I report promo is a SHAME.
International conglomerate Time Warner (owner of CNN) is apparently afraid of gay-themed programming. It rejected this video as part of its iReport promo contest. They must be trying to follow in the footsteps of higher ranked, but conservative, Fox News.
It is just one more discriminatory issue that my Family are dealing with the media, specially the big ones, in get our story out.

Why DOMA Must Fall

In 2002, same sex marriage was not yet legal in Massachusetts and any possible legal remedy related to marriage was not available. Genesio Oliveira "Junior" and Tim married March 3, 2005 as his case moved through the system. Despite the marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton, prohibited Tim from sponsoring Junior as a permanent resident even though heterosexuals may do so.

The couple has begged for relief and has since exhausted all other potential remedies available to compel the U.S. government to enable Junior to return. Although the U.S. does not recognize the marriage under DOMA, it uses the marriage as a reason not to grant any other visa since the marriage is a reason why Junior might not leave the U.S.

With no resolution in sight, the couple has moved ahead with a head-on DOMA challenge. The aim is to topple that portion of DOMA that prevents Federal recognition of marriage and civil unions in those states where same-sex unions are legal. Before Federal courts may hear the matter, the couple's "I-130 Petition for Alien Relative" must be formally denied. The I-130 Petition is the same method used by heterosexuals to sponsor their spouses.

Alone in the Fight for Basic Fairness?

Here is the long delayed update to the story of my separation from Junior as a result of actions taken by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

First, some background. Junior was never an "illegal alien." Six years ago this year, Junior filed a petition for asylum with what was then the U.S. Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS). He made this filing before the end of the six-month stay authorized by his visa, thus keeping him "in status" in the eyes of immigration law. There are many reasons why the asylum application should have been granted.

As the law allows, Junior received his Social Security number and work authorization while his case made its way through the system. As the Department of Homeland Security was formed and Bush made ideological appointments, the government grew increasingly unfriendly to our cause. Even the U.S. State Department changed its longstanding position on a key issue bolstering the asylum petition.

Finally, during the Justice Department hiring scandal, a conservative ideologue was appointed to hear Junior's case. As the Washington Post reported June 11, last year:

The Bush administration increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws that preclude such considerations...

...another failed tax court nominee, Francis L. Cramer, a former campaign treasurer for Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), was appointed as an immigration judge. Cramer's bid for a seat on the tax court foundered after the American Bar Association's taxation section wrote a rare letter to the Senate Finance Committee, saying: "We are unable to conclude that he is qualified to serve."

Cramer was then hired by the Justice Department's tax division and was briefly lent to the department's Office of Immigration Litigation. Ashcroft approved him as an immigration judge in March 2004. The Government Accountability Office, a legislative watchdog, criticized the appointment, saying, "Converting a Schedule C [political] appointee with less than 6 months of immigration law experience to an immigration judge position raises questions about the fairness of the conversion."

Judge Cramer denied the asylum application and his decision was upheld by a single judge of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Junior was ordered to "voluntarily" depart the U.S. within 60 days and he complied with that order last August.

Since last year, we have exhausted all other potential remedies available to us to compel the U.S. government to enable Junior to return.

I also sadly report that the allies we expected -- GLAD, ACLU, HRC and others -- have not stepped up to the plate.

First Massachusetts, then California; now United Nations
Forcibly separated same-sex Mass. couple accuse U.S. of treaty violation at United Nations

Coco and Oliveira accuse the United States of violating the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" by failing to grant asylum to Oliveira despite "substantial grounds" to do so and failing to appoint "competent" arbiter to hear the asylum case -- both are required under the convention, ratified by the US in 1994. In the 65-page complaint filed this week with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at United Nations office at Geneva, Switzerland, the couple argues their case is admissible because the US further "recognized the competence of the committee established under the relevant treaty to consider complaints from individuals."

More information at:
www.reunitethisfamily.com

This full movie can be found there too.

HAVERHILL — Tim Coco has spent nearly nine months without his husband, Genesio Oliveira Jr., at his side.

Today, the Haverhill businessman is doing what he does best — launching an advertising campaign. This one focuses on his international marital plight.

"The pain has become unbearable. We need to do something to get some attention," said Coco, 46, the founder of the local advertising agency COCO + Co.

Today, an advertisement is scheduled to appear on the back page of the Washington Post's Express newspaper asking President Bush and Congress to "Make This Right!"

The ad, which includes the couple's wedding photo, is a direct appeal to the government to have Oliveira, 28, returned to the United States from Brazil.

"The executive branch has the authority to grant (Oliveira) a visa now and Congress has the power to grant relief by any number of means," the ad reads.

Oliveira, who married Coco in 2005, voluntarily went back to Brazil last August when he could not get the government to recognize him as a documented alien.

Ever since, Coco, backed by a group of Merrimack Valley supporters, has been pushing to get humanitarian parole or other clearance for Oliveira to return to the United States.

In March, the couple filed a so-called I-130 Petition for an Alien Relative — the same mechanism heterosexual couples use to gain recognition for immigrant spouses. But the couple expected the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to deny the petition based on the Defense of Marriage Act, a 12-year-old law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Coco and Oliveira also appealed to Brazilian leaders, urging officials to discuss the couple's forced separation when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited South America. Coco said the couple's situation got some coverage in the local press. But Oliveira still hasn't come home.

"It's been very difficult," Coco said. "We are not getting the attention we need, and that's why this ad is running."

An estimated 280,000 adults will see today's ad. Coco hopes that includes President Bush and 535 U.S. senators and representatives. The ad cost him roughly $2,000, which included a discount because he runs an advertising agency, he said.

"We expect more of these. My goal is to bring the ads into districts where senators and congressmen and women reside," he said. "The message is we are not going away."

The couple met in Boston six years ago when Oliveira, then a medical student in Bolivia, was visiting the United States. He later returned to the United States, marrying and intending to stay with Coco permanently.

He needed to learn English, so Oliveira enrolled at Northern Essex Community College, first attending classes in Lawrence and later at the Haverhill campus. Once he mastered the language, he also hoped to continue his medical education and apply to the University of New Hampshire.

Coco was featured in a front-page story in The Eagle-Tribune about the couple's separation in mid-March. The Merrimack Valley's response to their story has been "heartwarming," he said.

"I have received literally dozens of letters, cards and e-mails which have all been very positive," Coco said.

Some of the messages have come in foreign languages and Coco has tried to translate them. He's been in contact with a same-sex couple who fled to Germany so they could be together. He also has been told of other gay couples who "live here in secrecy with the fear they'll be discovered."

He also was concerned about the reaction some of his conservative clients would have regarding his predicament. They have been great, he said.

"I didn't know what impact that would have. ... But I think they respect the fact we tried to play by the rules," he said.

Coco said the time apart is reinforcing the couple's desire to be together.

"Our determination is much stronger," he said. "We found we are not just fighting for ourselves. We felt very alone in the beginning. But now we realize we are carrying the torch for everyone else in this position."

How to help

A Web site — www.reunitethisfamily.com — details the efforts of Tim Coco and Genesio Oliveira Jr. to be together.

Updates, media links, comments and videos are included.

Donations to offset legal costs can also be made through the Web site.

I don't get it. A Brazillian man comes to this country, learns the language, goes to college, gets married to his partner, and they deport him? Yet we have illegals who are soaking up the wellfare system, living for free, free health insurance, free housing, contributing nothing to this country. Now this poor man has to fight for his spouse to be able to come back to this country? They did everything right. Didn't try and cheat the system — hmm, maybe that was their mistake, had he come here illegally, he'd still be here. I really hope that someone steps up for this couple and allows that man back into this country. He is the one that should be here, not the ones cheating the system!

Sound Off, Eagle-Tribune

Junior has become a genius at generating online content.  I love him so much.

My Friends,

Here is the long delayed update to the story of my separation from Junior as a result of actions taken by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Please pardon the length of this update and be sure to read my request at the end. Many thanks for your support and interest.

First, some background. Junior was never an “illegal alien.” Six years ago this year, Junior filed a petition for asylum with what was then the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  He made this filing before the end of the six-month stay authorized by his visa, thus keeping him “in status” in the eyes of immigration law.  There are many reasons (too painful to detail here) why the asylum application should have been granted. 

As the law allows, Junior received his Social Security number and work authorization while his case made its way through the system. As the Department of Homeland Security was formed and Bush made ideological appointments, the government grew increasingly unfriendly to our cause. Even the U.S. State Department changed its longstanding position on a key issue affecting the asylum petition.

Finally, during the Justice Department hiring scandal, a conservative ideologue was appointed to hear Junior’s case. As the Washington Post reported June 11, last year:

The Bush administration increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws that preclude such considerations…

…another failed tax court nominee, Francis L. Cramer, a former campaign treasurer for Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), was appointed as an immigration judge. Cramer’s bid for a seat on the tax court foundered after the American Bar Association’s taxation section wrote a rare letter to the Senate Finance Committee, saying: “We are unable to conclude that he is qualified to serve.”

Cramer was then hired by the Justice Department’s tax division and was briefly lent to the department’s Office of Immigration Litigation. Ashcroft approved him as an immigration judge in March 2004. The Government Accountability Office, a legislative watchdog, criticized the appointment, saying, “Converting a Schedule C [political] appointee with less than 6 months of immigration law experience to an immigration judge position raises questions about the fairness of the conversion.”

Judge Cramer denied the asylum application and his decision was upheld by a single judge of the Board of Immigration Appeals.  Junior was ordered to “voluntarily” depart the U.S. within 60 days and he complied with that order last August.

In 2002, same sex marriage was not yet legal in Massachusetts and any possible legal remedy related to marriage was not available to us.  Junior and I married March 3, 2005 as his asylum case continued to move through the system.  Despite the marriage, many maintain the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton, prohibits me from sponsoring Junior as a permanent resident even though heterosexuals may do so.

Since last year, we have exhausted all other potential remedies available to us to compel the U.S. government to enable Junior to return. We did not intend to be “activists” and would have been quite content to accept a “quiet” solution.

As such, we have decided, after lengthy research and deliberation, to move ahead with a head-on challenge to DOMA. We are filing an “I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.”  This is the same method used by heterosexuals to sponsor their spouses. We expect this petition to be denied on DOMA grounds and are prepared to appeal to the Federal courts. As far as we know, this will be the first constitutional challenge to DOMA. It could be in the courts before this fall’s presidential election.

Many have urged us not to move ahead with this case because 1) it may harm the chances of the Democratic candidate for president and 2) the Supreme Court’s shift to the extreme right of the political spectrum likely means an adverse ruling for everyone.

It is not our intent to harm Democrats, but we have given party members in Congress ample opportunity to find an alternate solution. In fact, they still have an opportunity to resolve the problem any time between now and the time of our court filing. We will happily withdraw our petition immediately if they act – and there are alternative remedies available if politicians truly want to avoid this showdown. Further, because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life terms, we would have to wait decades for a more amenable court to be seated.  Such a wait is too much to ask.

Washington University legal scholar Steven Legomsky told me in an e-mail:

…defeat in the Supreme Court is not 100% certain.  They’ve surprised me in the past and could very well do so again.  The Court could, if it wished, interpret what is left of the plenary power doctrine as nothing more than a rationality test, and conclude that Congress’s distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages is simply irrational.

I also sadly report that the allies we expected – GLAD, ACLU, HRC and others – have not stepped up to the plate.  I was told privately that one group, and possibly others, has made accommodation with lawmakers on DOMA to avert an anti same sex marriage constitutional Amendment. While perhaps well-intentioned, this is a dangerous, self-loathing strategy.

  Tim Coco

Immigration fight

I don't get it. A Brazillian man comes to this country, learns the language, goes to college, gets married to his partner, and they deport him? Yet we have illegals who are soaking up the wellfare system, living for free, free health insurance, free housing, contributing nothing to this country. Now this poor man has to fight for his spouse to be able to come back to this country? They did everything right. Didn't try and cheat the system — hmm, maybe that was their mistake, had he come here illegally, he'd still be here. I really hope that someone steps up for this couple and allows that man back into this country. He is the one that should be here, not the ones cheating the system!

Reunite this family

Posted by: Citizen Crain

Another happy gay couple, this one married in Massachusetts, faces forced separation after the U.S. denied the asylum request made by Genesio Januario Oliveira, who has now returned to Brazil.

Comments

1. Alan down in Florida on Aug 27, 2007 12:51:14 PM:

   I realize this idea is a bizarre longshot but hey - I never was in that box you're supposed to think outside of.

   Why not petition the legislature to declare him a citizen of the state of Massachusetts? If the state, under the U.S. Constitution, has the right to decide it's own marriage laws it probably also has the right to decide who can and cannot live there.

   Admittedly this would probably restrict his movements to within the state, but it would buy time and allow him to remain with his husband.

   What d'ya think Chris? Any merit?

1. Andoni on Aug 27, 2007 6:53:21 PM:

   This story should be shouted from the roof tops.

   This case demonstrates in a way all can understand, how wrong, unfair, and punitive our laws are. If the gay community can’t get behind this couple in an effort pass UAFA or repeal Section 3 of DOMA, we really don’t have enough energy or enthusiasm as a movement or a community.

   Another avenue of attaching this particular situation might be to offer a very specific piece of legislation to over rule DOMA for immigration purposes by adding a simple sentence to the Immigration and Nationalization Act which says that (for the purposes of “preference” for family re-unification) a family is defined as any couple whose marriage is legally recognized by the state they are residing in at the time of their application and their legal natural or adopted children.

   I’m not a lawyer, but I would think that a law passed that post dates DOMA and defines what a family is for immigration preference should over rule DOMA (because it was passed AFTER DOMA) on this one issue. What do you lawyers think?

1. Brian Miller on Aug 27, 2007 9:35:19 PM:

   This has been a persistent problem and happened to me and my French partner when I was in my early 20s about 8 years ago.

   Back then, gay Democrats told me to "get over myself" and support anti-gay Democrats since they were better than anti-gay Republicans -- that our relationship wasn't as important as "national health care" or the left wing cause du jour.

   Fast forward to the primary debates in 2007, and lo and behold, the two top candidates for the Democratic nomination (and all the Republican nominees) are opposed to UAFA, which has been buried by the political establishment.

   And people wonder why I vote Libertarian!

   (Incidentally, a legal challenge to DOMA is likely going to be in the cards -- no thanks to national partisan gay groups like Stonewall, Log Cabin or HRC, all of which have opposed a grassroots effort of constitutional challenges to guarantee the equal protection clause that's so inconvenient to the Demopublicans).

   And one other postscript -- if Mr. Coco was a foreign national as well, and being transferred to the United States as a green card holder or work permit holder, the State Department would issue a residency permit to his partner as well. This was done as a result of large corporations who hire employees in "skill shortage" areas from abroad, who were losing key hires due to the Clinton/Gingrich DOMA law.

   The Democrats and Republicans have so little regard for the rights of gay US citizens that they actually provide more rights to non-citizens -- and they're in no hurry to change this anytime soon. That's why a contribution to, or vote for, Clinton, Obama, Romney and Giuliani, are all self-defeating for people who care about equality.

1. Tim C on Aug 28, 2007 8:15:08 AM:

   This story *should* be shouted from the rooftops. Will the mainstream press really ever mention it? Probably not, and most Americans will remain unaware of the human toll these stupid policies cause.

   It is a shame that Oliveria is not an illiterate Guatemalan farm worker - he could probably get some sort of amnesty. And if he were a pregnant female illiterate Guatemalan farm worker whom the government was trying to deport, people would be marching in the streets in protest.

   But he's not. He's just gay and legally married to an American citizen. Out he goes. Has anyone heard from the MA Congressional delegation? Ted? John? Barney?

   The unhappy saga of Senator Craig will undoubtedly wipe this story right off the map. This story doesn't skewer any Republicans, there's nothing for the left to chortle about, it has the possibility of making the Democratic Presidential front-runners look bad. We may never hear any more about it. It's just a little tragedy.