHA Directive 2011-024) had been released, entitled Providing Health Care For Transgender And Intersex Veterans.

In the new VHA Directive 2011-024, entitled "Providing Health Care For Transgender And Intersex Veterans," is the document that the VA announced in June. Paragraph 4.(1)(b) of the directive states the following:

The documented sex in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) should be consistent with the patient's self-identified gender. In order to modify administrative data (e.g., name and sex) in CPRS, patients must provide official documentation as per current VHA policies on Identity Authentication for Health Care Services and Data Quality Requirements for Identity Management and Master Patient Index Functions.

My first request was rejected. I received a letter -- dated June 24, 2011 -- from the San Diego Veterans Administration Healthcare Center's Acting Director stating as much.

That second referenced document is the apparently key document for the requirements for gender marker change -- VHA Directive 2006-036, "Data Quality Requirements For Identity Management And Master Patient Index Functions." It states the following in Attachment A, paragraph 4:

GENDER: Male or Female must be entered. In case of gender reassignment, legal documentation (amended birth certificate, court documents, etc.) must be required as proof of a legal gender change.

I provided a copy of my California Driver License to the VA, which has an F as the gender marker with my initial filing. That filing was rejected in a letter to me from the VA.

When I talked on Tuesday, July 12, 2011 to the San Diego VA Medical Center's Privacy Officer about the filing, he told me he spoke to the attorneys and staffers at the Identity Management Data Quality (IMDQ) Team in Washington, DC. (The link is to a bookmark with all their staff contact information from 2006, as well as a list of their resources. These resources include a link to VHA Directive 2006-36.)

In documentation from that group sent to the Privacy Officer that I wasn't allowed to see, the conclusion was that my DL with the F as a gender marker was inadequate documentation. They apparently narrowly construed the paragraph from VHA Directive 2006-036 very narrowly, believing a surgery letter or an updated birth certificate were the only acceptable documentation.

It should be noted that with some internet searching I did to find the current home page for the IQMD Team, I found our that in 2009 the name of the IMDQ Team changed to Healthcare Identity Management (HC IdM). Apparently, the key document for HC IdM is the Master Patient Index/Patient Demographics (MPI/PD) Vista; Programmer Manual (Version 1.0) -- the relevant thing here is mostly the name change of the team from IMDQ to HC IdM -- why the privacy officer didn't mention the team name change, I don't know. That bit of information seems pretty important though.

The Palm Center and TAVA did heavy lifting in New Veterans Administration Healthcare Policy For Transgender And Intersex Veterans

UPDATE: Signed! Governor Brown To Veto CA's SB 48 Education Bill?

Is yet another huge LGBT victory about to be lost at the finish line?

Remember when defeat was snatched from the jaws of presumed victory in CA's Prop 8, ME's Question 1, and in the MD House of delegates?

We may be on the verge of another such heartbreaking 11th hour loss. Recently, the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful Education Act (SB 48) passed all the legislative hurdles to become law.

Oh, how we celebrated! We waxed euphoric the milestone that LGBT Americans contributions to this country's history would now be included in California's school history books. Celebrants declared, "Landmark LGBT Education Victory in CA: FAIR Education Act Passes!"

What could possibly go wrong?

How about CA's Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown vetoes it?

The possibility is looking very real. Equality California is sending out this urgent plea for help:

Opponents of LGBT equality are flooding Governor Brown's office with emails, letters and phone calls, trying to get him to veto the FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful) Education Act (SB 48, Leno). We can't let them succeed.

Governor Brown needs to hear from us all every single day this week about this bill. I emailed you in the past few days to ask you to contact the Governor about this bill, which would ensure that LGBT history -- and the history of our civil rights movement -- is taught in public schools.

The governor has just six days left to sign the bill, but it could be signed as early as today! Tell him you want him to sign SB 48. There are three easy ways to take action:

1. Call him at 1-916-445-2841. Choose English or Spanish, then press 2 to share your opinion on current legislation. Press 1 to say that you want to voice your opinion on SB 48. Then hit 1 again to say you support this bill. If the lines are busy, try again -- our opponents are jamming the lines.

Governor Brown's contact form web page if you can't get through by phone

Whether it's "Praying the Gays Away," re-institutionalizing the Federally mandated closet of DADT, or wiping us from history books, or opponents will stop at nothing to erase gay people from the American experience. Let's not let them win this one.

Come on Governor Brown! I really can't believe we have to lean on you, and the organizing forces of hate groups can intimidate you.

Come on, California! You have an opportunity to really lead the nation here. This is a groundbreaking first-of-it's-kind piece of legislation. You have an opportunity to reclaim your progressive credentials back from New York.

Or you can confirm CA is still a dysfunctional state incapable of moving forward.

Your choice.

Update: Equality California tweet:

Thank you, @JerryBrownGov, for signing the #FAIREducationAct! The Act will make a tremendous difference for #LGBT youth in schools.

The Governor's Press Office confirms the bill has been signed here.

Phony victimization ruining American Christianity

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

According to Religious Right Watch, the Family Research Council is asking for folks to pray for Marcus Bachmann's clinic because supposedly it's "under siege" by the gay community because of its use of the faulty practice of reparative ("ex-gay") therapy"

Christian Counseling under Assault – This week a homosexual activist group reported findings from their undercover “sting” operation at Minnesota Christian counseling clinic owned by Republican Presidential candidate Michelle Bachman and her husband, Marcus. Sympathetic national media seemed shocked that the Christian counseling center offered help for homosexuals to break free from addiction to homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ. Where will the homosexual assault on religious liberty stop?

Meanwhile, the right-wing website Lifesite News is sounding the alarm simply because NY Gov Andrew Cuomo has told the state's marriage clerks that they must comply with the law and sign their names on same-sex marriage licenses.

In these two stories is a theme which is recurrent throughout many religious right Christian and evangelical circles - the idea that someone's religious beliefs trumps the fact that they are not honest or that they have a job to do.

Both stories are really simple.

Bachmann lied and was caught in his deception. He initially said that his clinic does not engage in ex-gay therapy. And he was proven to be a liar by the undercover video.

But some folks who call themselves Christians aren't questioning the fact that Bachmann lied because they are too busy spinning conspiracy theories as to how the entire controversy is a "plot against Marcus and Michele Bachmann and evangelicals."
What's more, these folks actually embrace the fraudulent therapy done by Bachmann's clinic while conveniently omitting the fact that he lied about it.

And to top it all off, they do all of this while talking about "morals" and "values" and "upholding God's truth."

It's a bizarre gymnastic conundrum which should alarm anyone who really do care about morals and values.

The case in NY is even easier to figure out.

As shown by Lifesite News, some folks actually believe that someone working for state government should be absolved from following the rules of their job simply because they are Christian.

The question of where the line should be drawn is a serious one. It should not be taken lightly.

If state workers can use the Biblical verses as an excuse to not sign same-sex marriage licenses, then what's the justification of them not using Biblical verses to deny interracial couples their licenses  (i.e. the Tower of Babel story) or refusing to sign licenses because the woman in the potential marriage may have signed it before the man (in defiance to what some say about the supposed subservient position of a woman in a relationship in accordance to Scripture).

Just when was the Biblical verse "render to Caesar what is Caesar's"  replaced by "I'm a Christian so I deserve more rights than you?"

It's ironic that the same evangelicals and Christians who support all of this mess are constantly complaining about how Christianity has a bad name in this country.

Maybe these "Christians" should stop acting like a bunch of self-righteous, spoiled brats who want their way all of the time.

Alex Can Stay With His Husband, Doug... At Least Two More Years.

A same-sex married couple in California received a two-year reprieve on an imminent deportation order at their last-chance hearing this morning. From Lavi Soloway's Stop The Deportations blog:

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – This morning in San Francisco, Doug Gentry and Alex Benshimol -- a married binational same-sex couple -- appeared before Immigration Judge Marilyn Teeter for a deportation hearing and were permitted to remain in the country despite the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages by the federal government. This is the latest in a series of recent court rulings that have demonstrated the inequality that DOMA forces same-sex couples to live under.

  Continued...

Specifically, the judge laid out two options. She gave the government 60 days to decide whether it will agree to drop deportation proceedings against Alex -- a Venezuelan citizen -- altogether. If the government elects not to drop proceedings, the same judge will revisit the case again in September 2013, ensuring that Doug and Alex are protected from deportation for at least two more years allowing them to return to building a life together with their family, including Alex's two step-children.

"Today the Immigration Judge demonstrated compassion and understanding for Doug and Alex as a married binational couple, granting them a reprieve from deportation by postponing further proceedings to September 2013," said Lavi Soloway, lawyer for Doug and Alex, and founder of Stop the Deportations. "The Judge also gave the government 60 days to inform the court whether it will agree with our request to terminate these proceedings pursuant to prosecutorial discretion guidelines issued June 17 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton. We will continue to advocate for termination of these proceedings and a moratorium on all deportations of spouses of lesbian and gay Americans."

"Today's victory is yet another sign that when we engage the system and demand full equality we encourage those in power to find reasonable interim solutions that protect LGBT families, even as we fight to bring about an end to DOMA.  Doug and Alex showed tremendous courage standing up for all binational couples as they insisted on fighting for an end to the government's deportation proceedings against Alex.  After the hearing the couple went for a celebratory lunch and looked forward to spending time with their extended family including Doug's two children who consider Alex to be their step-father.  They are very relieved to have been given a two year reprieve and they will continue to fight for an end to DOMA deportations, Soloway said."

More on their case here.

Doug and Alex benefited from a big show of support from the LGBT community and allies. Among the organizations that gathered petitions and attended rallies were API Equality, API Legal Outreach, Asian Law Caucus. Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Central American Resource Center, Chinese For Affirmative Action, Equality California, Immigration Equality, Love Honor Cherish, National Center For Lesbian Rights, National Immigration Justice Center, San Francisco Immigrant Legal And Education Network, and the San Francisco LGBT Center.

I really feel we are getting to a point where there will soon be a major breakthrough on this issue. Just my gut talking.

Time To Issue The Moratorium

It is time for the administration to issue a deportation moratorium on married same-sex couples and exercise the same discretion it is currently doing in not deporting widows. It's time to call a moratorium on all deportation orders until the such time that the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is settled. Deporting spouses because of DOMA is, by the Department of Justice's own assessment, a violation of LGBT American's civil rights.

The difference relative to the continued denial of marriage equality is the consequences of deportation are very real, very harsh and may visit irreversible damage on gay people's families and their lives.

I've written on this before, this is not a whacky, fringe idea. Nor is it outside the administration's discretion. This has been endorsed by many respected immigration law experts and advocacy organizations, and prominent members of the House and Senate.

The Washington Post has also called on the administration to issue such an order saying:

Mr. Holder should erase any confusion by declaring a moratorium on removal of foreign nationals in state-recognized same-sex unions until federal courts determine DOMA’s constitutionality. He should ensure that the government is not focusing on breaking up otherwise law-abiding families.

Over and over, binational LGBT couples of late seem to be winning 11th hour reprieves, as Henry and Josh (below) did in May, which is wonderful, and something to celebrate.

[image error]

But it's time to put an end to the nail-biting and uncertainty the tens of thousands of other couples face as their deportation hearing dates draw near. Will they be the lucky ones granted reprieve by their Judge? Or will they meet a less sympathetic jurist and be torn apart?

These single, piece meal, case by case resolutions leads one to wonder if administration's actual policy on LGBT binational couples is to apply grease to the squeaky wheels?

LGBT advocacy community can do better things with their time and to spend their time rushing from rally to rally saving a single couple at a time. It is time to end the mad scrambling. It is time to end the uncertainty for all these couples.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary Janet Napolitano must decree their families can stay intact. At least until we hear definitively from the Justices of the Supreme Court that they can't.