Las Vegas Sun

March 1, 2015

Currently: 61° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Obama’s push for gay rights in immigration reform prompts GOP opposition


Leila Navidi

President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas on Tuesday, January 29, 2013.

When President Barack Obama unveiled his blueprint for immigration reform last week, he largely endorsed the Senate’s approach, with a slight twist: Under Obama’s plan, same-sex couples would be entitled to the same immigration rights as heterosexual couples.

The difference caught many social conservatives off-guard, some of whom are now openly wondering why, just when the stars were aligning for comprehensive immigration reform, Obama would throw a monkey wrench into the mix.

“He is basically pandering to the community,” said Tibi Ellis, a conservative Nevada lobbyist and advocate for immigration reform. “The argument is not about gender, marriage, or anything. The argument is about how do we revise our current immigration system.”

 Since the 2012 election, the immigration reform movement has unprecedented support, thanks to Latino voter turnout. The growing cohort pays close attention to where lawmakers stand on immigration — and in 2012, overwhelmingly supported liberal Democrats over conservative Republicans.

Republican lawmakers such as Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, who in the past had exclusively favored enforcement as a solution to illegal immigration, are now vocal in their support for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who entered the country, unauthorized, as children. Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is on board.

 But those same Republicans are not leaping to endorse the idea of extending immigration benefits to same-sex couples.

“It’s interesting,” Heller said when asked about the provision, adding that he was looking forward to a detailed discussion on many specific points of the immigration reform bill as it was drafted.

Where Heller is non-committal, other Republicans say the same-sex marriage provision would be a deal-breaker.

“Which is more important, LGBT or border security?” Sen. John McCain, one of four Republican members of a bipartisan group of Senators who unveiled their own immigration framework last week, at a Politico breakfast. “If you’re going to load (immigration reform) up with social issues, that is the best way to derail it, in my view.”

Republicans working toward an immigration framework do not seem amenable to the idea either.

“I would hope that if the president does try to insert himself (into the immigration discussion), he does so with the purpose of trying to reach a bipartisan solution,” said Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, who is working with the House bipartisan group on immigration. “I’ve yet to see anything that the president has put forward that has been, frankly, constructive.”

The idea that Obama, who oversaw the end of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and declared himself to be in favor of legalizing gay marriage in the run-up to the 2012 campaign, is relatively unsurprising. 

In the past several months, the Department of Homeland Security has also taken steps to recognize same-sex couples as “family relationships” when determining whether to deport or use administrative discretion in deportation cases. Obama’s immigration would make same-sex relationships equal to heterosexual relationships for family-based visas as well. 

But social conservatives who have resisted legalizing gay marriage say giving legal recognition to same-sex couples in the immigration context would be just as incendiary.

Several conservative, pro-immigration religious groups — which have sway with social conservatives in Congress — object to Obama’s inclusion of same-sex couples as beneficiaries under immigration reform law. 

“It’s like adding fuel to a fire. Immigration itself can be divisive and emotional; you add another national issue that is equally emotional and divisive and it’s a combustible mix,” said Kevin Appleby, director of immigration and refugee policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of several religious groups that sent a letter to the White House declaring their opposition last week. “We want an immigration bill, and this will make it harder if not impossible to get an immigration bill.”

For conservatives, there’s also a constituent factor to consider: While most registered voters now favor legalizing same-sex marriage, the majority of registered Republican voters still do not.

But not all conservative Republicans are of the same mind.

 “I support Obama’s plan. A person’s personal choices are their own, who they live with, who they love … let people live their lives,” said Rene Cantu, a Nevada Republican who directs the Latin Chamber of Commerce’s Community Foundation and considers himself a religious conservative. “When I look at Jesus’ teachings, I don’t think he explicitly outlined a homophobic agenda in the four gospels. If some conservatives are hung up on that — whatever, get over it.”

 Progressives supporting Obama’s immigration proposal, and its nod to same-sex couples, are banking on there being a healthy plurality of Republicans like Cantu in the party.

“Politically, this will be most concerning to extreme conservatives, and I would say, those people probably aren’t going to support a comprehensive reform bill anyway,” said Andres Ramirez, a Democratic consultant and immigration reform advocate from Las Vegas.

And even if they aren’t sure of there being enough Republican votes, they are willing to have a public standoff to ferret them out.

“You can’t take away everything you think the other side won’t vote on,” said Laura Martin, a spokeswoman for Progressive Leadership Action Nevada and the Stonewall Democrats of Southern Nevada. “You shouldn’t be playing nice when people’s lives and their families are on the line. We look forward to having this conversation — or this fight — when it comes down to it.”

Thus far, however, Obama has not been pressing the point too forcefully. He left out any mention of same-sex couples in his immigration speech in Las Vegas last week, during which he also indicated he would defer to the congressional process — unless it starts to falter.

“The question is: How hard is the president going to push?” said David Damore, a professor of political science at UNLV who analyzes polling on immigration for Latino Decisions. “When push comes to shove, if Republicans just refuse on this, you could see (Obama) saying ‘OK, we’ll address this later.’”

Damore also pointed out that same-sex marriage rights are gaining steam — and may even be endorsed by a Supreme Court ruling this year on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which sets the federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. That ruling could obviate the debate over whether to extend immigration rights to same-sex couples.

Still, those caught between the fight for immigrants rights and gay rights know that resolving the two issues in one immigration bill will be difficult.

Rafael Lopez of Las Vegas is both gay and undocumented. He isn’t yet married — but for him, achieving comprehensive immigration reform and equal marriage rights for homosexual couples are both intensely personal causes.

Lopez is pretty sure that gay marriage is a harder nut to crack than immigration. But even after years of living in the shadows, the 23-year-old has no compunctions about bringing same-sex couples under the umbrella of immigration reform.

“Everyone’s on board with immigration reform — even the Republicans are jumping on board ... and if they want to survive politically, they have to do something,” Lopez said. “I don’t know to what extent we have power over them right now, but it seems like there’s a chance. I think there’s a shot. So, why not? Let’s just try it.”

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 8 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.



    While every petition, fax, email and phone call against the amnesty is important, signing this
    petition is by far the most important single thing one of your friends or relatives can do.

    The reason is that signing this petition puts a person into an email system that will alert them every time one of their elected officials needs to hear something specific about immigration. Nobody else runs a customized grassroots mobilization system like this that constantly gathers information on Capitol Hill about your Members of Congress and then lets you know what they are doing, saying and thinking about immigration policy.

    The New York Times and other mass media have repeatedly stated that NumbersUSA's mobilization network led the efforts that defeated the close-call amnesty efforts of 2007 and 2010. But the forces for open borders are far more powerful today. It will take hundreds of thousands of additional people on the email list to push back the amnesty this time. Please help us by referring the petition widely.

  2. If anyone understands "pandering to the community" it is Republicans with the 180 degree shift on all things related to immigration.

  3. One can almost hear the fabric of what was once a great nation being ripped apart every day. So President Obama won re-election" hardly reason to change the Boy Scouts of America membership requirements or destroy moral barriers.

    President Obama neither has the political capitol in his bank account or a clear mandate from ALL Americans to do so"

    Mr Obama continues to do what he does best" bewilder.

  4. Funny how Republicans can't seem to get the message about inclusiveness. The country is comprised of people other than old, angry white guys -- and until they get that message, "GOP" will continue to mean "Guarantee the Other President."

  5. Pandering, I agree. Pandering with our earned income. I don't care what gets you thru the night and certainly O. understands that many of the details are not even discussed let alone divulged to the ignorant peasants (taxpayers) who he's conning into "supporting" his stupidity. Save the nation, infrastructure, citizens, jobs BEFORE giving it away.. Did you catch the Black Congressman who doesn't like "illegal" words when illegal is the most descriptive. He even "misspoke" and referred to illegals as "our citizens." Talk about over the edge.

  6. O. does NOT want immigration "reform" or amnesty. Pretends he does so he can hoodwink the public into backing his give-away policies. He has added so many conditions and essentials that the only thing HE will approve is outright giveaway of our revenue to bring more illegals here, give them voting rights so his people can win every subsequent poll. O. can't even do the numbers and keeps asking for more taxes--from working class people. Back months ago on "The View" he said "everyone's" taxes will go up, and up and up and up.

  7. PaulRupp - "ALL Americans"? Really? I think you need to go back to 5th grade social studies class and learn that America is a Democracy and we have elected positions within our government. We have never, ever needed ALL Americans to agree with anything at all. I suppose the All American rule you stated is in the Constitution?
    Why is the Right Wing lunatics are constantly trying to change the rules as we go? Name one thing that Bush Cheney did that ALL Americans agreed with.

  8. Immigration law shouldn't have ANY language about sexual preference in it AT ALL. These are two entirely different issues and should be treated as such.