Connect with us

National

Gay cancer patient struggles to bring partner to U.S.

White House, immigration officials mum on case

Published

on

Roi Whaley, right, and Aurelio Tolentino are seeking a special waiver from the U.S. government so the bi-national couple can be together. Whaley suffers from terminal cancer. (Photo courtesy of Immigration Equality)

An immigration advocacy group is appealing to the White House and U.S. immigration officials on behalf of a gay man in Gulfport, Miss., who is desperately trying to bring his Philippine partner into the U.S. to care for him as he struggles with terminal cancer.

Gulfport resident Roi Whaley, 46, and Aurelio Tolentino, 39, have been a couple since 2004, when the two met while Tolentino, a nurse, worked in the U.S. on a special work visa. Although in good health, Tolentino was forced by U.S. authorities to leave the country in 2007 when they discovered he was HIV positive.

Congress and the Obama administration have since lifted the longstanding U.S. ban on HIV positive immigrants and visitors, which led to Tolentino’s forced departure from the country. But due to other immigration restrictions, Tolentino, who moved to Canada, remains barred from returning to the U.S.

“Were Roi and Aurelio a married heterosexual couple, Roi would be eligible to apply to sponsor Aurelio for residency in the United States,” said Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, an LGBT advocacy group. “Because they are a gay couple, however, that option is not available to them.”

Immigration Equality is helping Tolentino apply for a special waiver known as a “humanitarian parole” that could allow him to return to the U.S. to assist Whaley for up to one year.

Ralls said his group is preparing the detailed paperwork needed for Tolentino’s humanitarian parole application, which must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He said Immigration Equality has also contacted the White House about the case.

Ralls and representatives of other LGBT advocacy groups view Whaley and Tolentino’s plight as yet another compelling example of why Congress should pass a pending bill that would give foreign partners of U.S. citizens the same immigration rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Under current law, a foreign national who marries an opposite sex U.S. citizen is automatically eligible for U.S. residency.

The Uniting American Families Act, which has been stalled in Congress for more than 10 years, enjoys the support of President Obama. But similar to nearly all other LGBT-related bills, congressional leaders have yet to schedule a vote on the measure, and most political observers say a vote on the gay immigration measure is unlikely to take place this year.

Meanwhile, Canadian authorities recently denied Tolentino’s application for residency in that country, putting him in jeopardy of being deported to the Philippines in the near future. Whaley talked to the Blade this week by phone from Tolentino’s home, saying he was fearful that this could be his last visit with his partner of five years unless U.S. immigration authorities grant Tolentino the humanitarian parole.

A White House spokesperson said it was referring all inquires about the matter to the Department of Homeland Security, which processes humanitarian parole applications. DHS spokesperson Matt Chandler said federal privacy law prohibits him from commenting on pending cases. But he said the DHS actively considers all applications for humanitarian paroles on a “case-by-case basis.”

Whaley said he feels “let down” by the Obama administration, saying the White House has not responded to several letters he has sent seeking assistance.

According to Whaley, his admiration for Obama was so strong that he persuaded an emergency medical crew to hold off taking him to the hospital on Inauguration Day in January 2009, when he collapsed from a “headache” that was later diagnosed as a brain tumor. He also suffers from lung and pancreatic cancer.

“I was on an ambulance gurney on a 911 call and I wouldn’t let them take me out of the house until I saw that man raise his hand and say ‘so help me God.’ That’s how much hope I had in him.  And I’m feeling really let down, kind of betrayed by my own country,” Whaley said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels

New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22

Published

on

(Photo by REDPIXEL.PL/Bigstock)

The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.

On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”

This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”

The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”

It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.

“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”

Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.

“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.

“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.

“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”

Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.

“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”

PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.

“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”

This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.

Continue Reading

Popular