Nancy Pelosi To Homeland Security: Put It In Writing

Andrew reported Thursday on the announcement by the Department of Homeland Security, made to BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner, that DHS now considers the marriages of same-sex binational couples a serious impediment to beginning deportation proceedings against gay "illegal" immigrants:

The statement — which comes in response to pressure from House Democrats and advocates — makes explicit that the Obama Administration will consider same-sex marriages a reason not to start deportation proceedings.

"[W]hen 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," [DHS Deputy Press Secretary] Peter Boogaard told BuzzFeed Monday.

But this is essentially what the DHS has been saying since August 18th, 2011, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is unsatisfied. Early last week, Ms. Pelosi sent a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, demanding that the Department's policy vis a vis the foreign spouses of gay citizens be codified and set in writing. The demand didn't change after BuzzFeed published Mr. Boogard's statement. From BuzzFeed:

Responding to Thursday's report, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said today, "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. We look forward to the written guidance that we expect would be a logical next step."

... Although BuzzFeed requested a copy of any [written policy detailing DHS's current stance], the only policy to which BuzzFeed has been directed by any DHS officials is a 2011 policy that makes no mention of same-sex couples.

Homeland Security: Binational Same-Sex Couples Still Low Priority

The Department of Homeland Security reiterated today that it will go easy on binational same-sex couples when reviewing immigration cases.

The Obama administration announced last year that such couples, barred from  federal recognition thanks to DOMA, would be given a pass as the immigration officials focused on more high priority cases. But no specific regulations were ever spelled out, and Democrats including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi this week asked the administration to make their intentions more clear.

While there are still little specifics, Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Peter Boogaard told BuzzFeed, "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."

Still, the Department will not start issuing green cards to the foreign half of a binational couple until DOMA is officially repealed, said Boogaard.

Pelosi, Over 80 Democrats Pressure Obama On Protecting Binational Same-Sex Couples

There was lots of political hoopla when the Obama Administration announced last August that immigration officials would use "prosecutorial discretion" for low-priority cases, a move the White House made out a a step forward to protecting binational same-sex couples from being separated because DOMA, which does not recognize their marriages and unions.

"The prosecutorial discretion memo provides for the use of discretion for people with strong community ties, with community contributions and with family relationships. We consider LGBT families to be families in this context," an administration official told Metro Weekly at the time.

Fast forward a year and there's been little movement, or explanation, about the rules. Hoping to put some pressure on the president, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and more than 80 other Democrats yesterday sent a letter asking Obama and company to be more specific.

Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed offers more details:

In [the] letter, Pelosi — along with Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Mike Honda, the lead sponsors of two bills aimed at addressing LGBT inequalities in the immigration system, and 81 other Democrats — called on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "issue a written field guidance or a memorandum to explicitly state the policy of your August 18, 2011 announcement which would direct DHS personnel to consider LGBT family ties as a positive factor for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

The House members — including out gay Reps. Barney Frank, Jared Polis and David Cicilline — go on to say that "[a] written policy is the best way to ensure that the decision by President Obama and DHS to recognize LGBT family ties for immigration purposes will be implemented so that families will remain together."

Lawyer Lavi Soloway, founder of Stop the Deportations, told Geidner that a lack of specific codes "continues to send mixed messages to deportation officers, Immigration Judges and Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors who have the discretion to protect our families and stop deportations."

Nancy Pelosi on Chick-fil-A: 'I Prefer Kentucky Fried Chicken'

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made note in a tweet yesterday that she prefers her chicken without a helping of bigotry:

"For the record, I prefer Kentucky Fried Chicken. #ChickFilA"

In related news, one of Romney's top VP hopefuls showed his support for Chick-fil-A:

Top Mitt Romney surrogate and potential vice presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty came to Chick-fil-A’s defense during a Romney campaign event in Cary, North Carolina on Saturday, bragging to a small group of supporters that he ate lunch at the fast-food franchise, which refuses to offer any employment protections to LGBT employees and has donated millions of dollars to ex-gay ministries.

And the University of Louisville President and Provost won't be eating there any time soon:

U of L spokesman Mark Hebert confirmed Friday a statement from the university to the university's Office for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Services that said "the president and the provost will not be eating at Chik-fil-A anytime soon."

Hebert said the university is not elaborating at this time on the statement.

The LGBT Services Web site published a statement Friday that said the university administration has commented on the presence of a Chik-fil-A restaurant in the Student Activities Center on campus and an online petition to have it removed.

Meanwhile, Change.org sent out notice yesterday that students from seven schools across the country have started petitions to get Chick-fil-A off their campuses:

The petitions target officials at the University of Illinois, University of Kansas, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Ball State University, College of Charleston, Wichita State University, and Minnesota State University.

With Platform Committee In Place, Democrats Need A Marriage Position

For months Democratic leaders have throwing their weight behind a party platform that includes marriage equality. Officials ranging from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to former DNC Chair Howard Dean, as well as dozens of elected officials have said they support such an amendment.

Now that the platform drafting committee has been announced, Chris Johnson from The Washington Blade did a little asking around to see who is and who is not supporting an official party endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Three voting members — Carlos Odio, a Latino Democratic activist, Donna Harris-Aikens, the National Education Association’s director of policy and practice, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan — told Johnson they would back such language, as did two non-voting members: Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, and Alice Germond, DNC Secretary.

"Like the President, I believe people should come before their government as equals,” said Governor Patrick. “In Massachusetts, that has meant that people can marry whomever they love. I am proud that marriage equality is the law of our Commonwealth and appreciate that other states are moving in that direction. While I do not believe that marriage is or ought to be the subject of federal law, I support the proposed plank as an expression of human rights for which the Democratic Party stands.”

The other ten members of the official committee have yet to take such a forceful stand. And, yes, that includes openly gay and recently married Rep. Barney Frank.

Eric Orner, a Frank spokesperson, said the lawmaker, who earlier this month wed his partner, Jim Ready, said the Massachusetts Democrat isn’t yet ready to speak about marriage equality in the platform.

...

In an April interview with the Blade, Frank expressed lukewarm support for the idea of marriage equality in the Democratic Party platform, saying he “would like it,” but thought support for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act would be more important for the platform.

“The only federal question is DOMA,” Frank said. “The federal government doesn’t have a rule about marriage or not, so I would want there to be a plank that says, ‘We respect the right of states to make this decision.’ I think what’s important from the federal standpoint is to go out against DOMA.”

Considering the president's support for marriage equality and how enthusiastic other Democrats are about the issue, it's more than likely the Democratic Party Platform will include inclusion. How much, of course, remains to be seen.

132 House Democrats File Friendly Brief In California DOMA Case

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 131 other House Democrats are throwing themselves into Karen Golinski's discrimination lawsuit against the federal government.

The Washington Blade reports that the lawmakers have filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act violates Golinkski's right to partner benefits.

Chris Johnson offers more details:

The 30-page brief makes the case against Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, in several ways, emphasizing that BLAG doesn’t speak for the entirety of the U.S. House. House Democrats have pledged to file a brief in each case where BLAG acts to defend DOMA.

First, the lawmakers argue DOMA warrants heightened scrutiny because Congress has a history of targeting gay and lesbian Americans with discriminatory laws — a position that is held by the Obama administration.

House Democrats then argue that DOMA is unconstitutional because Congress hastily passed it in 1996 for political reasons and because the law undercuts Congress’ interest in protecting families and respecting state sovereignty.

This is the second such brief Pelosi and other Democrats have submitted: they also put their weight behind the Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services cases that have been merged into one lawsuit.

In addition to potentially impacting these cases, Pelosi and company's legal maneuver help contrast them against Boehner and other House Republicans who cling so ferociously to a 90s-era law.