Connect with us

If You Don’t Help, This Film About Same-Sex Binational Couples Won’t Get Made.

Published

on

Editor’s note: This guest post by actor and musician David W. Ross (photo, below) (Quinceañera/Bad Boys Inc) explores the path that led him to want to create the film, “I Do.” But without your help, the film won’t get made. The plight of so many same-sex binational couples lies in the hands of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. And until that unjust law is repealed, love, and marriage, for thousands, will disappear.

I hope you’ll take a moment to look in your heart, and pledge to support this film. It’s an important project, worthy of a little sacrifice from all of us. Visit Kickstarter.com to learn more, or to make a pledge. There are just a few days left. Please, share this with your friends!

The script for I DO started out as a broad comedy. What a funny situation! British gay man marries American girl for his green card. Madness ensues! Hilarious, right? Yeah. Not so much. I mean, granted, there’s comedy gold in people mistaking them for a real couple. The awkward kiss at the alter. The clueless boss finally figuring it out. The cat and mouse with the INS. But I’d been working on the script for 5 years and knew I was in trouble. The script wasn’t working. I didn’t even want to see this movie! So I put it away.

The “British Gay Man,” in the script is Jack Edwards; fashion photographer. I had dropped a few thousand on a camera and lenses as I wanted to really get inside a photographers head. Sure I had assisted people since the age of 17, worked in the New York fashion world (didn’t like Devil Wears Prada, loved September Issue) and had rubbed shoulders with so many super models I had lost count, but I really wanted to understand what it’s like to always have a piece of glass between you and everyone else.

It was a balmy night. The California Supreme Court had just banned same-sex marriage and I was asked to document the rally in West Hollywood. I walked through the crowd to the main stage snapping a few pics. Men holding hands with NOH8 t-shirts. Women hugging each other wrapped in American flags. Families, kids, holding banners: “Please don’t divorce my mums.” I jumped up on the main stage and did my job. But something shifted for me that night. This marriage thing was real, for so many people. Families even. The lens finally dropped away and I knew what I DO had to be.

Marriage means different things for different people. For some it is a big poofy white dress, fluffy cake celebration of a love showing it’s commitment in front of friends and family; for some a religious institution, a vow to God but, whatever your beliefs, if you choose to enter into marriage in the US the law affords you certain protections and rights concerning immigration, hospital visitization, estate taxes, social security benefits etc etc etc. Though gay marriage has been fought for and in some States is now entirely lawful, those legal benefits are not afforded to gay married committed couples at a Federal level. Now, I’m not arguing with churches, private institutions who have their own rights, I’m saying how is it fair to throw a bone in the form of legal State marriage and choose to ignore our human rights that go along with that institution affecting not only the couple but any children involved?

I DO is about one of those rights. Immigration. If you, as an American citizen, were to fall in love with someone from another country and you were straight you could marry and sponsor your spouse’s green card. If you’re gay, there is no legal way for you to keep your spouse in the country. Further more, if you are a same-sex couple and had gotten married and the INS found out, your spouse would be deported instantly as marrying a US citizen is seen as an act of wanting to reside here.

I had fallen in love with a British guy. I know, move across the world and fall in love with someone from the same country as you. He was over here on a student visa, learning to fly Jumbo jets. Sounds sexier than it is. In his words, “It’s like being a bus driver in the sky.” He always had a way of normalizing things. I liked that. He wanted to work for a company that sold private jets. Much sexier. But the company only had a position in the UK. I was in a place with my career where I didn’t want to move back to London. (Truth be told I’m an ex-pop star petrified of returning to an island that might see me as a has-been). I began to realize that maybe I was more like Jack after all. But my lens wasn’t made of glass.

I broke it off. My man moved back to London. Sounds simple. It wasn’t. He was the first guy I had ever met that I wanted to marry. Like, really marry. Like, big-poofy-white-dress-fluffy-cake-celebration-of-a-love-showing-our-commitment-in-front-of-friends-and-family married.

For a few years we saw each other whenever I flew over to the UK. I wanted to do a long distance thing. He knew that it would drive us crazy. Either way it drove me crazy. I was devastated. My friends tried to get me to date. They couldn’t understand why I couldn’t just “hang out” with people. What they failed to realize is that I finally knew what it felt like to be in love.

In the movie, after years of casual relationships Brit in New York Jack falls deeply for handsome Spanish American, Mano Cunio. Jack’s determined to stay in the USA as he’s become like a father to his niece Tara and the sole provider for her mother Mya after Jack’s brother is killed in a road accident. In order to stay in the country it’s not enough to marry Mano as Federal law won’t recognize a State level gay marriage. Jack has a choice: move to Spain with Mano, the love of his life and lose the only family he has for his new one or lose Mano and stay in New York. An impossible choice. Unless…he creates a phoney straight marriage with his best friend Ali to gain citizenship. Saying I Do is not so simple…

So many same-sex bi-national couples go through incredible heartache and pain. Being separated from each other, not just sometimes by prison glass, but sometimes separated by thousands of miles, or months at a time because of paperwork issues, or because they are unable to afford the numerous flights it takes to keep a long distant relationship going. Many resort to selling their possessions to pay for lawyers, or trips abroad to renew visas, or just to see each other without the fear that any knock on the door could be an immigration officer ready to deport them. Over 40% of these families have children. Adding to their stress, financially and otherwise.

I’m not as brave as the 30,000 plus bi-national same-sex couples who are staying together whatever the cost. I know now I should have followed my heart moved to London, true love is not the kind of thing you should turn down.

At least in the movies there can be happy endings….

Please pledge your support at Kickstarter.com.

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

3 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

6 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

8 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.