Tawk amongst yourselves.

[judecorp]

I received this letter today from Rep. Deborah Pryce, my US Congressperson:

Dear Jude:

Thank you for contacting me regarding HR 832, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

HR 832 would alter current immigration policy to allow unmarried US citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their "permanent partners" for residenct in the United States. Under current law, US citizens and permanent residents can sponsor their spouses and other family members for immigration purposes. I understand that you feel it is justified to give life partners similar status. Certainly, such individuals may be as significant as spouses or blood relatives in many cases.

HR 832 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, rest assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on this legislation.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance to you on any issue.

Very truly yours,
Deborah Pryce
Member of Congress

I will reserve my commentary for now, so people can chat. I will, however, say that I found the bolded sentence (my emphasis, not hers) especially informative.

(p.s. Happy Birthday, Krusty!)

Comments

[juliann.livejournal.com]

Of course I know some situations where "life partners" are NOT on par with spouses or blood relatives. Two of the couples in question are hetero and are specifically NOT getting married because they don't want to be "trapped" (despite having been together more than ten years in each situation and despite in one instance distinct legal and tax advantages to getting married). To me that means they do NOT consider themselves "effectively married".

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well then, to me those people shouldn't be calling themselves "life partners," you know? I mean, if you're worried about being "trapped," then you're not in it for life, are you?

[juliann.livejournal.com]

Yes but the law calls them life partners. And any immigration law in place would allow them visas on that ground, since all of the unmarried partner laws I have seen only look at number of years living together.

Some of it is a poly lifestyle issue as well, which again the law runs into big problems with.

And I can understand them being together for life but NOT wanting to feel trapped by legal and social expectations imposed on them the moment they sign a piece of paper. Especially as in one couple's case, they are not presently living together because of job issues and my parents get hella flack over that. So it's easier for the couple to say they are partners but not married because then society does not sit there judging their committment to each other.

t and I knew we were going to be together forever but I would never have gotten MARRIED in the legal sense had it not been a requirement for my visa. And yes, I think it did change things when we went from VOLUNTARILY together for life to being in a situation where my parents would beat the snot out of both of us if we tried to split up. There's a big difference between choosing to be together and feeling that you are obligated. THAT is a trap that I wish we didn't have hanging over us as there are sometimes when I think a short separation would do us good. But we can only call it my vacation each year and it's shorter than I would like. (Granted it's all because I feel t is under way more stress than he should be because looking after me is more than he can bear...)

So yeah, I think you CAN be life partners, but not want the negative baggage that comes with being married. Including the removal of certain options if you want to stay in the good graces of various parts of family/society groups.

I'm not sure if you can relate since you have been through the divorce process and have come out the other side with the important social relationships still sound. But for people whose families or societies would be livid at the concept of divorce, it really changes the ballgame. And knowing that you are in a relationship because you WANT to be, not because you don't have the OPTION to leave does make a huge difference for some people. Still life partners, but by their own choice, not by coercion.

Does that make any sense?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Some of it is a poly lifestyle issue as well, which again the law runs into big problems with.

That's true.

And I agree with you about people wanting to be together and not feel trapped. I know that's something A. and I struggled with, but in the end he decided it would mean a lot to him and his family if we got married. BUT, I think that if a person doesn't want to feel "trapped," then they shouldn't do it. (This was my mistake.) And if you don't want to suck it up and do it, you shouldn't get the perks. (Of course, this could all be solved if they would just let people marry whomever they wanted.)

I'm not sure if you can relate since you have been through the divorce process and have come out the other side with the important social relationships still sound.

That's a pretty gross generalization. I have lost some relationships entirely, and there are others that have been (possibly) permanently strained, I just tend not to go into it or dwell on them. It was not an easy decision, or an easy process, to get divorced. While it's true my parents have not beaten me up or disowned me, it hasn't been easy, either.

[juliann.livejournal.com]

That's why I said "I'm not sure"

[elspazz0.livejournal.com]

Guh. All I know was that my staunch Republican ex-boss who was a complete and utter butt-crack supported Debbie Pryce. So.. guh.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

She's such a twit about most things. I get at least two letters from her a week, and they always infuriate me. :)

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

That's better than Tiberi. The only thing that we've gotten from him in the last 6 months had a distinct feel of campaign lit sent with his congressional frank on it. Not that Kasich was any prize, either. But we have darn stinky reps from this area.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, Tiberi was a total fuckwit. Argh!

Columbus would be so cool if it wasn't in Ohio.

[scottopic.livejournal.com]

It honestly sounds like a response that is either of null-meaning, or surprisingly positive, especially for a Republican.

Send the same response to W. See what pat response you get.

Baby steps...

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, it's definitely null-meaning, pretty much. She sends me tons of those.

But you're right about the whole W thing. I never thought of it that way.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_epiphany_girl_/]

That's great. She sounds a little noncommital--like she could backpedal without much flak. But I like that she's leaning in that direction. And I like that you can use that letter to come back later and say, "Hey remember what you said to me? Stick to it."

Cool. :)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Except I don't think she really means it. I think when she says that "some" relationships "may be as significant"... I think those are carefully chosen words.

You tell me, you're the journalist. :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_epiphany_girl_/]

Well, as a journalist, I generally think you can't believe a word (or a letter) that comes from a politician. I don't know the political leanings of this woman. I assume if she were liberal the letter would have gone without saying and not provoked you to post it.

If that's the case, then I think you're right to be skeptical. And I think your only power is to hold her to it, write letters to the editor if she backs down (write a letter to your local queer paper, too).

Unfortunately that's all most of us can do.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, as a journalist, I generally think you can't believe a word (or a letter) that comes from a politician.

You are a very wise journalist.

[volumeat11.livejournal.com]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: unless there are children involved, children that have been conceived by a man and woman, children that are counted on as tax breaks for the middle class, children that will have that Brady Bunch upbringing, then our government wants NOTHING to do with it, and it pisses me right the hell off...

...more later. My niece just showed up in her Halloween costume...that's a niece with divorced parents...ggrrrrrrrrrrrr...

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Let's go kick all their asses, Fabio!!

[jeffholton.livejournal.com]

Well, that was nice of her to write to you.

Sincerely,

That guy you know who's as significant as a friend

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

She writes to me at least once a week. She would probably appreciate it if I stopped writing to her all the time.

Once, for a social work class, I had to write a policy-focused letter to an elected official... and I wrote a really good letter to her. She actually hand-wrote me back. It was the weirdest thing!

But she hasn't done it since.

[jeffholton.livejournal.com]

The only handwritten note I got from anyone akin to a famous person was when I was 8 and got a brief handwritten note from Madeleine L'Engel, who's still one of my favorite authors. I thought that was pretty cool!

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Hey, that IS cool!

[jeffholton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I recently wrote her another letter, but I haven't sent it yet. I need to do that.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Cool. I hope she writes back!

[jeffholton.livejournal.com]

I gotta get it to her before she, like, dies.

She's old.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

True enough.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely. The words were chosen carefully to say "I think you have a valid opinion, but I don't agree with it". To me, that's what "may be as significant as" is saying. It says "you may feel that way, but it's not necessarily so, and I certainly don't agree with you." Knowing what Pryce's opinions are on other issues probably helps inform that interpretation, too.

Personally, I find the idea that the government will find one set of adult relationships to be less valid than another set to be pretty reprehensible. But it's going to be a long time before we can convince people of this. Marriage is the last sacred cow of social intolerance, it seems. Hell, it wasn't until the late 1960s that the Supreme Court invalidated miscegenation laws, and I think that gay marriage is going to have to come through that route, too. After all, Vermont only adopted civil unions because of their courts. Why do you think that the push for a marriage amendment is getting more effort now? After the sodomy decision the Religious Right has decided that a constitutional amendment is the only way to keep the Supreme Court from foisting gay-marriage on every state.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Personally, I find the idea that the government will find one set of adult relationships to be less valid than another set to be pretty reprehensible.

What do you think about marriage between more than two people? Just my curiosity here, because I like reading what you think.