Effective Oct. 1, the Trump administration’s State Department will no longer issue visas to unmarried, same-sex partners of foreign diplomats or officials and employees of the United Nations in the U.S. The diplomats were given a deadline of the end of 2018 to either marry or leave the country.
This new policy is approximated to affect 105 families of diplomats in the U.S., and 55 of those have links to other international organizations. Heterosexual partners of diplomats are also not eligible for U.S. visas unless married.
The State Dept. claims that this new policy is more consistent with the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 that allowed same-sex partners to marry across the U.S., and they said that it was meant to create equal treatment of partners in the U.N. while in the U.S.
They also claimed that enacting this new policy was an effort to bring international visa practices in line with current American policies.
“Same-sex spouses of U.S. diplomats now enjoy the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex spouses,” the U.S. mission wrote in a July 12 note to U.N.-based delegations.
“Consistent with [State] Department policy, partners accompanying members of permanent missions or seeking to join the same must generally be married in order to be eligible for a diplomatic visa.”
However, House Democrats sent a signed letter to Mike Pompeo, the current U.S. Secretary of State, pushing to reverse this “discriminatory policy” for several reasons. For example, only 12 percent of U.N. member states allow same-sex marriages, which poses a huge problem for a majority of foreign diplomats with same-sex partners who live in those countries.
Since most U.N. member states do not allow same-sex marriages or only offer civil unions to those couples, it will be extremely difficult for these people to marry in the U.S. When they return to their home countries, they could face criminal proceedings in places where homosexuality is criminalized.
However, the State Dept. said that it recognizes that not all countries permit same-sex marriages and is willing to work with couples who cannot marry for this reason on a case-by-case basis in an effort to make this transition as smooth as possible.
Expert Corner: Dr. E. Fletcher McClellan, Professor of Political Science
Dr. E. Fletcher McClellan, professor of political science at Elizabethtown College, said that he does not know precisely what policy the State Dept. keeps referencing, but has some theories about the situation at hand. He feels that the Trump administration is being vague by simply saying that they are considering a “policy” while making these changes.
“It seems the ‘policy’ to which U.S. officials are referring is one where we promote traditional, heterosexual marriage and relationships,” McClellan said.
“This is an unfortunate change that will make life difficult not only for members of the diplomatic and [non-governmental organizations] community but also for our own diplomats, some of whom are LGBT and are seeking similar recognition for their partners in the posts where they are working,” McClellan said in response to the State Dept. trying to line up American visa practices with those of international visa practices.
He also does not see the connection between this new policy and the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling that the State Dept. claims it is staying consistent with. He distinguished that ruling for government employees and average people often differ.
“U.S. laws pertaining to U.S. citizens do not apply to members of the diplomatic corps. Sure, they have to obey U.S. law but we don’t require gay people in the U.S. to marry—that’s their choice,” McClellan said.
McClellan stated that the choice between marrying here and risking imprisonment upon arriving home and not marrying here but having to leave the country is a stark one.
In addition, McClellan hypothesized that this new policy could be an effort on the Trump administration to further limit immigration and label LGBTQ+ people as “undesirables,” even though McClellan made it clear that foreign diplomats are not immigrants in the traditional sense.
He also said that this development appears to be another attempt on the Trump administration’s behalf at challenging pro-LGBTQ+ policies and movements in the U.S. in the name of pursuing “religious freedom” and “placating the religious right.”
