By any means necessary?

The secret is out.

It’s been out for quite a while to be honest with you, which is why it’s kind of surprising that people are still trying to use it legitimately. Nevertheless, on Saturday the 21^st of May, the Rapture didn’t happen and Minnesota joined the ranks of the 29 other states that have allowed voters to decide on whether or not to ban gay marriage by actually amending the state constitution. This isn’t about democracy. In fact, I don’t even think it’s intended to actively discriminate against gay people any more. This is simply about scoring political gains for the Republican Party at the polls in November 2014.

Remember when George W Bush was re-elected? His 2004 campaign was managed by Ken Mehlman. When Mehlman publicly acknowledged he is a gay man last year, he brought a few home-truths out of the closet with him. Namely, that the Republican Party worked very hard to ‘motivate’ religious and conservative voters to the polls by making sure issues like abortion and gay-rights were also on the 2004 ballot. It is, after all, much easier to get people to stand up for what they passionately believe is wrong than to passionately stand up for what they believe is right. And while they’re there, they might as well vote for Bush.

Take another look at that list of states: 14 of them (nearly half) passed their amendments in 2004, GWB scored another term by a landslide and Republicans won majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of whether this approach was morally just, it was certainly successful.

Ironically, it can be argued that banning gay marriage through a constitutional amendment is fundamentally anti-Republican. The Republican Party, after all, supposedly stands for limited government intervention and individual liberty – as pointed out by GOProud. But somewhere along the way conservative politics got tangled up in conservative religion and now the two are inseparable...or are they?

Apart from GOProud, there are a few political conservatives willing to stand up for LGBT equality. Mehlman is one of them, and he recently contributed to the Big Think’s debate through this short video. Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney and Cindy McCain have all opposed their husband’s stances and come out in support of gay marriage (or at least said it shouldn’t be banned at the federal level). Perhaps more importantly, New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg has recently been personally visiting GOP candidates to discuss the issue of gay marriage and has said he will use his significant influence to support any Republican who is willing to stand up for equality.

But I’m not here to pretend there is any hope that the Republican Party will actually change its course.

I’m here to point out that this IS an issue of human rights that affects a minority group, and, as such, it shouldn’t be left to a majority vote. The only thing that will right what Minnesota has just put into motion is if it backfires and motivates people to go to the polls and actually stand up for what is right. I’m here to put into the world a little bit of hope that, by 2012, people will be able to put aside their own personal or religious views and come to the conclusion through a majority vote that it simply shouldn’t be the government’s role to legislate against a person’s right to marry the person they love simply because of gender.

Without Representation

The Stamp Act 1765 was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament on the colonies of British America. It required that some documentation like legal documents, magazines and newspapers were printed on special paper that was produced and stamped in London. It was met with little to no opposition from the members of parliament and was probably enacted solely as a revenue generator for the British government. However, it was met with considerable political opposition in the USA leading to the formation of the Sons of Liberty of Boston Tea Party fame. It also inspired the slogan “no taxation without representation.”

Seriously, why would I bother telling you that?

I’ll admit that after living outside the USA for 8 years now, I’m a bit out of the loop when it comes to local politics, but I am registered to vote in Illinois via my Mom’s address and I’ve voted in all the ‘big’ elections (Yes We Can!).

It was only when I tried to sign an online petition in support of the Uniting American Families Act that I realised how mis-represented I was. The form would only accept my signature if I could provide a US address, so again I used my Mom’s. I used it again a few weeks later when I wrote a letter to Dick Durbin (D-IL) to ask him to co-sponsor the bill because Senator Durbin’s office prioritises responses to residents of Illinois...

The whole point of electing representatives is, after all, to send someone who can represent the aspirations and interests of the electing population to the government...

...but with all due respect, I am not a resident of Illinois.

I am, in fact one of the over 5 million Americans estimated to be living abroad, a community collectively known as the American diaspora. Believe it or not, people move away from the USA all the time, temporarily or permanently, for all kinds of reasons. As pointed out on that link, if the entire diaspora were located on-shore, we would be the 17^th most populous state! However, apart from military personnel, federal employees and their dependents, Americans living abroad are not counted in the US Census, which is used to compile a snapshot of various characteristics of the population (finally including sexual orientation in 2010) and to reapportion seats in the US House of Representatives.

We can still register to vote for any election to Federal office by using the address where we resided immediately prior to leaving the USA, so technically we’re not un-represented. And I know that the geographical delineation of voting districts leads to problems for every minority group. However, I would argue that those of us who have left the USA indefinitely are not accurately represented under this system and (to finally bring it back to the theme of this blog) this compounds discrimination against those of us forced to remain abroad because the USA will not allow us to sponsor our partners for immigration. I have identified the following issues, but there may be more:

1.       When it comes to politics, there is clear strength in numbers. In Sharing is Caring, I pointed out that Americans in binational same-sex relationships and their partners aren’t just minorities in terms of overall numbers. In most cases, they are also invisible, either by choice (to avoid detection) or circumstance (because they have left the country). Immigration Equality estimates that roughly 36,000 couples are affected by this issue, but it is a gross under-estimation because it is based on an interrogation of 2000 US census data. Of those couples who were able to report, many did not reveal their circumstances for fear of revealing their immigration status and those who no longer reside in the USA were not even considered.

2.       Once abroad, there are a number of barriers to voting. In a 2010 report, the Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF) estimated that in 2008 “approximately 6.8% of the overseas civilian population attempted to participate [i.e. vote] and were successful in doing so.” This isn’t just because people who leave the USA can’t be bothered to vote. OVF found that 4% of their survey respondents tried but were unable to complete the registration process, 22% requested a ballot but never received one and, of those ballots received, only 81% were accepted. This indicates a sense of disenfranchisement.

3.       This issue goes on to affect the next generation. Children of binational same-sex couples living outside the USA face the most discrimination. There are challenges in proving their American citizenship at birth, particularly where the non-American partner is the adopting or biological parent. Even if they are able to prove their citizenship, only 18 states allow children born to parents outside the USA to vote.

These three issues lead me to conclude that, due to a combination of social barriers and disenfranchisement, binational same-sex couples are not truly represented in the US political system. The federal government has the ability to enact laws like DOMA that (whether intentionally or not) force Americans like me to move and/or remain abroad. Once abroad, we and our children are significantly limited in our ability to affect political change directly, through voting, or indirectly, through influence. Ironically, though, no matter where we go in the world, we (and our children) are legally required to pay US taxes to continue funding the system that keeps us away.

I say bring back the Sons of Liberty...maybe it’s time we had a Haste Y’all Back Tea Party of our own.