Strictly speaking, the couples I interviewed lacked equal legal rights and protections.
While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confers all humans’ inalienable rights to live
with dignity, to the ability to form a family, and freedom from legal discrimination, among
others (United Nations), this declaration becomes meaningless in the face of unjust immigration
laws and border surveillance. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the vast majority of the spouses I
interviewed expressed concerns about their legal vulnerability and lack of viable immigration
options. As a result, “feeling stuck” was a sentiment expressed by 28 (93%) participants.
Ricardo expanded on this feeling, describing it as the sensation that “there was always a clock
ticking behind [their] heads reminding [them] it was time to leave.” Nevertheless, the
omnipresent foreboding encouraged the spouses to “make the most of their time together,” which
commitment among the narratives of the bi-national same-sex couples I interviewed is one of the
positive outcomes of their struggles that I will revisit in chapter seven.
A fundamental immigration-related dilemma was the limitations on residence options.
While delineating a shared space is a crucial marker in defining couplehood (Kolozsvari 2015),
deciding where to live as a couple included acknowledging the possibility of experiencing
discrimination, financial difficulties, and additional immigration complications. This was
especially true of couples who had few choices but either to relocate or to remain abroad.
Nevertheless, living abroad also meant facing the possibility and consequences of residing in
countries in which a supportive LGBTQ environment and personal support system were often
lacking. Ultimately, in these situations, one or even both partners had to leave their country and
families behind. The bi-national couples I interviewed weighed their options carefully, and,
when financially viable, their desire to live together as a couple guided their decisions.
Couples who decided to marry abroad, where permissible, or in other U.S. states that
allowed same-sex marriage before the Windsor decision, often found themselves facing difficult
ethical and legal situations. That was because the lack of legal acknowledgment of marriages
performed outside their place of residence left these couples in a legal limbo, thereby also
complicating their immigration options and limiting their ability to travel freely. For Victoria, an
ethical dilemma emerged while applying for jobs that would provide H-1B visas (work visas).
The H-1B visa is a temporary work visa available to highly skilled individuals in specialized
occupations (U.S. Department of State c). In order to apply for an H-1B visa, Victoria had to
conceal the fact that she had been married for eight years – a lie that, if it had been uncovered,
could have affected her ability to attain and maintain her work permit, as well as complicated
States were raising suspicion, also opted to lie about her relationship status while attempting to
enter the United States at one point. However, an immigration officer denied her entry after her
nervous behavior and inconsistent answers raised suspicion.
Even when couples had the legal option to live abroad together, the fact remained that
their preferred option – to live as a family in the United States – was unattainable. Among them,
Isaiah and Ricardo had the opportunity to marry and remain in Ricardo’s home country where
same-sex marriage was legal. However, better career prospects and a higher standard of living
meant that both were eager to relocate to the United States permanently. Nevertheless, because
there were no legal immigration options for Ricardo, their temporary separation was inevitable.
None of the couples I interviewed desired long-distance relationships, and unwanted separation
represented the most serious threat to their families. Unfortunately, the possibility of separation
was only one of the many predicaments that resulted from immigration restrictions.
For some foreign-born spouses, escaping their cultures, which they felt were prejudiced
against same-sex couples, was an important factor in wanting to relocate their families to the
United States. Diego described how his fear of prejudice and retaliation in his home country led
him and his husband to seek alternative immigration options beyond the United States:
It is very common that they can attack you in the streets. For instance, my mom and dad do not know that I am gay because they are Evangelic, and it was very difficult for me to live my life as a couple. So we were planning to leave the country regardless, but when DOMA fell, we grabbed the opportunity to go to the United States and start a new life.
Not only there were legitimate fears regarding violence and discrimination; the need to relocate
or to maintain multiple households, support one’s family, and the required immigration costs