REPORT: Many Same-Sex Couples Impacted By Immigration Laws

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School has released a report entitled "Same-Sex Couples and Immigration in the United States" by Craig Konnoth and Gary Gates.

An excerpt from the Executive Summary of the report highlights the fascinating details about the diversity of same-sex couples impacted by unfair immigration laws (and the Defense of Marriage Act) in the United States.

As of 2010,  nearly  79,200 same-sex couples living in the United States include at least one partner who iscurrently not a U.S citizen or was naturalized as a citizen.  Of the nearly 650,000 same-sex couples in the US:
 4.4% or 28,574 are binational couples (one partner is a U.S. citizen and one is not)
 1.8% or 11,442 are dual non-citizen couples
 6.1% or 39,176 are dual citizen couples with at least one naturalized partner 

Under U.S. immigration policy, a citizen may obtain permanent residence for their non-citizen different-sex spouse, and expedited citizenship for a resident, different-sex spouse. Permanent residents may also petition for permanent resident status for their different-sex spouses.   However, these options are not extended to same-sex couples, even if they are married or are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.  Currently none of the estimated 40,000 binational and dual non-citizen same-sex couples in US are eligible to use  the immigration mechanisms available to different-sex spouses.


[...]


  Additional findings from the analyses include:

 California ranks first in the total number of binational same-sex couples.  A quarter of them (7,115) live in the state.  California is followed by New York (3,695), Florida (2,545), Texas (1,607), and Illinois (1,596).
 Mexico is the country of birth for a quarter of non-citizens in binational same-sex couples.  Canada, the second highest country of origin, is home to 8% of the non-citizen partners, followed by the United Kingdom at 6%.
 More than two-thirds of binational same-sex couples (69%) are male.
 A third of binational couples (33%) are inter-racial/ethnic.
 Forty-five percent of non-citizens in binational same-sex couples are Latino or Latina, while 14% are Asian/Pacific Islander.  Just over a third (36%) are White.  Among citizens in same-sex binational couples, a third (33%) are Latino or Latina while 54% are White and 7% are Asian/Pacific Islander.  AfricanAmericans comprise just 3% of both groups.
 A quarter of male binational couples and 39% of female binational couples are raising an estimated 17,000 children.  Rates of childrearing are even higher among non-citizen same-sex couples. More than half (52%) of male non-citizen couples and nearly two-thirds (64%) of non-citizen female couples are raising more than 7,700 children.
 Citizens in binational same-sex couples have higher median income levels than their non-citizen partners.  However, the non-citizen partners in binational couples have median incomes that are substantially higher than non-citizens with non-citizen partners.
 Almost two-thirds of binational same-sex couples own their home.  They are more than twice as likely to be home owners as dual non-citizen same-sex couples (30%).
 The vast majority of same-sex partners in binational couples speak English “well” or “very well”.   Among citizens in binational couples, 93% report a very good command of English compared to 81% of their non-citizen partners.
 More than 40% of citizens and non-citizens in same-sex binational couples have a college degree.
 Non-citizens in binational same-sex couples evidence low rates of unemployment at just 2%.  Nearly 8% of citizens in binational same-sex couples say they are unemployed.  

Immigration Equality is the premier national LGBT organization advocating for and assisting same-sex couples impacted by federal immigration policies. (MadProfessah has served on the board of the organization since November 2008).

Interestingly, the estimate of 28,574 is more precise but also smaller than the previous estimate of 36,000 binational couples in the United States but the 40,016 couples who are negatively impacted by current immigration law is slightly higher. MadProfessah is a naturalized citizen from the island-nation of Grenada, and Sentient Meat is a "natural born citizen" so we would be classified in the 6.1% of all U.S. same-sex couples who are both citizens where one partner is naturalized.

Senate Judiciary Passes DOMA Repeal Bill!

Today the United States Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act by a party-line vote of 10-8 with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans voting against. Think Progress has video clips of the absolutely insane things the Republican opponents said to defend their increasingly tenuous and arbitrary defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.

President Obama endorsed the bill in July and the White House issued a statement after the vote which said:

President Obama applauds today’s vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the Respect for Marriage Act, which would provide a legislative repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” The President has long believed that DOMA is discriminatory and has called for its repeal. We should all work towards taking this law off the books. The federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections afforded to straight couples.”

Very important result. It will be interesting if they can even get a vote on the bill on the Senate floor

133 House Members Sign Brief Challenging DOMA

133 Democratc congressmembers signed their names to a brief filed before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Gill v Office of Personnel Management in which the central question is whether the  so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

The case was brought (and won) by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders before U.S. District Court judge Joseph Tauro in July 2009. The Department of Justice appealed the decision, but then in February 2011 the United States changed sides in the case after the President determined that DOMA is inherently unconstitutional and laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.

DOMA is being defended in federal court by superlawyer Paul Clement for BLAG, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, on behalf of the U.S. House Republican majority.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Celebrity Friday: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen made headlines recently when she became the first Republican co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

The Washington Blade reports:

“I’m pleased to join the Log Cabin Republicans in our fight for marriage equality,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “I co-sponsored the repeal of DOMA because I firmly believe that equality is enshrined in our constitution and in our great democracy.”

Ros-Lehtinen’s support means the DOMA repeal bill, which in the House was introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), now has 125 co-sponsors. The House legislation now has more co-sponsors than it had in the 111th Congress when Democrats held a majority in the chamber.

In a statement, Nadler said he welcomes Ros-Lehtinen as a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act “with great joy.”

“And her support reminds us that the march to repeal the discriminatory DOMA is not a partisan issue,” Nadler said. “Just as New York showed the nation this summer in its bipartisan embrace of marriage equality, the drive to end DOMA is — and must be — a collective, nonpartisan effort that unites Americans behind a simple push for equality.”

Other pro-LGBT bills to which Ros-Lehtinen has signed on as a co-sponsor include the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. In May 2010, Ros-Lehtinen was among five Republicans who voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal even before the Pentagon report on the issue was published.

Of course the cynic would say the reason why there are more sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act in this Congress is because the bill has almost no chance of actually passing the U.S. House with a Republican majority. Therefore, Congressmembers know they can get "credit" for co-sponsoring pro-LGBT legislation without even having to bite the bullet and actually vote in favor of pro-LGBT rights. But that would be cynical, wouldn't it?

Boehner Triples Budget For DOMA Legal Defense

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)

This is pretty astonishing news. While Republicans are repeatedly bloviating about cutting Medicare and Social Security and reducing the size ofthe federal government, that doesn't apparently apply to defending homophobic laws in court.

Joe.My.God reports that the the "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" (which is controlled by the Republican House majority) has authorized a new contract with super-lawyer Paul Clement which triples the potential cost of defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.

Talking Points Memo has the details:

House Republican leaders have tripled theamount allocated for a legal team arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from $500,000 to $1.5 million of taxpayer money.

A modified contract between the General Counsel to the House of Representatives and former Solicitor General Paul Clement of Bancroft PLLC sets a cap of $750,000 which can be raised up to $1.5 million.

"It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act," Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said in a statement.

"At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country," Hammill continued.

It should be noted that the Obama administration has concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional and is no longer defending it in court. DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by at least three federal judges this  year, in cases which are still under appeal.

Saturday Politics: DiFi's Low Poll Numbers, Cash Problem

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, no longer California's most popular politician?

Dianne Feinstein, long thought to be the most popular politician in California, has been running into some rough times lately. MadProfessah blogged about her poll numbers approaching the danger zone in June 2011 and now comes word of a more recent poll (September 16) confirming the conservadem's fall from grace.

Reuters reports:

The Field Research Corp poll estimated voters who do not want Feinstein to win reelection in 2012 to another six-year term at 44 percent, compared to 41 percent who favor her.

That is the first time the Field Poll has seen a larger share of voters say they are opposed to seeing Feinstein win reelection compared to the percentage who favor her election.

Feinstein is chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and has a reputation for being more conservative than California's other Senator, Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat.

In nearly every Field Poll over the past two decades, voters who approved of Feinstein outnumbered by double-digit margins those who disapproved, researchers said.

But the Field Poll showed only 41 percent said they approved of her job performance while 39 percent disapproved, representing the lowest rating of Feinstein's tenure.

Besides the low poll numbers, Sen. Feinstein is also caught up in the burgeoning Kinde Durkee accounting scandal. Apparently her $5 millon war chest for next November's re-election has been wiped out. Feinstein is responding by using $5 million of her (husband's) money to replace the amount stolen by the corrupt Democratic political accountant.

Politico reported about Feinstein's troubles last week:

Feinstein’s campaign already had a cloud hanging over it: This will be the first major race she navigates without her longtime strategist Kam Kuwata, whose death in April stunned political observers and left a gaping hole in her operation.

Those developments, coupled with Feinstein’s age — she’ll turn 79 next year — have fueled retirement speculation. While a formal announcement isn’t planned until 2012, Carrick told POLITICO that Feinstein will pursue a fourth term. But a volatile environment that continues to punish politicians with longtime ties to the establishment could still provide an opening for a robust Republican challenge.

While most see a weakened Feinstein still sailing to a comfortable victory, some believe a legitimate GOP challenger could be a boon to both sides. The scandal forced Feinstein to begin fundraising from scratch, and donors are hesitant to throw money at a campaign that so far faces no serious threats.

“There’s nothing more frustrating than shadow boxing,” said Carrick. “That’s a fundraising issue too. You get some people to say, ‘I’ll give when she has a serious opponent.’”

I know that I will most definitely not donating to or voting for Dianna Feinstein, for anything, ever again. She lost me when she carried water for President George W. Bush to get some of his conservative federal judicial appointments through the United States Senate, teaming up with her "good friend" Joe Lieberman to give aid and comfort to the Republicans.

I don't care that she voted against DOMA in 1996 and supports the Respect for Marriage Act and  marriage equality. She's bad on a whole lot of other progressive issues, something which can NOT be said for California's other U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who I would walk 3 miles in the snow, barefoot to support. It's amazing that California has two Democratic female Senators who are so very different on the issues.d

Obama Comments on DOMA and LGBT Bullying

President Barack Obama appeared at a public forum for Hispanic media on  Wednesday and answered two questions of interest to LGBT folks.

One question was on bullying:

MR. SIADE:  This question comes from Florida:  Since bullying is increasing in an alarming way in the U.S., what can be done to avoid further discrimination or bullying within various racial groups, particularly for Hispanic kids in school?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I think it's a really important question.  We actually had the first-ever conference on bullying here in the White House -- because for young people it’s hard enough growing up without also then being subject to constant harassment.  And the kind of bullying that we’re seeing now, including using the Internet and new media, can be very oppressive on young people.

     So what we’ve tried to do is to provide information and tools to parents, to schools, to communities to push back and fight against these kinds of trends.  And a lot of the best work has actually been done by young people themselves who start anti-bullying campaigns in their schools, showing how you have to respect everyone, regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of sexual orientation.  And when you get a school environment in which that’s not accepted by young people themselves, where they say we’re not going to tolerate that kind of bullying, that usually ends up making the biggest difference, because kids react to their peer group more than sometimes they do adults.

And what we need to do is make sure that we’re providing tools to schools and to young people to help combat against bullying, and it’s something that we'll continue to work on with local communities and local school districts as well.

MR. LERNER:  So you’re going to have a conference on bullying in the White House?

THE PRESIDENT:  We already did.  We had it -- it was probably four or five months ago.  And we brought in non-profit groups, religious leadership, schools, students themselves.  And they have now organized conferences regionally, around the country, so that we can prevent this kind of bullying from taking place.

And another was on DOMA, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act:

MR. LERNER:  Mr. President, on the Defense of Marriage Act, also called DOMA, this comes from Kevin in North Carolina.  He says:  I'm a gay American who fell in love with a foreigner.  As you know, due to DOMA, I'm not permitted to sponsor my foreign-born partner for residency.  And as a result, we are stuck between a rock and an impossible situation.  How do you intend to fix this?  Waiting for DOMA to be repealed or struck down in the courts will potentially take years.  What do binational couples do in the meantime?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we made a decision that was a very significant decision, based on my assessment of the Constitution, that this administration would not defend DOMA in the federal courts.  It's not going to be years before this issue is settled. This is going to be settled fairly soon, because right now we have cases pending in the federal courts.

     Administratively, we can't ignore the law.  DOMA is still on the books.  What we have said is even as we enforce it, we don't support it, we think it's unconstitutional.  The position that my administration has taken I think will have a significant influence on the court as it examines the constitutionality of this law.  And once that law is struck down -- and I don't know what the ruling will be -- then addressing these binational issues could flow from that decision, potentially.

     I can't comment on where the case is going to go.  I can only say what I believe, and that is that DOMA doesn't make sense; it’s unfair; I don't think that it meets the demands of our Constitution.  And in the meantime, if -- I’ve already said that I’m also supportive of Congress repealing DOMA on it’s own and not waiting for the courts.  The likelihood of us being able to get the votes in the House of Representatives for DOMA repeal are very low at this point so, truthfully, the recourse to the courts is probably going to be the best approach.

Any thoughts on how Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann would answer these questions?

Sen. Mikulski Tweets DOMA Repeal Support

Closeted United States Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) was previously the subject of a petition campaign to get her support for the Repeal for Marriage Act, federal legislation which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, has announced (via Facebook and Twitter) that she will indeed sign on to S. 598.

The Washington Blade reports:

In a statement provided to the Washington Blade via e-mail, Mikulski confirmed she’s a co-sponsor of the legislation.

“I am proud to co-sponsor legislation to repeal key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act,” Mikulski said. “I believe all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law and all of our citizens deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

She continued, “The Respect for Marriage Act, S.598, will allow couples who have a legal marriage in a state to have the same federal protections as every other married couple. This includes the right to receive spousal benefits under Social Security; to file joint federal tax returns and to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act when a spouse falls seriously ill.”

Mikulski’s support brings the total number of co-sponsors for the Respect for Marriage Act to 30. In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the repeal legislation and how DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, burdens gay couples.

Last month, a coalition of LGBT rights groups — Freedom to Marry, the Courage Campaign and Equality Maryland — delivered a petition with names from nearly 3,000 Maryland residents to Mikulski’s office calling on her to support DOMA repeal.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Celebrity Friday: Barbara Mikulski Avoiding DOMA Repeal?

U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, is the
second-longest serving woman in Congress in history

As support for legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act gains steam with hearings being held in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, attention has begun to fall on liberal members of the Democratic caucus who have inexplicably not yet co-sponsored the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598/H.R. 1116). For example, in Maryland where marriage equality supporters are expected to move forward with another attempt to legalize marriage equality in 2012 with the strong support of the state's Governor after 2011's heartbreaking defeat, only one of that state's two Democratic U.S. Senators is on record in support of the Respect for Marriage Act or marriage equality itself.There are currently 18 US Senators who support marriage equality and there are 28 U.S. Senators co-sponsoring the DOMA repeal bill.

It's a perfectly reasonable position to be against DOMA (which even in 1996 was a truly shocking federal intrusion into an area of law ceded to the states for hundreds of years rooted in animus towards homosexuality) without publicly endorsing marriage equality, that's the current position of the President of the United States.

What's so surprising is that the Senator from Maryland who is supporting DOMA repeal is Benjamin Cardin, not Barbara Mikulski. Mikulski is a longtime liberal and is currently the longest serving female member of Congress. If she is still in office after March 12, 2012 she will become the longest serving female member of Congress of all time. She has also been widely rumored to be a closeted lesbian for decades. Regardless of what her sexual orientation, it is becoming unacceptable for prominent members of the Democratic party, especially someone as senior as Mikulski not to take a position in favor of marriage equality, especially when it is an important issue for her state and there is federal legislation pending before the United States Senate right now.

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.