For Love Or Country

by Libby Post

From  365Gay.com

They met. They fell in love. The fact that one was a U.S. citizen and the other was not made no difference. They were both here in the United States. They moved in together-sharing a mortgage and finances, caring for one another and becoming a loved member of the other’s family. Now they want to get married.

If they were straight, they could. But, they’re not, so they can’t.

Greg Meissner and his Taiwanese partner, Shan, are gay men. They’ve built a life together that is a model of love and commitment. Shan taught Greg to speak Mandarin so Greg could communicate with his in-laws. Greg’s family has embraced Shan as a son-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle. It’s perfect. Well, almost perfect.

Once again, our inability to marry, to have total legal recognition of our relationships as lesbian and gay couples, is getting in the way. Since Greg and Shan can’t get married, Greg can’t sponsor Shan for American citizenship-unlike their heterosexual counterparts. With his work visa running out, Shan must leave the country even after working and paying taxes here for the last five years.

Will this loving couple be torn apart? Will they have a tearful separation at the airport? Will they have an international commuter relationship? No.

Instead of leaving each other, they are leaving the country. Greg will leave his position as an assistant principal in the San Jose, CA school district and they will both venture northeast to Toronto, Canada where they can marry and both attain citizenship. Where’s the justice in that?

And at what cost? They must sell their home and buy a new one. They must leave their jobs and find new ones. They must leave their friends and build a new circle of support. They must uproot their lives and plant themselves in a new country-all just so that they can stay together and continue to love and care for each other.

Greg’s mother, Kathleen, is an old friend of mine. In a note to me about this situation she wrote “Greg is being forced to choose between his relationship and his citizenship. Needless to say, he has made his choice but it is unfair at best.”

Is it fair to ask a committed, loving couple to choose between love or country? We don’t ask straight couples to do this. Why should lesbian or gay couples have to?

Simple. Our government’s immigration laws actively discriminate against us.

According to the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force based in New York City with chapters throughout the country, our nation’s immigration policy is predominantly based on the principle of family unification. This allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their spouses (and other family members) for immigration purposes.

But since same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are not considered "spouses," we are routinely excluded from family-based immigration rights. Thousands of lesbian and gay bi-national couples, like Greg and Shan, are kept apart, torn apart, forced to live in fear of being separated or, as they have done, choose between love and country.

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, added insult to injury. DOMA guarantees that for federal purposes including immigration, marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. So even if Greg and Shan had gone to Vermont for a civil union or actually gotten married in Massachusetts or Washington State, it wouldn’t matter. Greg would still not be able to sponsor Shan for citizenship. And, for those gay or lesbian couples who have legally married in other countries like The Netherlands, don’t expect to be a part of those huddled masses welcomed to our country by Lady Liberty. They cannot immigrate together to the U.S. even when one of the spouses is an American citizen.

Once again the United States is in the minority in the western world when dealing with lesbian and gay issues. Fifteen of our international friends and allies recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of immigration. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have no problem letting one of their citizens sponsor their lesbian or gay partner for citizenship.

Once again, we’re behind the curve. The same thing can be said for gays serving in the military. Most of the western world doesn’t have a problem with it. But, we do.

Our immigration laws also bar people who are HIV+ from entering the country and gaining permanent legal resident status. How bizarre is that? While the Americans with Disabilities Act bans discrimination against U.S. Citizens living with HIV or AIDS, the government discriminates against HIV+ people who want to immigrate here. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the compassion? Thankfully, if you are a legal permanent resident and find out you’re HIV+, the government won’t deport you.

Now, Greg and Shan could try to find a friendly lesbian who would marry Shan-or, a friendly straight woman for that matter. But, these types of marriages of convenience are lavender flags for the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Not only do these marriages create tremendous hardship for all involved, they can also lead to prosecution by the INS where the accomplice, partner and immigrant-in this case, the friendly woman, Greg and Shan-could all face jail terms and hefty fines and then Shan would be deported.

Unfair at best, Greg and Shan have made a choice they shouldn’t be forced to make. They are leaving the United States so that they can stay together. For them, love triumphs all-even citizenship and love of country. But, where is the fairness in that?