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.
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.immigrationequality.org
In fact, this is very much overdo. The last time I checked, the 14th Amendment has been around for some time.
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?
It doesn't sound quite as nice that way, does it? I'm sorry.
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.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13677
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.
He did in fact say he was for full marriage equity last fall. Here is the link - http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13677
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.
For more information:
http://www.immigrationequality.org/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501669.html
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.
Let the churches and religious sects be the big ots. The federal government is no place for institutionalized big otry
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/03/irs-rules-that-1-million.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105
However, I cannot belive that a man like him can agree with Thomas's Freedman (an imposter among us) on anything.