Two Welcome Surprises and One Unwelcome (non)Surpise

We got a couple bits of good news yesterday.

First, we found out that the President issued an Executive Order stating he would not overturn the executive order signed by President Obama affording protections to LGBT employees of federal contractors.

The text reads:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 31, 2017
President Donald J. Trump Will Continue to Enforce Executive Order Protecting the Rights of the LGBTQ Community in the Workplace President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election. The President is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression. The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump.

Of course, it does beg the question of why he would need to publically state he is going to continue with a particular policy. Part of the explanation I am sure is that rumors had been swirling that an executive order was forthcoming either rescinding the Obama protections or allowing discrimination based on "sincerely held religious beliefs" (or both). The latter could still be coming. I also suspect it could have something to do with his nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to fill the seat vacated with Anthony Scalia died (you know, the one that has been vacant since February because the Senate refused to have a hearing for Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee). More on that in a bit.

The next nice surprise came in the form of a bit of support from the Democrats on the House Committee for Foreign Affairs. In a letter to the President, they expressed concern about Press Secretary Spicer's comments regarding those who supported the dissent channel message and not the President's policy, saying they should "get with the program or get out." You can read my thoughts on that here. And by the way, apparently more than a thousand people have signed it so far and more wanted to. And that is out of some 7,600 Foreign Service Officers (that number may be higher if it doesn't include FS specialists) and 11,000 civil servants.

In the letter, they said:

Dear Mr. President:

Yesterday, from the White House podium, your spokesperson, Sean Spicer, announced that State Department employees who offer dissent to your executive order on immigration and refugees should “get with the program or they should go.” We are alarmed by Mr. Spicer’s apparent lack of knowledge about the way foreign policy is made in the United States.

We would like you to know that during the Administration of President Nixon, the State Department established a formal mechanism to allow personnel to express dissent from Administration policy. According to the State Department, “the Dissent Channel was created to allow its users the opportunity to bring dissenting or alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues, when such views cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels or procedures.” For decades, the Dissent Channel has offered our diplomats the ability in critical circumstances to express concerns and warnings contrary to Administration policies. Notable examples have included dissents from policies toward Vietnam and Syria.

So it’s deeply troubling that your Administration isn’t interested in hearing different perspectives, especially those transmitted through the State Department’s revered Dissent Channel. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual prohibits reprisal or disciplinary action against anyone who uses the Dissent Channel. We are requesting your assurances that State Department personnel will not be subject to harassment or retribution if they take advantage of the Dissent Channel or offer policy advice that doesn’t align with White House policy decisions.

Please reply as soon as possible confirming that your Administration will respect the law (P.L. 96-465) governing the State Department and the treatment of its personnel.

It was signed by every Democrat on the committee. Thanks y'all!

And for the record, I don't think most of us are going anywhere. We are the last line of defense for the Constitution (and the first line of defense to protect our military).

So then came the unwelcome news, which was actually not much of a surprise (though the reality TV manner of making the announcement kind of was...I was expecting the President to give a rose to the Supreme Court nominee he selected since he invited the top two for the announcement and had clearly already made up his mind...).

The President is nominating Neil Gorsuch to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

This makes keeping the protections in place for LGBT people seem like a ploy to get our guard down (it didn't work, by the way).

According to the Washington Blade, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), called Judge Gorsuch "Justice Scalia on steroids,” Nadler said. “His record demonstrates that, if confirmed, he would rely on his conservative, originalist philosophy to overturn critical precedents and to disregard the rights of everyday Americans while bolstering protections for corporations and special interests.”

Gorsuch is definitely no friend to the LGBT community. In a paper for the National Review, he lamented that "liberals" are addicted to having the courts rather than the ballot box solve society issues including marriage equality. Never mind of course that it was the courts that overturned laws against interracial marriage at a time when 75 percent of the country opposed it. Because in a Republic, the minority is supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, and the courts are generally our best defense for that. And never mind that it was the courts that desegregated schools. We should just let the majority vote on our rights, right?

He is also a supporter of so-called "religious freedom" laws and has already ruled in their favor. Those laws, in case you aren't aware, allow those with sincerely held religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBT people. This includes doctors in some cases...so I guess if you are in the ER and need a doctor with a sincerely held religious belief against you to save your life, you are out of luck. I wonder what Jesus would do...

I admit I am not overly worried, only because he replaces the most far-right judge who was on the court. But I do worry about future appointments (circle of protection around the notorious RBG please).

But I do think it shows we have to stay in, we have to fight to preserve the Constitution and our democracy, and we can't let our guard down for a second.

Two Weeks, One Year and Three Years

 

The week following the Orlando massacre was rough for me. The slaughter of 49 of my gay brothers and sisters and the injuring of another 52 more two weeks ago today passed relatively unnoticed at our embassy, and I found that personally devastating. Our Ambassador, whose leadership I greatly admire, was out of town. And consequently, we didn't have a condolence book. We were told at country team that we could have one if we wanted but that the Charge' didn't have strong feelings about it.

I nearly walked out of country team.

I am sure no harm was meant by the comment, but it harmed me. And perhaps anyone else who was LGBT, or had LGBT family or friends, or who had been touched by gun violence, or who just cared that their fellow Americans were mowed down by a madman able to get an assault rifle.

And then I had to fight to get our local LGBT activists to be ALLOWED to have a memorial vigil at the embassy. To be ALLOWED to light 49 candles for those who were lost. I was devastated all over again.

But several healing things happened since then. First, we did have the memorial. Not at the embassy like they wanted, but at least at USAID and not downtown away from the embassy. And it was really touching.

And then our Ambassador returned, and told us how sad he had been not to be with us when that happened. And how awful what had happened was and how he knew how hard it was to be so far away when this happened. And how we were lucky, because we were in a position to serve the country and to help make the U.S. and the world a better place.

And that helped a lot.

And so today I am celebrating. Because today I am reminded that it has been three years to the day since the Supreme Court ruled that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
This is what I wrote about it at the time:

"We were on vacation in Norway when the ruling was first announced. I had been waiting for it for what seemed like an eternity. I expected it to come at 10 am Washington time on Wednesday, and it did, but I had not told my wife that this was when we would hear. She had already chastised me for watching SCOTUSblog over the past few weeks for fear I would jinx it. So I watched the clock anxiously that day and never told her I was watching the clock.

We got back into our hotel room around 4:20, or 10:20 DC time, and I immediately jumped on Facebook to see what had happened. She sat on the bed, and did the same thing, only she wasn't looking for the results. She thought we would hear the next day, because she thought the rulings were issued at the end of the day. As tears welled up in my eyes, I heard her say, "Wait, what? Did they? No..."

I said, "Honey, we are full citizens."

I didn't get up...I didn't want her to see me crying...and then she came over to me, tears streaming down her face. Neither of us had expected to cry. She had expected them to rule against us...and I had figured they would do what they did but was at the same time afraid to hope for it. I expected I would scream or dance or both.

But we both cried together. Together, apparently, with thousands of other LGBT people who felt finally accepted by their country. Who felt they were finally full citizens. Within minutes, I saw several proposals online, including one from one of my closest friends to her partner of more than 20 years. They had always considered themselves married, and she asked if her partner if she would now marry her legally. Of course she said yes. And I cried again.

What this means for us is that we no longer have to worry about being allowed to make medical decisions for each other. We never have to worry about being able to claim the other's body for burial should the unthinkable happen. We can inherit each other's property and pensions without paying inheritance taxes. We are no longer legal strangers."

One year later, I wrote about the astounding changes that had happened in that time. Marriage bans across the country were dropping like flies. We were able to go about our lives and do everything exactly the way other married couples do. And when we moved to our new house in Maryland, and went to go get our driver's licenses, one clerk accepted our mortgage document as proof of residence for my wife but not the same one as proof for me. When I went over to her at the window where she was to get the proof of car registration from her to use as proof since my mortgage paper wouldn't work, the clerk said, "Aren't you married?" When we said yes, the clerk said, "oh then she can vouch for your residency." So, yay bureaucracy?

And then a year after that, the unthinkable happened. On the two year anniversary of the Windsor decision finding DOMA unconstitutional. SCOTUS found ALL marriage bans unconstitutional.

We were finally full citizens. And I subsequently asked anyone who didn't respect my right to marriage to unfriend me, on Facebook or in real life.  But I added this:


"But before you do, I ask you to consider how you would feel if your spouse was hospitalized and weren't allowed in the room? I don't have to imagine. I have experienced it.

How would you feel if your spouse died, and you weren't allowed to bury him or her because you were a legal stranger and the law required immediate family to claim the body, even if that person was someone your spouse hated? What if you weren't allowed at the funeral? I have friends who experienced this after 20 or more years together.

How would you feel if you lost your home because your spouse died and you had to pay inheritance tax on "their half" of your home. It has happened to many gay people.

Civil marriage brings some 1,300 rights and responsibilities. Wills don't cover it. And some states could ignore even wills. And medical powers of attorney. It happened, a lot.

And hopefully it won't any more.

So maybe you still have religious beliefs that oppose marriage equality. Fine. But you don't get the right to impose those beliefs on others. Because you know what? My church believes in marriage equality. We were married in the church.

Think marriage is a Judeo-Christian ideal? Then why can atheists marry?

Think it is for procreation? Then why can the elderly and the infertile marry?

They can, because just as was determined in Loving v Virginia in 1967, marriage is about love, and it is a civil right.

And before you worry that this means your church will be required to marry gay people, it won't. A Catholic priest is not forced to marry non-Catholics. A rabbi is not forced to marry Christians. In fact, when we got married in our church, our pastor had just refused to marry a couple because they did not want to go through the required premarital counseling. Churches will still get to decide what is right for them, Just not for everyone else.

So please celebrate with me, because for the first time, I feel like a full citizen. I feel like the country that I serve, that I have kept faith with, has finally kept faith with me.

And I want to close with this, Justice Kennedy's eloquent final paragraph in the 5-4 ruling:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered. "

Orlando has demonstrated that we still have a ways to go. There is still so much hate in the world. But I think we are heading in the right direction. So while I still mourn, while I am still shaken over and attack that happened in a "safe place," I celebrate that we are on the right path.

And I need no further proof of that than that the Charleston Post and Courier in my home state of South Carolina, where they fought to avoid accepting marriage equality, reported yesterday that one year later, same-sex marriage is simply "routine."

Feel Free to Unfriend Me

Exactly two years ago today!

I am ecstatic about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision making marriage equality the law of the land.

If you disagree, if you don't think I should have the right to have my marriage recognized nationwide, please if we are friends on Facebook or in life, feel free to unfriend me.

But before you do, I ask you to consider how you would feel if your spouse was hospitalized and weren't allowed in the room? I don't have to imagine. I have experienced it.

How would you feel if your spouse died, and you weren't allowed to bury him or her because you were a legal stranger and the law required immediate family to claim the body, even if that person was someone your spouse hated? What if you weren't allowed at the funeral? I have friends who experienced this after 20 or more years together.

How would you feel if you lost your home because your spouse died and you had to pay inheritance tax on "their half" of your home. It has happened to many gay people.

Civil marriage brings some 1,300 rights and responsibilities. Wills don't cover it. And some states could ignore even wills. And medical powers of attorney. It happened, a lot.

And hopefully it won't any more.

So maybe you still have religious beliefs that oppose marriage equality. Fine. But you don't get the right to impose those beliefs on others. Because you know what? My church believes in marriage equality. We were married in the church.

Think marriage is a Judeo-Christian ideal? Then why can atheists marry?

Think it is for procreation? Then why can the elderly and the infertile marry?

They can, because just as was determined in Loving v Virginia in 1967, marriage is about love, and it is a civil right.

And before you worry that this means your church will be required to marry gay people, it won't. A Catholic priest is not forced to marry non-Catholics. A rabbi is not forced to marry Christians. In fact, when we got married in our church, our pastor had just refused to marry a couple because they did not want to go through the required premarital counseling. Churches will still get to decide what is right for them, Just not for everyone else.

So please celebrate with me, because for the first time, I feel like a full citizen. I feel like the country that I serve, that I have kept faith with, has finally kept faith with me.

And I want to close with this, Justice Kennedy's eloquent final paragraph in the 5-4 ruling:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be con- demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

The Supreme Court Decision to Take On Marriage Equality

You probably saw that the Supreme Court has decided to take up again the issue of marriage equality. After some 59 rulings against bans on marriage equality, the ruling of I think the 6th circuit upholding the bans means that it is time for the court to weigh in. They expect to hear the case in April and rule by June (I feel a "cold" coming on that will keep me from going to language training that day...it is possible there will even be a lavender flu that day that takes out all the LGBT language students!)

I admit to being both thrilled and terrified.

There is a nice piece in the Washington Post today talking about the decision to take the case and what the specific questions (whether the 14th amendment requires states to allow same-sex marriage and whether it requires out of state marriages to be recognized) being asked mean for marriage equality. The article, referring to the 1967 Loving v Virginia case, which ruled against bans against interracial marriage, says in part:

"The Supreme Court ruled in that 1967 case that Virginia’s ban on marriages between people of different races violated the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” the majority argued. “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” Replace “racial classifications” with “sexual orientation” and the argument rationale still holds.

By the time the Loving case was decided, Virginia was one of 16 states that still outlawed interracial marriage. As for public opinion, well, the American people were overwhelmingly against such unions. A Gallup poll in 1968, a year after the Supreme Court ruling, showed 73 percent disapproval. When the justices hear arguments in late April, the conditions will be more favorable for same-sex marriage."

At the time of the Loving ruling, interracial marriage was legal in 34 states. Today, we have marriage equality in 36 states. More than 50% of the population believes marriage between two people of the same sex should be legal.

So for those who think we should wait for the right time, the time is more right now than it was for interracial marriage in 1967.

But I hope that Supreme Court will heed the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said "The time is always right to do what is right."

SC determined to bring up the rear....

A federal judge today found South Carolina's ban on marriage equality unconstitutional.

Photo courtesy of SC Equality

This should come as no surprise, since the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found the ban unconstitutional last month. And while that ruling concerned a case from Virginia, all the states covered by the Fourth have seen the handwriting on the wall, have stopped wasting taxpayer dollars, and started allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Except, of course, South Carolina.

Because Governor Haley, who vowed that "This administration will continue to uphold the will of the people," wants you to remember her as the governor who continued to fight for the will of the people, much as George Wallace is remembered for photos of him blocking black students from entering Alabama schools after desegregation. Maybe she could block the doors of the courthouse as same-sex couples try to enter for marriage licenses.

Make no mistake, SC's governor is just as much on the wrong side of history as he was, and history will be no kinder to her. Remember too that slavery was once the will of the people.

Likewise, SC Attorney General Wilson has already said he will appeal this decision...to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The same court that has already ruled that the bans are unconstitutional. A ruling that the Supreme Court has already declined to review.

His argument is that the 6th Circuit Court has since ruled that such bans ARE constitutional. But they are the only court to rule that way of more than forty federal court rulings. And SC is not covered by that court. True, that ruling may mean the Supreme Court will have to address the issue again soon, and hopefully this time more fully, and it has even been rumored that the ruling was designed to force the Supreme Court to get involved. But that does not change the fact that the issue has been addressed by the very court he is appealing to, and the Supreme Court already refused to hear an appeal of that ruling.

In case you are wondering why all this matters, consider the words of William Lucas Walker, who is, like me, a South Carolinian in exile. And consider the same-sex families still living there:

"I love South Carolina. Loved growing up there. Love going back. Despite the fact that we're two guys with kids, in 15 years we've never had a bad experience. Our family is welcomed at Sunday services by the same congregation that's known me since I was child. Our kids have been cared for in the same nursery where I used to play. On my October trips, when Kelly and the kids aren't with me, the minister always asks to see pictures. That's the South Carolina I love.

But it doesn't mean we're safe. Not as a family. Not in case of emergency. Every time we go back together we can't avoid the unspoken stress of wondering what might happen to us if there were some sort of accident or medical crisis. Would Kelly be recognized as my spouse? Would I be recognized as his? Would we be seen as our children's parents? Allowed to make medical decisions for each other or for them?

 It's not a hypothetical fear."

 It is done, South Carolina. Get on the right side of history. Be the state I love.

Your drive to get to be the very last state with institutionalized bigotry is embarrassing. And your citizens deserve better than you wasting their money on that.

A Whole New World

SC Statehouse
Photo by
SC Equality

My wife and I were driving down the GW Parkway to FSI last Monday when we first heard the news: the Supreme Court had declined to hear the cases on marriage equality.

My initial response was confusion and disappointment. We had really hoped the court would finally weigh in and give some clarity to the issue. How could they not weigh in when five separate appellate courts had ruled that the ban on marriage equality was unconstitutional? And what would this mean in those cases? More lives on hold?

But clarity was soon in coming and change swept through like wildfire.

Their non-decision, while not deciding on the issue for the whole country, is having close to the same effect and was apparently the right one: there was no need to weigh in on an issue upon which all of the lower courts had agreed. So in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, the lower court ruling would stand and marriage equality would be the law of the land.

The non-decision would likely expand marriage equality to the other states covered by those federal appeals courts: meaning marriage equality was also coming to Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

South Carolina, y'all!

Virginia immediately accepted the ruling, and as of 1 p.m. on the 6th, couples began to get married and suddenly we were married both at home and at work!).

A few other states fought and then surrendered, including North Carolina, where GOP leaders went back to the court with the argument that the federal court didn't have jurisdiction (really guys? 'cause I think we fought a war over that one...).

Others are still fighting it, including South Carolina (of course), although the probate judges in Richland, Charleston, and Colleton counties have begun accepting applications. The SC Supreme Court ordered them to stop, but the judge in Richland County refused. She is the same probate judge who handled my grandmother's estate...I thought she and her staff were awesome then. Now she is my hero.

In the week since SCOTUS' non-decision, even more states have joined the right side of history, including Alaska (one Facebook meme noted that a certain politician from that state could now see marriage equality from her back yard!).

In fact, on Wednesday, Estonia passed a gender-neutral civil partnership law that will grants LGBT people there many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. They are the first country formerly occupied by the Soviet Union to do so! Told you I loved that place!

I don't even know for sure what the count of states is now with marriage equality because so many places are in flux. It is somewhere between 30-35, up from 19 before the non-decision. More than half of the country lives in a marriage equality state. Here is the latest map from wikipedia (it is edited by Joe Jervis of the LGBT blog Joe.My.God., and he noted that he had to change it some eight times in a week, including twice in one day).

Here is the current map (as of this morning):

Here is what that means:

Dark blue: Same-sex marriage legal
Dark silver: Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized
Light blue: Same-sex marriage legalization pending, but not yet in effect
Light Silver: No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriage in territory law
Gold: Judicial ruling(s) overturning the same-sex marriage ban stayed indefinitely pending appeal
Yellow: Judicial ruling(s) overturning the ban on recognizing same-sex marriage performed elsewhere stayed indefinitely pending appeal
Red: Same-sex marriage ban runs contrary to federal appellate court precedent (includes SC, of course)
Garnet: Same-sex marriage banned

This is a historic moment. Love is winning.

And our potential retirement locations are increasing! Thanks to Asheville for being so welcoming...you are currently that the top of the list!

Asheville, NC City Hall.
Photo courtesy of WLOS ABC 13

One Year

One year ago today, while my wife and I were on vacation in Norway, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

The moment we heard is still vivid in my mind.

Here is some of what I wrote at the time:

"I had been waiting for the ruling for what seemed like an eternity. I expected it to come at 10 am Washington time on June 26th, but I had not told my wife that this was when the ruling was expected because she had already chastised me for watching SCOTUSblog the few weeks prior for fear I would jinx it. I watched the clock anxiously that day and never told her I was watching the clock.

We got back into our hotel room around 4:20, or 10:20 DC time, and I immediately jumped on Facebook to see what had happened. She sat on the bed, and did the same thing, only she wasn't looking for the results. She thought we would hear the next day, because she thought the rulings were issued at the end of the day. As tears welled up in my eyes, I heard her say, "Wait, what? Did they? No..."

I said, "Honey, we are full citizens."

I didn't get up...I didn't want her to see me crying...and then she came over to me, tears streaming down her face. Neither of us had expected to cry. She had expected them to rule against us...and I had figured they would do what they did but was at the same time afraid to hope for it. I expected I would scream or dance or both.

But we both cried together. Together, apparently, with thousands of other LGBT people who felt finally accepted by their country. Who felt they were finally full citizens. Within minutes, I saw several proposals online, including one from one of my closest friends to her partner of more than 20 years. They had always considered themselves married, and she asked if her partner if she would now marry her legally. Of course she said yes. And I cried again."

Just reading the words I wrote a year ago (okay, a year and four days, because I couldn't post very well from my ipad), brings tears to my eyes again.

Since the decision, every single ruling in the country, some 22 or 24 I think, has gone in favor of marriage equality. Two more state bans were found to be unconstitutional just yesterday. There is now marriage equality in 19 states plus DC, and every single state has either had their ban declared unconstitutional or has a pending lawsuit. EVERY. STATE.

In that time, we have purchased a home in Maryland and established residency there. Next month, we will move into our home there for the first time. Virginia, which continues to not recognize our marriage, has lost thousands of dollars in income taxes just from us. And we know we are not alone. (It also meant filing a bazillion tax returns...okay, six I think, including fake federal ones listing us as single for our Virginia taxes and real joint federal ones...plus hiring an accountant for the first time).

The changes in society have been dramatic. A majority of Americans now support marriage equality, including 50% in my beloved South. When getting insurance for a property we have in South Carolina, the agent asked if I was married, I said yes and gave her my wife's info, and she said she didn't think they would recognize our marriage...and that she was sorry because that was simply unfair!

Changes I made to our insurance and such at work and with our mortgages were simple. I had only to tell them we were married. I got not one single negative response. And my friends with foreign born spouses are having their lives changed even more dramatically. Several of my friends are newly-minted Americans because their marriages are finally recognized. I can't even describe how happy I am for them, because their struggles were always so much greater than ours.

There are still some changes that need to be made. Some agencies are still bound to recognize marriages based on places of residence rather than of ceremony, meaning that some couples living in non-equality states are still not getting social security and veterans benefits they are entitled to.

But at least now, we no longer have to worry about being allowed to make medical decisions for each other. We never have to worry about being able to claim the other's body for burial should the unthinkable happen. We can inherit each other's property and pensions without paying inheritance taxes. We are no longer legal strangers.

And when people ask now if we are married, the answer is a simple yes, without qualifications.

Announcement on Visa Changes for Same-Sex Couples

We will be treated equally. It is all we have ever asked. Thank you, Secretary Kerry (and thank you SCOTUS, and especially, thank you Edie Windsor!)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson
For Immediate Release August 2, 2013

REMARKS

Secretary of State John Kerry
Announcement on Visa Changes for Same-Sex Couples

August 2, 2013
U.S. Embassy London, United Kingdom

[...]

Today is one of those days. I’m very pleased to be able to announce that effective immediately, when same-sex spouses apply for a visa, the Department of State will consider that application in the same manner that it will consider the application of opposite-sex spouses. And here is exactly what this rule means: If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world.

Now, as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then that marriage is valid under U.S. immigration laws, and every married couple will be treated exactly the same, and that is what we believe is appropriate. Starting next year, that will include same-sex couples from England and Wales, which just this year passed laws permitting same-sex marriage that will take effect in 2014.

...

So those of you working today in the consular section will make history when you issue some of the first visas to same-sex couples, and you will be some of the first faces to welcome them to the United States in an always – a country that obviously is always trying to tweak and improve and do better by the values around which we were founded. You share in the great responsibility of making our country live its values, and you make possible the journey of those who want to visit our country for that reason and many more.