Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Rubio: “I’m Done” If Gays Included In Immigration Bill

Jim Burroway

June 13th, 2013

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), one of the so-called “gang of eight” Senators who crafted the bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate has said that he will withdraw his support for the bill if an amendment is approved that would allow gay people to sponsor their foreign spouses for residency.

“If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I’m done,” Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea Tantaros Show. “I’m off it, and I’ve said that repeatedly. I don’t think that’s going to happen and it shouldn’t happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced an amendment which would allow foreign spouses of gay Americans to obtain green cards. He had originally introduced the measure last month during mark-up hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but withdrew it under pressure from both Democrats and Republicans when GOP lawmakers vowed to kill it if the amendment were approved. Some lawmakers are pinning their hopes on the Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its ruling in the next couples of weeks on the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

MattNYC
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

Chickensh*t, tea-bagging homophobe…

Sir Andrew
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

The good news is: this issue will be mooted if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA as everyone expects.

The bad news is: then we’ll likely see the teabaggers and evangelicals desperately trying to insert an amendment that specifically bans gays from sponsoring their foreign partners. If the Democrats cave to that just to get the bill passed, it will be over for them as far as our support is concerned. But I don’t expect that to happen.

In the meantime, Rubio is in danger of pushing past some fairly impressive homophobes to make it to the top of my “Major Jerks and Dickwads” list.

emcee_cubed
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

Rubio has threatened to pull his support from this bill many times, for several different reasons (the last I remember hearing was that he was supporting an amendment that would require an impossible trigger on allowing more green cards, and said he wouldn’t support the bill unless the amendment passed, even though he helped craft and agreed to the lower threshold in the original bill.) Rubio needs to support the bill to keep up his Hispanic base, and he needs to not support the bill to keep up his conservative base. If he can find an excuse to kill the bill that he thinks won’t cost him a huge segment of his support, he will do so. This is just the latest attempt.

Lucrece
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

The issue will NOT be mooted with a SCOTUS ruling DOMA unconstitutional, for the simple reason that over 3/4 of the US still does does not recognize same sex marriages.

You’d have to live in one of the few states with marriage equality to sponsor someone.

What the immigration reform being inclusive would have done is include a way for same sex couples to sponsor their partners regardless of their marital status.

CPT_Doom
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

Maybe we should support ending the automatc asylum given any/all Cubans to ensure not too many people emigrate? I’m sure Sen Rubio would agree to that right?

Of course the entire bill is moot because the Representatives from Tebagistan won’t allow it through the House.

Timothy Kincaid
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

It’s possible that he’s expressing his personal opposition to gay couple immigration. And I suspect that he is no fan of allowing same-sex married couples the same rights and recognition as opposite sex married couple.

However, this reads to me as Rubio saying that he’s done working on this if Leahy is going to put in a poison pill amendment.

Timothy Kincaid
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

Lucrece,

What the immigration reform being inclusive would have done is include a way for same sex couples to sponsor their partners regardless of their marital status.

No, I think it only applies those who marry in an equality state (regardless of where they live).

If this applies to same-sex couples who are neither married nor domestic partners, then I oppose it. We want equality, not preferential treatment.

Robert
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

Is it possible for me to despise Republicans any more than I do? Each time, I think they have done all they can to arouse my disgust, they add to it. There is this, and now, they want to control women’s reproductive rights.

MattNYC
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

@Robert…

“and NOW, they want to control women’s reproductive rights.”

If by “now” you mean the past 60+ years…

LostChoi
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

So let me get this straight: Rubio wants illegal aliens to be able to become First Class citizens, but people like me, who are hardworking natural-born gay Americans, we should be Second Class citizens? Um, what’s wrong with this picture?

TampaZeke
June 13th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy, you consider Leahy’s amendment to be a poison pill amendment?

Timothy Kincaid
June 14th, 2013 | LINK

Zeke,

Any amendment that guarantees the death of a bill is a poison pill. And I think it’s a given that the immigration bill cannot pass with his amendment attached (it will likely be a tough fight without it).

I cannot fathom that Leahy truly intends to kill the immigration bill, so I’m assuming this is political theater.

And I think it’s highly likely that he’ll pull back the amendment – and no chance of it passing as an amendment if he doesn’t. Which Rubio knows. So he too is playing to an audience.

Timothy Kincaid
June 14th, 2013 | LINK

Incidentally, our contempt for Rubio is better earned by his opposition to ENDA.

Stephen
June 14th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy, I’m an immigrant. When we moved here from the UK it was by no means certain that I’d get a green card. My spouse was set and we had taken a gamble that I’d be allowed in, sold off our possessions and got rid of our flat. Had we been able to apply in London jointly, as other legal couples could, it would have made our lives much simpler. As things turned out I was able to be sponsored and things worked out. But I think this is far from being a poison pill but a necessary protection.

P.S. We’re now both citizens.

Timothy Kincaid
June 14th, 2013 | LINK

Stephen,

We share the goal of legal immigration for spouses and equal access to marriage. It is far from equitable right now.

I had dinner with a good friend last week who is getting married this month desperately hoping that DOMA is overturned. His fiancee is here on a work visa and currently has to live in another state in order to work in his field and retain legal status. It’s insanely unfair. I’m very anxiously awaiting the SCOTUS decision.

Congratulations on both your family and your citizenship.

Mark F.
June 14th, 2013 | LINK

“You’d have to live in one of the few states with marriage equality to sponsor someone.”

It’s not clear what would happen if you got married in, say, NY and moved to MS. Does anyone know?

Mark F.
June 14th, 2013 | LINK

“Incidentally, our contempt for Rubio is better earned by his opposition to ENDA.”

Only because he (probably) opposes it because of animus, not libertarian free association reasons which would apply to all anti-discrimination laws.

Timothy Kincaid
June 14th, 2013 | LINK

Mark, yes exactly. I’m not a big fan of non-discrimination laws in general. I have a hard time being indignant when a photographer or baker won’t give up their own views to appease my views.

But Rubio is pretty much an ahole on the issue and throws out the old “special rights” line.

It isn’t the principle of freedom of association or the right to autonomy of ones labor that he champions. No, he just thinks Teh Ghey are vile sinners who need to be fully aware of society’s contempt.

jerry
June 15th, 2013 | LINK

Maybe we should tell Rubio that we aren’t impressed with his bigotry, coming as it does from a Cuban “Anchor Baby”

Lord_Byron
June 15th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy anti-discrimination laws do much more than that and you know that. We need anti-discrimination laws for such things as protecting individuals from being fired from work or being denied housing because of who they are dating.

Timothy Kincaid
June 15th, 2013 | LINK

Byron,

We differ on our basic philosophy about what a person may be forced by their government to do. I believe that freedom of association includes the freedom to be a bigoted jerk and hire or house people based on any set of idiotic criteria one believes reflects their views.

This is not as cut and dried of a situation as some believe. For example in California you cannot hire based on sexual orientation. Which means that gay establishments cannot decide that they only want gay employees.

And right now, a bar in West Hollywood is being sued by some former employees. They are straight and their complaint is that they were subjected to a sexually hostile working environment. They objected to pornography on televisions and the antics of go-go boys.

Another example is Roommate Matchers, a service in West Hollywood that for decades provided a means for people to find, screen, and select potential roommates. One of their selection criteria was orientation. This was a very much desired feature in West Hollywood when I used that service many years ago looking for a roommate. But such a screening criteria was deemed to be discriminatory and they were sued and banned from using any methods that would allow a customer to select a person based on orientation. They went out of business.

I understand that others believe that in society, we must all make concessions to accommodate others and that the rights of the potential employee not to be discriminated against supersedes the right of employers to hire whom they want. And many people believe that the right to access of services supersedes the right to refuse service.

I disagree. We needn’t debate it; all sides of this subject have been presented at BTB many many times.

HOWEVER, while I do not favor non-discrimination laws, I do believe that if our society is going to have non-discrimination laws, they should include the currently most visible and blatant subjects of discrimination: GLBT people. It makes no sense to say that one cannot discriminate against a person due to gender but you can due to orientation.

So I oppose extending the scope of non-discrimination protections. But I support extending the characteristics covered.

Which is why I support ENDA.

Robert
June 17th, 2013 | LINK

WOW, Timothy, that last post was a BIG “F YOU” to any person of color, women, poor people and everyone else who has been discriminated against. If it were up to your ideals black people would still not be able to move into your neighboorhood or work in your business or shop in your business, if you so deemed it.

You certainly show your republicn stripes in this one. “Everyone should have the right to discriminate against others if they wish”, so say Timothy Kincaid.

Priya Lynn
June 17th, 2013 | LINK

Yes, I don’t get how anyone thinks its too much to ask someone who provides a good or service to provide it to everyone. Its not like its some big deal to perform the same job you’ve done for hundreds or thousands of other people one more time, the idea that this is too much to ask is preposterous. On the other hand its easy to see why its unacceptable to refuse people service just because you don’t like their kind.

Lord_Byron
June 17th, 2013 | LINK

Tim, did you read the article that you linked? The plaintiffs are 4 straight men and five gay men. Just felt like pointing that out and based on the history of lawsuits against the bar this will probably fail. Having said that if the charges of forcing them to work without breaking and falsifying hours are true then the bar should pay, but on the other accounts I don’t feel so. This is a gay bar and I disagree with the lawyer that is representing them.

I also feel that the religious beliefs of the employer do not super-cede the rights of the employee. My views are complicated on many issues, but as our society shows we need anti-discrimination laws.

Timothy, hypothetically would you support the businesses right to fire an employee if you knew for a fact that by being fired the person would become homeless or lose access to life saving medical treatment because they no longer have insurance? They are being fired for being gay in this scenario.

Timothy Kincaid
June 17th, 2013 | LINK

Byron,

Yes, we clearly disagree about whose rights supercede that of others.

Priya Lynn
June 18th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy said “And many people believe that the right to access of services supersedes the right to refuse service.”.

Of course it does. Not having access to services is more oppressive (potentially greatly more oppressive as history shows)on a person than doing once again the same job one has always done is. Its a matter of balance. The oppression caused by being denied service is much greater than the oppression caused by being asked to do once again the same thing you’ve willingly done hundreds or thousands of times in the past.

Logically the right to access service supercedes the right to refuse service (for reasons other than being an abusive customer) because that is the best balance of rights. The fact that a person may want to refuse service due to religious beliefs is irrelevant. A belief does not deserve respect or deference just because its religious.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.