Ireland's Parliament passed 'civil partnership' bill today

Another very, very Catholic country (over 88%) has legalized recognition of same-sex relationships: Ireland.

One of our readers, Louise, from Ireland sent this article to me -- and she was at the Dáil, the Irish Parliament in Dublin, to see it happen:

The Bill recognising the civil partnership of same-sex couples passed all stages in the Dáil tonight without a vote.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said the Civil Partnership Bill would put in place a legal regime that reflected the many forms of relationships in modern Irish society.

"Our society has change substantially in recent decades,’’ he said. “While marriage is more popular than ever, other forms of relationships have become increasingly common; they create some difficulties in the legal system and require in our law a measure of recognition and of protection."

I have spent a lot of time in Ireland. My grandparents were born in rural County Galway and I've still got loads of family over there. In 1991, I studied for a semester studying law at the University College Galway. Back then, I learned that the Irish Supreme Court Justices occasionally cited Papal Encyclicals in their decisions.

Look at Ireland now. It just leapt ahead of the United States in terms of partnership recognition.

Oh, these are some of the best lines in the article:

The Catholic bishops have come out strongly against the legislation. However, Government ministers recently dismissed claims from them that the Bill may be unconstitutional.

Yeah, in 88% Catholic Ireland, the Bishops ridiculous claims are "dismissed." In the U.S., members of Congress still do their bidding. Read the rest of this post...

In a first, top Obama aide met with LGBT media today

Earlier this week, I got invited to attend an on-the-record briefing with Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes. Let's just say, I don't get invited to many White House events these days. Although, we were asked to cover the cocktail party last week, but I don't do cocktail parties. But, this was the first briefing with LGBT media by a high-ranking Obama administration official, so I RSVP'd yes.

Last night, I touched base with Pam Spaulding and confirmed that she'd be attending, too. So, after her flight arrived, Pam spent the morning with Petey and me.

Besides Pam and me, there were seven other LGBT media types at the briefing: Lou Chibarro from the Washington Blade, Kerry Eleveld from the Advocate, Chris Geidner from MetroWeekly, Jillian Weiss from Bilerico, Lisa Keen from Keen News Service, Paul Schindler from Gay City News and Jen Colletta from Philadelphia Gay News. We met with Barnes in the Department of War Suite in the Old Executive Office Building. (Apparently, the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing was booked.)

Barnes gave introductory remarks, focusing on the Hate Crimes law (clearly, people in the administration think they should get more credit for passing that law. Any advocate who led them to believe that it would be considered a top accomplishment was giving the administration bad info.) She also noted the that the administration was using its executive authority. She noted that the administration has "taken more steps and made more progress" than any previous administrations. (Okay, this is clearly a key talking point -- and it's true. But, it's not like there's been a lot of competition. And, it's 2010. Not 1993.)

Each person got to ask an initial question, which covered the spectrum of LGBT issues. I can't exactly say that I heard anything new today. You should all know that the President supports ENDA and the repeal of DOMA. Yep. When pushed on ENDA, Barnes told us that "[Hill] leadership will have to decide how they're going to use floor time." So, the message is that only Congress can do it. Interestingly, last week, during that LGBT cocktail party, the President said:

We are pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. (Applause.) No one in America should be fired because they’re gay. It’s not right, it’s not who we are as Americans, and we are going to put a stop to it.

But, after today, I'm still not sure who he is "pushing hard." Because, moving ahead is squarely up to Capitol Hill, according to Barnes.

Kerry Eleveld asked if the President was going to move beyond his support for "separate, but equal" fixes. So, again, The President has consistently called for repeal of DOMA. Okay. He's called for it -- consistently. And, he thinks it is "discriminatory." (Unclear who he's calling consistently, but whatever.) When Kerry asked if Obama still supported civil unions, which she pointed out was still a "separate, but equal" institution adding "I'm wondering if at any point he's ever going to embrace full equality rather than these smaller steps." Barnes responded, I understand what you're saying, but that's the course that he has set forth." That, of course, means Obama doesn't support full equality. (Note to Obama reelection campaign: Marriage equality will be the litmus test in 2012. Between now and then, you're going to have to deal with several federal court cases, including at least two on DOMA and the CA Prop. 8 case. The President is going to have to get on the right side of history soon. Really soon. "Separate, but equal" won't work much longer.)

I asked if the White House would oppose any killer amendments that are offered on the DADT repeal legislation when it hits the Senate floor. We know that any amendment offered in the Senate is an attempt to cause problems in the conference committee on the Defense authorization bill. Barnes answered:

What I can tell you is that when we see the amendments that are filed that we will continue to do what we did through the process in the House, which is work to make sure that this moves forward. Obviously, if there is an effort to undermine repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the President wouldn't be supportive of that. At the same time, I can't sit here and walk through hypotheticals for amendments that I haven't seen and haven't been filed.

Well, a "killer" amendment will be filed and we'll need more than the President not being supportive. We need him to actively oppose it -- and get on the phone to Senators about it.

Also, on DADT, Pam Spaulding asked if we were sitting at this table next year at this time, would the discharges have stopped? Barnes reiterated that the President wants the discharges stopped. And, she told us that the President is pushing for this to happen soon, adding "I don't have a crystal ball so I can't say at "x" date." So, we still don't know when the discharges will end. Even the administration's top domestic policy adviser can't answer that question.

We know that the administration thinks DADT and DOMA are discriminatory. We've heard that many times, but the administration continues to defend those laws in court. But, today, several of us asked Barnes if the administration considers DADT and DOMA unconstitutional? She's going to get back to us.

Bilerico's Jillian Weiss wrote of today's meeting:

I don't feel like I walked out with any more information than I walked in with. I already knew that the President was letting the legislative branch get away with ignoring LGBT rights.

I'd like to be able to say I was satisfied with these answers. I'm sure you'd like to say nice things too. But it seems we have a fundamental disagreement with the President as to what his job is. Is it to lead -- or to follow?

Yep.

At the end of the meeting, I told Barnes that we should do this again, but she should bring her boss next time because the President hasn't talked to any LGBT media since the campaign.

And, you'll want to know that while there isn't a high ranking LGBT official in the White House, there are a number of high ranking administration officials to whom LGBT issues are very important. Among those high ranking officials identified by Barnes are Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina. Yes, we're in good hands.

I'll have more tomorrow. Read the rest of this post...

Kagan asked about gay marriage

Read the rest of this post...

Google does good for same-sex couples

We may not get ENDA anytime soon. But, read Jeremy Hooper's post on the news that Google is going to pay its same-sex employees extra to cover the taxes on their partner benefits. (Jeremy really has all the best lines.)

This is another illustration of the unequal treatment experienced by LGBT Americans. We pay more taxes for the same things. From the New York Times:

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent. The tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.

On average, employees with domestic partners will pay about $1,069 more a year in taxes than a married employee with the same coverage, according to a 2007 report by M. V. Lee Badgett, director of the Williams Institute, a research group that studies sexual orientation policy issues.

So Google is essentially going to cover those costs, putting same-sex couples on an even footing with heterosexual employees whose spouses and families receive health benefits.

I'm waiting for the federal government to put same-sex couples on even footing. That may be a long wait. Read the rest of this post...

Dem congresswoman says ENDA may now take 5 years

Five years? We were told last year. What the hell is going on?

Asked later in a brief interview if that meant the House would not vote on ENDA this year, [Congresswoman Jackie] Speier [D-CA] told the B.A.R. , "The rest of the year is in question."

"There's no question 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be history this year," she said. "ENDA, we will have that law for sure within the next five years."

Speier, a Democrat whose district includes parts of San Mateo and San Francisco counties, said she was acknowledging reality.

"I'm being realistic," she said.

If they can't pass ENDA with super-majorities in both the House and Senate, and a Democratic president who won by a wide margin and had a 70% approval rating (and an opposition that was in ruins), then it may take a lot more than five years to "improve" the situation enough for Democrats to be comfortable keeping their promises to insignificant little pariahs like us. At this point, none of their top promises to us - ENDA, DADT or DOMA - will be kept by the time the elections wipe out the Democratic Congress (or severely wound it) this fall.

Does anyone still think it's too early to complain?

As for her comments about DADT being "history" this year, that's a lie. I'm getting tired of members of Congress, the administration, and the media misrepresenting what the DADT compromise does. It does not repeal DADT. It repeals DADT at some future date if, and only if, the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense all agree. Not only does the legislation not require that this ever happen - the law could remain on the books forever under the legislation - but it also doesn't state what should replace the current DADT law. They could come up with something worse, and the new law would permit that. So please, stop with the "it's history this year."

No one who came up with the compromise can answer a simple question: When do the discharges end? When they come up with that answer, then we'll start cheering. Read the rest of this post...

In 2010, it's feeling like the 1980s: 1,800 on waiting lists for ADAP

This is a very dangerous situation for people who need their medication. There's not enough funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). People not being able to obtain medication for HIV and AIDS sounds like a story we'd hear from one of the countries in Africa, but it's not. This is the United States in the year 2010:

The weak economy is crippling the government program that provides life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs to people with H.I.V. or AIDS who cannot afford them. Nearly 1,800 have been relegated to rapidly expanding waiting lists that less than three years ago had dwindled to zero.

As with other safety-net programs, ballooning demand caused by persistent unemployment and loss of health insurance is being met with reductions in government resources. Without reliable access to the medications, which cost patients in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program an average of $12,000 a year, people with H.I.V. are more likely to develop full-blown AIDS, transmit the virus and require expensive hospitalizations.

This is bringing back some very bad memories:

In many states, there is a sense of reverting to the 1980s and early 1990s, before the development of protease inhibitors reversed the rise in AIDS deaths.

“The worry then was that there were no medications for AIDS,” said Dr. Wayne A. Duffus, medical director of the drug assistance program in South Carolina. “The worry now is that there are medicines, but you can’t afford them. A lot of patients are certainly old enough to remember what happens if you don’t get your medicines.”

Yeah, the costs associated with people not having their medication will be a lot higher and a lot worse. Read the rest of this post...