National
Despite assurances, LGBT advocates want more for bi-national couples
DHS says same-sex marriage a factor in evaluating deportation cases
The US Department of Homeland Security
The issue of keeping married bi-national gay couples together in the United States is receiving fresh attention as LGBT advocates call for more action beyond a recent statement from the Department of Homeland Security saying being in a same-sex marriage is a factor in determining whether a potential deportee should be able to stay in the country.
On Thursday, Peter Boogaard, a DHS spokesperson, affirmed that the Obama administration would examine whether an individual is in a same-sex marriage when deciding to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a deportation for an undocumented immigrant.
“Pursuant to the Attorney General’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and 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,” Boogaard said. “However, when exercising prosecutorial discretion in enforcement matters, DHS looks at the totality of the circumstances presented in individual cases, including whether an individual has close family ties to the United States as demonstrated by his or her same-sex marriage or other longstanding relationship to a United States citizen.”
Boogaard’s statement marks the first time the Obama administration has said on the record it will factor in whether someone is in a same-sex marriage when determining whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a deportation case. The administration previously communicated in August 2011 that it would “consider LGBT families” under a policy in which officials would examine on a case-by-case basis the potential deportations of about 300,000 undocumented immigrants, but that was only said without attribution. The new statement also changes “LGBT families” to “same-sex marriage.”
Additionally, the words mark one of the few times that the Obama administration has said it would recognize married same-sex couples even though DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, remains on the books. Last year, the Justice Department announced it would allow married same-sex couples to file jointly for bankruptcy; the Office of Personnel Management gave U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals employee Karen Golinski health benefits for her same-sex spouse, but both of those decisions were more limited in scope and the result of court orders.
The DHS statement comes in response to a letter that 84 House Democrats signed calling for DHS to issue guidance for providing prosecutorial discretion for married bi-national same-sex couples in situations where the foreign national in the relationship is undocumented and possibly in danger of deportation. Straight Americans can sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States through a marriage-based green card application, but that option isn’t available to gay Americans because of DOMA.
In a letter dated Aug. 3, the signers — who include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) — ask for “written field guidance or a memorandum” indicating DHS will “consider LGBT family ties as a positive factor for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.” It’s not the first time such a letter has been sent. Last year, 69 House Democrats sent a letter to DHS calling for similar action.
Despite the new statement from DHS, those behind the letter say they want more and a response from a DHS spokesperson doesn’t take the place of written guidance. Some behind the letter say the statement from DHS reflects a policy that is already understood to be in place.
Nadler, sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, was among those saying more is necessary.
“I appreciate the response from DHS’s spokesperson on the issue of prosecutorial discretion, but the policy mentioned is the one I already understood to be in place,” Nadler said. “What my colleagues and I are asking, and have been requesting since 2011, is that those guidelines now be put clearly onto paper for DHS agents in the field so that there is no longer any confusion as to their mission vis-à-vis the deportation of gays and lesbians with demonstrated family and community ties in the U.S.”
Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi, called the statement a “welcome development,” but echoed the sentiment that more was sought in the letter.
“It’s a welcome development that a DHS spokesperson is explicitly and publicly acknowledging that DHS’s consideration of family ties includes same-sex couples and spouses,” Hammill said. “We look forward to the written guidance that we expect would be a logical next step.”
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Honda, sponsor of the Reuniting Families Act, which has UAFA-inclusive language, said he “greatly appreciate[s]” the statement from DHS, but also wants the policy clearly written in guidance for U.S. Customs & Immigration Enforcement officials.
“I greatly appreciate the Department of Homeland Security’s explicit verbal statement recognizing the value of same-sex relationships in immigration proceedings,” Honda said. “However, for the sake of those LGBT families, who — today or tomorrow — may face a tragic and senseless separation, their attorneys, and ICE field officials, an indubitable and unequivocal written policy and implementation guideline remain the best assurance for protection. I look forward to working with DHS to ensure that this becomes a reality.”
That sentiment was echoed by an LGBT advocacy group that focuses on immigration issues. Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, noted there’s nothing new in the statement provided by DHS.
“We’ve heard verbally before that they intend for their guidelines to be inclusive, but then, on the flipside of that, we’ve heard from field officers that they’ve never received that instruction in writing,” Ralls said. “Leader Pelosi and the other signers of the letter were very clear that they want to see that policy articulated in writing and distributed to the field, and that doesn’t seem to be the commitment that we’re getting in the statement today from DHS.”
Asked whether he thinks it’s significant that DHS is for the first time articulating this policy on the record, Ralls said, “Again, I think the real issue is who they say it to and not who says it. It needs to be a written policy directed squarely to the field. … That’s what we need. That’s what Nadler, Honda and Pelosi wanted. That’s not what DHS delivered today.”
The exception to the nonplussed reactions was Lavi Soloway, an immigration attorney and co-founder of Stop the Deportations, who called the news “a giant step forward in the fight against DOMA” and the first formal recognition from the Obama administration of married same-sex couples.
“This move is significant beyond the immigration context, as it constitutes the first time any agency of the federal government has created a policy explicitly recognizing same-sex marriages,” Soloway added. “By giving legal effect to the lawful marriages of gay and lesbian couples, the Obama administration has demonstrated what we have argued all along to be true: that executive branch agencies can create policy to mitigate the discriminatory impact of DOMA on gay and lesbian binational couples, even while DOMA continues to prevent approval of those couples’ green card petitions.”
Still, Soloway said he wants to see the policy articulated in guidance, saying, “To ensure that our families are protected with consistent application of this newly inclusive prosecutorial discretion policy, it is crucial that detailed written guidance encompassing this official announcement be issued without delay.“
Despite these calls for having instructions explicitly written in guidance, DHS maintains agents and attorneys have been trained to know that LGBT families and same-sex couples are covered under the new policy. Since the DHS announcement last year, ICE has already announced that several bi-national couples have been taken out of the deportation pipeline, such as Anthony Makk and Bradford Wells of San Francisco.
DHS didn’t respond to a request to comment on reactions from lawmakers and advocates to the statement provided last week.
Letter renews call to hold marriage-based green cards
The House Democrats’ letter isn’t the only one that the Obama administration has received recently on married bi-national same-sex couples. Immigration Equality delivered a letter to the White House and the Justice Department on Friday asking for the marriage-based green card applications to be held in abeyance now that a time for when the Supreme Court will review DOMA has become more clear.
The letter, signed by Immigration Equality Executive Director Rachel Tiven and Legal Director Victoria Neilson, is dated July 26 and renews an earlier request from the organization that was denied by the Obama administration, saying the administration should reconsider because “it is now clear that a final judicial determination on the constitutionality of DOMA is imminent.”
“[I]t is now clear that the Supreme Court will render a decision on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA within a year. In the meanwhile, if USCIS continues to deny the applications of lawfully married couples, lesbian and gay immigrant families will continue to suffer irreparable harm through forced separations, forced exile, or the accrual of unlawful presence in the United States,” the letter states. “Holding green card petitions and applications without adjudicating them will preserve agency resources and prevent real harm to real families until the Supreme Court resolves this issue next year.”
Among the reasons cited in the letter for a likely imminent decision from the Supreme Court on DOMA are rulings against the anti-gay law from the First Circuit and district courts as well as multiple pending petitions asking the high court to take up the law.
The letter is dated the day after U.S. Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the Eastern District of New York placed a stay on Immigration Equality’s lawsuit against DOMA, Blesch v. Holder, pending resolution of another DOMA lawsuit, Windsor v. United States, before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. A White House spokesperson deferred to DHS, which provided the same statement in response to the letter signed by House Democrats. As of Monday, Immigration Equality has said it hasn’t yet received a response from the Obama administration.
Soloway also said putting marriage-based green card applications in abeyance for same-sex couples is the best way for the Obama administration to ensure these families can remain together in the United States without fear of separation.
“To address this immediate, irreparable harm, the administration should stop denying green card petitions filed by gay and lesbian binational couples and instead put those cases on hold pending a ruling by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of DOMA expected next year,” Soloway said.
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
Federal Government
Two very different views of the State of the Union
As Trump delivered his SOTU address inside the Capitol, Democratic lawmakers gathered outside in protest, condemning the administration’s harmful policies.
As President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address inside the U.S. Capitol — touting his achievements and targeting political enemies — progressive members of Congress gathered just outside in protest.
Their message was blunt: For many Americans, particularly LGBTQ people, the country is not better off.
Each year, as required by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president must “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” The annual address is meant to outline accomplishments and preview the year ahead. This year, Trump delivered the longest State of the Union in U.S. history, clocking in at one hour and 48 minutes. He spoke about immigration, his “law and order” domestic agenda, his “peace through strength” foreign policy doctrine, and what he framed as the left’s ‘culture wars’ — especially those involving transgender youth and Christian values.
But one year into what he has called the “Trump 2.0” era, the picture painted outside the Capitol stood in stark contrast to the one described inside.
Transgender youth
In one of the most pointed moments of his speech, Trump spotlighted Sage Blair, using her story to portray gender-affirming care as coercive and dangerous. Framing the issue as one of parental rights and government overreach, he told lawmakers and viewers:
“In the gallery tonight are Sage Blair and her mother, Michelle. In 2021, Sage was 14 when school officials in Virginia sought to socially transition her to a new gender, treating her as a boy and hiding it from her parents. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Before long, a confused Sage ran away from home.
“After she was found in a horrific situation in Maryland, a left-wing judge refused to return Sage to her parents because they did not immediately state that their daughter was their son. Sage was thrown into an all-boys state home and suffered terribly for a long time. But today, all of that is behind them because Sage is a proud and wonderful young woman with a full ride scholarship to Liberty University.
“Sage and Michelle, please stand up. And thank you for your great bravery and who can believe that we’re even speaking about things like this. Fifteen years ago, if somebody was up here and said that, they’d say, what’s wrong with him? But now we have to say it because it’s going on all over, numerous states, without even telling the parents.
“But surely, we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will. Who would believe that we’ve been talking about that? We must ban it and we must ban it immediately. Look, nobody stands up. These people are crazy. I’m telling you, they’re crazy.”
The story, presented as encapsulation of a national crisis, became the foundation for Trump’s renewed call to ban gender-affirming care. LGBTQ advocates — and those familiar with Blair’s story — argue that the situation was far more complex than described and that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions places transgender people, particularly youth, at greater risk.
Equality Virginia said the president’s remarks were part of a broader effort to strip transgender Americans of access to care. In a statement to the Blade, the group said:
“Tonight, the president is choosing to double down on efforts to disrupt access to evidence-based, lifesaving care.
“Rather than allowing families and doctors to navigate deeply personal medical decisions free from federal interference — or allowing schools to respond with nuance and compassion without putting marginalized children at risk — the president is instead advocating for reckless, one-size-fits-all political control.
“At a time when Virginians are worried about rising costs, economic uncertainty, and aggressive immigration enforcement actions disrupting communities and families, attacking transgender young people is a blatant political distraction from the real challenges facing our nation. Virginia families and health care providers do not need Donald Trump telling them what care they do or do not need.”
For many in the LGBTQ community, the rhetoric inside the chamber echoed actions already taken by the administration.
Earlier this month, the Pride flag was removed from the Stonewall National Monument under a National Park Service directive that came from the top. Community members returned to the site, raised the flag again, and filed suit, arguing the removal violated federal law. To advocates, the move was symbolic — a signal that even the legacy of LGBTQ resistance was not immune.
Immigration and fear
Immigration dominated both events as well.
Inside the chamber, Trump boasted about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants detained in makeshift facilities. Outside, Democratic lawmakers described those same facilities as concentration camps and detailed what they characterized as the human toll of the administration’s enforcement policies.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), speaking to the crowd, painted a grim picture of communities living in fear:
“People are vanishing into thin air. Quiet mornings are punctuated by jarring violence. Students are assaulted by ICE agents sitting outside the high school, hard working residents are torn from their vehicles in front of their children. Families, hopelessly search for signs of their loved ones who have stopped answering their phones, stop replying to text… This is un-American, it is illegal, it is unconstitutional, and the people are going to rise up and fight for Gladys Vega and all of those poor people who today need to know that the people’s State of the Union is the beginning of a long fight that is going to result in the end of Republican control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States of America in 2026.”
Speakers emphasized that LGBTQ immigrants are often especially vulnerable — fleeing persecution abroad only to face detention and uncertainty in the United States. For them, the immigration crackdown and the attacks on transgender health care are not separate battles but intertwined fronts in a broader cultural and political war.
Queer leadership
After delivering remarks alongside Robert Garcia, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, took the stage and transformed the freezing crowd’s anger into resolve.
Garcia later told the Blade that visibility matters in moments like this — especially when LGBTQ rights are under direct attack.
“We should be crystal clear about right now what is happening in our country,” Garcia said. “We have a president who is leading the single largest government cover up in modern history, we have the single largest sex trafficking ring in modern history right now being covered up by Donald Trump and Pam Bondi In the Department of Justice. Why are we protecting powerful, wealthy men who have abused and raped women and children in this country? Why is our government protecting these men at this very moment? In my place at the Capitol is a woman named Annie farmer. Annie and her sister Maria, both endured horrific abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. As we move forward in this investigation, always center the survivors; we are going to get justice for the survivors. And Donald Trump may call this investigation a hoax. He may try to deflect our work, but our message to him is very clear that our investigation is just getting started, and we will we will get justice for these survivors.”
He told the Blade afterwards that having queer leaders front and center is itself an act of resistance.
“I obviously was very honored to speak with Kelley,” the California representative said. Kelley is doing a great job…it’s important that there are queer voices, trans voices, gay voices, in protest, and I think she’s a great example of that. It’s important to remind the country that the rights of our community continue to be attacked, and then we’ve got to stand up. Got to stand up for this as well.”
Robinson echoed that call, urging LGBTQ Americans — especially young people — not to lose hope despite the administration’s escalating rhetoric.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people that are standing up for you every single day that will not relent and will not give an inch until every member of our community is protected, especially our kids, especially our trans and queer kids. I just hope that the power of millions of voices drowns out that one loud one, because that’s really what I want folks to see at HRC. We’ve got 3.6 million members that are mobilizing to support our community every single day, 75 million equality voters, people that decide who they’re going to vote for based on issues related to our community. Our job is to make sure that all those people stand up so that those kids can see us and hear our voices, because we’re going to be what stands in the way.”
A boycott — and a warning
The list of Democratic lawmakers who boycotted the State of the Union included Sens. Ruben Gallego, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff, Tina Smith, and Chris Van Hollen, along with dozens of House members.
For those gathered outside — and for viewers watching the livestream hosted by MoveOn — the counter-programming was not merely symbolic. It was a warning.
While the president spoke of strength and success inside the chamber, LGBTQ Americans — particularly transgender youth — were once again cast as political targets. And outside the Capitol, lawmakers and advocates made clear that the fight over their rights is far from over.
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Spring into sold
Plan your wedding the LGBTQ way
Calendar: February 27-March 5
Rob Jetten becomes first gay Dutch prime minister
More than a dozen LGBTQ athletes medal at Olympics
New book profiles LGBTQ Ukrainians, documents war experiences
PHOTOS: Queen of Hearts
