Connect with us

Politics

Schumer receives 6,500 names calling for gay-inclusive reform

N.Y. senator is lone committee Dem to withhold support for inclusive bill

Published

on

UAFA, Uniting American Families Act, immigration reform, gay news, Washington Blade
UAFA, Uniting American Families Act, immigration reform, gay news, Washington Blade

LGBT and immigration activists prepare to deliver signatures to Sen. Charles Schumer. (Washington Blade photo by Chris Johnson)

The office of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) received on Thursday via hand delivery 6,500 petition signatures from LGBT rights supporters urging him to include bi-national gay couples as part of comprehensive immigration reform.

The signatures — collected over the course of one day — were the result of the efforts from the LGBT grassroots advocacy group GetEQUAL in coordination with the pro-immigrant organizations Presente.org, DRM Action and Uniting We Dream.

According to the LGBT group Immigration Equality, Schumer is the only one of the 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who hasn’t committed to supporting amendments that would include bi-national couples as part of immigration reform. Given Republican opposition, Schumer’s vote will be necessary for a majority vote in committee to amend the larger bill.

Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, co-director of GetEQUAL, personally handed the names to Schumer’s staff on Thursday as part of a group of about a half-dozen activists.

“It’s interesting because he’s making a political mistake,” Sousa-Rodriguez told the Blade. “The whole reason why this is even happening is because of Latinos, and Latinos hold the key to the White House. But 64 percent of voters support the inclusion of same-sex couples in immigration reform and 59 percent of Latino voters support same-sex marriage. Latinos have turned a page, the country has turned a page, but D.C. keeps being stuck in the ’90s.”

A Brazilian native who’s married to a U.S. citizen, Sousa-Rodriguez is an undocumented immigrant who came to the United States at a young age and would be able to gain citizenship through a marriage-based green card application if the immigration reform included the provision for bi-national couples.

Cesar Vargas, executive political director of DRM Action Coalition, represented pro-immigrant groups who want to see the inclusion of bi-national same-sex couples as part of a reform bill pending before the Senate.

“During 2012, we worked during the campaign season to ensure that the Latino community was heard and to ensure that Democrats and positive-minded Republicans were on board [with immigration reform],” Vargas said. “But … we fought for immigration reform for all families, not to exclude anyone else. So, that’s one of the things that we want to send to Sen. Schumer that New York voters and Latinos from New York are demanding immigration reform for all families and not just for a few.”

The staffer who received the signatures on behalf of Schumer was Veronica Duron, who embraced Sousa-Rodriguez when he came into the office because the two knew each other before she started work with the senator.

Duron noted that Schumer is a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act as a standalone bill, but couldn’t say the senator could commit to a vote to include the measure as part of immigration reform at this time.

“I don’t know; that’s the question we’ve been asking,” Duron said. “In every scenario, how we can possibly have UAFA in the bill and still get it to pass on the floor? And so, we’re trying to come up with best scenario possible to get it in the bill and still get it to come to the floor and get 60 votes.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will on Monday begin considering family unification issues relevant to immigration reform, which would include two amendments filed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) for bi-national gay couples. Consideration of family unification issues is likely to continue for the period of that week.

One of the amendments mirrors UAFA, which is for “permanent partners” and the other would be limited to married bi-national same-sex couples. Both measures, according to legal experts, would be inoperable in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans continue to express opposition to the idea of including bi-national same-sex couples as part of immigration reform. On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the committee and the “Gang of Eight” that produced the bill, tweeted, “If the Judiciary Committee tries to redefine marriage in the immigration bill they will lose me and many others.”

His comments are along the lines of what Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have said in opposition to the idea of including gay couples in the bill. Additionally, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made comments to the Washington Blade urging Leahy not to include the pro-gay amendments.

Nonetheless, Sousa-Rodriguez said his organization is focusing its attention on Schumer because his vote is necessary for unanimous support among the Democrats on the committee.

“Sen. Schumer is the only Democrat that hasn’t committed to the inclusion of UAFA into the bill in the committee,” Sousa-Rodriguez said. “All of the other Democrats on the committee already agree that they will vote for UAFA and he hasn’t yet, so that’s why we’re doing this right.”

Asked whether an immigration bill without these LGBT provisions is worth supporting, Sousa-Rodriguez said it would still protect LGBT people — noting that among the 11 million undocumented immigrants are an estimated 270,000 LGBT people — but maintained the package could be better.

“UAFA is key piece of legislation that we want to include in order to protect our families as well,” he said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

After Biden signs TikTok ban its CEO vows federal court battle

“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” CEO said

Published

on

TikTok mobile phone app. (Screenshot/YouTube)

President Joe Biden signed an appropriations bill into law on Wednesday that provides multi-billion dollar funding and military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after months of delay and Congressional infighting.

A separate bill Biden signed within the aid package contained a bipartisan provision that will ban the popular social media app TikTok from the United States if its Chinese parent company ByteDance does not sell off the American subsidiary.

Reacting, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said Wednesday that the Culver City, Calif.-based company would go to court to try to remain online in the U.S.

In a video posted on the company’s social media accounts, Chew denounced the potential ban: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,” Chew said. “Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere. We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail,” he added.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre adamantly denied during a press briefing on Wednesday that the bill constitutes a ban, reiterating the administration’s hope that TikTok will be purchased by a third-party buyer and referencing media reports about the many firms that are interested.

Chew has repeatedly testified in both the House and Senate regarding ByteDance’s ability to mine personal data of its 170 million plus American subscribers, maintaining that user data is secure and not shared with either ByteDance nor agencies of the Chinese government. The testimony failed to assuage lawmakers’ doubts.

In an email, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who doesn’t support a blanket ban of the app, told the Washington Blade:

“As the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I have long worked to safeguard Americans’ freedoms and security both at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Party’s ability to exploit private user data and to manipulate public opinion through TikTok present serious national security concerns. For that reason, I believe that divestiture presents the best option to preserve access to the platform, while ameliorating these risks. I do not support a ban on TikTok while there are other less restrictive means available, and this legislation will give the administration the leverage and authority to require divestiture.”

A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) told the Blade: “Senator Padilla believes we can support speech and creativity while also protecting data privacy and security. TikTok’s relationship to the Chinese Communist Party poses significant data privacy concerns. He will continue working with the Biden-Harris administration and his colleagues in Congress to safeguard Americans’ data privacy and foster continued innovation.”

The law, which gives ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTok’s U.S. assets, expires with a January 19, 2025 deadline for a sale. The date is one day before Biden’s term is set to expire, although he could extend the deadline by three months if he determines ByteDance is making progress or the transaction faces uncertainty in a federal court.

Former President Donald Trump’s executive order in 2020, which sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat, a unit of Beijing-based Tencent, in the U.S., was blocked by federal courts.

TikTok has previously fought efforts to ban its widely popular app by the state of Montana last year, in a case that saw a federal judge in Helena block that state ban, citing free-speech grounds.

The South China Morning Post reported this week that the four-year battle over TikTok is a significant front in a war over the internet and technology between Washington and Beijing. Last week, Apple said China had ordered it to remove Meta Platforms’s WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store in China over Chinese national security concerns.

A spokesperson for the ACLU told the Blade in a statement that “banning or requiring divestiture of TikTok would set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”

LGBTQ TikToker users are alarmed, fearing that a ban will represent the disruption of networks of support and activism. However, queer social media influencers who operate on multiple platforms expressed some doubts as to long term impact.

Los Angeles Blade contributor Chris Stanley told the Blade:

“It might affect us slightly, because TikTok is so easy to go viral on. Which obviously means more brand deals, etc. However they also suppress and shadow ban LGBTQ creators frequently. But we will definitely be focusing our energy more on other platforms with this uncertainty going forward. Lucky for us, we aren’t one trick ponies and have multiple other platforms built.”

Brooklyn, N.Y.,-based gay social media creator and influencer Artem Bezrukavenko told the Blade:

“For smart creators it won’t because they have multiple platforms. For people who put all their livelihood yes. Like people who do livestreams,” he said adding: “Personally I’m happy it gets banned or American company will own it so they will be less homophobic to us.”

TikTok’s LGBTQ following has generally positive experiences although there have been widely reported instances of users, notably transgender users, seemingly targeted by the platform’s algorithms and having their accounts banned or repeatedly suspended.

Of greater concern is the staggering rise in anti-LGBTQ violence and threats on the platform prompting LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, in its annual Social Media Safety Index, to give TikTok a failing score on LGBTQ safety.

Additional reporting by Christopher Kane

Continue Reading

Politics

Smithsonian staff concerned about future of LGBTQ programming amid GOP scrutiny

Secretary Lonnie Bunch says ‘LGBTQ+ content is welcome’

Published

on

Lonnie G. Bunch III, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, appears before a Dec. 2023 hearing of the U.S. Committee on House Administration (Screen capture: Forbes/YouTube)

Staff at the Smithsonian Institution are concerned about the future of LGBTQ programming as several events featuring a drag performer were cancelled or postponed following scrutiny by House Republicans, according to emails reviewed by the Washington Post.

In December, Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III appeared before a hearing led by GOP members of the Committee on House Administration, who flagged concerns about the Smithsonian’s involvement in “the Left’s indoctrination of our children.”

Under questioning from U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), Bunch said he was “surprised” to learn the Smithsonian had hosted six drag events over the past three years, telling the lawmakers “It’s not appropriate to expose children” to these performances.

Collaborations with drag artist Pattie Gonia in December, January, and March were subsequently postponed or cancelled, the Post reported on Saturday, adding that a Smithsonian spokesperson blamed “budgetary constraints and other resource issues” and the museums are still developing programming for Pride month in June.

“I, along with all senior leaders, take seriously the concerns expressed by staff and will continue to do so,” Bunch said in a statement to the paper. “As we have reiterated, LGBTQ+ content is welcome at the Smithsonian.”

The secretary sent an email on Friday expressing plans to meet with leaders of the Smithsonian Pride Alliance, one of the two groups that detailed their concerns to him following December’s hearing.

Bunch told the Pride Alliance in January that with his response to Bice’s question, his intention was to “immediately stress that the Smithsonian does not expose children to inappropriate content.”

“A hearing setting does not give you ample time to expand,” he said, adding that with more time he would have spoken “more broadly about the merits and goals of our programming and content development and how we equip parents to make choices about what content their children experience.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Survey finds support for Biden among LGBTQ adults persists despite misgivings

Data for Progress previewed the results exclusively with the Blade

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A new survey by Data for Progress found LGBTQ adults overwhelmingly favor President Joe Biden and Democrats over his 2024 rival former President Donald Trump and Republicans, but responses to other questions may signal potential headwinds for Biden’s reelection campaign.

The organization shared the findings of its poll, which included 873 respondents from across the country including an oversample of transgender adults, exclusively with the Washington Blade on Thursday.

Despite the clear margin of support for the president, with only 22 percent of respondents reporting that they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of Trump, answers were more mixed when it came to assessments of Biden’s performance over the past four years and his party’s record of protecting queer and trans Americans.

Forty-five percent of respondents said the Biden-Harris administration has performed better than they expected, while 47 percent said the administration’s record has been worse than they anticipated. A greater margin of trans adults in the survey — 52 vs. 37 percent — said their expectations were not met.

Seventy precent of all LGBTQ respondents and 81 percent of those who identify as trans said the Democratic Party should be doing more for queer and trans folks, while just 24 percent of all survey participants and 17 percent of trans participants agreed the party is already doing enough.

With respect to the issues respondents care about the most when deciding between the candidates on their ballots, LGBTQ issues were second only to the economy, eclipsing other considerations like abortion and threats to democracy.

These answers may reflect heightened fear and anxiety among LGBTQ adults as a consequence of the dramatic uptick over the past few years in rhetorical, legislative, and violent bias-motivated attacks against the community, especially targeting queer and trans folks.

The survey found that while LGBTQ adults are highly motivated to vote in November, there are signs of ennui. For example, enthusiasm was substantially lower among those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 39 compared with adults 40 and older. And a plurality of younger LGBTQ respondents said they believe that neither of the country’s two major political parties care about them.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular