Integrity Legal

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that it would appear as though the Department of Homeland Security‘s United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is placing certain deportations on hold if such a proceeding pertains to the same sex spouse of a United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident. To quote directly from the website dailynews-update.net:

The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service confirmed Monday that it has temporarily put some deportations of partners in same-sex marriages on hold if they could be affected by the recent Department of Justice decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Chris Bentley, Press Secretary for the USCIS said in a statement: “USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues.”

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click on the above links to view this story in its entirety.

There are many “distinct legal issues” at play when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage and governmental recognition thereof. Those who read this web log with any frequency may have noticed that this blogger has dedicated a great deal of time to commenting and following this issue as it is truly a struggle for both the civil rights of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents as well as a struggle for Federal recognition of sovereign State prerogatives on the issue of marriage.

Throughout the struggle for equal marriage rights for the LGBT community there have been many legislators who have supported the cause of same sex bi-national couples. Most notably, Representative Jerrold Nadler has repeatedly introduced legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in an effort to make headway in securing immigration benefits for same sex bi-national couples in the same manner accorded to their different-sex counterparts. Meanwhile, as noted on this blog, groups such as Immigration Equality and their Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog have recently announced a position regarding DHS issuance of Green Cards for foreign same sex partners of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. Announcements such as these are important because they illuminate the extent to which the political and immigration systems are evolving in an effort to deal with this issue. Clearly, the LGBT equal rights movement has an organic base committed to seeing real change in the immigration system.

It was recently noted on this blog that the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder issued a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives noting that the administration no longer felt that pursuing so-called “Defense of Marriage Act“  (DOMA) cases was Constitutional. There are some who would argue that this action is contrary to the administration’s duty pursuant to United States law. Some members of Congress, as well as apparent presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, have even made noises about impeachment regarding this issue. As of the time of this writing, such an action has not taken place.

This blogger personally disagrees with the American administration’s decision not to pursue DOMA cases because doing so could preclude Supreme Court adjudication due to lack of a “case or controversy” before that body. This blogger would also argue that the Supreme Court is the best adjudicator of this issue as there are many ramifications of same sex marriage recognition pursuant to the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

How the whole issue of same sex marriage, and American government recognition thereof; will ultimately be decided remains to be seen, but for advocates of equal LGBT immigration rights this recent USCIS decision is definitely a positive one.

For related information please see: LGBT visa.

Tags: Chris Bentley, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, deportation, DOMA, expedited removal, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog, Jerrold Nadler, LGBT marriage, lgbt visa, removal, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog is reporting that Americans are calling upon the Department of Homeland Security to change its policy regarding Lawful Permanent Resident status for LGBT spouses of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. To quote directly from the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog:

In an interview published last night, Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven calls on the Department of Homeland Security to stop denying green card applications filed by spouses of LGBT Americans.

Those who are unaware of the issues surrounding the debate for equal immigration benefits for the LGBT community should note that pursuant to the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) the United States Federal government is prohibited from granting immigration benefits to same sex bi-national couples even though such benefits are routinely granted to different-sex couples. Meanwhile, a number of sovereign American States have heeded the call of their citizenry and taken measures which would allow legal recognition for marriages between individuals of the same sex. Notwithstanding that a marriage may be legalized and solemnized by a sovereign US State, such as Massachusetts, for example; the Federal government still will not recognize said marriage pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. To quote further from the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog:

“It is imperative that the administration stop breaking up families based on a law that it says is unconstitutional,” Tiven told reporter Andrew Harmon. “We’re calling on the Department of Homeland Security to stop denying green card applications for the spouses of American citizens.”

As noted above, the result of continued enforcement of DOMA in an immigration context is the constant and continued partition of bi-national families. It would appear as though proponents of equal LGBT rights are hoping that DHS can take some steps to alleviate what is, for some, an increasingly untenable situation. To quote further from the Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog:

Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) – both important leaders on LGBT and immigration issues in Congress – joined Immigration Equality’s call for a halt to deportations involving legally married spouses. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand also weighed in, telling reporters that, ““The recent news of deportations involving legally married gay and lesbian binational couples is heartbreaking.”

This blogger highly encourages readers to click on the above links to learn more about the Immigration Equality Action Fund and the struggle for equal rights in the LGBT community. It should be noted that Representative Jerrold Nadler has been a strong proponent of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), legislation designed to provide immigration benefits to same sex bi-national couples.

There have been many sovereign US States that have shown “true grit” in the struggle for equal LGBT rights, privileges, immunities, and protections. States such as Massachusetts, Iowa, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut as well as the District of Columbia have shown support for the struggle of equal rights for LGBT families. Meanwhile, continued enforcement of the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) keep bi-national same sex couples from attaining equal immigration benefits when compared to their different-sex counterparts.

The issue of same sex marriage and equal rights for same sex couples is something that some have suggested is a divisive issue, but in this blogger’s opinion it need not be. For example, this blogger comes from a State (the State of Kansas) that explicitly forbids same sex marriage (yes, notwithstanding the State of Kansas’s position on same sex marriage this blogger feels that the right to marry whom one chooses is a civil right guaranteed to individuals under the U.S. Constitution that should be granted to those in Kansas as well as everywhere else in the USA, but the following analysis is primarily concerned with the same sex marriage issue in an interstate context). There are some who argue that this means that the State Courts are barred from recognizing same sex marriages legalized in other States. This blogger would argue that a different interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would allow a State such as Kansas to acknowledge that a legal marriage between two people of the same sex exists in fact in another American jurisdiction (say, Massachusetts, for example). Concurrently, the provisions of a State Constitution may prohibit any further State recognition or execution of a same sex divorce, but such a scenario is certainly better than the current state of affairs where no same sex couples are granted any type of Federal or interstate marital recognition at all. That said, none of these issues has yet to be fully resolved so any analysis remains speculation.

For related information please see: same sex visas.

Tags: Bisexual Visa, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Federalism, Full Faith and Credit Clause, gay visa, Immigration Equality Action Fund Blog, Jerrolf Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand, Lesbian Visa, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Rachel B. Tiven, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, same sex visa, transgender visa, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Transgender Visa, Zoe Lofgren
Posted in same sex visa | No Comments »

In what could possibly be one of the most convoluted political and legal issues currently in the American zeitgeist it has been reported by various sources that President Barack Obama is under pressure from many different groups regarding his recent decision not to enforce key provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To quote directly from an article posted on AfricaOnline.com:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested last week that President Obama overstepped his constitutional bounds when he announced he would no longer defend Defense of Marriage Act in court.

In matters pertaining to United States Constitutional law the lines between the political and legal spheres begin to blur and for this reason the issues surrounding what may be the most interesting legal situation in recent history are difficult to sort out for those who have not kept up with the evolving posture of this issue. To provide a brief summation: the United States Federal government is currently barred from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples pursuant to the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Meanwhile, 7 jurisdictions in the United States, including 6 sovereign States, currently license same sex unions. Meanwhile, many sovereign American States have promulgated State Constitutional amendments forbidding recognition of marriage between same sex couples. Currently, there is a case that has been adjudicated by the Massachusetts Federal District Court which found that States have a fundamental right to marry those within their jurisdiction. Amongst advocates of States’ Rights, the significant issue in the DOMA cases is: FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized within the States’ jurisdiction. To continue quoting Mr. Gingrich according to AfricaOnline.com:

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president,” Gingrich said. “Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

For those unfamiliar with the Roe versus Wade decision, this was the Supreme Court case which allowed women to receive abortions based upon an interpretation of the US Constitution. It is interesting that Mr. Gingrich noted the lack of “Mainstream Media” attention to this issue as there are those who could argue that the issue of equal rights for the LGBT community is an issue often overlooked by major media outlets. Clearly, the issue of same sex marriage is provoking strong reaction from various sectors of the American political spectrum, to quote directly from the website ThinkProgress.org:

Now, in the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.

After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support”…

It would appear as though this issue is causing a great deal of political turmoil for Mr. Obama, but what is even more interesting are the underlying issues at stake for both the LGBT community and the sovereign States which comprise the United States of America.

To be clear, this blogger fully believes that the right to marry whomever one chooses to marry is a fundamental inalienable right and equal protection of that right should be accorded to members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. In this blogger’s personal opinion, if two people wish to consensually enter into a marital union, then their respective genders should not be relevant for purposes of government recognition of that union. However, there is an even stronger argument in favor of requiring Federal recognition of same sex marriage and this argument stems from the fact that 6 states have allowed some form of same sex union (civil union or marriage). Clearly, States have traditionally been vested with the power to solemnize and legalize marriages within their respective jurisdictions and the Federal government should be required to recognize such unions, but the provisions of DOMA preclude such recognition. For example, same sex bi-national couples who have legalized a marriage in, say, Massachusetts cannot be accorded the same immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. There has been some discussion of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would rectify this problem in the context of United States immigration, but this still leaves a fundamental question unanswered: when did the Federal government get the right to dictate to the States what shall constitute a marriage?

As to the Obama Administration’s decision to not pursue cases in support of the Defense of Marriage Act: the sentiment is laudable, but ultimately this action may not be in the best interests of the LGBT community as such inaction results in fewer, if any, cases or controversies coming before the Supreme Court thereby removing the platform for the Supreme Court to make a broad binding decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act itself (and possibly the overall issue of same sex marriage in general), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the other legal issues, such as discrimination against same sex bi-national couples, which come “part and parcel” with continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act.

It is this blogger’s personal opinion that the United States Supreme Court will find in favor of recognition of same sex marriage, but in what could prove to be a sort of convoluted decision wherein Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts find in favor of the right of the States to set policy regarding who can get married within their jurisdiction while the more “liberal” or “civil libertarian” wing of the Court finds in favor of granting same sex couples the right to Federal recognition of a legally solemnized State marriage based more upon a finding that the issue is one of civil rights.

For related information please see: LGBT Visa.

Tags: Add new tag, Attorney General Eric Holder, Barack Obama, civil rights, Constituional Law, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit Clause, LGBT Rights, Newt Gingrich, Obama Administration, Representative Trent Franks, same sex civil union, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, States' Rights, Supreme Court, Trent Franks, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Consitution
Posted in Editorial, lgbt immigration, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | 1 Comment »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Attorney General of the United States, apparently at the request of the President, has opted to discontinue pursuing cases that would enforce the provisions of section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To quote directly from a letter written from United States Attorney General Eric Holder to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives the Attorney General noted:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor and Pedersen, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.

The administration of this blog highly recommends that those reading this posting click on the links above to read the Attorney General’s actual letter to Congress regarding this matter. That said, the administration of President Barack Obama should be guardedly commended for their position on this controversial and important matter. This announcement could be a boon to the LGBT community and the unfortunate same sex bi-national couples who are separated due to the fact that there has yet to be passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would circumvent DOMA and thereby allow those persons married to someone of the same sex to petition for immigration benefits in the same manner as their different sex counterparts. Bearing that in mind, there are some who could argue that the administration’s position on the issue could cause some unanticipated problems for those who wish to see swift equalization of rights for the LGBT Community, at least in the short term. Such an argument could be based upon the fact that failure to pursue these cases could lead to a situation where the public is unable to get the issue before the Supreme Court (more analysis on this below). To continue quoting from the Attorney General’s letter to Congress:

Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

As noted in the first sentence of this above cited paragraph, the administration’s decision not to pursue Federal cases to block recognition of same sex marriages could theoretically stall efforts at ultimate recognition of same sex marriage in the Courts. The reason for this is based upon the fact that Courts can only “make new law” when there is a “case or controversy” pending before them. The President’s failure to pursue such cases could effectively blunts efforts to get same sex marriages recognized in the Courts. To put it simply: a case involving the issue of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can only get before an Appellate Court (including the Supreme Court) if the party that lost in the lower court brings an appeal. Where the Obama administration has stated that they have changed their position on the issue of judicial scrutiny of same sex couples the fact still remains that in order for the Courts to render a final decision on the issue, a case must be properly brought before them. The Holder letter went on to note:

We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Interpretation of this line of the letter is critical for the future of same sex marriage cases pending before the Courts because the Obama administration (or a later administration, for that matter) may be placed in a position in which they are forced to appeal against a ruling in favor of same sex couples in order for the issue to be brought to the official attention of the higher Courts (most especially the United States Supreme Court). Failure on the part of the Obama administration to pursue the government’s current position in favor of DOMA all the way to the Supreme Court could lead to a situation, not unlike that once seen in the cases involving the old Widow’s Penalty in an immigration context, where same sex marriage is ruled legal in, say, the Second Circuit, but might not be legalized across the United States if the Attorney General’s office refuses to request certiorari from the United States Supreme Court and simply opts to accept the 2nd Circuit’s ruling.

At the same time, the administration is not actively involved in efforts to discourage recognition of same sex marriages. From a political standpoint, the President’s apparent decision to discontinue pursuit of such cases is rather shrewd in that, as noted in the last sentence of the paragraph cited above, it allows the administration to avoid something of a “political hot potato” without actually doing anything that might offend those arrayed against the recognition of same sex marriage. Meanwhile, as a practical matter, the administration’s decision changes nothing about the current state of affairs with regard to same sex marriage. In fact, if the administration refuses to appeal such cases to the Supreme Court, they would effectively close off one of the two avenues by which DOMA could be overturned (the other being outright repeal by the US Congress). The Defense of Marriage Act remains “on the books” and therefore continues to be an impediment to Federal recognition of same sex marriage (even those solemnized and legalized by the States).

From this blogger’s perspective, the administration appears to be attempting to make efforts in support of the LGBT community on the issue of same sex marriage, but in reality the two branches of government that can truly make a change to the current Federal policy on same sex marriage are the legislative branch of government and the judiciary. At present, two significant cases are pending in the judicial system. One case in California attacks DOMA from more of a civil right’s perspective while the Massachusetts Federal District Court found DOMA unconstitutional based upon, among other things, an analysis of that State’s (or more accurately: Commonwealth’s) inherent right to solemnize and legalize marriages within their jurisdiction. To quote directly from the opinion in the Massachusetts case:

State control over marital status determinations predates the Constitution. Prior to the American Revolution, colonial legislatures, rather than Parliament, established the rules and regulations regarding marriage in the colonies. And, when the United States first declared its independence from England, the founding legislation of each state included regulations regarding marital status determinations.

Many analyze this issue from the perspective of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. There is a very valid argument that discriminating against same sex couples due to their gender/sexual orientation is a violation of Equal Protection. However, the argument in favor of the States’ inherent rights to make rules and regulations regarding marriages within their jurisdiction is a potent argument which should not be overlooked. Equal Rights for the LGBT community is a Civil Rights matter, but where 6 Sovereign States and the District of Columbia have taken the initiative and allowed same sex unions it begs the question: why is the Federal government contravening clear State policy on matters that have traditionally been within the exclusive bailiwick of the States?

This blogger has repeatedly written postings analyzing the issue of same sex marriage from the perspective of States’ Rights as well as Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. What is the most interesting aspect of this issue from the blogger’s perspective is the fact that the more socially conservative wing of the Supreme Sourt could end up voting in favor a same sex marriage based upon a States’ Rights line of thought. To quote directly from the dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case (which both the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Justice Thomas joined):

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

All of the Justices noted above dissented in the Lawrence opinion based upon the reasoning that the States’ retain the right to regulate homosexual conduct within their jurisdiction. The Court itself went the other way in that decision, but the above citation from the dissent is important because it shows that those Justices might rule favorably upon an issue involving Federal recognition of same sex marriage if the underlying facts were to show that the State sovereign had duly recognized such unions pursuant to their aforementioned “police powers” noted in the Massachusetts case cited above.

As of yet, these issues remain to be resolved, but one thing is clear: the political winds are changing with regard to LGBT rights. However, said rights have yet to be fully secured and until such time as they are advocates for equal marriage rights should continue to monitor this issue.

Tags: Barack Obama, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Eric Holder, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in lgbt immigration, News, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a State Judge in a Nebraska Court appears to have been unwilling to grant a divorce to a same-sex married couple on the grounds that the State of Nebraska does not recognize the existence of the underlying marriage. It would appear as though the parties in question were originally married in Vermont (a State which recognizes and solemnizes marriages between individuals of the same gender), but wished to have their marriage dissolved in Nebraska (a State which does not solemnize nor recognize same sex marriage). To quote directly from a posting on WCAX.com, a website dedicated to providing news pertaining to Vermont:

According to Judge Randall Rehmeier, the state can’t dissolve their marriage because gay marriage isn’t recognized by the Nebraska Constitution. That means their marriage doesn’t exist in the state’s eyes.

The administration of this blog highly recommends readers go to the website noted above to read the full posting. The Judge’s reasoning may go to the heart of the overall conundrum that arises from what some would consider to be the uncertain nature of the current legal status of same sex marriages in the United States. As noted previously on this blog, within the USA there are currently 5 sovereign American  States that recognize and perform same sex marriages. Meanwhile, there are many other States and jurisdictions which do not recognize such marital relationships. Furthermore, there are even some American States which have State constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage or defining marriage as exclusively to mean a marital union between two people of differing gender. Concurrently, the United States Federal Government does not recognize same sex marriages pursuant to the language of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). Under the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act the Federal government is legally barred from recognizing marriages between two people of the same gender. This is a significant issue in the area of United States Immigration law as same sex bi-national couples are unable to obtain the same family based visa benefits as different-sex bi-national couples, regardless of the fact that the couple may have been lawfully married in one of the American States which recognizes same sex marriage.

In the midst of all of these conflicting policies and laws there are currently cases pending in the United States Federal Courts which address the issues associated with same sex marriage and government recognition thereof. At the time of this writing, Federal District Courts in Massachusetts and California have ruled that Federal failure to recognize State sanctioned same sex marriage is unconstitutional. However, those decisions have been stayed pending appeal. Those appeals could very possibly go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

At the time of this writing, the issue of same sex marriage is far from settled, but one thing is clear: it is unlikely that a solution will be easy to find. It is this blogger’s opinion that the issues associated with same sex marriage touch most particularly upon legal notions inherent in the Constitutional doctrine of Full Faith and Credit pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, analysis under the Full Faith and Credit Clause may not lead to uniform State acceptance of same sex marriage. In this blogger’s opinion, the Defense of Marriage Act was rendered unconstitutional the moment that a sovereign American State began recognizing and performing marriages for people of the same sex. This opinion is based upon the belief that the right to solemnize marriages between parties within the jurisdiction of a given State is a right reserved to said State under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under certain circumstances, States have cited their power to promote “public health and safety” as a basis for issuing marriage licenses.

In this blogger’s opinion, if a State has duly legalized a same sex marriage within their jurisdiction pursuant to the laws and procedures of said State, then the Federal government must recognize that marriage pursuant to what this blogger would describe as Vertical Full Faith and Credit (i.e. Federal recognition of certain State prerogatives regarding intrastate matters pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause). However, the law dealing with what this blogger would describe as Horizontal Full Faith and Credit (State to State recognition of State adjudicated matters) can be opaque especially with regard to issues which one state has deemed to be in violation of State public policy. If a sovereign American State has a Constitutional Amendment which specifically defines marriage as a marital union between a man and a woman, then there is a strong argument in favor of denying divorces to same sex couples within that State since it would violate State public policy to recognize the existence of the marriage in order to dissolve it.

As more and more same sex couples legalize marriages in the United States, it stands to reason that more such couples may one day seek divorce. The issues associated with Full Faith and Credit and LGBT rights have yet to be fully resolved, but it seems likely that this issue will remain controversial both from a political perspective as well as a legal perspective.

Those reading this posting should take note of the fact that there are myriad legal and political opinions on this subject and until such time as a binding decision is made in the US Courts or Federal legislature this issue will probably continue to remain unresolved.

For information about legislation designed to deal with the immigration restrictions placed upon same sex bi-national couples please see: Uniting American Families Act or UAFA.

Tags: Constitutional Law, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gay Rights, Gay Rights News, Horizontal Full Faith and Credit, LGBT Rights, LGBT Rights News, Same Sex Divorce, Same Sex Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, States' Rights, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Constitution, US Courts, Vertical Full Faith and Credit
Posted in Editorial, lgbt immigration, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | No Comments »

The issue of Federal recognition of same sex marriage is one which remains stuck in this bloggers mind like a splinter. The issue is vexing because the United States Federal government has clearly usurped sovereign State prerogatives on the issue while simultaneously trampling upon individual civil rights to equal protection under the laws of the United States as well as the fundamental Constitutional right to freely and peaceably associate with whomever one wishes to associate with. That said, the issue is, in this blogger’s opinion, best analyzed pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution of the USA.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) currently prohibits the United States Federal government from recognizing a marriage or civil union between two individuals of the same sex. Most legal scholars approach the issue of same sex marriage and the preclusion of Federal recognition from a civil rights perspective. Although this blogger wholeheartedly agrees that LGBT rights issues do generally fall under the umbrella of civil liberties, the ramifications of DOMA upon the sovereign American States is the most unfortunate aspect of the current state of affairs.

To quote directly from Wikipedia.com:

In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed.

This is important to note as there are American States which explicitly prohibit the recognition of marriages between two people of the the same sex. Conversely, as noted above, there are currently five (5) states which allow same sex marriage. This has lead to a situation in which there is little interstate uniformity regarding this issue. As their site puts things so succinctly it may be best to quote Wikipedia.com’s entry on this issue further:

There has been much speculation on the clause’s possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called “mini DOMAs,” which define marriage as consisting solely of opposite-sex couples. Most of these “mini DOMAs” explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, either legislatively or by state supreme court judgment.

The United States Supreme Court has not ruled on how (if at all) these laws are affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, in August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to recognize adoptions by same-sex couples which were finalized in other states.^[18]

If the Full Faith and Credit clause is given its traditional interpretation, it has no application to same-sex marriage, and the DOMA legislation is superfluous and even dangerous, as it may lead to a misconstruction of the Full Faith and Credit clause. If a state is required to recognize a same sex marriage, it will be pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause, as was the case with respect to interracial marriages.

The final paragraph of this citation is most notable to this blogger as it is the section in which he is in disagreement. To understand the reasoning behind this blogger’s disbelief in the assertions stated in this Wikipedia.com posting one must first read the actual text of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It is virtually self-evident, in this author’s opinion, that the plain language of the Full Faith and Credit Clause will compel broad recognition of same sex marriage in the USA. Rather than looking at the issue from a civil rights perspective (which requires lengthy analysis into what are, in this author’s opinion, superfluous issues such as personal or religious feeling regarding same sex marriage which have no place in a reasoned legal analysis of the issue) simply examine the plain language of the Clause itself. The clause explicitly states that Full Faith and Credit SHALL be given to the public RECORDS of every other State.

What does this mean from a practical perspective? To use a hypothetical: two people of the same sex go to the State of Iowa (a jurisdiction which, according to a citation above, both recognizes and solemnizes same sex marriage) and get married. To quote the official Iowa County, Iowa website:

Iowa Vital Records are official registrations of births, deaths and marriages. Certified copies of Vital Records can be obtained from a County Recorder’s office or the Iowa Department of Public Health.

Once an official record is made of a registered same sex marriage does not the Full Faith and Credit Clause operate to compel interstate recognition of such a record? One would think, but there are exceptions to this kind of broad application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause as States which have clear public policies in conflict with foreign State Judgments, Acts, or Records may be permitted to ignore such Judgments, Acts, or Records (foreign judgments always seem to be accorded more preference from an interstate enforcement standpoint).

InterState recognition of same sex marriage, or as this blogger prefers to refer to it: Horizontal Full Faith and Credit of same sex marriage; is not really the main thrust of this post as the more pressing concern for the purposes of this article is Federal recognition of same sex marriage notwithstanding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The interstate implications of some states fully recognizing same sex marriage while other states fail to recognize such unions are interesting topics, but the main issue of this posting is what this blogger refers to as Vertical Full Faith and Credit. Namely, Federal recognition of same sex marriage lawfully solemnized in a sovereign State. Since when was the United States Federal government able to pick and choose which State laws it was willing to recognize? To quote directly from USLegal.com:

The full faith and credit doctrine as applicable to the federal courts in recognizing the records and judicial proceedings of state courts is contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1738.  The full faith and credit rule pertains to recognition by state courts of the records and judicial proceedings of courts of sister States; this includes every court within the United States.  This provision also includes recognition of the records and proceedings of the courts of any territory or any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  By this provision, the federal courts are also bound to give to the judgments of the state courts the same faith and credit that the courts of one State are bound to give to the judgments of the courts of their sister States…

Pursuant to a plain language analysis of the Constitution it is this author’s opinion that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as it requires the Federal government to disregard the Acts, Records, and Judgments creating same sex marital relationships within the jurisdiction of Sovereign States in direct violation of the plain language of the Full Faith and Credit Clause itself. Although there is a Civil Rights perspective to this issue, the major point that should not be overlooked is that fact that the US Congress is attempting, through enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act, to dictate to the States what shall constitute a valid marriage. In the past, legalization and solemnization of marriage was within the exclusive bailiwick of the State especially as such matters tend to pertain to public health and safety issues.

This has very large practical implications especially for same sex bi-national couples as the Federal government, pursuant to DOMA, cannot grant American family visa benefits to the same sex partner of a US Citizen (notwithstanding the fact that the couple may have solemnized a legally binding marriage within one of the sovereign American States that allows same sex marriages). Hopefully this injustice will be dealt with soon as it is unfortunate that the rights of the States and the people are being disregarded as a result of DOMA’s continued enforcement.

In recent months, efforts have been made to pass legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Bills such as this would mitigate some of the discrimination which is routinely deployed against same sex bi-national families as the language of the proposed bill (and that of those similar to it) would allow for the “permanent partners” of American Citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply for US visa benefits in much the same manner as foreign fiancees and spouses of US Citizens and lawful permanent residents. This legislation, and that like it, is a good step in the right direction, but it does not address the myriad legal rights and privileges routinely deprived to same sex couples under the current Federal regime.

For related information please see: Same Sex Partner Visa.

Tags: Civil Union, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gay Rights, gay visa, Horizontal Full Faith and Credit, Lesbian Visa, LGBT Rights, lgbt visa, permanent partner, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, same sex civil union, Same Sex Marriage, Same Sex Partner, same sex visa, States' Rights, transgender visa, transsexual visa, US Constitution, Vertical Full Faith and Credit
Posted in Editorial, General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, lgbt immigration, Miscellaneous, News, Opinion, same sex visa | No Comments »