Romney Pledges Heterosexual Supremacy

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization of Marriage to affirm his support for heterosexual supremacy in America. This entails:

1. To support and send to the states for ratification a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
2. To do vigorously what President Obama has refused to do: defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
3. To appoint to the Supreme Court, and as his or her Attorney General, only those who support the original meaning of the Constitution and who will, therefore, not invent a right to gay marriage.
4. To establish a presidential commission to investigate the increasing reports of harassment and threats to supporters of traditional marriage.
5. And to give back to the people of D.C. the right already guaranteed in the Charter which Congress gave them: the right to vote on marriage via the referendum process.

Where to begin? I guess let's address them one at a time. The Federal Marriage Amendment didn't get out of the U.S. House of Representatives when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate majority in July 2006 and popular support was below 50%. Why would anyone expect a measure to divorce the estimated 100,000 same-sex married couple in the country to be more successful in 2013? It takes a vote of 2/3rds of BOTH Houses of the Legislature and then ratification of 3/4 of the states to be enacted. In 220 years the document has been Amended 27 times, and 10 of those happened within the first 5 years. A federal marriage amendment is not going to happen!

The second item (to defend DOMA) is obvious, but by the time a Republican could become President on January 20, 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act may already have been struck down by multiple federal appellate courts and perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fact that Romney, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed the third item should mean they are immediately disqualified to serve as President. They are basically saying that they will have a particular litmus test for Supreme Court nominees (and Attorney General).

The fourth item is just sheer buffoonery. As the discriminatory position of heterosexual supremacists to envision a society in which heterosexuals have more civil rights than non-heterosexual becomes more and more a repulsive position to a greater majority of American voters, the supremacists have begun to claim that any opposition to their radical ideology in verbal or written form is "harassment" or "intolerance towards religion." The idea of a President Commission to explore harassment and threats to people who have been publicly calling for LGBT people to have less rights than other Americans is simply laughable.

The fifth item is just obnoxious. Marriage equality has been legal in the District of Columbia since March 4, 2010 after a measure was approved by a near-unanimous vote of its law-making body in December 15 2009. After filing multiple lawsuits in order to force a vote of the majority on the rights of the minority despite explicit provisions in the D.C. Charter which prevents such inimical actions, those attempts came to an ignominious end with a Supreme Court refusal to hear their appeal on January 18, 2011.

It should be interesting to see which other Republican presidential candidates are willing to sign NOM's pledge to heterosexual supremacy. I presume Rick Perry will be next in line to add his name to this foolishness.

Williams Institute Estimates 581,300 U.S. Same-Sex Couples

Yesterday was an historic day in which the United States Senate held a hearing on a pro-LGBT piece of legislation, the Respect for Marriages Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, an LGBT public policy think tank, submitted written testimony for the hearing.

Included in the testimony are the following findings from Williams Institute research  about same-sex couples:

• There are 581,300 same-sex couples in the United States, including 50,000 to 80,000 legally married same-sex and another 85,000 who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.

• Approximately 20% of same-sex couples are raising nearly 250,000 children.

• Almost one-fourth of same-sex partners are people of color.

• Over 7% of individuals in same-sex couples are veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

• Same-sex couples live in every congressional district and in almost every county in the United States.

In addition, the testimony summarizes Williams Institute research documenting a number of ways that DOMA results in legal, financial, social, and psychological hardships for many same-sex couples and their families.  These include:

• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Benefits.  Nearly 430,000 same-sex partners remain barred from taking leave to care for a same-sex spouse under the FMLA, even if they marry.

• Benefits for Spouses of Federal Employees.  The same-sex spouses and partners of over 30,000 federal employees are ineligible for important benefits available to different-sex married spouses.

• Veteran Partner Benefits.  Same-sex spouses and partners of nearly 68,000 veterans are barred from a variety of benefits including pensions, educational assistance, and vocational training available to different-sex spouses.

• Taxation of Employee Health Benefits for a Same-Sex Spouse.  When private employers offer health insurance to same-sex spouses and domestic partners, federal law taxes these benefits. Approximately 41,000 employees with a same-sex spouse or domestic partner pay, on average, over $1,000 more in taxes per year than an employee receiving the same health benefits for a different-sex spouse.

• Spousal Impoverishment Protections for Medicaid Long Term Care (LTC).  Medicaid LTC beneficiaries may have to use some of their spouse’s income and assets to pay for LTC. Federal law requires states to allow different-sex spouses to retain income and assets to protect them from destitution. However, about 1,700-3,000 individuals whose same-sex spouses or partners receive Medicaid-financed LTC are not protected by these spousal impoverishment provisions.

• Estate Tax.  Over the next two years, members of same-sex couples who will pay the federal estate tax, will pay, on average, more than $4 million more than a survivor of a different-sex spouse because they do not qualify for the federal estate tax spousal exemption.

• Social Security Survivor Benefits.  Unlike different-sex spouses, same-sex spouses cannot continue receiving their spouse’s social security payments after their spouse’s death. This results in a loss, on average, of over $5,700 for a same-sex spouse that receives lower social security payments than the deceased spouse. 

• Immigration for Bi-National Couples.  Nearly 26,000 same-sex couples in the United States are bi-national couples who could be forced to separate because they cannot participate in green-card and accelerated citizenship mechanisms offered to non-citizen spouses of American citizens. 

• Social Stigma.  Research shows that laws such as DOMA produce stigma that has serious adverse impacts on the health of LGBT people by causing stress and disease. A Williams Institute survey of people married to a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts found that couples gain social support from their families and have a greater level of mutual commitment when they are allowed to marry.  

The Williams Institute testimony concludes that DOMA has also impaired the ability of researchers to assess its impact on same-sex couples and their families. Although the U.S. Census Bureau has begun to reevaluate its policy of not counting married same-sex couples as such, a legacy of DOMAis evident in a general resistance on the part of federal statistical agencies to collect detailed, accurate, and reliable data on same-sex couples and their families. This means that, in spite of the efforts of the Institute, policy debates on laws like DOMA have too often been driven as much by anecdote and stereotype as by sound social science research and facts.

It's great that we can get the factual and actual impact of anti-LGBT public policy like DOMA in to the Congressional Record so that this will increase the momentum to pass legislation to end the discrimination. Apparently all 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee support repealing DOMA, so they could vote to move it to the Senate floor, where it will almost certainly be killed by a Republican filibuster.

Wolfson Testimony At DOMA Repeal Hearing

President Obama Endorses DOMA Repeal Bill!

Today is when the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony about the repeal of the so-called Defense of  Marriage Act, through consideration of S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act.

However, yesterday the Whuite House Press Secretary Jay Carney made news yesterrday when he announced that the President was endorsing the legislation, even before its first committee hearing (a rare step for Presidents to take with legislation).

The response was to a question by openly gay reporter Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly:




The transcript of the exchange is available:

Metro Weekly: The president has said in the past that he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, but he is yet to endorse the Respect for Marriage Act, which is the specific piece of legislation --

Carney: Senator [Dianne] Feinstein [(D-Calif.)], yeah.

Metro Weekly: -- aimed to repeal the bill. Tomorrow, the Senate will hold the first hearing into that bill. Is the administration ready to endorse that bill?

Carney: I can tell you that the President has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people -- our families, friends and neighbors. He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Congressman [Jerrold] Nadler [(D-N.Y.)], which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.

It should be interesting how far Senate Democrats want to push DOMA repeal. They presumably have the votes to get it out of committee but probably not the 60 votes to break the inevitable filibuster. And passage in the U.S. House is a non-starter.

U.S. Senate DOMA Repeal Hearing Tomorrow!

Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is conducting a hearing on July 20th on the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598/H.R. 1116), which would repeal the 1996 federal law which bans the recognition of legally same-sex married couples by the federal government, among other things.

The hearing will be split into two panels. TowleRoad has the details

Panel 1

* Susan Murray, who lives in Ferrisburgh, Vt., with her spouse, Karen Murray. An attorney with the Burlington office of Langrock, Sperry & Wool, Murray was the co-counsel in the lawsuit Baker v. Vermont, which established civil unions in Vermont in 2000.

* Andrew Sorbo, a Cheshire, Conn., resident who was married to Colin Atterbury. Before dying of pancreatic cancer in 2009, Atterbury was a retired Veterans Affairs hospital administrator and professor of medicine at Yale University. Sorbo, now retired, worked for 35 years as a history teacher and principal. 

* Ron Wallen, an Indio, Calif. resident, who married Tom Carrollo in 2008 after being together for 55 years. In March, Carrollo lost his battle to cancer. After Carrollo's death, Wallen's income was compromised because DOMA prohibits him from receiving his spouse's Social Security payment. Wallen would have been able to receive these payments had he been in an opposite-sex marriage. According to the hearing notice, Wallen is unable to make payments on his family home and is faced with selling the residence, after just losing his spouse.

Thomas Minnery, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO.

Panel 2

Joe Solmonese, President, The Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC.

David Austin R. Nimocks, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund, Washington, DC.

Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC 

Evan Wolfson, Founder and Executive Director, Freedom to Marry, New York, NY

Although I don't usually agree with Dan Choi on many things, I do agree that the lack of diversity at this hearing is shameful. 7 White guys and 1 white woman? Come on, now!

UPDATE 07/19/2011 04:57PM PST:


According to Karen Ocamb the updated witness list now includes some color (Congressman John Lewis of Georgia):

UPDATED Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
On

“S.598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families”
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216
9:45 a.m.

Panel I

The Honorable John Lewis
United States Congressman
State of Georgia

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
United States Congressman
State of New York

Panel II

Ron Wallen
Indio, CA

Thomas Minnery
Senior Vice President for Public Policy
Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, CO

Andrew Sorbo
Cheshire, CT

Susan M. Murray
Ferrisburgh, VT

Panel III

Joe Solmonese
President
The Human Rights Campaign
Washington, DC

David Austin R. Nimocks
Senior Legal Counsel
Alliance Defense Fund
Washington, DC

Edward Whelan
President
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Washington, DC

Evan Wolfson
Founder and Executive Director
Freedom to Marry
New York, NY

GLAD Files For Summary Judgment In DOMA Case

GLAD Files Motion for Summary Judgment in 2nd Circuit DOMA Challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management

Plaintiffs Ask Court for Heightened Scrutiny

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a motion for summary judgment in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, its 2^nd Circuit challenge to the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

GLAD argues that the equal protection claims of the plaintiffs, six married couples and one widower fromConnecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, require heightened scrutiny from the court. The brief shows how DOMA fails heightened scrutiny, or even a rational basis review.

“No interest advanced to defend DOMA can in fact withstand any level of scrutiny,” the brief reads.  “The reasons offered by Congress at the time of DOMA’s passage are either nonsensical or just another way of saying that Congress wanted to denounce and harm those gay men and lesbians who form long-term relationships and seek to have those relationships recognized and respected through civil marriage.”

GLAD also filed supporting affidavits from experts Michael Lamb, Ph.D, Gary Segura, Ph.D, Lititia Anne Peplau, Ph.D, George Chauncey, Ph.D, and Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D.

The next step is for Congress to respond to GLAD’s motion for summary judgment on or by August 15, 2011.

GLAD filed Pedersen v. OPM in Hartford, CT on November 8, 2010.  GLAD’s DOMA challenge Gill v. OPM won a July 8, 2010 ruling in Massachusetts federal district court that DOMA is unconstitutional.  That case is now on appeal. 

Co-operating counsel on Pedersen are Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), Horton, Shields & Knox (Hartford), and Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston).  Co-counsel in the Gill case are Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

# # #

Recent media profiles of same-sex binational "Love Exiles"

Max Oliva, left and Jesse Goodman have left the United States
 in order to remain together

The Los Angeles Times is just one of several West Coast-based newspapers which have been doing stories on the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act recently.

On Monday, the Times published "Same-sex couples find rough road to immigration." A key excerpt:

When Jesse Goodman and his Argentine fiance left the United States in 2006 after an unsuccessful immigration battle, they expected that one day they would be able to return home to New York.


Goodman and Max Oliva had become used to finding temporary ways to be together. They had fallen in love quickly and planned on marrying but soon learned that, unlike similar situations with straight couples, their relationship wouldn't help Oliva stay in the country.


For a time, they relied on a mix of work permits and tourist visas to stay together. When the last permit was set to expire five years ago, they decided it was best to leave the U.S.


"We ran out of options," Goodman said.


While straight American citizens can obtain green cards for their spouses and fiances, the Defense of Marriage Act has precluded same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits.


In February, the couple was encouraged when the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the act in court, saying it violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, a conclusion that two federal district courts had reached in 2009.


The announcement that the Obama administration would no longer defend the law was applauded by gay and lesbian activists.


But the administration has sent mixed signals about its intent to enforce the law, which has led to some confusion among same-sex couples as they try to navigate the immigration system.


Rather than continue waiting for a resolution to that issue, Goodman and Oliva decided to move forward with trying to return to the U.S. by filing a fiance visa petition for Oliva.


The couple expects that it will be denied. But they are prepared to go to court.


"I think we're right," Oliva said. "We're fighting against something that is unfair."

In addition to the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle also ran an article about a binational couple facing deportation. Theirs was titled "Defense of Marriage Act threatens his citizenship."

An excerpt:

Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, have spent the last 19 years together, mostly in an apartment in San Francisco's Castro district. 

Makk gave up his career, started a business in San Francisco and invested in rental property, all to be with Wells and meet various visa requirements. Seven years ago, they married in Massachusetts. 

Starting June 13, Makk, 48, faces possible deportation if he remains in the country illegally when his current visa expires. If he leaves, he would not be readmitted, the couple would be all but permanently separated and Wells, who has severe health complications from AIDS, would be left without his spouse and sole caregiver. 

"We're at the end of our rope," said Wells, 55. "Ever since we met, all we've tried to do is be together. The focal point of our lives, everything we've done, is just so we could be together."

Law denies benefits

They face this quandary because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denies all federal benefits, including spousal immigration preferences, to same-sex couples. If Wells and Makk were heterosexual, they could apply for an I-130 visa, or spousal petition, which could allow Wells to sponsor Makk for permanent U.S. residency. 

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder said in February that they believe the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and would no longer defend it in court, but the administration is enforcing the law as required until it is repealed or struck down by the courts. It is under challenge in several states and will probably be decided by the Supreme Court. 

"It's devastating, the idea of him leaving in a couple of weeks and not being able to get back in," Wells said. After suffering a near-fatal heart attack and severe arthritis in his hips, Wells said he is unable to care for himself. "I don't know how I'm going to manage," he said. "My stomach is in knots." 

An estimated 54,000 bi-national same-sex couples live in the United States, according to the Williams Institute, a pro-gay think tank at UCLA. Not all of them are married.

Of course, frequent readers know that I myself am part of a binational couple, but was able to become a United Citizen through familial relationships in 2003. I'm on the board of directors of Immigration Equality, the national LGBT immigration advocacy group.

Clement Quits Law Firm After It Exits DOMA Defense

It's been a big news morning today. First, responding to online pressure from Human Rights Campaign and Change.org, Paul Clement's law firm of King & Spalding announced that they had filed a motion to remove the firm from representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representative in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court.

The firm's statement:

Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.

In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.

In response to his firm's decision to refuse to sign on to a legal defense which per force requires them to argue that discrimination against same-sex couples is constitutional, Paul Clement (who was reportedly paid $5 million a year by King & Spalding) resigned from the firm and joined another:

"I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do," Clement wrote to King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays. "I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it." 

Clement said he will join Bancroft PLLC, a small Washington-based firm that is home to former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh.

The full text of Clement's resignation letter is also available. This is probably good news for the likelihood of DOMA not surviving judicial review since Clement will be forced to defend the discriminatory law without drawing upon the resources of a huge law firm like King & Spalding.

It should be noted that the pressure to get Clement's former law firm does not violate the principle that all defendants have a right to legal representation, like the Los Angeles Times editorial board foolishly claimed. DOMA is not a person, it does not have any Miranda rights; this is not a criminal case, it is a civil case. The contract that BLAG had signed with King & Spalding prohibited all members of the firm from expressing opposition to DOMA or advocating for the repeal of the law.

Bush Superlawyer Paul Clement Signs On To Defend DOMA

Paul Clement was U.S. Solicitor General from 2004-2008

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has decided on former Bush Administration Solicitor General Paul Clement to represent the Congress' interest in defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. Clement is a well-known Supreme Court advocate (he succeeded Perry v. Brown Republican superlawyer Ted Olson in the Solicitor General position) and is rumored to make over 5 million dollars a year at  the law firm of King & Spalding and charge as much as $1,000 per hour. Clement has reportedly argued more than 50 cases before the United States Supreme Court.

Clement's defense will not be cheap, as DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in two cases before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Justice has decided that the statute is unconstitutional and there are around 12 jurisdictions in which DOMA is being challenged in court.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi  sent a letter to Boehner in response to the current Speaker's actions, reproduced below:

April 18, 2011

The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker of the House 
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Thank you for your response earlier today to my letter of March 11, 2011 concerning litigation relating to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  My letter had requested that you provide me with the cost to the House and to taxpayers resulting from the decision of the Republican members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to hire outside counsel to represent the House in support of the DOMA.  You note that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have determined that DOMA is unconstitutional, a conclusion I share, and have declined to engage in further judicial proceedings in defense of the law.  As you may know, presidents have acted similarly in the past on at least 50 instances since 1979.  

Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel.  Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged.  

Press reports indicate that the House, at your direction, will intervene today in the Windsor case, which is in a federal court in New York.  Ms. Edie Windsor spent more than 40 years with her partner, Ms. Thea Spyer, and they were married in 2007.  When Ms. Spyer passed away Ms. Windsor was unable to claim the federal estate marital tax benefit because of DOMA and the federal government imposed estate taxes of more than $360,000 on the money left to her.  This case is a prime example of the injustice perpetuated by DOMA on millions of American families.  

According to reports, a contract engaging Paul D. Clement to serve as the outside counsel reportedly was forwarded to the Committee on House Administration, although not to the Democratic members or staff of the Committee.  Mr. Clement, a former Solicitor General of the United States, is a partner in the Washington firm King & Spalding where he is in charge of the national appellate practice.  I would like to know when the contract with Mr. Clement was signed, and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee.

The House of Representatives need not enter into this lengthy and costly litigation.  Contrary to the assertion in your letter, a BLAG determination against House involvement in the litigation – which was the position of Democratic Whip Hoyer and me – would not have allowed the constitutionality of the law to “have been determined by a unilateral action of the President.”  As you know, only the courts can determine the constitutionality of a statute passed by the Congress.  

Thank you again, and I look forward to working together with you on behalf of our country.

best regards,


NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader

Love her!

Sen. Kerry And 10 Others Send Letter Urging Immigration Equality

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  April 6, 2011

CONTACT: Whitney Smith (202) 224-4159   

Kerry Leads Fight for LGBT Immigration Equality

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today led 11 colleagues in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano urging immigration equality for legally married same-sex couples who are currently discriminated against under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

“We applaud the President’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court,” the Senators wrote. “With DOMA as law, however, we are creating a tier of second-class families in states that have authorized same-sex marriage. The same second-class status is imposed upon marriages between same-sex partners in which one spouse is not a U.S. citizen. We urge you to reconsider this position in light of the administration’s position that it will no longer defend DOMA in federal court.”

“Immigration Equality, and the families we represent, are enormously grateful to Senator Kerry and his colleagues for calling on the Administration to keep our families together,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, a national organization that works to end discrimination in U.S. immigration law.  “Unless USCIS changes course, real families will be impacted, and American citizens will be separated from their loved ones.  Maintaining the status quo for these families will mean forcing them apart, or into exile.  We call on USCIS to heed the advice of Senator Kerry, and the other signatories on today’s letter, and allow these loving, committed couples to remain together.”

In light of the Obama Administration’s decision to stop defending DOMA in federal court, the Senators urged:

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to hold marriage-based immigration petitions in abeyance pending a legislative repeal or a final determination on DOMA litigation. 

• DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion in commencing and prosecuting removal proceedings against married noncitizens that would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA. 

• The Department of Justice to institute a moratorium on orders of removal issued by the immigration courts to married foreign nationals who would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA.

The full text of the letter is below:

April 6, 2011

The Honorable Eric Holder                                         The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Attorney General                                                        Secretary
Department of Justice                                                 Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20520                                              Washington, DC 20393

Dear Mr. Attorney General and Madam Secretary: 

We applaud the President’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court.  The law discriminates against a class of Americans, raising fundamental questions of over basic civil rights.  However, the administration is still enforcing DOMA, because it is the law of the land. 

Five states plus the District of Columbia, have granted same-sex couples the right to get married.  With DOMA as law, however, we are creating a tier of second-class families in these states that have authorized same-sex marriage. 

The same second-class status is imposed upon marriages between same-sex partners in which one spouse is not a U.S. citizen.  The new administration policy has created confusion and uncertainty in the immigration context.  In recent days, the administration issued conflicting statements about how it will consider immigration petitions from same-sex married couples seeking immigration benefits for a non-citizen spouse.  As of March 30, 2011, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services clarified that marriage-based petitions will be considered under current law, with DOMA preventing recognition of otherwise-valid and lawful same-sex marriages. 

We urge you to reconsider this position in light of the administration’s position that it will no longer defend DOMA in federal court. Specifically, we ask the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to hold marriage-based immigration petitions in abeyance pending a legislative repeal or a final determination on DOMA litigation.  In addition, we ask DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion in commencing and prosecuting removal proceedings against married noncitizens that would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA.  We also call upon the Department of Justice to institute a moratorium on orders of removal issued by the immigration courts to married foreign nationals who would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA.

Preserving family unity is a fundamental American value and is also the cornerstone of our nation’s immigration law.  Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely,

John Kerry                              Patrick Leahy                          Barbara Boxer

United States Senator             United States Senator             United States Senator

Ron Wyden                             Christopher Coons                  Jeff Merkley

United States Senator             United States Senator             United States Senator

Kirsten Gillibrand                   Sherrod Brown                       Daniel Akaka

United States Senator             United States Senator             United States Senator

Daniel Inouye                         Sheldon Whitehouse               Frank Lautenberg

United States Senator             United States Senator             United States Senator

Immigration Equality Hails CIS Policy Change

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 28, 2011

CONTACT: Steve Ralls
(202) 347-7007 / sralls@immigrationequality.org

IMMIGRATION EQUALITY HAILS GOVERNMENT DECISION ALLOWING LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES TO FILE GREEN CARD APPLICATIONS

ANNOUNCEMENT FOLLOWS CALLS BY GROUP TO END SEPARATION OF FAMILIES

WASHINGTON, DC – Immigration Equality, the national experts on immigration rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, hailed an announcement today from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that the agency will allow Americans with spouses from abroad to apply for green cards while courts weigh constitutional challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

“USCIS has issued guidance to the field,” USCIS Spokesman Christopher Bentley announced, “asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues.”

“Today’s statement is the first domino to fall for LGBT Americans with foreign national spouses,” said Rachel B. Tiven, the group’s executive director. “As Immigration Equality noted in our letters to both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, we believe that no spousal application should be denied until DOMA’s constitutionality is settled. Immigration Equality has been fighting for LGBT immigrant families since 1994. In that time we have counseled more than 10,000 families – and for them, today’s news is a sign that relief is finally on the way.”

Last week, Immigration Equality’s legal team filed a green card application on behalf of Edwin Blesch, an American citizen, and Tim Smulian, his South African husband. Despite being legally married in South Africa – a marriage recognized in Edwin’s home state of New York – the couple has struggled to remain together. Edwin struggles with failing health and increasingly depends on Tim as his primary caretaker. The couple joined Immigration Equality in hailing today’s announcement.

“Every day, we live with the very real possibility that, despite following every law and every policy of the United States, Tim will be forced to leave the country, and I will be left without my caretaker and the love of my life,” Blesch said in a statement. “Today’s news gives us great relief, and great hope that we may soon be able to put that worry behind us. For the first time, we can begin to plan the rest of our lives together without fear that we will be torn apart.”

Couples who believe they may be impacted by today’s decision are encouraged to contact Immigration Equality’s legal team for free, confidential advice at www.immigrationequality.org/contactus.php.

# # #

Immigration Equality is a national organization that works to end discrimination in U.S. immigration law, to reduce the negative impact of that law on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive people, and to help obtain asylum for those persecuted in their home country based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity or HIV-status. Through education, outreach, advocacy, and the maintenance of a nationwide network of resources, we provide information and support to advocates, attorneys, politicians and those who are threatened by persecution or the discriminatory impact of the law.