DOMA is Down

So the news has hit Asia and I can't help but feel both ecstatic and sad at the same time. Defence of Marriage Act has officially been repelled by the United States Supreme Court, sweeping over two-decades of institutional discrimination away in one sweeping move. Even better, widespread public and political support of the measure means that it is unlikely the United States legislature will ever be able to get another federal law like this one onto the books.

My Facebook and Gmail Inbox has been brimming with congratulations, explosions of happiness and lengthy declarations of support. However all have been coloured with the same running theme...

Now you can come home...

Yes, the chances for us to return to the United States as a couple protected under the law instead of separate beings subjected to discrimination and different rules designed to separate us, has just been increased by leaps and bounds.

Are we going to be boarding a plane right now and heading back to the States... no...

Unfortunately, I am one of thousands of Americans who when given the choice between being separated from their foreign-born significant other or going abroad with them, I chose abroad to stay with the man I loved. The mass exodus of bi-national LGBT-couples returning is not going to happen tomorrow, it can't... because while we'd love to return to grand ole' America, we are also Human beings... we have jobs, homes, bills and uprooting that all, picking up everything and returning them to the States is not something that can be done lightly and not without an immense amount of forethought.

Yes, I left the country very abruptly but we can consider that fortune of destiny. I had just left a job with a start up I really wasn't enjoying (I was running the fine line between over-worked and apathy to said work), decided to downgrade the Manhattan apartment when rents began to rise and was dealing with the fact that my boyfriend's work visa had expired. That was the fate's aligning in my favour.

In Singapore however I have taken a job with a company I find myself enjoying immensely, gotten a nearby apartment who's rent is lower than New York's by miles and have begun to build a small group of friends in this country... now the fates are not in my favour.

But while this is a sad moment for many of my readers who I count among my friends and were rooting for my speedy return to States, it is more of a time to root for the fact that we can now return as a legal couple, protected under the law like never before in our nation's history.

And we all have Edith 'Edie' Windsor and Thea Spyer to thank for that.

Just like my previous post Defense of our (Gay)Marriage Aspirations from almost three-months ago, let's have a quick history lesson. Listen up kiddies, cause this should be filed away with such historical civil rights achievements like the Stonewall Riots, Loving v. Virginia and almost every other great civil rights victory from Rosa Parks to Daniel Savage.

In 2007, these two New York residence, married in Toronto after more than 40-years together. Tragically Spyer passed away in 2009, just as New York legally recognized same-sex marriage performed in other jurisdictions. Spyer left her entire estate to her widow... who had to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes for the right to inherit her wife's estate.

Here's a critical thing to pay attention to, for heterosexual couples, no taxes are owed if the spouse inherits less than $3.5 million. Since DOMA refuses the government to see same-sex couples as not married under federal estate laws and as such, the change of property regardless if they are willed to another is seen as a transfer of ownership and not inheriting to a spouse.

Windsor paid the amount... and then followed it up by suing the federal government for discriminating against her.

With her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan through the ACLU and ran the case through the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York which ruled that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. Though she had won Windsor pushed on and when the Justice Department attempted to file notice on the appeal, the Second Circuit Court upheld the ruling again. It was the first federal court of appeals decision to hold that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to intermediate scrutiny. Finally Windsor filed petition for the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, to argue that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's right of equal protection.

In a narrow vote in favour, the Supreme Court found section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, stating "as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment." Justice Anthony Kennedy voted in favour of repelling the law, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito voted in dissent to keep the law.

And in concurrence, Hollingsworth v. Perry nullified Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that rendered previously legal same-sex marriage in California illegal. In 30 days post its nullification, same-sex marriage will again be legal in California, raising the number of states where same-sex marriage is legal to thirteen. Now LGBT couples can wed in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia and five Native American tribes.

With the support of President Obama, the first sitting president to come out in favour of same-sex marriage, a widespread ideological split in the Republican Party who had originally made opposition to same-sex marriage a party platform and 55% public support of same-sex marriage, it is expected that another law like DOMA to again re-establish a federal law against homosexual unions will now be almost impossible, if not subject to much stricter legal review before it ever gets close to vote.

And while we now exist in a legal patchwork, where certain laws and rights exist in some states and not in others, it sets a legal precedence in favour of same-sex marriage, the same precedence that DOMA tried to squash in 1996 when Hawaii was considering such laws in favour.

Gay married couples will soon be able to apply for social security and survivor benefits, file jointly for federal return taxes, gain employee benefits for the care of sick spouses, children, parents or in-laws, gain health insurance coverage and especially in the case of Ms Windsor, estate taxes. Immigration laws will of course follow, but in the interim, we are all existing in a legal free-fall to see where the issue eventually lands. The federal government is expected to pay back all the money they took from her... plus interest.

And that kiddies is the end of our story... for now...

Until next time, this is AngMoh, cheering the homeland on from far across the Pacific and wishing his fellows some luck in the next big step in the Gay Civil Rights Movement and a hope to arrive in time to see it achieve complete fruition.

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (2013)

So over the course of the last weekend I've been getting bombarded by a lot of questions in relation to immigration bill that passed through the United States Senate yesterday. The notable portion of the bill that got a lot of people pinging me for responses was the fact that while the bill had been passed, the clause allowing for foreign-born LGBT spouses of Americans could be sponsored for green cards.

As has been headlines or at least worthy of a paragraph or two, was the dropping of said clause from the bill in the name of getting it passed the conservative members of the Senate... namely the Republican members of the Senate.

Here's some questions I've gotten and answers I've given. If any details are misquoted or misinterpreted them, please correct me... my co-author, proof reader and fact checker seems to have wandered off as of late.

1. Can't you can still marry in any one of the states same-sex marriage is legal in and then sponsor for a green card through them?
• Nope! See my previous post to hear me complain about that one but under the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, the federal government is not required to recognize same sex marriages performed in any states, territory or protectorate. As such, even if same sex marriage is legal in 12 states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota and DC, along with civil unions in 8 states, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin, the federal government determines visas, green cards and immigration law, meaning if passes a law, like DOMA, banning federal recognization of same sex marriages or unions as legal marriages, then its banned for everyone. If DOMA is repealed, then those rights could be extended to bi-national same sex couples.
2. Doesn't this law just protect illegal immigrants from Mexico?
• No per say, it actually has specific clauses to lift restrictions on immigrants seeking to enter the high-tech markets of the United States. Right now the current law, the H1-B, only allows a skilled foreign immigrant to enter the country on a 2-year visa for a total cap of 6-years. At the end they either can have a company sponsor them for a green card or return home. This bill will increase the number of qualified workers that can enter the country.
3. The bill only got through because they were going to require all the illegal immigrants to be finger printed.
• Not entirely, never lovable and always conservative Republican Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions tried to rail road that through but instead it was reduced to foreigners leaving through the 30 busiest international airports, in order to track those that leave or have over-stayed their visas.  
4. Won't this make it easier for your foreign boyfriend to find an American job?
• Yes and no. It does lessen the restriction by which companies can hire foreign skilled workers, it however does not release the limitation on the length of the resulting work visa. It also doesn't address the prevalent problem of companies actively avoiding the act of transitioning a work visa to a green card when the visa limit is reached.
5. Under the bill can't he seek American citizenship? Wouldn't that be better?
• This one is tricky but I guess the answer would be, would you be able to give up your citizenship that quickly? As Americans, we assume all foreigners entering the country also want to be American. It's natural given the whole 'melting pot' idea we learn about as kids. Is it really that easy to give up your home and nationality.

First things first, while I am very bitter the LGBT-clause was dropped and a sour taste is left in my mouth when I see pictures of the bipartisan Senators congratulating themselves on a job well done, the tiny voice of reason that is my conscience has pointed out that the bill could have helped some or none at all.

Republic lawmakers on the committee openly declared that any LGBT immigration protections would mean they'd kill the bill in committee and vowed if it passed, it surely would die on the Senate floor when time came to vote. This was the line drawn in the sand and the Democrats either had to accept it and move forward, or just give up everything and literally have months of legal research, networking, compromises and talks fall through in a matter of one week. Anyone who has tried to work their way through American immigration law will know, it is the most complex and insular system anyone will ever invent, next to the hellish monstrosity that is the American tax law. Few will have to wonder why many skilled and educated workers have no problem just staying to get an education or a nice job, but always end up retiring back to their home countries... its just too much trouble to deal with.

Notwithstanding this, while the number of bi-national same-sex couples in the United States number into the tens of thousands, the number of illegal immigrants in the country ranges into the millions.

As angry as it makes me feel, that logical conscience of mine whispers into my ear that it was the needs of the many that outweighed the needs of the few. Honestly, you have to admit that most gay couples in the United States tend to be more financially stable, more likely to be educated and most entered this country under legal visas that have just expired. Now I am not saying their are illegal alien LGBT people, I guarantee there are, but in general I would have to say that the majority of those being protected under this bill were those that were going to be the victims a kind of discrimination without any form of protection, a term that technically could be called legal slavery or economic slavery.

No its not some fancy word play, its a situation where an individually is barely paid enough to survive economically while being prevented from ever advancing under threat of persecution, legal reprisal or even punishment. Illegal aliens enter the country, yes illegally, but the vast majority usually are coming to the United States for a better life, then promptly find they can make barely enough to survive, with the constant threat if they try to fight for a better life and pay they will be arrest and deported, a threat usually thrown out by their criminally cheap employers in the face of a defiant immigrant.

Its an act of discrimination that was made illegal in America when slavery was declared illegal. Situations like this tend to however punish the victim and not the victimizer. Yes, those employers could be in a lot of trouble and certainly could face jail time, but many of those illegal aliens will face deportation, a fate that some consider worse than jail time.

The bill will help any illegal immigrants to apply for temporary legal status that allows them to live and work in the country within six months, then apply to get their green card in 10 years and American citizenship three years later.

This bill will also work to strength borders along Mexico, increase the number of H1-B visas and make it easier for individuals to attain citizenship.

DOMA: Defense of (Gay)Marriage Aspirations

So first things first, the one question that everyone from my best friend to my mother to that odd hobo who rides the subway in only a blanket (okay that last one is made up) has been asking me is "Why can't your Singaporean boyfriend stay in the United States? You're American and gay marriage is legal in New York state, just get married!"

If it was that simple you'd instead be asking, "Why is he running down the street screaming and ripping his shirt off? Is he happy?".

Time for a little lesson on the long and loving relationship between the LGBT community and the quirky federal government of the United States of 'Merica (as my best broster Phinn calls our great nation).

In 1993, Baehr v. Miike came before the Supreme Court of Hawaii, and the court, being fair minded, logical and even possibly a decent group of human beings, declared that unless the state government could find a compelling reason to declare same-sex marriage illegal, they couldn't block it. Of course the knee-jerk reaction from the government followed, if Hawaii could find the legal high-ground to allow same sex marriage, then it would set a precedence and allow other people in other states to bring their own cases, opening the door for a legal push for marriage equality.

Of course, the always kind and caring Republican Party decided that it was in everyone's best interest to moderate societal development and in 1996 enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), setting into federal law that "...no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship."

In summary, this became the founding bedrock by which the federal government can and still does legally refuse to recognize the marriage/union of same-sex couples who wed in states where same-sex marriage is legal in cases of taxation, property ownership, adoption, medical decisions and yes, the one that affects us and 36,000 other bi-national couples, sponsorship by an American spouse of their foreign born significant other.

Even if we've been together for three years, been living together for almost two years, have toyed with the ideas of marriage and children like every couple does as they progress through the stages of any healthy relationship, it doesn't matter where the federal government is concerned. 

Yes, the Obama administration has declared that they will no longer defend the law if challenged, the Immigration and Naturalization Service will "pause/freeze" deportation proceedings on married same-sex couples when one spouse is American, and the Supreme Court of the United States has said as of March 27, 2013 that they will start hearing cases against DOMA, we are still faced with the a terrible situation of legal discrimination.

A law on the books is still a law that can be enforced even if most everyone is not enforcing it. 

Now we run into the question that my mother brings up in that worried, motherly way that is vaguely unnerving and concerning at the same time. "Is Singapore a better place for you two to live in?"

Yes Singapore is not a mecca for the rights of the LGBT-community, there are still laws on the books that make job, civil-service and military discrimination legal, the culture is still a few years behind understanding that gay men don't solicit every man they see for sex or are campy, effeminate prissy queens. 

But it is more welcoming to international immigrants than the United States and let's face it, when it comes down to it, financial security is one of those major bedrocks that help long-term relationships survive into senile bliss. America can not provide us with jobs and a source of income to sustain us despite our level of education. 

Singapore however openly welcome those from abroad, but like many Asian countries, there is an older generation where the idea of two men/women together is something that is best treated with averted eyes and fervent gossiping behind closed doors, coupled with a younger generation of open-minded individual who are a wonderful mix of acceptance and live-and-let-live mentality. 

And let's face it, I've only made it as far into the Pacific as Hawaii, so the idea of travel and adventure is helping to temper most of my fears. 

So there we have it, the history behind the reason why in the land of the free we are still not equal, and why we must leave to find a chance for opportunity and security, in another country that has less rights but potentially a better chance of living our lives.