No Time to Wait for Justice
Justice may be blind, but it sure ain't always swift.
That's why I have asked the Obama administration to help me speed up reuniting two of my Massachusetts constituents, Tim Coco and his husband Genesio "Junior" Oliveira, who have been separated through no fault of their own.
The case of Tim and Junior has attracted a lot of public attention - and rightly so. Their dilemma illustrates just how important it is to inject some justice and compassion into our immigration system and how important it is to overturn wrongheaded laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and pass legislation that guarantees gay couples the same legal protections heterosexual couples are afforded. But in the meantime, I'm asking Attorney General Eric Holder to lend a hand to get Junior back home with Tim in Massachusetts as quickly as possible.
Tim and Junior were married in Massachusetts in March 2005. Two years later, Junior was forced to return to his native Brazil because of his expired immigration status. Immigration laws allow spouses of American citizens to obtain legal permanent residency. But even though Tim and Junior were legally married under Massachusetts law, federal law does not recognize their marriage.
But there are even more immediate humanitarian issues looming in Junior's case. He was forced back to Brazil under orders from the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals, which had denied his application for asylum status. Junior had applied for asylum in 2002 based on a brutal rape and attack he suffered at the hands of government officials in Brazil.
It is astounding that Immigration Judge Francis Cramer, who presided at Junior's asylum hearing, found that Junior's testimony was "credible" and his fear of Brazil "genuine" but nonetheless denied the asylum claim and said that Junior "was never physically harmed" by the rape. The Immigration Appeals Board upheld the ruling in 2007, at which point Junior returned to Brazil and has been separated from his spouse ever since.
Some critics (including Emma Ruby-Sachs, right here on the Huffington Post) have rightly suggested that repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Congress passed in 1996 in an effort to prohibit same sex marriages, would solve Tim and Junior's problem. But Tim and Junior don't have time to wait for that to happen before they can be reunited. That's why I've asked Attorney General Holder to take a closer look at Junior's asylum claim and reunite this loving couple.
I believe Tim and Junior should be reunited based on their legal marriage in the state of Massachusetts. I believe that all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be assured equal protection under the law.
That's why I am trying to win passage of the United American Families Act so that partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents can obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens. That's why I voted against DOMA. That's why I am supporting the suit filed by several couples in Massachusetts to overturn parts of DOMA.
But when you cut to the chase, I don't believe Tim and Junior, or any other couple in a similar situation, should have to wait for Congress to come around to the truth that laws like DOMA are discriminatory and wrong.
No couple should have to wait. And no United States Senator should take off the table the immediate steps a compassionate government can take to reunite two law-abiding, loving people today - not tomorrow.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you Sen Kerry.
I am in a bi-national relationship. When I came to the States to work I wasn't expecting to meet someone, but I did. And I am happy - I am not hurting anyone. But in a few months I have to return home, I can not stay here and my gf can not move with me. I fully agree with UAFA...if not to help me then to help the other thousands. Thank you Senator Kerry, it is just a shame that the country that 'leads' equal rights, forces some of their own people to beg and plead and treat them like second class citizens.
We need more Senators like you!
And that, dear senator, is exactly why you never stood a chance at becoming President. What is okay in Massachusetts is not anywhere within the realm of acceptance in the rest of this vast country. How you can champion these two abberations of nature is beyond the kenf of most of your fellow Americans.
Abberations of nature? They have tails? I wish I had one...
I wish that I could understand where the hate in your heart and your rediculous ideology comes from. No one chooses to be gay, do you understand that it is not a choice?? I just dont think this is what Jesus had in mind for you to feel empowered while standing behind a book and throwing your hate on everyone that is different from you in his very name! Just remember, God sees everything you do and one day you will have to answer to your hateful words and opinions, hopefully you are treated with more tolerrance than what you have shown towards others, but wouldnt it be ironic if you were treated the way you have treated others (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)? And as for what is okay in Massachusetts, SHOULD be ok in the rest of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, get it....Unit
You had my vote in 2004. You got shot at, and Georgie flew a fighter jet. I wish more people had seen things the way I saw them. Oh well, too late now. Don't feel too bad about being 'just a senator,' Mr. Kerry!
Thank you Senator Kerry! I would like to thank you for your work in overturning DOMA and for being a cosponsor of UAFA (United American Families Act).
UAFA is an important step to uniting binational couples. Over 35,000 couples are faced with the hardships of living apart, or having to leave the United States. I believe over 16 other countries allow same-sex couples to sponsor their loved ones, it was a shock to me when I found out that the U.S. simply overlooks this group, we feel forgotten.
find out more at www.immigr
Let me get this straight..
Democrats can mult-task.
I think your mistaking multi-tasking for ADD
There is always time for the constitutional citizenship of Americans to be recognized.
In fact, this is very much overdo. The last time I checked, the 14th Amendment has been around for some time.
I really appreciate your position on this issue Senator Kerry. I appreciate the fact that you recognize these married men as each others' spouses. My question is, when did you change your feelings on this? During your 2004 campaign you SPECIFICALLY supported amending YOUR STATE'S (Massachusetts) constitution to BAN the very marriages that you are vicariously defending today. You also stated your UNEQUIVOCAL position against marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.
Don't get me wrong, I'm THRILLED that you've finally joined us in the 21st century, I just wasn't aware (before today) that you had. What did I miss?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but read Senator Kerry's article more closely. He is not actually supporting full marriage equality. Unfortunately, this is just another scrap from the table that is the bundle of marriage rights in this country, and we are supposed to accept it gladly, and offer campaign contributions in return.
It doesn't sound quite as nice that way, does it? I'm sorry.
Actually, you should read it more closely - he says nothing about NOT supporting full marriage equality. He is concentrating on full equal rights - a position he has always held - in 1996, when he voted against DOMA and in 2004 when he ran for President. His position of civil unions with full federal rights was then more than previous nominees ran on - and Obama went no further.
In fact, in this video from a MA Q&A after a speech at Tufts last fall , Kerry did say that he supports marriage equality. http://www
Senator Kerry-
You're right. Overturning DOMA would be a tremendous step. I think the problem with your policy position, though, is that it is more aimed at satisfiying the conscience of so-called "liberals" than it is at achieving equal rights. I think that, more than anything else, what Ms. Ruby-Sachs and others like myself are critical of is your incremental, half-hearted attempts at equality, instituted while denying that you fully support same-sex marriage. (I note with sadness, but no real surprise, your cynical stopping-short of recognition of a Constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples. Shame on you.)
This is not rocket science. It's basic math. There's no such thing as 99.9% equal. There's no such thing as "equal enough," nor is there any mathematical way to express "equal for now." By refusing to take this opportunity to stand up for equal rights and instead make this an immigration issue, you're ultimately doing a disservice to all LGBT people, including your constituents. I sincerely hope your legislation passes -- it would be a monumental victory. But the point is that this law shouldn't even be necessary. Until you're willing to stand up and fight for that principle with the same vigor, you cannot call yourself an advocate for equality.
What is ridiculous is that you are holding Kerry, who was the only Senator up for re-election to vote against DOMA,, whose 2004 position went beyond that of any previous nominee, and who has had a 100% record with HRC for years and who is behind legislation that will improve the situation to a different standard than you are holding anyone else.
He did in fact say he was for full marriage equity last fall. Here is the link - http://www
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not holding Kerry to a different standard, just the same high one. While it may be true that Kerry's position is closer to ideal, "close" doesn't count when the goal is equality. Close to equal is not equal. Openly advocating for a system that maintains the "close to equal" status quo is therefore part of the problem, not the solution. Get it?
This isn't semantics. If we let bills such as this one supported by Kerry become the status quo, we are setting a horrible precedent for equality. Rather than just giving everyone the same status, we keep tacking on rights a la carte whenever a new issue comes up. Maybe for a straight person like Kerry that's good enough, but for those us in the LGBT community it is a poor substitute, and potentially dangerous for our families.
I stand by what I said -- until Kerry is willing to actually advocate on our behalf (in the legislature, where it counts), he's always going to be sabotaging that concept he claims to support.
There is no Constitutional right to marriage for same sex couples, unless you have got some judge somewhere to legislate one!
Spoken like someone who has never read an opinion from the US Supreme Court on the subject of marriage. Do yourself a favor and read Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, and Zablocki v. Redhail. Not the wikipedia entries -- the actual opinions. And then let me know your feelings on whether and how the concept of same sex marriage dovetails with the concept of substantive due process. If you can formulate an intelligent answer to that question, I'll at least respect that you took some time to research the issue before sharing your opinion with all of us.
Thanks for this post Senator Kerry and for your attention on this issue. And thank you to Representative Jerrold Nadler and Senator Patrick Leahy for their devotion to the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). This affects me directly as I am one of the more than 36,000 Americans in a bi-national relationship with a same-sex partner. Up until recently the UAFA hasn’t received much attention so I was thrilled to read this post and the editorial in the Washington Post from last week.
For more information:
http://www
http://www
"One question: would you be in favor of the government getting OUT of the marriage business altogether? Suppose they simply converted ALL recognized relationships as "civil unions" including yours?"
This is a non-sequitur. Marriage is a secular institution legally already. If a Muslim and a Jew go to a courthouse they can get married. If a Mormon and an atheist go to a courthouse they can get married.
The "scorched Earth" attitude (destroy an institution rather than allow gay people to be a part of it) needs to stop being promoted with grossly distorted assessments of reality.
Check out the 1st Amendment to discover we're not a theocracy and religion doesn't therefore define our laws, including marriage. Mormons, Jews, and Muslims (per my example) are free to exclude people at their places of worship for marriage ceremonies, but at a courthouse, their religious attitudes are irrelevant.
Excellent post!! You summarized the issue perfectly.
frankly i support taking that approach. I know of many people who absolutely, 100% support Civil Unions for same-sex partners (my father and one of my brothers to start). Their objection is that you can't legislate a new meaning to a word, and thus they are against gay marriage. This is of course a completely asinine argument, but I get where they're coming from... kinda. For this reason, flushing the word marriage out of law altogether and making all unions civil seems, to me at least, to be a pretty good compromise. At that point, whether or not the couple is married is between each other, or the god of their choice. It doesn't have to be about religion, the law doesn't change on any practical level, its simply a measure to promote equality.
Let the churches and religious sects be the big ots. The federal government is no place for institutionalized big otry
Non sequitur. Marriage is already a secular institution legally. What we're really talking about is a Segregation-style "separate but equal" line of reasoning. And, you're right.. It is asinine.
Keep up the great work, Senator.
Consider fixing IRS unjust treatment of property partners:
http://tax
Maybe they'll be reunited when all the financial regulations you, Senator Kerry, helped undo, are put back into commission.
Get the facts!
http://www
What does that have to do with the gay marriage?
Our senator is a smart man !
However, I cannot belive that a man like him can agree with Thomas's Freedman (an imposter among us) on anything.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
