Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, March 28, 2011

It Gets Better With Green Cards

Posted by on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

One of the cruelest ways that our society—that our government—discriminates against same-sex couples is by deporting the spouses of gays and lesbians who fell in love with, and legally married (in states that have achieved marriage equality), foreign nationals.

A straight man can fly to Russia and marry someone he's never met in person and sponsor his mail-order bride for citizenship, no questions asked. (Well, not too many questions asked.) A gay man can meet a foreign national who is, say, studying in the United States, live with that person for eight years (undergrad, grad school), marry that person, create a life with that person, have children with that person, and watch helplessly as his spouse is deported because the federal government refused to recognize that these two men—two men who've built a life together—have any relationship to each other at all.

It looks like that may be coming to an end:

Following up on reports from this weekend, Metro Weekly just received confirmation from Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that [the deportations] of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act. Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues."

I have to say that between DADT, DOMA, anti-bullying initiatives, and now this, the Obama administration has turned things around. Was it Rahm's departure? Was it the realization that gay issues have become a wedge that divides Republicans? Was it panic over the drop in gay donations to Dems during the mid-terms and the rise in the percentage of the gay vote going to Republicans? Whatever it was, whatever it is, I'll take it. Even if it is, as some have suggested, a cold political calculation and not true lurv, I'll take it. (Why wouldn't we want those cold political calculations to add up in our favor?) And this bit from the Metro Weekly's story is particularly gratifying:

Soloway noted when speaking about these issues previously that the administration "has twice dealt in a very special way with groups of individuals facing deportation." He explained, "They put a moratorium on the widows of U.S. citizens in 2009, and, in 2010, the administration announced it would defer action on the deportation of individuals who are likely eligible under the DREAM Act. So, the administration has shown that it does use its executive branch muscle when it comes to discretion about who to deport."

In 2009 I went apeshit when I read that the Obama administration had decided to stop deporting widows of U.S. citizens who hadn't been married long enough to qualify for residency, a.k.a. "the widow's penalty," despite the fact that the law required them to deport those widows. I didn't go apeshit because I wanted to see those widows deported, but because this was the same administration that was arguing that it had no choice but to continue discharging gay soldiers because the law required them to discharge those gay soldiers. When the head of homeland security came out and said that she was suspending enforcement of the widow's penalty while "Congress worked on a solution," I wanted to know why the hell the president do the same on DADT:

So the head of the Department of Homeland Security can suspend the enforcement of the Widow's Penalty in order to give Congress time to "fix the law," but Barack Obama—the President of the United States, Commander in Chief, Janet Napolitano's boss—he can't suspend enforcement of DADT to give Congress time to "fix the law." Is that it? Or is Obama administration only capable of recognizing an injustice and taking action when the lives of heterosexuals are being destroyed?

I was told at the time that I'm an idiot, that I just didn't understand thewaythingswork, that these were fundamentally different issues, that blah blah fuckadoodle blah. Well, gee. It turns out that I was right: the administration could apply the same standard—suspend enforcement while a solution was being worked on—to laws that were destroying the lives of gay people. But they wouldn't—then. Now they have.

Get ready to break out those checkbooks in advance of the 2012 presidential election, my fellow homos. This is the kind of change we were promised, the kind of change we weren't seeing for too long, and the kind of change that we should reward with our dollars and our votes. This doesn't mean the administration is without fault—ahem—or above criticism—AHEM—but this kind of progress has to be rewarded.

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
gloomy gus 1
Oh, brother, it's fun when an idiot calls someone clever an idiot. Thanks for all you did to let us know, and fingers crossed...
Posted by gloomy gus on March 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM
Vince 2
We really have to rally for this president and prevent the opposition from retaking power and destroying the progress we've made. It is crucial!
Posted by Vince on March 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Will in Seattle 3
Meanwhile, Canada will continue to be 20 years ahead of you with a stronger GDP and lower unemployment, and all the rights you won't get until you force them to give them to you ...

Have fun waiting for your corporate masters to finally permit you your rights.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 28, 2011 at 2:23 PM
4
"Was it Rahm's departure? Was it the realization that gay issues are now a wedge issue that divides Republicans? Was it panic about the drop in gay donations to Dems during the mid-terms and the rise in the percentage of the gay vote going to Republicans?" Etc., etc.

Dan, why can't you at least allow for the possibility that
Team Obama's intentions are actually good? That they actually have our interests in mind? Maybe proceeding slowly, allowing all the processes of government to move at the pace they move at, is best. No, we don't get everything we want the minute we want it, but who ever does?

Just one example: Congress repealing DADT rather than an executive order: it has the force of law and can't simply be reversed by President Barbour's next executive order. And it happened!
Posted by bobbo on March 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM
5
Is the last paragraph sarcasm? Tone doesn't carry well online, and Dan's proven to be quite adept at portraying different meanings with the same words in different contexts.
Posted by hominidX on March 28, 2011 at 2:42 PM
kim in portland 6
Maybe, all of the above. Plus, a little bit of "squeaky wheel gets some grease" or a bit from the parable of the persistent widow? Congratulations to all who are working towards 'righting' this 'wrong'. Keep up the good work.

Cheers!
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on March 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM
this guy I know in Spokane 7
@2 -- maybe a Bachmann for President campaign donation, to help her get the nomination...

@3 -- wow, you're so lucky you live in Canada.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on March 28, 2011 at 2:45 PM
8
What is a "stronger GDP", Will?

Canadian and US GDP

???

???!!!?!?!?
Posted by Jason Petersen http://fixedpoints.net on March 28, 2011 at 3:04 PM
9
Jason, Will from probably referring to this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=com…
Posted by Lauchlin on March 28, 2011 at 3:09 PM
MythicFox 10
@4 -- It's partially because some of the administration's pro-gay behavior isn't simply taking a while to move on issues, but an active reversal of earlier behavior. The recent end of the Justice Department's defense of DOMA wasn't simply Obama taking his time to do something about it but was an outright reversal of a time when Obama's JD actively defended it after promising to do something about it. It's hard to believe in good intentions when what we see is "Promise to do X, then actively thwarting the doing of X, and when the lack of doing X is a possible political weakness then start actually doing X."
Posted by MythicFox on March 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM
Will in Seattle 11
good points, MythicFox.

My point stands. The reason Canada has women's rights in the Constitution and has had gays serving in the military for so long many have now retired with full benefits and has had full gay marriage rights is that they were willing to go to the wall on it, and not accept "maybe" or "sometime" as an answer.

If you're happy waiting until 2030 when enough old Tea Party people die off, be my guest. But other countries made it happen long ago.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 12

Look, gays won.

Stop trying to fight the last war, I tell my fellow Republicans.

Focus on the only issues that matter -- economic, tax and fairness.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on March 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM
13
Bush made similar moves with environmental legislation.

So while you are correct that the president does have these sorts of powers, at the end of the day, it would be nice if the president didn't. But we have the presidency we have not the one we wish we had... so I agree that Obama should do this.
Posted by IowaIan on March 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM
OuterCow 14
They can have my money when they stop cutting funding to social programs while at the same time starting more oil wars.
Posted by OuterCow on March 28, 2011 at 3:42 PM
15
Rahm's anti-gay?

The RPS speaks to the contrary. (Though I do wonder what Michelle thinks of the fanart.)
Posted by Sili on March 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM
16
@15 I think he might be alluding to the possibility that Rahm's political calculus came out that taking these actions would be net loss in the coming election.

Hopefully I'm not putting words in peoples mouths though.
Posted by spoons on March 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM
OutInBumF 17
Two possiblities: One- Obama knows he's a lame duck, and is therefore following his true beliefs, instead of politics, or Two- he and his advisors actually believe the field of Rethugs is so repellent that he'll be re-elected regardless of what he does. Either way, I'll take the progress happily.
I'd be so tickled to see the Rethugs LOSE at this culture war shit. Have it blow up in their faces, unlike the last 20 years of its use in politics. 2012 just might be the year, if only the economy would pick up by then.
Posted by OutInBumF on March 28, 2011 at 5:26 PM
18
Yay! I'm very happy for you. That's wonderful news! The process is difficult enough if you're straight, I can't imagine how difficult it is for gay couples.

I'm currently looking at emigrating with my partner, and even for us straight people, it can be pretty hard. They want to see evidence of joint finances and since we don't have a car or a house in our name (hello, we're in our early 20's with 35,000 in student debt each) they're saying there's a good chance my application will be denied. sadface.
Posted by Caralain on March 28, 2011 at 5:28 PM
puppydogtails 19
I'm a Canadian in a binational couple that will hopefully benefit from this policy change. I'm also more of a libertarian and anti-Democrat. But fuck that. Now Obama has my total adoration and complete support. I don't care if I'm a whore. I will go to the mat for this man! Thank you Mr. Prez, you have given my life meaning again. I was living like a ghost, no lie. Now I have hope. Thank you, thank you.

PS If a Republican gets in, do you think he would mass-deport all the gays in this situation? Fuck that would be gothic.
Posted by puppydogtails on March 28, 2011 at 7:29 PM
bleedingheartlibertarian 20
What would be really great is not having to ask the government's permission for your spouse (regardless of sex combination) to continue to live in the country with you, AT ALL. There's something fundamentally dehumanizing about this that people who have not had to do it simply cannot fully appreciate.
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on March 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM
21
11, as a Canadian, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Yes, there was opposition, and yes, the gains that were made were fought for. However, it really wasn't a case of brave Canadians being willing to go to the wall, while the wimpy Americans accept their fate. Rather, the two societies are very different - religion does not play anywhere NEAR the role in Canadian politics that is does in American. It's quite rare for a candidate's religious affiliation to come up at all in a campaign, and we just don't have the right wing religious nut jobs you've got, not in anything like real numbers.

The reason this fight is taking longer in the States is because you've got a more powerful and determined enemy.
Posted by agony on March 29, 2011 at 5:57 AM
22
@17

Third choice: Obama and his advisors believe that being visibly pro-gay will gain him more support among those who might conceivably vote for him than doing so will cost him. He can write off the Tea Party and similar dedicated right-wing base.

It used to be that there was no value in being pro-gay - we could reliably be counted to vote Democrat regardless, and enough independents cared enough that they would vote against pro-gay politicians. The tide is turning to the point where the independents don't particularly care enough to vote against someone purely on the fact that they support gay equality, and we have enough allies who do care to make it worth their while.

Whether he's right or not remains to be seen. But it seems clear that it will be true at some point pretty soon.
Posted by Lymis on March 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM
puppydogtails 23
Our dreams have been dashed -- there is no change in the policy after all:

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011…

So I guess on top of being discriminated against, we're being toyed with as well? I guess we're just made to suffer...
Posted by puppydogtails on March 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM
24
So nobody here remembers what happened when Clinton instituted DADT in the first couple months of office?

Obama is moving on these issues at a time when the Republicans are falling all over themselves to repeal health insurance reform, fix the deficit, and somehow not raise taxes. In other words, when they can't stop him. Obama's priority, always, was health insurance reform. It was personal: he did it for his mother. Now he's moving on everybody else's priorities. But we should give Dan credit for helping to keep the flame alive.

Obama's a brilliant strategist. And to think I voted for Hillary........ I don't mind having lost that battle.
Posted by ScienceChickie on March 30, 2011 at 7:24 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy