Emissary hypocrisy: The U.S. State Department refuses to recognize same-sex partners of envoys

Does the U.S. deny foreign emissaries other rights denied them in their own countries? Of course not. Then why are we doing it to LGBTI couples?

Author

  • Christopher Sabatini

    Dr. Christopher Sabatini, is a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, and was formerly a lecturer in the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University. Chris is also on the advisory boards of Harvard University’s LASPAU, the Advisory Committee for Human Rights Watch's Americas Division, and of the Inter-American Foundation. He is also an HFX Fellow at the Halifax International Security Forum. He is a frequent contributor to policy journals and newspapers and appears in the media and on panels on issues related to Latin America and foreign policy. Chris has testified multiple times before the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2015, Chris founded and directed a new research non-profit, Global Americas and edited its news and opinion website. From 2005 to 2014 Chris was senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas (AS/COA) and the founder and editor-in-chief of the hemispheric policy magazine Americas Quarterly (AQ). At the AS/COA, Dr. Sabatini chaired the organization’s rule of law and Cuba working groups. Prior to that, he was director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the National Endowment for Democracy, and a diplomacy fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, working at the US Agency for International Development’s Center for Democracy and Governance. He provides regular interviews for major media outlets, and has a PhD in Government from the University of Virginia.

Take it from me, traveling to a foreign country by yourself is lonely; as a friend said, you feel a bit like Willy Loman. I can’t imagine what it would be like living in a foreign country alone, without your loved one.

Yet, the State Department just condemned foreign envoys whose countries don’t respect same-sex marriage to exactly that.  This week, in a little-noticed announcement, the Trump administration ruled that it will no longer issue family visas to “same-sex domestic foreign partners or employees of international organizations who work in the United States.”  Under the new rules, which will affect not just foreign emissaries before the U.S. government but also employees at the United Nations and the World Bank, to name a few, only married couples will be eligible for the G-4 visas given to spouses of foreign diplomats.

In effect, what this means is that the U.S. is not extending a right to foreign same-sex couples that its own Supreme Court, in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, extended to its own citizens.  In other words, if your country is too retrograde to recognize same-sex marriage, then we’re not going to extend partnership rights to you no matter how much you love and need each other, and no matter how much having your partner with you will help you in your job performance.

Let’s just put this in context: The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a right, but the U.S. State Department will not recognize that right when other countries fail to recognize it.  To just extend this a little then, could other rights that the U.S. Constitution and the judicial system recognize then also be denied visiting envoys if their home countries doesn’t respect them. In what other realms of freedom and judicial precedence does this occur in U.S. policy?  Speech?  Freedom of association? Cruel and unusual punishment?  Women’s rights?  None that I can think of, and yet because of the animus of this administration toward LGBTI rights, they are willing to extend a country’s discriminatory practices to U.S. diplomatic policy.

This is no small issue for foreign envoys from Latin America and the Caribbean.  In all, 22 countries in the hemisphere have no provisions for marriage equality. (I have not included Mexico in the 22 because several Mexican states do recognize it—though I have included Costa Rica and Cuba even though laws there may change soon).  In other words, if you’re a LGBTI envoy from the Bahamas, Bolivia, Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Panama, Paraguay, Peru—well, you get the picture—don’t bother trying to bring your partner with you under traditional diplomatic protocol.  Because your home country isn’t willing to recognize your right to marriage, the U.S. will no longer recognize the equality of your partnership. Here’s hoping you enjoy working alone or seeing your partner irregularly on a tourist visa.

There’s an interesting twist to all of this.  Three of the countries that the Trump administration has stood most firm on defending the rights of their citizens—Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela— don’t recognize marriage equality. Not only has the State Department abdicated the U.S.’s moral legacy as a beacon of freedom globally since President Trump took office, it now also stands with governments that it rightly abhors for the violations of its own citizens’ rights. With its decision to bar same-sex partners—not recognized by marriage in their home country—of foreign envoys from receiving family visas, the U.S. government has extended those violations to its own territory.

More Commentary

The Leftist Experiment in Bolivia Nears Its End

Despite the hurdles, the MAS crisis and Morales’s waning popularity hint at a possible political shift, one that could strengthen Bolivia’s battered democracy, pave the way for judicial reform, and address urgent environmental issues.

Read more >

The Economy Doomed Harris. Will It Doom Trump?

The paradoxical thing about Trump’s victory is that though Republicans likely won because of the importance of the economy and voters’ perception of the Democrats’ mishandling of it, Trump’s agenda based on lower taxes, higher tariffs and migrant deportations threatens to derail the recovery.

Read more >

No, Mexico Is Not Returning To Its Authoritarian Past

With the Morena party capture and dismantling of Mexico’s institutional structure, it is often declared that the country has reverted to the one-party system that dominated its politics for most of the 20th century. Yet, this interpretation is both a misreading of history and an inaccurate analogy.

Read more >
Scroll to Top