Love and Same-sex Marriage

The headlines read: "Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election."

The evolution of what we as a Nation believe marriage "is" continues to evolve.  It was only a little over four decades ago that marriage did not include interracial marriages.  In a flashback to the movie Guess Who's coming to Dinner we begin to see how our Nation is evolving.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a 1967 American drama film starring Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier and Katharine Hepburn. The film considered the then controversial subject of interracial marriage, which had been illegal in most states, and was still illegal in 17 states, until June 12, 1967, when anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

The plot centers on a daughter’s return to her affluent American home in San Francisco, bringing her new fiancé to dinner to meet her parents.  She finds it difficult to comprehend her liberal parents’ reaction to her plan to marry an African American.  While they taught her to treat others as equals, the parents strike a different tone when it comes to their daughter’s choice of a life mate.  The fiancé’s parents fly up from Los Angeles to the dinner but, like the parents of the bride to be, they are shocked when they learn their son intends to enter into an interracial marriage. The dinner evolves from an awkward dinner party to a meeting of tolerance and understanding as family and friends try to accept the couple's choice.

 

Same-sex marriage in the United States is recognized in several jurisdictions. As of January 2013, nine states—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia and two Native American tribes —have legalized same-sex marriage. In addition, Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, and California, which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis.

While several jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriagee through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote, nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, prevents the federal governmentt from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. The provision of DOMA forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including two federal appeals courts. Five of these cases are pending review by the Supreme Court.

Polls show that public attitudes have shifted drastically on same-sex marriage over the past decade. A majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, up from roughly one third in 2003.  The recent decision of many Republicans to sign on to an amicus brief that argues that same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory, places them at odds the House Republican leadership, which has authorized the expenditure of tax dollars to defend the 1996 marriage law.

Amicus briefs may not necessarily change the Supreme Court justice's minds, but it is persuasive.  The importance however, is the evolution or as I would say, "better understanding" of our fundamental values. 

The laws of our Nation must demonstrate that the United States is a nation of values, founded on the idea that all people are created equal and that all people have rights, no matter what they look like, where they came from, or what their sexual orientation is.

When it comes to marriage, As Spencer Tracy’s character taught us, it does not matter what others think of another’s relationship.  What is truly important is how much they feel for each other and if it is half of what we feel for our loved ones, that’s everything!

Why saying “I do” still receives unequal treatment under Federal Immigration Laws

Last month, as I read Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent in Arizona v United States, I wondered what he’ll be thinking when he hears oral argument in the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The premise of Scalia’s dissent was that states have the right to control their borders.  It seems logical then that Scalia, and those who claim to cherish state sovereignty, would likewise conclude that the regulation of marriage is also a matter appropriately left to the states.  Why then is it that when it comes to immigration benefits for same-sex couples, state laws which recognize same-sex marriage are resoundingly trumped by the federal law which does not?

The answer is DOMA and its infamous limitation of marriage to unions between “one man and one woman” which puts family-based immigration benefits-- such as green card sponsorship--beyond the reach of same-sex couples.

To be sure, the Obama Administration has made clear its support of  same-sex marriage.  This past May the President gave his public endorsement, explaining that he “had hesitated on gay marriage in part because [he] thought that civil unions would be sufficient.”  His views continued to evolve, so he explained, because marriage “invokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.”

Yet, despite the Administration’s evolution toward support for same-sex marriage, including Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision not to defend DOMA in litigation, American families in same-sex marriages continue to receive unequal treatment under our archaic  immigration laws causing needless suffering and fear of separation.

Last week Jane DeLeon, an immigrant from the Philippines challenged the constitutionality of DOMA as applied to deny immigration family benefits.  In 2008 DeLeon married her long time US citizen partner. She is eligible for an employment-based immigrant visa, but requires a waiver due to a previous immigration violation.  The waiver is available to immigrants such as DeLeon where the denial of her lawful permanent residency would cause extreme hardship to her US citizen spouse.  In DeLeon’s case the waiver was denied solely because she is married to a woman; even though, under state law, the woman is her wife.

Under our broken immigration system a same-sex marriage celebrated under state law means nothing.  Same-sex couples remain at the mercy of an antiquated and functionally mean spirited statute—and they will so remain at least until the Supreme Court addresses the constitutionality of DOMA. 

First Lady Michelle Obama said recently on the Spanish program “Aqui y Ahora”, "There is nothing more critical than keeping families together”.   Yet how many more American families will be torn apart before the sanctity of same-sex marriage is no longer sullied by DOMA and its impact on our immigration law? 

9th Circuit Court Agrees Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional

A step in the right direction

Prop 8 Unconstitutional

The battle over gay marriage is heating up

There is a difference between the legal and the religious meaning of marriage. There is a battle - so what will happen? Check out this post: http://http://www.examiner.com/x-20951-DC-Progressive-Catholic-Perspectives-Examiner~y2009m8d24-The-battle-over-gay-marriage-is-heating-up

California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8

Last month, the California Supreme Court, by a 6-1 vote, today rejected a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 4, 2008 election that added a section to the California Constitution providing “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The court unanimously held that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757.

The court also unanimously held that the new constitutional provision applies only prospectively, and does not affect the continued validity of the estimated 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples that occurred prior to November 5, 2008, when the new constitutional provision took effect.

Prop 8 eliminates same-sex marriage

On November 4, 2008, the controversial Proposition 8 passed providing for a change in the California State Constitution. The changed adds a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.". This change restricts the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and eliminates same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases by "carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses" of the state constitution. The proposition did not affect the existing domestic partnerships registry.

Same sex marriage now allowed in California

On March 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples in California can get married. The Court ruled in a 172 page opinion that "...in light of the conclusions we reach concerning theconstitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that thelanguage of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union between aman and a woman is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, andthat the remaining statutory language must be understood as making thedesignation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Inaddition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed bysection 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand."

How this will affect immmigration is still to be determined. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents recognition of same sex marriages as it defined marriage as the union between a "man and a woman". So what will immigration do?