POLL: Huge Majority Supports LGBT Workplace Equality

A new poll commissioned by Human Rights Campaign confirms that the vast majority of Americans believes that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity should be illegal.

The poll found a vast majority (77 percent) of voters support protecting LGBT people from discrimination in employment.  The support for employment protections defies conventional political wisdom, reaching across party and ideological lines.  Seventy percent of self-identified Republicans and 67 percent of conservatives support anti-discrimination laws.  Support is strong even among groups who tend to be less supportive of LGBT issues, such as seniors (69 percent among voters over age 65), those with a high school degree or less (68 percent), observant Christians (77 percent), born-again Christians (74 percent), and residents of the Deep South (72 percent). 

In a finding showing a need for more public outreach and education for employment non-discrimination laws, most voters believe anti-discrimination laws already exist.  Eighty-seven percent of voters believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay and 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.  Even in states without anti-discrimination laws, 75 percent of voters think it is illegal under state law to fire someone for being gay or lesbian. 

Of course there is pending federal legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would actually make the law comport with what most people believe the law is already: illegal to fire workers because they are LGBT.

But it is absolutely unlikely to pass Congress while the Republicans control the majority of the U.S. House.

SCOTUS Aiming To Be Factor In 2012 Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced some decisions recently which indicate that they will be a major factor in the 2012 presidential election. They announced they would decide three politically fraught cases: the constitutionality of the health care reform law, the constitutionality of Texas's congressional redistricting map and the constitutionality of Arizona's wildly xenophobic immigration law SB-1070.

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

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.

Rick Perry's Top 10 Crazy Ideas (That Will Affect You)

Oh good grief. Maybe it's true that George W. Bush was "the smart one." His successor, Governor Rick Perry is now running for President and  has even crazier ideas about government than Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann.

Blogger Matt Yglesias took his life in his hands and read Perry's book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington and posted the Top 10 craziest ideas he found inside:

— 10. Social Security Is Evil: According to Perry Social Security is “by far the best example” of a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” (page 48)

— 9. Private Enterprise Blossomed Under Conscription and Wartime Price Controls: Not only does he argue that the New Deal failed to end the Great Depression, but he asserts “recovery did not come until World War II, when FDR was finally persuaded to unleash private enterprise.” (page 48)

— 8. Medicare Is Too Expensive But Must Never Be Cut: Both establishing Medicare in 1965 and expanding it to include prescription drugs in 2003 are examples of “an irresponsible culture of spending in Washington” (page 63), but establishing “‘councils of experts’ and panels of various sorts” to assess the cost effectiveness of different Medicare-eligible treatments is a “frightening” “scheme” that “undermines freedom” and can be fairly labeled “death panels” (page 81).

— 7. All Bank Regulation Is Unconstitutional: Criticizing the Security and Exchange Commission’s rulemaking process under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, Perry asserts that “if the Constitution were shown the appropriate respect, Washington regulation writers wouldn’t have to worry about underrepresented views, because they wouldn’t have control over them in the first place” (page 94).

— 6. Consumer Financial Protection Is Unconstitutional: Further reiterates his view that all federal financial regulation is illegitimate, listing the SEC on page 44 as part of a “federal alphabet soup” in which “undemocratic unelected Washington bureaucrats” are “now (dubiously) empowered to dictate their own preferences to the American people.”

— 5. Almost Everything Is Unconstitutional: Regrets the existence of jurisprudence construing the Commerce Clause to permit “federal laws regulating the environment, regulating guns, protecting civil rights, establishing the massive programs and Medicare and Medicaid, creating national minimum wage laws, [and] establishing national labor laws.” Perry makes a partial exception for laws barring racial discrimination which he says fulfill “the intent behind the passage of the Reconstruction Era amendments.” (page 51)

— 4. Federal Education Policy Is Unconstitutional: Cites the willingness of Republicans to vote for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a “perfect example” of “losing sight of the fact that perfectly laudable policy choices at the local level are not appropriate (much less constitutional) at the federal level.” (page 87)

— 3. Al Gore Is Part Of A Conspiracy To Deny The Existence Of Global Cooling:Jokes that the Social Security Trust Fund “must be somewhere in Al Gore’s lockbox, right next to his notes from inventing the Internet and that global cooling data he doesn’t want anyone to see” (page 60). Argues that moderates oppose curbing greenhouse gas emissions because “they know that we have been experiencing a cooling trend” (page 92).

— 2. Not Only Is Everything Unconstitutional, Activist Judges Are A Problem:Having called the majority of the duly enacted modern welfare state and federal regulatory apparatus unconstitutional, Perry pivots to the complaint that “the [Supreme] court too often chooses to take it upon itself to govern and to develop policy” (page 114).

— 1. The Civil War Was Caused By Slaveowners Trampling On Northern States’ Rights: Rather than simply citing chattel slavery as an exemption to his “states’ rights are good” principle, Perry argues that slaveholder activism in the 1850s was an example of big government federal overreach. “In many ways it was was the northern states whose sovereignty was violated in the run-up to the Civil War,” he argues, citing the Fugitive Slave Act and completely ignoring the human rights of the enslaved African-Americans of the south. He says “we can never know what would have happened in the absence of federal involvement,” ignoring again the fact that federalism would have bought peace at the price of continued slavery.

Please don't think that Gov. Perry just wrote these comments in a book nobody read and is now distancing himself from these extreme positions. In an interview with The Daily Beast last week, Perry repeated many of these extreme positions unapologetically.

Pick your poison: Perry, Bachmann or Romney. No thanks, I'll take Obama!

MAP: Which States Spend/Cost Federal Tax Money

From Matt Yglesias by way of The Economist here is an interesting graphic showing how much money each state in the Union gives or gets (federal taxes minus federal spending) as a percentage surplus or deficit.

Another Gay Rights Win For Obama: DADT Ends 09/20/2011

Today, President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen all certified that the lifting of the ban on open service by lesbian, gay or bisexual Americans in the U.S. Armed Forces will not negatively impact national security. The certification was the last step to be taken after DADT repeal legislation passed the Congress last December and was signed into law by the President in front of a crowd of cheering supporters. The military's anti-gay policy will cease to be in effect 60 days after today's certification, or on September 20, 2011.

This is the another huge gay rights win which must be credited to Obama, following his enactment of the federal hate crimes act in 2009, his determination by the federal government that laws affecting sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny and thus declaring DOMA to be unconstitutional earlier this year and now the enactment of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The main thing left on the gay rights agenda is some forward movement on federal government forcing it's contractors not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, since it is unlikely that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will be passing Congress any time soon.

Statement by the President on Certification of Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Today, we have taken the final major step toward ending the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law that undermines our military readiness and violates American principles of fairness and equality.  In accordance with the legislation that I signed into law last December, I have certified and notified Congress that the requirements for repeal have been met.  ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will end, once and for all, in 60 days—on September 20, 2011. 

As Commander in Chief, I have always been confident that our dedicated men and women in uniform would transition to a new policy in an orderly manner that preserves unit cohesion, recruitment, retention and military effectiveness.  Today’s action follows extensive training of our military personnel and certification by Secretary Panetta and Admiral Mullen that our military is ready for repeal.  As of September 20th, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country.  Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be gay or lesbian.

I want to commend our civilian and military leadership for moving forward in the careful and deliberate manner that this change requires, especially with our nation at war.  I want to thank all our men and women in uniform, including those who are gay or lesbian, for their professionalism and patriotism during this transition.  Every American can be proud that our extraordinary troops and their families, like earlier generations that have adapted to other changes, will only grow stronger and remain the best fighting force in the world and a reflection of the values of justice and equality that the define us as Americans.

DADT Certification

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.

MAP: Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Discrimination in U.S.

This map is what the state of play in sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment looks like in the various states as of March 2011. There are 29 states that have no protections for LGBT people in employment in any way (so your boss can say, "I'm firing you because you're a fag!") and you have no recourse what so ever.

As of July 6th, there are now 15 states which ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and there are 21 which ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (all the states which ban gender identity discrimination also ban sexual orientation discrimination). The six states which do not overlap are: New York, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland and Delaware. (One should note that 3 of these 6 states have already enacted marriage equality!) Wisconsin is  ahead scratcher because they passed sexual orientation non-discrimination way back in 1982, the first state in the country to do so. There was gender identity nondiscrimination legislation pending  in New York and Maryland which died when those legislative sessions ended this Spring.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would prohibit employment discrimination nationwide on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Significantly, A version of ENDA (without gender identity protection, thus some people called it "SplENDA") passed the U.S. House under Democratic control in 2007 but failed to be brought up for a vote in the 2009-2001 111th Congress. With Republicans in majority control of the U.S. House it is very doubtful that ENDA will pass that body in the 2011-2013 112th Congress.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Kills DADT (Again)

Wow! A (admittedly decidedly liberal) 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously lifted a stay against the U.S. Government from enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.

Here's the text of the order filed today:

Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD A. PAEZ) The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, is substituted for Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, as an appellant/cross-appellee. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). Appellee/cross-appellant’s motion to lift this court’s November 1, 2010, order granting a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appeal is granted. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (stating standard); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (same). In their briefs, appellants/cross-appellees do not contend that 10 U.S.C. § 654 is constitutional. In addition, in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, the United States has recently taken the position that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. See Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 3:10-00257-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (Doc. 145, July 1, 2011) (“gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination”); Letter from Attorney General to Speaker of House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011) (“there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities”). Appellants/cross-appellees state that the process of repealing Section 654 is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer. The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay. Appellee/cross-appellant’s alternative request to expedite oral argument is granted. The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of August 29, 2011, in Pasadena, California. Briefing is completed.

And here's Legal Eagle Chris Geidner explaining what it means:

DADT cannot be enforced, per the order, unless the government gets a stay of the order from either the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Supreme Court pending an appeal of today's decision.

Cynthia Smith, a Department of Defense spokeswoman, tells Metro Weekly that Pentagon officials "are studying the ruling with the Department of Justice" but added, "We will of course comply with orders of the court, and are taking immediate steps to inform the field of this order." 

The three-judge panel -- Judges Alex Kozinski, Kim Wardlaw and Richard Paez -- based the decision to lift the appellate court's earlier stay of Phillips's order pending the appeal of the LCRcase is based, the judges write, because, "The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay."

Among the citations by the court is the July 1 filing in Karen Golinski's federal case seeking health insurance benefits for her wife and the related Feb. 23 letter from Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that he and President Barack Obama had decided that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications -- such as DADT.

The judges also note that "the process of repealing Section 654 [-- the DADT law --] is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer." Smith echoed this fact, writing to Metro Weekly, "[I]mplementation of the DADT repeal voted by the Congress and signed in to law by the President last December is proceeding smoothly, is well underway, and certification is just weeks away."

You will recal DADT was also not in effect worldwide or 8 days last fall when the Log Cabin Republicans first won an injunction against the government from federal judge Virginia Phillips. Now they have won at the appellate level as well on the question of the stay. The oral arguments about the merits of the case will be heard on August 29th. The government can ask for an en banc panel (11-judge panel) of the 9th Circuit or ask the US Supreme Court for a stay on the latest injunction against the enforcement of DADT..

It will be interesting to see what they do because the statute in question should be moot in a few weeks anyway when the DAT repeal is certified. However, there are some questions about whether sexual orientation will be a category of non-discrimination (which the lawsuit asks for but the legislation does not contain) and also whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice will include consensual sodomy (there is legislation in this year's Defense Authorization bill to repeal the UCMJ sodomy language).

US Applies Crack Sentencing Reform Retroactively

News you might have missed over the weekend: The U.S. Sentencing Commission has decided (unanimously!) to follow the lead of Congressional action in reducing the penalty disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (still not what it should be which is 1:1) and apply these lesser penalties retroactively to (primarily Black and Brown) people who are currently serving excessive time in jail for crimes involving crack:

The Los Angeles Times has the story:

About 12,000 federal prisoners nationwide may soon be going home, some as much as three years early, under a U.S. Sentencing Commission decision to allow retroactive reductions in prison terms for inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses.
The commission voted unanimously Thursday to bring "unfairly long sentences" for crack offenders, mostly African Americans, more in line with the shorter terms given to powder cocaine offenders, often white and sometimes affluent.

Patti B. Saris, the panel's chairwoman, said that when Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act last year, it "recognized the fundamental unfairness of federal cocaine sentencing policy," and the commission sought to bridge the disparity between the two prison sentences.
"Justice demands this result," added Ketanji Brown Jackson, the commission's vice chairman.
When the reductions go into effect in November, the average crack sentence will be cut by about 37 months, and the federal Bureau of Prisoners said the reductions could save more than $200 million in the next five years. Nearly 6% of the federal inmate population would be released.
The reductions are not automatic. Prisoners must file a petition, and will be required to show they are no longer a risk to society. Inmates who used weapons in their crimes or have lengthy criminal histories may not be eligible.
The commission's mail, about 43,500 letters and emails, ran overwhelmingly in favor of the reductions. The Sentencing Project, a Washington group that pushes for reform in sentencing laws, also strongly encouraged approval of the reductions.
Kara Gotsch, director of advocacy for the Sentencing Project, said the panel's vote "confirms that fairness and equal treatment under the law are fundamental principles of our criminal justice system."
But Republicans, most notably Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, opposed the reductions. He had lobbied the commission not to grant the early releases, warning it "merely gets criminals back into action faster."

Good ol' boy Lamar Smith of Texas, always willing to stand up and demonstrate why people should never vote for Republicans. Thanks!

The main take-away is that this move is a move in the right direction towards adding some sanity to what is our insane "War on drugs" public policy.

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.