National
Kerry seeks to aid lesbian bi-national couple
With expiration of student visa, woman faces deportation to Pakistan
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is seeking to aid a married lesbian couple in his state by asking the Department of Homeland Security to take administrative action to ensure the foreign national in the relationship won’t be deported to Pakistan.
In a redacted letter dated March 27 and obtained last week by the Washington Blade, Kerry asks Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to hold in abeyance the I-130 marriage-based green card petition for the couple until the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned either by Congress or the courts.
“I know that you and I both believe that every family is worthy of recognition and respect, and that no family should be torn apart based on a discriminatory law,” Kerry writes. “Abeyance will allow this remarkable young couple to move forward with their dream of building a life together at home in Massachusetts.”
Gloria (right) and Jackie could be faced with separation if their green card application isn't placed in abeyance. (Photo courtesy Stop the Deportations)
The couple is using their first names only, Gloria, a Pakistani national, and Jackie, who are both 24 and reside together in Beverly, Mass. The two met as roommates in college in 2008 and their shared Christian faith brought them closer. After falling in love, they married in Massachusetts in October.
But Gloria’s student visa expired after she could no longer afford tuition and had to stop attending school last year, ending her legal status in the country and putting her in a situation where she could be deported to Pakistan.
In March, Jackie filed a marriage-based green card petition to sponsor Gloria for residency in the United States. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services has yet to make a decision on the petition, but it will likely be denied unless it’s held in abeyance because DOMA prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Their attorney, Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations and partner at Masliah & Soloway, redacted their last names in the letter he gave to the Blade, saying he did so at their request out of concern for their safety and safety of family members overseas. He also declined to disclose the school they both attended.
Recalling that the Obama administration has determined DOMA was unconstitutional and stopped defending the anti-gay law in court, Kerry writes this announcement last year left many same-sex couples “wondering how that will apply to their pending cases” and enables an opportunity for action.
“Among those harmed by the discrimination enshrined in law by DOMA are many of my constituents in Massachusetts who face separation from husbands, wives, grandparents, grandchildren, extended family, colleagues and community,” the senator says.
Kerry writes that the case of Gloria and Jackie “clearly justifies” action because of the potentially harsh treatment Gloria would face if sent back to Pakistan. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by jail time there and Christians have been known to face persecution in the country.
“She is certain that if she is forced to return to Pakistan, her life will be in danger, not only because of her sexual orientation and her marriage to a United States citizen, but for religious reasons as well,” Kerry writes.
It’s not the first time Kerry has asked the Obama administration to take action to stop the separation of bi-national same-sex couples. In April 2011, Kerry led a group of 12 senators who signed a letter to Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security asking that the marriage-based green card petitions for these couples be held in abeyance.
In a phone interview, Gloria said she and her spouse “feel very frustrated” they face this situation that wouldn’t be before them if they were an opposite-sex couple. She said she believes the effort will be worthwhile if “some positive outcome could come out of all this work that we’re putting into it.”
Additionally, Gloria said she dreads the prospect of having to return to Pakistan and face persecution because of her religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
“That would be just a devastating situation,” Gloria said. “We don’t even want to think about it. We have built our lives together here in America and our home is here. Our friends and family, and everything that we’ve built together is here.”
In a statement, Jackie also expressed frustration that DOMA precludes her from protecting her spouse and that the Obama administration hasn’t yet taken action to protect married bi-national couples.
“It hurts, as an American, to think that my government causes me and my wife so much distress by allowing DOMA to do so much harm,” Jackie said. “It is not what I expected of President Obama; I expected more. My wife and I met in college over three and half years [ago] and plan to continue building our lives together. Part of our future will now be this fight for full equality.”
Jackie added that coming out publicly with their story wasn’t an easy decision because they fear it may mean backlash for Gloria’s family in Pakistan — as well as for Gloria if she’s forced to return to the country.
“But we will not stand by helpless while our marriage is treated as nothing by the federal government,” Jackie said. “I know that our president in his heart does not want to do harm to our marriage, and I am disappointed that he’s letting this happen when he has the power to stop it.”
Soloway said the president’s opposition to DOMA should be “matched with deeds,” and that halting the denial of marriage-based green card petitions would be consistent with the administration’s stated belief that same-sex couples shouldn’t be forced to make a choice between staying together and staying in the country.
“The president has an opportunity to develop policy that protects all LGBT families impacted by DOMA,” Soloway said. “He must now act to save Jackie and Gloria and thousands of lesbian and gay bi-national couples who, just like them, want nothing more than to be able to live their lives in peace.”
LGBT rights supporters have repeatedly asked the Obama administration to hold the marriage-based green cards for bi-national same-sex couples in abeyance on several occasions, and each time, officials have responded that they’ll continue to enforce DOMA while it’s on the books.
According to The Advocate, LGBT groups met with White House officials in January to discuss the possibility of putting the green cards in abeyance and administration officials told the advocates that such action wouldn’t be taken.
Peter Boogard, a DHS spokesperson, expressed a similar sentiment when asked by the Blade to comment on the Kerry letter.
“DHS responds directly to members of Congress, not through the media,” Boogard said. “Pursuant to the attorney general’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the executive branch, including the Department of Homeland Security, will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it, or there is a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional.”
While the administration hasn’t taken action to hold the marriage-based green card applications in abeyance, it has said it would include bi-national same-sex couples as part of an effort announced in August to take low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline by granting them prosecutorial discretion.
The criteria for being taken out of the deportation pipeline include a person’s ties and contributions to their community and family relationships, and administration officials have said these criteria are inclusive of LGBT families and same-sex couples. An informed source said individuals whose I-130 is denied because of DOMA typically don’t receive a notice to appear for deportation hearings in court, unless there are additional derogatory factors.
But Soloway said whether Gloria will be placed into deportation proceedings is hardly the point if her green card application is denied because she’s “vulnerable to deportation every day.”
“She can be placed into proceedings simply because her immigration status as a foreign student has lapsed,” Soloway said. “Her school was required to report her to Immigration Services when she was no longer enrolled as a student. Every night, Jackie and Gloria go to sleep not knowing if their luck will run out. Will tomorrow be the day on which Gloria comes into contact with an overzealous police officer who stops and questions her and takes her into custody when her immigration status is discovered?”
Soloway also said holding the green card application in abeyance is the only way for Gloria to remain in legal status to enable her to hold a job or maintain a valid driver’s license.
“She cannot support herself and build a stable and secure future with Jackie as any other married couple would,” Soloway said. “She is trapped and can never leave the country because if she does she will be prohibited from returning. This untenable situation is the result of DOMA, and would be mitigated if their green card case were simply held in abeyance.”
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
