Marriage Equality—A Local Caseby John Frando | |
Raul Sinense and Peter Gee married on November 1, 2008, during the nearly five-month window when same sex marriage was legal in California. They wed among family and close friends in a simple ceremony on a scenic beach in Big Sur. Like most newlyweds, they experienced the euphoria of a couple beginning a new life together. | |
Peter and Raul at the 2011 Dimond Oaktoberfest. Photo by Rene Garcia
Click to enlarge. |
|
|
 |
But Raul, a Filipino immigrant, and Peter, a native Californian, also felt anxiety and faced uncertainty because Raul had lost his legal status to remain in the country earlier in the year when the insurance agency where he worked for many years discontinued sponsoring his employment-based green card, and he was unable to find a new employment sponsor immediately.
Seven states (excluding California, which passed Prop 8 on November 2, 2008) allow same sex couples to marry. However, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defines marriage at the federal level as the union of one man and one woman and prevents the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage for immigration purposes. DOMA prevented Peter from filing a petition for Raul to remain in the country with permanent resident status.
For nearly two agonizing years the couple considered their meager options. Naïve about the process of fighting Raul’s deportation, they were resigned to go to the federal court hearing without legal representation. During this time, they moved from Southern California to the Dimond, where they started building connections by volunteering in the community and through Peter’s work as a professional artist.
Their position began to seem hopeful when, in February 201l, the Justice Department announced that it would not defend DOMA in court because President Obama believed that the law was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Obama Administration issued a June 17 memo to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys to use “prosecutorial discretion,” essentially not enforcing immigration laws against certain individuals. Raul’s attorney Camiel Becker argued in court that the Constitution requires that Raul’s same-sex marriage license be recognized under U.S. immigration law. He filed a motion to drop removal proceedings. He submitted additional evidence, including a letter from Mayor Jean Quan, who wrote in support of the couple, and urged that the deportation proceedings be dropped until DOMA is overturned or the immigration service recognizes his legal California marriage license.
The Obama Administration’s policy shift on DOMA benefited Raul and Peter. On August 11, ICE agreed to drop the deportation case against Raul, and on August 16, a judge administratively closed the case. Raul’s case became only the third nationwide and the first California marriage license case to be decided in favor of binational gay spouses.
For now, it means that Raul can legally remain in the country and work. He said that any future policy reversal on DOMA could take it all away. For other couples facing deportation, Raul advises that it’s “important to do good research.” Peter adds that they should “talk to friends and relatives for support and ideas, get legal counsel, and fight for their basic rights.”