Sen. Patrick Leahy Withdraws Amendment To Include Gay Couples In Immigration Reform Bill

[brooklynite]

Source: BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — Sen. Patrick Leahy withdrew his proposed amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex couples for immigration purposes on Tuesday night, after several Democratic members of the committee stated that they would not be supporting it.

A little past 7 p.m., Leahy said, “It is with a heavy heart … I will withhold the Leahy Amendment 7 at this point.”

Leahy offered the amendment a half-hour earlier, saying, “I don’t want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country.”

Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/leahy-withdraws-amendment-to-include-gay-couples-in-immigrat

---

I know this isn't going to be taken well, but the reality is that we had a choice between an Immigration Bill without a provision for same-sex partners, or no Immigration Bill and no provision for same-sex partners. Progress is being made on marriage equality, and the Immigration Bill can and will be amended at that point. Voting for losing Bills on principle may feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything in the Washington we have today.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. It is of course no skin off your flint, is it? Nope.

But that's not going to stop you straights from yammering off excuses for this continued hate radiating from Moderate Democrats and Republicans.
You refuse to care about your own, while you pretend to care about immigrants you need to clean your various homes. You are a depraved and shallow people, no principles, and any respect you get is feigned from those of us you continue to shit on to 'make a deal'.
The Democrats that oppose this are Republicans, ie Third Way and Blue Dogs taking up space in our Party.
This is unforgivable. There is no excuse for it. The open discrimination and embrace of injustice on the part of 'moderate centrists' simply can not be accepted any longer.

[FreeState]

3. Unfortunately many in our own party dont see us as a civil rights movement

Unfortunately many in our own party dont see us as a civil rights movement worthy of the same investment on equal grounds of all other civil rights movements.

Could you imagine if this was said about any other group?

"I know this isn't going to be taken well, but the reality is that we had a choice between an Immigration Bill without a provision for interracial partners, or no Immigration Bill and no provision for interracial marriage. Progress is being made on interracial marriage equality, and the Immigration Bill can and will be amended at that point. Voting for losing Bills on principle may feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything in the Washington we have today."

or

"I know this isn't going to be taken well, but the reality is that we had a choice between an Immigration Bill without a provision for Jewish partners, or no Immigration Bill and no provision for Jewish marriages. Progress is being made on Jewish marriage equality, and the Immigration Bill can and will be amended at that point. Voting for losing Bills on principle may feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything in the Washington we have today."

or

"I know this isn't going to be taken well, but the reality is that we had a choice between an Immigration Bill without a provision for latinos, or no Immigration Bill and no provision for latinos. Progress is being made on latinos equality, and the Immigration Bill can and will be amended at that point. Voting for losing Bills on principle may feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything in the Washington we have today."

Of cource not, that would be ridiculous. But were gay, so we have to wait once again.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. They don't know what they sound like.

Their ears are stuffed full of hubris and other people's money.

[karynnj]

61. I am Jewish - and I would still want them to pass what can be passed

- and I would continue to work like hell to get Jewish marriages recognized.

The problem it is not that we have the choice of passing:
- An immigration bill which has the amendment
and
- An immigration bill that does not have the amendment

My Senator (Leahy) knows how to count votes. If that were the case, he would not have withdrawn the amendment.

The choice is an immigration bill without it or nothing at all -- if we are lucky.

[brooklynite]

4. I care about accomplishing what's possible...

We've eliminated DADT. We've shifted the debate on marriage equality substantially but not completely. Even if 100% of Democrats in the House and Senate supported the provision, it would not pass the House, and hence would not pass at all. Would that make you feel better?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Does it make you feel better to speak dismissivley of a loss that is not your own

because it serves your political interests?
And yes, I really don't care about a bill that specifically excludes myself and my own from the 'progress' contained. It is no more acceptable than it would be if it excluded Muslims or Jews. You think it is different, but it is not.
A fetid and corrupt deal, but that's what moderates and centrists like, excuses and reasons to act like the Republicans they really are.
It is unforgivable, it is definitive of this Party under current leadership.

[brooklynite]

7. What in my comments was "dismissive"?

I pointed out that, once passed, the Immigration Bill could be amended. Does that bother you?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. The dismissive part is 'would that make you feel better'.

This is about basic equality and human rights, rights you have, not about how I feel. For you it is just about political expedience, not a whit more.
There are so many, many ways you and those of your thinking could present your views without sounding heartless and arrogant and ignorant. But to do that, your politics would need to contain just a hint of empathy.

[brooklynite]

10. So, you get Democrats to vote for the Same Sex provision...

...the Bill dies in the House.

do you feel you've accomplished something?

[dbackjon]

28. It is better than surrendering without trying.

Make the Bigots vote. Expose the bigots.


Just like threads like this expose the bigots here on DU.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. The question is do you feel you have accomplished anything by discrimination?

Is it worth it? You trade in other people's rights with a casualness that indicates a total lack of feeling about what you are selling out.
'We made a deal, and all we had to do was discriminate against good people based on their sexuality, aren't we centrist geniuses?'

[karynnj]

62. No, the question is whether the bill, as passed, accomplishes anything

I am a native US citizen and I have 2 gay daughters. It is more likely that the provision on gay couples will personally affect me than the immigration provisions will.

My point is what do you say to a hypothetical young 18 year old girl, in this country illegally since she was one, who has NO legal standing to stay in the ONLY country she ever knew - when she might not even speak her "native" language. If it makes it easier for you, assume this girl is gay and her "native" country is one of those that persecute gays.

What people are saying is NOT that it is ok to ignore gay couples, but that there may be enough support to pass a bill that is crucial to people like the hypothetical person mentioned.

You are saying that if you can't correct all inequalities, you do not want to correct any.

[boilerbabe]

21. i am sure some of the folks who will be flippant about this are some of the same ones who howl about

how Glenn Greenwald "doesn't even live in the USA' (and you know why i say this i am sure) when throwing a tantrum because he criticizes obama. yep the DEMOCRATIC party will always be "not quite as bad as the republicans' and that is it.

[dbackjon]

27. Well said!

[karynnj]

59. Reread his/her comment

The fact is there is likely no one here who does not want the Leahy amendment. It is important it exists and I hope that Democrats choose to add their names as sponsors - as a way to show complete support.

The reality is that it is going to be very tough to get an immigration bill at all. Rubio, a GOP sponsor, says with the amendment he is out. I trust my Senator (Leahy) to have long ago learned to count votes. If the votes were possible, he would not have withdrawn the amendment. This amendment - that all of us want - might be a poison bill for the entire bill. Not to mention can you see Boehner NOT stripping it out in conference.

Obviously if the choice were real - and passage a possibility, I trust Leahy would fight for it. Would you be happier if BOTH any bill that improves the immigration issue and this equality issue fail -- or if immigration passes without it now. This is like refusing a bowl of ice cream because you wanted a sundae with chocolate syrup - and it was impossible to get any syrup. Sure, the sundae is better, but the ice cream alone is good by itself. You call the poster selfish, but if the bill allows a child brought here illegally a legal way to stay in the only country he/she knows, how do you explain that you are against the chance because of an issue that is important to you?

It may well be that the SC will strike down DOMA - in which case for people in the states that recognize gay marriage this is immediately fixed. That then may set a precedent for demanding that people from other states be treated equally.

[LonePirate]

2. So "liberty and justice for all" no longer applies?

[hughee99]

20. Did it used to? n/t

[cali]

9. well bless old Pat for trying. He really fought hard for this.

[Doctor_J]

11. That's our strong Dem leadership. What did he get in return?

oh, yeah, a 20 billion dollar tab from OK and scorn from every last Repuke.

[brooklynite]

12. ...and an Immigration Bill

[cali]

13. did you read the article? dems were set to vote against it.

[Doctor_J]

14. like I said, strong leadership

[cali]

37. what does that actually say?

uh, nothing. try explaining. What do you mean by strong leadership? What should Leahy have done that he didn't?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. It means Obama voted againt immigration justice for LGBT people when he

was in the Senate because of 'Sanctity of Sanford' and 'the holiness of Vitter' and the 'spiritual element' shared by Mr and Mrs Gingrich, all three.
It means that Democrats betrayed us like clockwork, to serve the 'moderate centrists' that control the Party.
They call this a 'comprehensive' immigration bill. Exclusionary, discriminatory yes, comprehensive? Not at all.
The moderate centrists are thrilled to have excuses to behave like the conservative bigots they really are. They hate it when they have to pretend to like minorities.

[karynnj]

63. link to that vote please

[Doctor_J]

50. here's what teh gays think about this latest cave-in

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113726901

of course it's only the 22nd. By the end of May I'm sure our so-called leaders will have ignored another traditional Dem constituency to appease the fascists. Or five.

[mitchtv]

15. so, nothing new.

same ole same ole I guess I can't support this mess, like Blue NW says, It does nothing for me

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Sold out by the Vichy Dems again!

I hate these people.

[brooklynite]

17. Provide a list of the progressive Dems who could get elected to the Senate in Red States...

[Kelvin Mace]

44. Well, let's see, we never run any

in Red states, so we don't know, and we run goddamned few in Blue states. By my last count there were two genuine liberals in the senate, Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren. Others have some liberal cred, but then skew hard right on key issues.

For example, Al Franken is wonderful, unless copyright issues come up (PIPA), then he's a Hollywood/RIAA lackey.

So, some day, when actual liberals run, we might find out. Since the Democratic Party as an institution is to the left of Nixon these days, I won't hold my breath.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Better add Jeff Merkely to that list.

But you are right of course that the Party does not even try to elect better people, all we hear is that 'only a Blue Dog can win' until the Blue Dogs lose, then they say 'only another Blue Dog can win' and they repeat that endlessly. In spite of all the losses, they refuse to reconsider their actions and insist that the only person who can win is the sort that always loses.
The entire concept is based on predicting the future. If they could do that, their 'moderate centrist' candidates would not so frequently lose to Republicans.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. Yeah, I missed Merkely

Here is the choice Dems are offering Americans:

Would you like a completely deranged religious fascist, or would Richard Nixon do?

[dsc]

47. Sherrod Brown

[Doctor_J]

54. What good does it do to elect Republican Dems in the Red States?

[Pragdem]

18. To be honest, there's nothing I care less about right now than the immigration reform bill.

I hope the rest of the process is expedited so we can talk about more interesting issues, like a minimum wage increase.

[brooklynite]

19. So, we can only deal with one issue at a time?

[rucky]

34. I'm not even sure what the issue is.

What needs to be reformed? Sure we should process applications a lot faster, but what's so urgent we need a bipartisan bill?

[Bluenorthwest]

40. No, not even that, you centrists have to chop off protections for some to get

this bill done, so you can not even manage immigration without doing it in many parts. Hard to think folks who can not cope with one unified bill could cope with multiple tasks of any kind.
Not sure what the gains are in this bill that are so important to our citizens that we have to shit on some to fix the problems others are having. If my people can do without the reforms, I assume others could do without them as well.
They don't give a shit what the bill contains, they just want to pass something called 'immigration reform' to add it to the list of rhetorical accomplishments.

[treestar]

22. I see no reason this is not the case already

Well, other than enough stupid Republicans to sink the whole bill over it. They are so hateful.

Get them out in 2014.

As for the Dems who said they would vote against it, why? Where are they from?

[Bluenorthwest]

43. The Democrats against justice are from the center, from the 'moderate middle'

nt

[Iliyah]

23. I believe they are Bluedogs

but their names I do not know who they are. An amendment later can be voted on if some of the crazies can be voted out. For myself I can't understand the logic but it was an up hill battle for approving the women's abuse law that in the past had no problem of pasting which was bispartisan. Nowdays, seems like everything is partisan, filibustered or just plain obstructed. Its a up hill battle, but I believe it will be amended for same sex partners in the near future.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Once again the message is "give us your money, but your rights? When the time is right!"

[dbackjon]

26. Yup -- but we can't make waves

2014 is almost here.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Are we allowed on the bus yet, or will be sucking fumes again?

Oh G-d, you just know this is going to inspire "The LIST!" Of course, when things like this happen, it really tells me (probably you and few of our other brothers and sisters), who are REAL allies are, and who they are not!

[dbackjon]

30. Abbreviated version of the List is upthread

We are on the roof, like Mitt's Dog.

[dbackjon]

25. Glad you are ok with my friends GETTING FUCKED OVER BY DEMOCRATS

FUCK ANY DEMOCRAT THAT DEFENDS THIS CHICKEN SHIT ACTION.

[johnnypneumatic]

32. oh wait, President Obama just did

Chad Griffin from HRC said:
"As we come together as a nation to tackle our broken immigration system, it is deplorable that a small number of Senators have been able to stand in the way of progress for lesbian and gay couples torn apart by discriminatory laws. Instead of working to achieve common-sense solutions, Senators Graham, Flake, McCain and Rubio threatened to derail the entire immigration bill to appease a small but vocal group of anti-gay social conservatives that will do anything to stop progress for lesbian and gay couples. We are extremely disappointed that our allies did not put their anti-LGBT colleagues on the spot and force a vote on the measure that remains popular with the American people.

But President Obama "applauds" the homophobes and caving cowardly democrats for their "bipartisan"ship.
"I applaud the Committee members for their hard work, especially “Gang of Eight” members Senators Schumer, Durbin, Graham and Flake. None of the Committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I , but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line. I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements"

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Here is Obama on the greatness of Tom Coburn, from last month

"The people of Oklahoma are lucky to have someone like Tom representing them in Washington — someone who speaks his mind, sticks to his principles and is committed to the people he was elected to serve."

Reading the whole piece is advisable only after a cup of coffee.

http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/tom-coburn/

[Doctor_J]

56. and before a cup of hemlock

I am having a hard time remembering why I voted for him twice

[Rowdyboy]

31. Presidential signing statements have had significant impact on laws over the last twenty plus years

Not saying that will be the case here but its certainly a possibility.

[brett_jv]

33. Not taken well ... boy, you weren't kidding ...

Talk about the riot act ... sheesh.

For my part, your logic seems sound. I too would would rather see SOMETHING get passed in the way of immigration reform, and then we can work to amend it to include same-sex couples, as we ALL HERE WISH IT NOW DID.

Millions of people are now suffering because these reforms are not in place. I think that we should consider that SOME progress, some relief for people who are suffering, is better than NONE ... even if one's own particular interests aren't being accommodated at the present time.

And maybe we could also give thought to the possibility that our fellow DU'ers are NOT 'the enemy'?

[Bluenorthwest]

41. So which other minorities would you be willing to exclude from reforms?

What you are saying is that it is acceptable to you to leave millions suffering to help others who are suffering, others who are more like yourself.
People who are happy to bargain away my rights are the enemy. Deal with that. When you oppose the rights of others, you are their enemy. It is a choice made by the centrist heterosexualists. Not surprising considering they came into office touting Rick Warren as America's Minister and all. Their agenda has always been visible to anyone who cared to look. Discrimination, exclusion, dismissal of all rights for some.
Hypocrites of the worst sort.

[brett_jv]

49. I get it, your points are made throughout the thread, which I read all of ...

You feel that ideological purity is paramount over incremental progress, I get it.

I disagree that this is the best 'course' in this particular case. I think 'some progress' is better than 'no progress'.

It's not like the door is permanently shut on marriage equality just because it's not part of this bill. Gays have been fighting an amazingly good and important fight here, and I wish you all the success in the world. WISH being the key word. I WISH to hell that the bill you're asking for could pass, I believe if all were right in the world, it absolutely would. I support your struggle with ever fiber of my being, honestly. I'm not your enemy, Blue.

You're just going to have to keep fighting, and I know you will, and I will support you however I can. But I cannot bring myself to oppose something that's going to help so many millions who are suffering ... entirely on the behalf of ideological purity. I'm sorry but I cannot. If that makes me evil in your eyes, well ... that's unfortunate. I know I'm not.

And it's not because immigrants are 'more like myself', I'm a 4th gen American Caucasian, and I don't know a single 'illegal' on a personal level in my entire circle of contacts, so it's not like the people who need immigration reform are more like myself either.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. To be effectively patronizing it is necessary to understand the subject at hand.

The fact that you have no idea what we are talking about at all is displayed here when you say
"It's not like the door is permanently shut on marriage equality just because it's not part of this bill."

This bill would not create marriage equality, it is not about marriage equality it is about fairness in the immigration process. Your lack of understanding about what is contained in the bill in question certainly does not inhibit your desire to lecture others who do understand it, because you feel superior to those others.
The 'more like yourself' means straight people, the protected class in this legislation. The only people who count as people are people like yourself.
All of your bullshit about 'support' is just something you tell yourself because no one else buys it. Only actions count. And your action is to leap forward to defend legislation you don't even understand. That is who you are.
You are willing to let those unlike yourself be deprived of rights so that those like yourself can have them. That's the bargain your straight community is making again. What is lost is not 'purity' is justice, equality, and human rights for millions of people. At least own your actions like an adult.

[treestar]

53. There are still many immigrants who would benefit from this bill

They still should get that benefit. All of the ones otherwise affected. The Tea Party has the House, so it will be a miracle if they pass it, but it would be relief for 11 million people that should not be rejected.

[Doctor_J]

55. Caving in to the fascists is always logically sound

it is also a disaster for the party and the country.

[closeupready]

48. Coward.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. And the USA continues to be amazingly backwards

a friend of my wife's had a...niece? who was involved in a long-distance relationship with an American woman; I had to explain to her that no, the fact that some US states had legalised same-sex marriage didn't mean she'd be able to get a visa and emigrate as the fiancee of an American citizen...so her girlfriend came to the UK, instead. (If I were faced with that choice and the option were to move anywhere in Europe, or Canada, or New Zealand, or Australia, or any other country that recognises same-sex relationships as a legitimate basis for immigration? I'd leave the USA, no question.)

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Reviewed this thread as we wait for immigration bill to pass or fail...

thinking of the deep bigotry of the centrists, of the Blue Dogs and Republicans, the bipartisan centrists and other conservatives devoted to injustice for others and big money for themselves.

[Harmony Blue]

58. Corporate Dems

didn't expect there to be such backlash with this "compromise". But yes it is the year 2013, and if the Democratic party doesn't stand for anything then we as a party are in trouble.

[Doctor_J]

60. Now, LGBT, get out there and vote Dem next year!

And don't forget to send your money! Because it's really important that we keep this "Dem" majority!

[great white snark]

65. Yes, please vote Dem next year.

Please LGBT community, forget the 3rd party ignoramuses who do nothing but complain and divide.

[petronius]

64. If immigration policy needs comprehensive reform, then it ought to be reformed

comprehensively - and cross-the-board equality should be a non-negotiable part of that. If bigots and their enablers want to block it on that ground then let them take that stand; don't give them cover by withdrawing a basically cost-free and 100% morally-correct piece of reform...