Loving across the miles: Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

In May 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported a surge in travel to Massachusetts by many gay and lesbian couples, hoping to capitalize on that state’s monumental decision to be the first to recognize same-sex marriages. At least one couple chose not participate in the mass nuptials: Austin Naughton, an American, and his partner of many years, a Spanish national here on a temporary non-immigrant visa, decided not to wed for fear that this act would signal an intent to permanently reside in the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), noncitizen who are in the United States on a temporary basis would be considered in violation of their status if they manifest any intent of remaining in the country permanently. As Naughton put it, “If we marry, he could be deported.” Like Naughton, U.S. citizen Richard Adams has a partner who is also a foreign national, but from Australia. This man, Tony Sullivan, has a long-expired visa, and so Adams and Sullivan are “fugitives” from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) bureau, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency that enforces the INA. If discovered, Sullivan would, most likely, be removed from the country and thus separated from Adams for several years. Accordingly, the couple keeps a low profile and lives quietly somewhere in the United States. More than twenty years ago, Adams and Sullivan had sued the predecessor to ICE, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), arguing that their receipt of a marriage license in Colorado allowed Adams to petition for Sullivan’s “immediate relative” status as his “spouse.” The INA allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (LPR) to sponsor their spouses to permanently immigrate to the United States. In affirming the INS’s rejection of Adams’s petition, the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Howerton ruled that although the INA did not define the term “spouse,” the INS’s decision to limit its reach to heterosexual relationships was “rational.” As a consequence, Adams and Sullivan have never been able to fully receive the blessings of liberty that other American couples enjoy. Sullivan attributes their present financial difficulties to his “outlaw” status: “We would probably own our own home. We both love to travel. We would have been able to travel. I would have been a professional of some kind.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationLoving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World
Subtitle of host publicationRethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages217-232
Number of pages16
ISBN (Electronic)9781139043298
ISBN (Print)9780521198585
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012

Fingerprint

Supreme Court
immigration
marriage
nationality
act
spouse
US citizen
petition
travel
naturalization
Homelands
license
love
resident
anxiety
present

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Romero, V. (2012). Loving across the miles: Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court. In Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage (pp. 217-232). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043298.023
Romero, Victor. / Loving across the miles : Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court. Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage. Cambridge University Press, 2012. pp. 217-232
@inbook{d295fc593f7c42bfa31b09899d424b3a,
title = "Loving across the miles: Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court",
abstract = "In May 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported a surge in travel to Massachusetts by many gay and lesbian couples, hoping to capitalize on that state’s monumental decision to be the first to recognize same-sex marriages. At least one couple chose not participate in the mass nuptials: Austin Naughton, an American, and his partner of many years, a Spanish national here on a temporary non-immigrant visa, decided not to wed for fear that this act would signal an intent to permanently reside in the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), noncitizen who are in the United States on a temporary basis would be considered in violation of their status if they manifest any intent of remaining in the country permanently. As Naughton put it, “If we marry, he could be deported.” Like Naughton, U.S. citizen Richard Adams has a partner who is also a foreign national, but from Australia. This man, Tony Sullivan, has a long-expired visa, and so Adams and Sullivan are “fugitives” from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) bureau, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency that enforces the INA. If discovered, Sullivan would, most likely, be removed from the country and thus separated from Adams for several years. Accordingly, the couple keeps a low profile and lives quietly somewhere in the United States. More than twenty years ago, Adams and Sullivan had sued the predecessor to ICE, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), arguing that their receipt of a marriage license in Colorado allowed Adams to petition for Sullivan’s “immediate relative” status as his “spouse.” The INA allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (LPR) to sponsor their spouses to permanently immigrate to the United States. In affirming the INS’s rejection of Adams’s petition, the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Howerton ruled that although the INA did not define the term “spouse,” the INS’s decision to limit its reach to heterosexual relationships was “rational.” As a consequence, Adams and Sullivan have never been able to fully receive the blessings of liberty that other American couples enjoy. Sullivan attributes their present financial difficulties to his “outlaw” status: “We would probably own our own home. We both love to travel. We would have been able to travel. I would have been a professional of some kind.",
author = "Victor Romero",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781139043298.023",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780521198585",
pages = "217--232",
booktitle = "Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Romero, V 2012, Loving across the miles: Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court. in Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage. Cambridge University Press, pp. 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043298.023

Loving across the miles : Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court. / Romero, Victor.

Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage. Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 217-232.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Loving across the miles

T2 - Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court

AU - Romero, Victor

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - In May 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported a surge in travel to Massachusetts by many gay and lesbian couples, hoping to capitalize on that state’s monumental decision to be the first to recognize same-sex marriages. At least one couple chose not participate in the mass nuptials: Austin Naughton, an American, and his partner of many years, a Spanish national here on a temporary non-immigrant visa, decided not to wed for fear that this act would signal an intent to permanently reside in the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), noncitizen who are in the United States on a temporary basis would be considered in violation of their status if they manifest any intent of remaining in the country permanently. As Naughton put it, “If we marry, he could be deported.” Like Naughton, U.S. citizen Richard Adams has a partner who is also a foreign national, but from Australia. This man, Tony Sullivan, has a long-expired visa, and so Adams and Sullivan are “fugitives” from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) bureau, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency that enforces the INA. If discovered, Sullivan would, most likely, be removed from the country and thus separated from Adams for several years. Accordingly, the couple keeps a low profile and lives quietly somewhere in the United States. More than twenty years ago, Adams and Sullivan had sued the predecessor to ICE, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), arguing that their receipt of a marriage license in Colorado allowed Adams to petition for Sullivan’s “immediate relative” status as his “spouse.” The INA allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (LPR) to sponsor their spouses to permanently immigrate to the United States. In affirming the INS’s rejection of Adams’s petition, the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Howerton ruled that although the INA did not define the term “spouse,” the INS’s decision to limit its reach to heterosexual relationships was “rational.” As a consequence, Adams and Sullivan have never been able to fully receive the blessings of liberty that other American couples enjoy. Sullivan attributes their present financial difficulties to his “outlaw” status: “We would probably own our own home. We both love to travel. We would have been able to travel. I would have been a professional of some kind.

AB - In May 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported a surge in travel to Massachusetts by many gay and lesbian couples, hoping to capitalize on that state’s monumental decision to be the first to recognize same-sex marriages. At least one couple chose not participate in the mass nuptials: Austin Naughton, an American, and his partner of many years, a Spanish national here on a temporary non-immigrant visa, decided not to wed for fear that this act would signal an intent to permanently reside in the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), noncitizen who are in the United States on a temporary basis would be considered in violation of their status if they manifest any intent of remaining in the country permanently. As Naughton put it, “If we marry, he could be deported.” Like Naughton, U.S. citizen Richard Adams has a partner who is also a foreign national, but from Australia. This man, Tony Sullivan, has a long-expired visa, and so Adams and Sullivan are “fugitives” from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) bureau, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency that enforces the INA. If discovered, Sullivan would, most likely, be removed from the country and thus separated from Adams for several years. Accordingly, the couple keeps a low profile and lives quietly somewhere in the United States. More than twenty years ago, Adams and Sullivan had sued the predecessor to ICE, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), arguing that their receipt of a marriage license in Colorado allowed Adams to petition for Sullivan’s “immediate relative” status as his “spouse.” The INA allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (LPR) to sponsor their spouses to permanently immigrate to the United States. In affirming the INS’s rejection of Adams’s petition, the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Howerton ruled that although the INA did not define the term “spouse,” the INS’s decision to limit its reach to heterosexual relationships was “rational.” As a consequence, Adams and Sullivan have never been able to fully receive the blessings of liberty that other American couples enjoy. Sullivan attributes their present financial difficulties to his “outlaw” status: “We would probably own our own home. We both love to travel. We would have been able to travel. I would have been a professional of some kind.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924690263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924690263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781139043298.023

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781139043298.023

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84924690263

SN - 9780521198585

SP - 217

EP - 232

BT - Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -

Romero V. Loving across the miles: Binational same-sex marriages and the supreme court. In Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage. Cambridge University Press. 2012. p. 217-232 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043298.023