Washington Blade - April 20, 2006
Joshua Lynsen

Experts said congressional support for the two issues remains limited. Although there is bipartisan interest in passing at least some reform, no congressional leaders from either political party have indicated any interest in discussing the issues.

A proposal to unite binational gay couples has 11 Senate sponsors and 95 House sponsors. There are no active proposals to lift the ban on HIV-positive immigrants.

There are about 36,000 gay couples comprised of one U.S. citizen and one foreigner, according to the 2000 Census. The number represents about 6 percent of all gay couples in the country.

Rachael B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, an organization that seeks equality for gay and HIV-positive immigrants, said her group is pushing for change.

"Family unification is the guiding principal of United States immigration law," she said. "The absolute refusal to recognize same-sex couples is very clear discrimination."

But she said existing laws which generally don't allow a gay United States citizen's partner to immigrate likely won't be altered by pending immigration reforms.

Other organizations agreed that congressional action uniting gay couples, or granting access to HIV-positive foreigners, is unlikely now.

Christopher Labonte, legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, said that's not for lack of trying.

"We've certainly tried our best to make sure that people understand the unique issues the GLBT community faces," he said, "but this hasn't been part of the public discussion over immigration reform this year."

He noted that immigration reform isn't truly comprehensive unless it includes a discussion of these issues.

"I think if they say they're talking about comprehensive reform, they should be talking about all the issues," he said. "Comprehensive means comprehensive."

Advocates are quick to note, however, that absence from the current debate isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, some people see the omission as a strategic move.

"We'll see movement on both of these issues," said John Marble, communications director for National Stonewall Democrats, a gay partisan group. "It's just a question of when."

Family unity effort stalls

The primary gay immigration proposal, the Uniting American Families Act, could unite many binational gay couples.

The bills, introduced by in the Senate by Patrick Leahy of Vermont and in the House by Jerrold Nadler of New York, allow a foreigner's "permanent partner" to sponsor his or her immigration to the U.S.

Federal immigration laws don't currently recognize gay relationships. Although some foreigners can receive permission to visit, they generally are precluded from permanently living with their partner here.

In some cases, asylum can be granted to gays who face persecution in their home country.

Marble said UAFA has a growing number of congressional supporters.

"One of the positive signs we've seen over last few years is that different versions of the bill have garnered more support each year and more support from both sides of the aisle," he said. "I think if they allowed for a vote on it, they would see members of both parties vote for this legislation."

But Leahy's press secretary, David Carle, said he's seen no sign that UAFA will become incorporated into pending immigration reform.

Carle said the proposed reform is "already very tenuous," and it's unclear whether an opportunity to attach the UAFA will be found.

"If there is a chance to advance the bill," Carle said, "he will make every effort to do that."

Tiven said some UAFA advocates are reluctant to push the issue before there's enough votes to pass it.

"It can be strategic to bring a law to the floor to draw attention to it," she said, "but the educational value we might see is not enough to outweigh the possible damage of putting it out there without the votes."

HIV ban continues

Meanwhile, efforts to overturn laws prohibiting HIV-positive people from immigrating or visiting the U.S. have stalled.

"Where we are now is not close to getting the ban removed outright," Tiven said. "We hope at least to mitigate the HIV ban by expanding the waiver opportunities."

Advocates claimed some success in February, when federal officials approved a blanket waiver allowing HIV-positive foreigners to participate in or attend the Gay Games VII Sports & Cultural Festival in Chicago in July.

The waiver provides a temporary, 20-day exemption from immigration laws that define HIV as a communicable disease and declares that all foreigners with HIV are "inadmissible" to the United States.

Marble called the HIV ban "a draconian policy" that "doesn't make sense." He said a fair examination would reveal the ban is unnecessary now.

"We treat HIV and AIDS very differently than we did 20 to 25 years ago," he said, "but I think our visa and immigration policy doesn't reflect that."

Labonte said the fight against the HIV ban is inherently a tougher struggle because it entails repealing rather than passing a law.

And although it's based on outdated science, Tiven said, the HIV ban is codified in immigration law.

"We've talked to people about how we could attack it, but at the moment, it's tough to see where we're going to see meaningful progress," she said. "I wish I had something better to report."

æWorst anti-gay discrimination'

Tiven said Immigration Equality and Human Rights Watch will draw new attention to gay immigration issues next month when they jointly release a 190-page report titled "Family, Unvalued."

The report documents the "discrimination, denial and the fate of binational same-sex couples under U.S. law." It evaluates the affect various immigration policies have had on citizens and their families.

"We're very excited about the release of the report and the opportunity [it presents] to call attention to the issues," Tiven said. "I hope it will catch the attention of members of Congress."

Labonte said the report could have an impact on immigration reform.

"I think telling the stories of Americans who are forced to choose between country and partner can have a dramatic impact," he said. "We need to tell what that means for our community

loudly and repeatedly."

Marble said while the report might come too late to influence pending legislation, it's something that can be used in future conversations.

"I think this is going to be an ongoing debate," he said. "Whole issues of immigration reform are going to be around a lot longer than this year of Congress."

And as efforts to increase gay immigration rights grow, Tiven said, Congress will become challenged to defend existing law.

"I think for gay people concerned about our rights in the United States," she said, "being physically separated from your partner is about the worst anti-gay discrimination I could think of."

060420
WB060404

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2006. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2006. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .