blog-hdr.gif

Integrity Legal

Posts Tagged ‘DOMA’

11th November 2009

There are many people throughout the United States who seem more and more unhappy with the current state of gay rights issues. This unhappiness seems particularly acute when discussing the issue of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Under current United States Federal law same sex marriages are not recognized by the Federal Government. Therefore, United States Immigration benefits based upon marriage cannot be extended to the same-sex partners of US citizens as same sex marriage is not recognized as a “marriage” for purposes of US Immigration.

Many have advocated either the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act or the enactment of some federal legislation which would allow for same sex immigration benefits notwithstanding DOMA. A recent example of the latter is the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would provide US Immigration benefits to “permanent partners” of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Most efforts to provide same sex immigration benefits have been in vain which has created frustration in the LGBT community as well as amongst advocates for civil rights.

In recent months there has been talk of repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy in the US military. Also, the US State Department has issued internal rules granting Immigration benefits, in the form of diplomatic and official passports, to the same sex partners of State Department employees working abroad. Many feel that these are “half measures,” simply designed to placate advocates for LGBT rights.  The following, quoted from this source, sums up the feeling of consternation:

Noticeably absent from this civil rights agenda is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Apparently a Democratic majority in the House, a Democratic super-majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president in the White House isn’t quite enough to get a repeal passed. Of course, other major issues are confronting the nation, and issues dealing with same-sex marriage often bring with them volatile politics. But, with the prospect of trimmed Democratic majorities in Congress after the 2010 midterm elections, is it really unreasonable for the LGBT community to expect action on DOMA now, as opposed to potentially a decade from now, maybe later? [Emphasis in original]

As can be seen from the above quote, the real issue for many is the repeal of DOMA. This legislation lies at the heart of most legal restrictions placed upon same-sex couples in the United States. Currently, the legality of DOMA is also being weighed in the US Federal Courts, but the outcome is far from certain. The repeal of DOMA is likely to remain a controversial issue in the future. A repeal of these restrictions will likely mark a watershed moment for American Civil Liberties.


more Comments: 04

3rd August 2009

As the movement towards the eventual repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) continues, it appears that proponents of repeal may score a minor victory by enlisting Senator Russ Feingold to introduce repeal legislation.

The Washington Blade reports,

“[Senator] Feingold is an attractive ally to introduce a DOMA repeal bill because he chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee, which hold jurisdiction over DOMA, she said.”

Concurrently, it would appear that Jerry Nadler, Democratic Member of the House of Representatives, is preparing to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA. Under the provisions of the DOMA repeal currently being considered, states would not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states, but the Federal government would be required to recognize these marriages and provide federal benefits.

Allison Herwitt, legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign, was quoted as saying, “You could, if you lived in Oklahoma, travel to Massachusetts, or one of the other [five] states get married and [go] back to Oklahoma,” she said. “The state would not have to recognize your marriage, but federal benefits would flow.”

Jerry Nadler is notable for having introduced federal legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). This proposed legislation would have granted US Immigration benefits to the same-sex “permanent partners,” of American Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (holders of US Green Card).

This proposed DOMA repeal would likely have the same effect as the provisions under the UAFA because it would theoretically accord the same sex spouse of an American Citizen the same privileges granted to different sex couples unde ramerican Immigration law. For example, if a bi-national same sex couple was validly married in Massachusetts and then the American Citizen filed an I-130 petition on behalf of his or her spouse, then the federal government would be compelled to recognize the marriage for the purposes of granting the Immigration benefit.

Further, one could argue that an American citizen could file a K1 visa application based upon the couple’s intent to travel to a jurisdiction in the United States which recognizes same-sex marriage and execute a valid marriage. It is thought that should this form of the DOMA repeal pass, then a fiance visa application filed for the above outlined purpose would be approved. That being said, as the bill has not been legalized and the contents are subject to change, it any analysis of USA visa implication is simply an exercise in speculation at this time.

(This is information provided for educational purposes. An attorney-client relationship should not be construed to exist between author and reader.)

more Comments: 04

26th July 2009

This blog has been keeping track of the US Immigration implications of recognition of Same Sex Marriage under United States Federal law. Currently, a US law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), precludes the United States Federal government from recognizing same sex marriage (even when the marriage was validly executed in one of the fifty US States). Also, DOMA provides American states with the option of not recognizing same-sex unions in other states (although this provision has been question on Full Faith and Credit grounds).  Since the United States government does not recognize same sex marriage, same sex bi-national couples cannot obtain US Immigration benefits based upon a marital relationship.

There are currently movements to provide immigration benefits for same-sex couples. One pending bill is known as the Uniting American Families Act which has apparently been reborn under a new moniker: the Re-Uniting American Families Act. There is also a movement gaining a great deal of steam that seeks a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. It is this author’s opinion, that eventually the Defense of Marriage Act will be repealed. The upshot of DOMA’s repeal will be an increase in family immigration benefits for same sex couples.

This pending legislation and political movement has been the focal point of many posts previously written on this blog, but since this blog is also concerned with Thai law, it begs the question: does Thailand recognize same sex marriage? The short answer: No. It should be noted that Thailand is one of the most tolerant cultures in the world, particularly regarding gay rights. That being said, there is no process under Thai law for legalizing a relationship of two people who are of the same sex. In many countries, a legal partnership known as a “civil union” is used to legitimize a relationship between two people of the same sex.  In Thailand, there is no “civil union” mechanism for providing legal protection for a same sex couple. That being said, Thailand marriage registration is often not a method employed by a couple who wishes to have an ongoing relationship. It is quite common in Thailand for a couple to have a marriage ceremony (customary or religious), but never actually register a marriage in Thailand with the local Amphur office (District Office). Therefore, as a practical matter Thai same sex couples can maintain a domestic relationship in a manner similar to different sex couples who choose not to legalize their union.

At the present time there does not appear to be any political movement to legalize same sex marriage in Thailand. For those who wish to protect their same sex loved one, legal mechanisms such as a Thai will can assist in providing legal benefits usually accorded to those in a different sex relationship.

For more information please see: Bangkok Lawyer, or Visa Lawyer Thailand.

(Please note that the information contained herein is intended for educational purposes only. No lawyer-client relationship is created by reading this piece.)

more Comments: 04

10th July 2009

Massachusetts  fired the opening salvo in what appears to be a major battle for same sex immigration rights. The Commonwealth is suing the Federal government of the United States. Specifically repugnant to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.  The first pillar of the case brought against the USA is based upon the idea that the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) deny those same sex couples married in the Commonwealth the “essential rights and protections” accorded to different sex couples.

A further, and in my opinion more compelling, argument deals with the issues of state versus federal sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts asserts that the United States government does not have the right to dictate to the states about what will and will not constitute marriage. By refusing to acknowledge a valid same-sex marriage legally executed in a state (in this case the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), the Federal government is refusing to provide Federal benefits to married same-sex couples, while providing benefits to married different-sex couples. This denial violates the doctrine of “states’ rights” which contends that the states, not the federal government, are endowed with the inherent right to regulate the citizenry.

Hillary Sorin wrote the following on this issue:

“Five states now legally marry same-sex couples, but these couples are denied the federal protections and programs available to married straight couples. These include income-tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, Social Security payments and immigration benefits for spouses of U.S. citizens.”

Of particular interest to readers of this blog is probably the fact that DOMA effectively precludes US Family based visas because the Federal government refuses to recognize a same sex marriage (or an intention to obtain a same sex marriage) within the United States.

If DOMA were to be repealed then it is logical to assume that those same sex bi-national couples who marry in Massachusetts (or any state where same-sex marriage is legal) would be able to obtain a Permanent Resident Visa (CR-1, IR-1) based upon that valid marriage. Further, an unmarried  same sex couple with an intention to travel to the United States for the purpose of marriage could conceivably obtain a K-1 visa if the Defense of Marriage Act was no longer Federal law.

This case will be very interesting to follow because the ramifications on Immigration law will be tremendous as the whole field of US Family Immigration will likely be opened up to those couples previously unable to obtain US Immigration benefits.

(Please note that the author has no intention that reader use this information in place of legal advice. For advice on the law, please contact a licensed attorney. No attorney-client relationship is created between the author and any reader of this article.)

more Comments: 04

1st July 2009

President Obama has recently been criticized by many members of the LGBT community for what appears to be a reversal of his campaign stance on same-sex rights.  Presently President Obama’s Justice Department is defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the US courts. However, President Obama has made statements claiming that while his administration is in the process of enforcing the provisions of DOMA, he is also working to have the law repealed. Apparently, President Obama is trying to apply pressure to Congress in order to make them repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Obama was quoted in a speech as saying:

“I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law.”

What are the Consequences on US Immigration if the Defense of Marriage Act is Repealed?

Should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed, the upshot would be that the Federal government would recognize same-sex marriage. Therefore, US Immigration benefits would likely be conferred based upon a marital relationship. Thus, if a same sex couple enters into a valid marriage in a country like Belgium, then they could file an I-130 petition for a CR-1 visa based upon their relationship (under this hypothetical scenario, they could also file a supplemental visa application for a K3 visa).

In another hypothetical situation, the same couple are now unmarried, but they have a bona fide relationship and intend to marry in the United States in a jurisdiction that allows and recognizes same sex marriage (Massachusetts for example). This factual situation would likely allow that couple to file a visa application for a K-1 visa because the parties would meet the legal requirements imposed upon those wishing to obtain a US visa for a fiance.

It is currently uncertain whether Obama will successfully lead the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. What is certain is the fact that should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed it will have a major impact on United States law and a crucial impact upon same sex immigration rights. If Obama is successful in repealing DOMA the upshot will likely be that the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) will be rendered superfluous because same sex marriage would be included in the umbrella term “marriage” under current US Immigration law.

(Please not that the above information is for eductaional purposes only. No attorney-client relationship shall be inferred to be formed between the author and any readers of this post.)

more Comments: 04

16th May 2009

Conflict of Laws and the Uniting of American Families Act

A controversial and important issue with regard to US Immigration law and policy is the Uniting of American Families Act which would confer family immigration benefits upon same-sex couples. However, a question that many people ask me is: can I get a fiance or marriage visa for a same sex partner if we plan to marry, or have already executed a marriage, in a state that allows same sex marriage, domestic partnerships, or civil unions? At the time of this writing, the short answer to this question is: under current law, NO.

State recognized same-sex marriages and civil unions represents one of the biggest conflict of laws issue in America today. With regard to same-sex marriage issues within the USA, the issue has been raised as to whether a state that does not allow same sex marriage or does not recognize same sex marriage can grant a divorce of a same sex couple. This issue has not been fully explored and no policy or legal principle has been set in stone.

In the realm of US Immigration, the issue is more clear cut, but no less confusing for the layman. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the US Congress made the following laws:

  1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
  2. The United States federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

This means that even though a same-sex marriage is properly executed in a state and recognized by a state government, it will not be recognized as such by the US government. American Immigration law is a body of jurisprudence that is wholly federal law, so even though a marriage is properly conducted and recognized by a state, the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act precludes the Federal government, in the form of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), from conferring immigration benefits if based upon the underlying marriage, or intention to marry (however legally binding same sex marriage at the state level may be).

The Uniting of American Families Act is a rather clever piece of legislation because it circumvents the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by creating a whole new visa category under the US Immigration and Nationality Act. In its current form, the UAFA would allow “permanent partners,” the right to US Immigration benefits. This means that an alien permanent partner would be entitled to a visa like a CR-1 or IR-1 in which permanent residence in the USA could ultimately be secured.

It is the authors opinion that proving up the bona fides of the relationship when applying for a “permanent partner” visa will be more difficult than in different-sex relationship cases, because both USCIS and the consular post will be more heavily scrutizing these applications because they coule be used to defraud the government for US Immigration benefits. In a way, the permanent partner visa would be something akin to a hybrid visa like a K1 fiance visa. That being said, if and when the UAFA passes, it will be a major step toward equal rights of same sex bi-national couples.

(This information is intended for academic purposes only and should not be used to make legal deciions without consulting a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No attorney client privilege, express or implied, is created between the author and reader of this content.)

more Comments: 04

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.