In Brief

Staff Reports

Vermont Lesbian Married Bi-National Couple Escape Deportation Threat

Frances Herbert & her spouse Takako Ueda

DUMMERSTON, VT -- A Japanese national living in the U. S. on an expired visa, Takako Ueda and her American wife, Frances Herbert, were informed Tuesday by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service that agency officials had decided to defer action on deportation proceedings against Ueda. She had been ordered to leave the country in a USCIS letter received last December.

The December 2011 deportation letter, which was addressed to Herbert- who had applied to be Ueda's sponsor- said that under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, they couldn't be considered spouses. DOMA defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

"Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex," wrote Robert Cowan, a U.S. CIS official. "Therefore, under the DOMA, your petition must be denied."

Federal immigration authorities demand extensive documentation showing a binational couple claiming to be married really is: witness statements, property records, utility and other household bills showing both names and the like often are required. Herbert said she and Ueda submitted 600 pages of such evidence with their application.

"It's despicable," Herbert said in an interview. "We had 600 pages of proof and 599 of them were completely ignored. One line on one page" — the one that said they were both women — "is what they paid attention to." ~ CBS News

A spokesperson for the agency confirmed to LGBTQNation late Thursday that Ueda's case would be reviewed in two years. 

Steve Ralls, a Washington-based spokesman for Immigration Equality, a group that advocates for such couples said that Ueda and Herbert are one of an estimated 36,000 bi-national, same sex couples living in the United States.

The women are among the five bi-national same sex couples who sued USCIS last month seeking permanent resident status for the foreign-born spouses. 

"This does not impact their lawsuit in any way," Ralls said of the decision by USCIS officials. But added that while Takako and Frances had "received good news for this next two years, they will continue to move forward in their quest to receive a green card for Takako, which is what they deserve."

Herbert, a 51-year-old home care provider, and Ueda, a 56-year-old graphic designer, were legally married in Vermont last year and have been together for more than a decade. Because the couple’s wedding nuptials were not recognized at the federal level due to DOMA, they didn't have spousal status for immigration purposes and besides the threat of deportation back to Japan, Ueda was unable to legally work or even obtain a drivers's licence.

The letter granting the couple a reprieve from the deportation threat arrived two weeks after President Barack Obama stated publicly for the first time that he supports same sex marriage.

A source at the USCIS said the agency's position had not changed noting that DOMA remains in effect and for the purposes of immigration laws USCIS will continue to enforce it until Congress repeals it or there a final judicial finding that it is unconstitutional. The source did say that "Deferred action is granted on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons and is based on evidence provided in each case."

Vermont's sole U.S. Representative, Democrat Peter Welch's office released a statement saying;

"We welcome this remedy that for now will offer a measure of common sense and compassion for this Vermont couple," the statement said. "All three of our offices have worked hard to support this loving and committed couple who have been unfairly prevented by DOMA from enjoying the rights and benefits that all lawfully married couples deserve."

Dallas Morning News to ExxonMobil: Get With The Program And Evolve Already On LGBTQ Workplace Protections

DALLAS, TX -- This morning, the Dallas Morning News editorial board weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Irving, Texas-based oil giant ExxonMobil’s 13-year refusal to add LGBTQ workplace protections, publishing a scathing editorial. The company has resisted a formal policy prohibiting discrimination against LGBT employees. The state of Texas does legally allow persons to be fired simply for being LGBT.

The fight to make ExxonMobil’s non-discrimination policy inclusive dates back to 1999. Before Mobil Corp. was acquired by Exxon Corp., Mobil prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and offered health benefits to domestic partners of its employees. Upon its 1999 merger with Exxon, the non-discrimination policy was removed and the domestic partner benefits program was closed to new employees. Since that year, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation along with other groups such as the New York City Pension Funds, has filed a resolution to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories in the company’s EEO policy.

In March, ExxonMobil again asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to allow it to omit a resolution, sponsored by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to its EEO policies from its shareholder meeting which will be held May 30. The SEC rejected the request to block the shareholder resolution.

“ExxonMobil has resisted offering basic employment protections for their LGBT employees for years,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “With each passing year, it becomes more apparent that instituting inclusive non-discrimination policies is the right thing to do. 

This year alone, the New York State Comptroller said it’s fiscally responsible, the SEC cleared a path to progress, and the oil giant’s hometown newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, called on the company to protect all workers”

"By explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, the company will join the growing community of corporations that now view this as an essential and even indispensable part of doing business," the Morning News wrote in its editorial.