In immigration debate, same-sex marriage comes to the fore
In his final legislative act as a senator, Secretary of State John F. Kerry
sought to resolve an international dilemma. He filed Senate Bill 48, seeking “permanent resident
status for Genesio Januario Oliveira,” a gay Brazilian national facing
deportation because he does not qualify for a spousal visa.
Now, President Obama is aiming to grant same-sex couples such as Oliveira and
his American husband, Tim Coco, equal immigration rights as their heterosexual
counterparts. The proposal could allow up to 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex relationships to
apply for legal residency and, potentially, U.S. citizenship.
But the measure has inspired fierce pushback from congressional Republicans
and some religious groups, who say it could sink hopes for a comprehensive
agreement aimed at providing a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented
immigrants.
The standoff may force Obama to choose between two key interest groups —
Hispanics and gays — that helped power his reelection in the fall. The president
must weigh how forcefully to push the bill, known as the Uniting American
Families Act, while not endangering a long-sought deal to resolve the status of
undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Latino.
The same-sex measure was not included in the immigration proposals issued
last week by a bipartisan Senate working group, whose overall framework Obama
largely embraced. Several key Christian groups that have supported the White
House’s immigration push have objected to the measure on the grounds that it
would erode traditional marriage.
The issue has prompted an intense lobbying effort on both sides, including a
letter to the White House from a coalition of influential church organizations
and a series of urgent conference calls between advocates, administration
officials and lawmakers.
For Obama, the political sensitivity was evident in the public rollout of his
immigration plans last Tuesday. Although the same-sex provision was included in
documents distributed by the White House, the president did not mention it in his immigration speech in Las Vegas.
“The president in his plan said that you should treat same-sex families the
same way we treat heterosexual families,” White House senior adviser Dan
Pfeiffer said Friday on “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” “It’s wrong to
discriminate. It’s a natural extension of the president’s view about same-sex
marriage, the view about providing equal rights, no matter who you love.”
But congressional Republicans immediately condemned the idea and warned that
the measure imperils broader immigration reform. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one
of the senators on the eight-member bipartisan working group on immigration,
said at a Politico breakfast last week that injecting social issues into the
debate over immigration legislation “is the best way to derail it.”
“Which is more important: LGBT or border security?” McCain said, using an
abbreviation for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. “I’ll
tell you what my priorities are.”
Behind the scenes, the lobbying efforts began before the president’s speech.
A coalition of religious groups — including Roman Catholics, evangelicals and
Southern Baptists — delivered a letter to the White House last week opposing the
same-sex measure.
“It’s an overreach,” said Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy and
public affairs at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which signed the
letter. “Immigration is hard enough as it is and adding another controversial
issue to the mix makes it even harder. I’m surprised the administration would
risk sacrificing 11 million people over this issue. It’s very
combustible.”
‘We’re always worried’
On a White House conference call with interest groups after Obama’s
appearance in Las Vegas, the first question was from an evangelical activist who
objected to the provision. Religious groups pushed back again Wednesday on
another White House call, according to a person who participated in the
conversation.
On the other side, several Senate Democrats, including Charles E. Schumer
(N.Y.), Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.), had a conference
call with gay organizations blaming Republicans for not including the same-sex
provision in the bipartisan immigration proposal.
The advocates were told that Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-
Vt.),
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would offer an amendment to include the
provision in any comprehensive legislation that is formally introduced,
according to a person involved in the call.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of same-sex couples wait in limbo. Although the
Obama administration has been using its prosecutorial discretion to avoid
deporting partners who are illegally in the country, many couples say
uncertainty makes it impossible to plan for the long term.
“It’s on our mind every day,” said Coco, who has been married to Oliveira
since 2005 and lives in Haverhill, Mass. “We’re always worried about our
future.”
Obama — who endorsed same-sex marriage in the spring — received broad support
and significant campaign funds from the LGBT community. On the campaign trail,
Obama often touted as a major achievement his administration’s ending of the
military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays.
“He’s proven that especially on lesbian [and] gay issues, when he stands up
and works for change, that the American public and Congress comes along with
him,” said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, a group pushing
for same-sex immigration protections. “That will be the case here, too.”
Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, national field director of GetEqual, a gay civil
rights organization, said Obama gave a “really strong vision” for gay rights in
his inauguration speech last month.
“I hope that’s more than words and will actually bring concrete actions,”
Sousa-Rodriguez said. If Obama does not fight hard for the same-sex provision,
he added, “I’ll be highly disappointed.”
Not all gay rights groups are united. Some activists said they would not
stand in the way of an immigration deal without the same-sex couples provision
if the alternative was no reform deal at all. These activists said an overall
policy encouraging citizenship could help up to 700,000 illegal immigrants who
are estimated to be gay.
Questions of timing
In the meantime, the Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a
federal law that mandates marriage benefits only for heterosexual couples. Some
gay rights advocates said that if the court strikes down the law, perhaps as
early as June, the question of a same-sex provision in immigration law could be
rendered irrelevant.
That’s little solace for Coco and Oliveira, who spent three years of their
marriage apart, after an immigration judge ordered Oliveira to return to
Brazil in 2007. Only after Kerry, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made personal appeals for the
couple in 2010 did immigration officials grant Oliveira a one-year visa on humanitarian
grounds.
With that ruling expired, Kerry stepped in again Jan. 22 with his final
Senate bill on behalf of Oliveira, who will be allowed to stay in the country as
the legislation is deliberated. Coco, an ad agency owner, doesn’t expect it to
be approved.
“It took a while for President Obama to evolve on gay marriage, but the
nation has evolved much further if you look at the public polls,” Coco said. “I
believe the president has some obligation to push the envelope. The time has
come.”
© The Washington Post Company