Práctica pedagógica

Frustration, fear, anger, and hopelessness were the most often cited emotional

consequences of living through DOMA’s related legal restrictions. The lack of immigration

options and doubts about the future fueled some negative feelings, producing both psychological

and physiological symptoms. Emily’s frustration with the lack of choices and costly immigration

process manifested itself physically through frequent nausea and vertigo, while Nathan revealed

constant source of worry” and affected couples on a daily basis by causing sustained stress as

well as relationship-related conflicts, such as arguments about ending their relationship as it

happened with Laura and Camila.

In addition to frustration and fear, the U.S. citizens in my sample often expressed anger

toward the United States due to its discriminatory immigration practices, which left them feeling

like second-class citizens. Strictly speaking, their anger was not in response to their individual

dilemmas, but rather in reaction to the hypocrisy of “democratic” U.S. ideology that preaches

equality and human rights, yet refused to recognize same-sex relationships. Couples often

expressed anger and embarrassment that the “U.S. was slow to jump onto this sort of changing

environment,” and shame that the nation was behind other countries such as Portugal and

Argentina, which were not perceived as world leaders, but had surpassed the United States in

terms of human rights initiatives by executing marriage equality.

Among the negative emotional outcomes, hopelessness led to the most enduring negative

consequences by further engendering feelings of guilt, highlighting stigma, and leading to

chronic depression for seven spouses in this study. For the foreign-born spouses, guilt was the

harbinger of deeper emotional symptoms. That is because the majority of the foreign-born

spouses I interviewed, accepted personal responsibility for the stress and dilemmas in their

relationships. Hailey often hypothesized the future of her relationship with Paige by imagining

having to start all over again overseas. She worried that their relationship would not survive their

circumstances, and felt responsible for causing their problems. Feeling responsible for the

relationship burdens appeared to add additional emotional strain and despair for foreign spouses,

Years of expecting and hoping for social change coupled with the ongoing challenges of

being in a bi-national same-sex relationship took a toll on the spouses who succumbed to

depression. For Pablo, who remained undocumented in the United States for 10 years for the

sake of his relationship with James, the emotional and personal costs were dear:

It was difficult. Technically, I was in exile. It’s just not something nice to think about. I feel like I was expatriated, not because I wanted to, but because I had to. I was never a patriotic person, but it was obvious that the United States could not be my home as long as the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. It was difficult on many levels because I was not able to pursue my desired career goals while I was in hiding. We tried, but it was difficult. I didn’t see anyone from my family during the time that I lived illegally in the United States because I couldn’t leave the country. I was afraid that I couldn’t come back if I left. I don’t think I will ever be the same again. It was like living in a long darkness.

While more foreign spouses disclosed experiencing depression, a life of constant uncertainty and

fear meant that their U.S. partners were not free from feelings of hopelessness and despair.

For the U.S. spouses, hopelessness presented itself through a realization that control over

their personal lives and choices were elusive. Elliot described feeling out of control and out of

options by explaining his discouragement with the negative rhetoric in opposition to marriage

equality:

That was something that was kind of hard to deal with and that I would try to explain to others. It also felt hopeless. You could see the potential for progress, but it was so slow, and it felt so personal sometimes too. The augments against people in our situation were not logical arguments. They were very personal, hurtful arguments.

The ongoing attacks on efforts toward marriage equality led to despair and doubt regarding the

possibility of impending social change that would mitigate many of the couples’ immediate

immigration and financial concerns.

In addition to guilt, isolation, discrimination, and the uncertain outlook toward marriage

themselves without alternative immigration recourse, and when relocation was unfeasible,

temporary separation was the most likely outcome. Maintaining a long-distance relationship

amidst immigration constraints meant that the couples in this situation were uncertain about the

length of their separation. The inability to foretell the duration and outcome of their separations

was a major threat to the relationships of couples who faced this dilemma. Carolina and Laura

considered divorce because Laura longed to return to the United States, whereas Carolina had

been denied multiple visas. While discussing the period in which they lived apart, Carolina

discussed the impact of being unsure of their future, explaining that it “was not the amount of

time [they were] going to stay away, but rather the not knowing.” Ultimately, she described the

uncertainty as a “killer,” for keeping them from living their lives and choosing what was best for

them as a couple, leading to a seemingly unending cycle of frustration and apprehension.