Trump Regime denying citizenship to children of some gay couples.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the grounds that they were "born out of wedlock" due to the use of a surrogate/donor:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/17/politics ... I-EABRHhu4

(CNN)Roee and Adiel Kiviti have been married almost six years and live in the United States. They are both American citizens, as is their 2-year-old son, Lev. However, they say their infant daughter, Kessem, has been denied birthright citizenship under a State Department policy that considers her "born out of wedlock" -- and they're not the first LGBT family to be affected by the policy under the Trump administration.

Both children were born in Canada using an egg donor and a surrogate mother. The Kivitis told CNN's Brianna Keilar that it was "a straightforward procedure" to obtain Lev's US passport. This was not the case when they sought to do the same for Kessem in early May.

"We're a family of four people where three have American citizenship and a 2-month baby that the State Department is refusing her a right to a birthright citizenship," Adiel Kiviti said.

The Kivitis said it initially seemed that their daughter's passport application would be processed under the policy for children born abroad of two US parents. However, they were later told her application had been flagged for surrogacy. Under the State Department policy on "assisted reproductive technology," "a child born abroad to a surrogate, whose genetic parents are a U.S. citizen father and anonymous egg donor, is considered for citizenship purposes to be a person born out of wedlock." When asked for comment on the Kivitis' story, a State Department official directed CNN to this operational guidance.

"We feel that it targets specifically LGBT families," Adiel Kiviti told Keilar on "CNN Right Now."

"To be honest, when a straight couple is using surrogacy, or when a straight couple is using an egg donation or sperm donation, nobody asks them if they are the biological parents of the child, it's just an assumption. But when an LGBT family's coming and applying, our application was flagged as surrogacy."

The Kivitis said they were asked to provide additional documentation like surrogacy and residency papers.

"Our position was and remains that we should be treated as a married couple and the minimal requirements that are in that regulation should be applied to us as well," Roee Kiviti told CNN in a separate interview. "Any additional requirements beyond that are discriminatory."

He thinks they should be processed under INA301(c) which applies to US children born in wedlock to two US citizen parents.

Roee Kiviti told CNN that it is not just LGBT families who should be concerned about the policy.

"I think especially after the Supreme Court ruling (legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide), there's no such thing as gay marriage. There's marriage. We are a family," he said.

"This is not an affront on LGBT families. This is an affront on American families, and it should worry everyone," Roee Kiviti said.
A number of Democratic politicians have expressed outrage at the Kivitis' story, which was first reported in The Daily Beast.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Friday that the policy "is an unconscionable attack on American families and violates our Constitution."

"No matter how hard the President and his Administration may try, they cannot change the meaning of family or what it means to be an American," the California Democrat said.

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel also condemned the policy as "unconscionable."

"I call on the State Department to immediately end this shameful discrimination and treat all families with dignity and equality," the New York Democrat said in a statement Thursday.

The Kivitis told CNN that they have not yet received the official letter rejecting Kessem's application but that they've been told it will be denied. Once that happens, they said, they plan to pursue legal action.

A federal judge recently ruled in favor of another same-sex couple who faced a similar hurdle under the State Department's surrogacy policy.

Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks sued the State Department after only one of their twin boys -- the one conceived using American citizen Andrew Dvash-Banks' sperm -- was granted US citizenship. Their other son was conceived using sperm from Elad Dvash-Banks, who is Israeli.

The judge ruled in February that the State Department statute does not contain language "requiring a 'blood relationship between the person and the father' in order for citizenship to be acquired at birth."

The State Department appealed that ruling last week. It said it does not comment on pending litigation.

This is one of the most blatantly Nazi-esque and despotic acts we've seen yet from this regime, one which appears to start laying the ground work for stripping millions of people (ie, anyone born outside of a traditional marriage) of citizenship.

[aerius]

So when y'all going to riot and put an end to it, or are y'all gonna wait for reports of gas ovens being built?
Until there are consequences, Trump will just keep doing whatever the fuck he feels like doing.

[The Romulan Republic]

So when y'all going to riot and put an end to it, or are y'all gonna wait for reports of gas ovens being built?
Until there are consequences, Trump will just keep doing whatever the fuck he feels like doing.

I might, if I were convinced that rioting would accomplish much except momentarily venting our anger, getting a lot of innocent people caught in the crossfire, and giving Trump an excuse to label us all terrorists and set the military on us.

What is happening right now appalls me, but I'm not going to back a revolt that I do not believe we are prepared to win. I also feel that with 2020 coming, and at least the possibility of impeachment, we owe it to give democracy and the law a chance to stop Trump by legitimate and non-violent means, and to focus our efforts there for the time being. It also helps that if we win the election, and Trump refuses to step down regardless, we will have a far clearer justification for extra-legal forms of resistance, one which might garner the sympathy of a significant portion of law enforcement and the armed forces (or more than we'd have now, anyway).

So when people raise the question of violent resistance, my answer, barring something really big happening first to change the situation (ie bigger than everything in the last two and half years) is "Get back to me in February 2021."* I think we'll have a much better idea then where we stand, what our options are, and how much is justified or necessary.

*I say February and not November or December 2020 because I expect this election will likely be contested, and it will take some time to sort everything out, and see whether Trump pulls some last-minute refusal to leave around inauguration day and what the response is if he does.

Edit: That said, buying a firearm and learning how to use it, to the extent permitted by law, is probably not a bad idea, especially if you're a woman or minority given the rise in hate crimes. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, at this point.

[Broomstick]

This is one of the most blatantly Nazi-esque and despotic acts we've seen yet from this regime, one which appears to start laying the ground work for stripping millions of people (ie, anyone born outside of a traditional marriage) of citizenship.

No, I think that people arrested for saving lives is more "nazi-esque" but this one is a close second.

So when y'all going to riot and put an end to it, or are y'all gonna wait for reports of gas ovens being built?
Until there are consequences, Trump will just keep doing whatever the fuck he feels like doing.

Oh, right, and broadcasting anything we might do to oppose this regime and thereby get ourselves arrested before we can actual DO anything is going to help.... how?

Which point seems to be lost on a lot of folks on the internet. Anyone who is doing something like sheltering migrants, or otherwise opposing what's going on, is now running a real risk of loss of freedom, employment, etc. And you want folks to talk about what they're doing in public?

Rest assured that if and when I do anything to oppose fascism or a repeat of some of the shit that went down in the 1930's and 40's talking about it on line is the LAST thing I'm going to do. Because I can't effectively oppose anything, or help anyone, if I myself am behind bars. Some risks are worth running, but not in a stupid manner.

[Gandalf]

So when y'all going to riot and put an end to it, or are y'all gonna wait for reports of gas ovens being built?
Until there are consequences, Trump will just keep doing whatever the fuck he feels like doing.

It's like the angry Republicans under Obama. The turning point is always just around the corner, until such time as he'll be out of power soon so best to focus on the next election.

[Zaune]

Oh, right, and broadcasting anything we might do to oppose this regime and thereby get ourselves arrested before we can actual DO anything is going to help.... how?

Which point seems to be lost on a lot of folks on the internet. Anyone who is doing something like sheltering migrants, or otherwise opposing what's going on, is now running a real risk of loss of freedom, employment, etc. And you want folks to talk about what they're doing in public?

Rest assured that if and when I do anything to oppose fascism or a repeat of some of the shit that went down in the 1930's and 40's talking about it on line is the LAST thing I'm going to do. Because I can't effectively oppose anything, or help anyone, if I myself am behind bars. Some risks are worth running, but not in a stupid manner.

You're not wrong, but that makes it awfully hard to coordinate your efforts, exchange useful advice or intelligence or just not feel like you're completely alone. Individuals or small groups working in isolation can do little of consequence by themselves.

If anyone's looking into a concrete plan of action and wants to coordinate their efforts with others, by the way, you should probably hit up the Tor Project. It's probably not a perfect solution but it should at least make you harder to trace.

[The Romulan Republic]

So when y'all going to riot and put an end to it, or are y'all gonna wait for reports of gas ovens being built?
Until there are consequences, Trump will just keep doing whatever the fuck he feels like doing.

It's like the angry Republicans under Obama. The turning point is always just around the corner, until such time as he'll be out of power soon so best to focus on the next election.

I'm sorry, is the point of this "Both Sides" drivel to imply that we should just throw in the towel on the next election, and jump straight to an armed uprising we most certainly will not have the support of most of the nation in, will most certainly therefore lose?

Edit: Frankly, its a good thing that most people will wait until driven by the most dire circumstances before engaging in violent revolt. The functioning of any society would be impossible if people were in the habit of doing so for anything but an immediate existential crisis.

Being too reluctant to engage in violence has seldom been a problem for humans throughout our history.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm sorry, is the point of this "Both Sides" drivel to imply that we should just throw in the towel on the next election, and jump straight to an armed uprising we most certainly will not have the support of most of the nation in, will most certainly therefore lose?

Edit: Frankly, its a good thing that most people will wait until driven by the most dire circumstances before engaging in violent revolt. The functioning of any society would be impossible if people were in the habit of doing so for anything but an immediate existential crisis.

Being too reluctant to engage in violence has seldom been a problem for humans throughout our history.

He is talking about both sides using the same "ineffectual" tactics rather than both sides having the same ideology.

[Zaune]

Being too reluctant to engage in violence has seldom been a problem for humans throughout our history.

Not when one side is reluctant to engage in violence and the other is actively glorifying it.

And I'd like to point out that a lot of people would have been much better-prepared for this if they'd started making doomsday-scenario plans back in 2016 or earlier. The longer US progressives have waited to water the tree of liberty with the blood of innocent bystanders, the more appalling acts of repression and corruption the Trump administration has carried out; how much difference is waiting for an election whose only possible outcomes are both awful going to make?

[The Romulan Republic]

Zaune: I fear that there is little point in repeating an argument I have made many times and that you are ignoring, but the importance of waiting is this: first, if we can resolve this crisis without widespread bloodshed, we have a moral duty to do so. And secondly, if it is going to come down to violence, then it is absolutely essential that we have the support of at least some of the political establishment and military/intelligence/law enforcement apparatus. Support we might have if we won the election and Trump refused to acknowledge the result. But which we will most certainly not have if its just fringe militias of radical Leftists going "Fuck the election, I want to kill them all NOW!". However cathartic a fantasy it might be to many, a revolution will not be won by a band of heroic Antifa vigilantes, because this is real life, not an action movie where the rag tag band of unlikely heroes saves the day. That shit makes for good fiction, and shit policy.

Again, I refer you to the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. At that time, there were a lot of radicals on both sides pushing for conflict, but despite having an absolutely just cause for war morally, and facing a very real threat to the survival of the Union and its system of government (not to mention the ongoing moral outrage of slavery), Lincoln made really damn sure that the South fired first. That mattered. Because as it was, he lost a bunch more states when he replied with force (including, most significantly, Virginia, which brought the South Robert E Lee and a bunch of other top notch officers, the naval yard at Norfolk, and IIRC the South's only artillery foundry). Had he not waited, had he immediately marched on the South right after his inauguration, he would have at best almost certainly lost every single border state, and Washington DC shortly thereafter.

That was a just war. That was a necessary war. Perhaps as just and necessary a war as has ever been fought. And it was a war that abolitionists and Unionists would have lost had they struck too soon, or initiated the war. That's where I'm coming from.

I get the desire to lash out. I get it to a degree that frankly scares me, because I'm frightened, angry, and frustrated too. But if it does happen, I want there to at least be some point to it besides a heroic but ultimately futile last stand.

I'm sorry, is the point of this "Both Sides" drivel to imply that we should just throw in the towel on the next election, and jump straight to an armed uprising we most certainly will not have the support of most of the nation in, will most certainly therefore lose?

Edit: Frankly, its a good thing that most people will wait until driven by the most dire circumstances before engaging in violent revolt. The functioning of any society would be impossible if people were in the habit of doing so for anything but an immediate existential crisis.

Being too reluctant to engage in violence has seldom been a problem for humans throughout our history.

He is talking about both sides using the same "ineffectual" tactics rather than both sides having the same ideology.

Yeah, I get that.

But, see, circumstances matter in determining which tactics you should use. The far Right's tactics of playing cozy with militias served their (despicable) ends of radicalizing the country, because the Dems by and large weren't willing to be "partisan" and come down on them like a ton of bricks for it. The Left, while theoretically having far more cause to want to overthrow Trump, would not necessarily gain anything by those tactics, because our goal (hopefully) is to restore the rule of law and conduct systemic reforms, not simply generate chaos, and the other side is probably far more willing to crush such tactics by force than we were. In other words, if we're going to use violence, we should do so only if we are prepared to take it all the way to the finish, and if that's a fight we can win. And I don't think that either is true right now.

And before anyone dismisses this as the position of a privileged white men, let me remind you that in a state of war, it is almost always the poorest, most vulnerable, and minorities and women who suffer worst. You think there aren't thousands, if not millions of Trumpers who wouldn't love an excuse to go door to door lynching blacks and raping women under the cover of a "military operation to put down Left-wing insurgents", or even major riots? Trust me, in a state of wide-spread violence, it won't be wealthy conservative white men who suffer most. It never is.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, right, and broadcasting anything we might do to oppose this regime and thereby get ourselves arrested before we can actual DO anything is going to help.... how?

Which point seems to be lost on a lot of folks on the internet. Anyone who is doing something like sheltering migrants, or otherwise opposing what's going on, is now running a real risk of loss of freedom, employment, etc. And you want folks to talk about what they're doing in public?

Rest assured that if and when I do anything to oppose fascism or a repeat of some of the shit that went down in the 1930's and 40's talking about it on line is the LAST thing I'm going to do. Because I can't effectively oppose anything, or help anyone, if I myself am behind bars. Some risks are worth running, but not in a stupid manner.

You're not wrong, but that makes it awfully hard to coordinate your efforts, exchange useful advice or intelligence or just not feel like you're completely alone. Individuals or small groups working in isolation can do little of consequence by themselves.

If anyone's looking into a concrete plan of action and wants to coordinate their efforts with others, by the way, you should probably hit up the Tor Project. It's probably not a perfect solution but it should at least make you harder to trace.

Whatever your personal views, I (and I suspect the mods will agree) don't think its appropriate to use this board for what is, given the context, pretty blatantly an attempt to organize militia activity with a view toward armed revolt.

[Zaune]

I fear that there is little point in repeating an argument I have made many times and that you are ignoring, but the importance of waiting is this: first, if we can resolve this crisis without widespread bloodshed, we have a moral duty to do so. And secondly, if it is going to come down to violence, then it is absolutely essential that we have the support of at least some of the political establishment and military/intelligence/law enforcement apparatus. Support we might have if we won the election and Trump refused to acknowledge the result. But which we will most certainly not have if its just fringe militias of radical Leftists going "Fuck the election, I want to kill them all NOW!". However cathartic a fantasy it might be to many, a revolution will not be won by a band of heroic Antifa vigilantes, because this is real life, not an action movie where the rag tag band of unlikely heroes saves the day. That shit makes for good fiction, and shit policy.

[...]

That was a just war. That was a necessary war. Perhaps as just and necessary a war as has ever been fought. And it was a war that abolitionists and Unionists would have lost had they struck too soon, or initiated the war. That's where I'm coming from.

I get the desire to lash out. I get it to a degree that frankly scares me, because I'm frightened, angry, and frustrated too. But if it does happen, I want there to at least be some point to it besides a heroic but ultimately futile last stand.

I get where you're coming from, but... Look, I'm just done hoping for the best at this point, okay? I was done hoping for anything but the second-worst five years ago and now even that's looking iffy. Either Trump wins a second term and has four more years to undermine what passes for democracy in the US until everything blows up, or he refuses to accept the result and everything blows up sooner: Either way the United States and every country that depends on it as a political ally or trade partner is thoroughly wrecked, millions of people are dead and it's very unlikely that the damage will ever be fully repaired, even if someone vaguely sane is in charge after the last shot is fired.

At this juncture I'm struggling to see a point in not lashing out in anger, frustration and fear. God knows it couldn't be any less heroically futile than everything I did to improve my odds of surviving the oncoming shitstorm.

Whatever your personal views, I (and I suspect the mods will agree) don't think its appropriate to use this board for what is, given the context, pretty blatantly an attempt to organize militia activity with a view toward armed revolt.

That wasn't actually what I was trying to do, in fact I was trying to encourage anyone with such ambitions to go and do it somewhere else, but in hindsight I can see how it would be interpreted as such. My apologies. But check out the website anyway, because a lot of activities considerably short of that threshold are likely to start drawing uncomfortable official scrutiny as well.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not about hoping for the best, Zaune. Its about recognizing that while no future is certain, the worst is now a very real possibility, and that we need to approach that in a manner that is likely to accomplish something positive. I'd rather peaceful and lawful reform, but if there is wide-spread violence at the end of this, I want it to at least accomplish something. And for that, it needs to happen only if its in a time and manner that will guarantee the greatest support for those who are against fascism. Which I believe means taking a strong, principled stand, while avoiding being the ones who actually pull the trigger and take the blame. Because believe it or not, there is still a huge chunk of the population (probably a majority of Americans, or close to it) who are not die hard supporters of the Alt. Reich, but are not willing to back an armed revolt by radical Leftists. Including virtually all of the armed forces, intelligence community, and law enforcement who aren't already in the far Right's corner. Sneer at them for being cowardly or centrist if you want, but what those people do, what side they come down on, is going to determine a lot.

As tempting as it is to vent your rage and fear and frustration (and that impulse is at least partly behind a lot of my more... colourful posts on this board), I tend to think that Abraham Lincoln is probably a better political role model than angry socialists on the internet. No offense.

[Patroklos]

The article was coy with the dates, but when this happened to the mentioned Israeli located couple it 2016 under Obama.

This is another case with the relevant state department denial events for one child happening in 2015.

https://www.immigrationequality.org/wp- ... -Filed.pdf

I disagree with the statute, but it is not a Trump policy specifically in formulation or enforcement.

[Broomstick]

The longer US progressives have waited to water the tree of liberty with the blood of innocent bystanders, the more appalling acts of repression and corruption the Trump administration has carried out; how much difference is waiting for an election whose only possible outcomes are both awful going to make?

I'm sorry - where was it specified that "innocent bystanders" be killed? I thought the point was to go after the actual culprits rather than thrashing around and killing at random, or killing one's fellow suffering masses.

If you're going to invoke the ghost of Jefferson at least get the damn quote right: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. NOT "innocent bystanders".

God, you're stupid. And tedious.

Pointless violence gains nothing. Targeted violence may or may not work.

The point of waiting for an election is that maybe things can be fixed without bloodshed. Or do you think a US coup, or another civil war, is going to end well for anyone? The US Civil War killed half of all US soldiers killed in all US wars combined (and yes, that includes "undeclared war" like Korea and Viet Nam). We're quite willing to slaughter each other. Hell, just look at the peacetime carnage currently in our streets any given weekend. What the hell do you think a civil war in a nation with the sort of resources and bloody-mindedness the US can bring to bear is going to look like? I would prefer to NOT find out, thank you very much.

Will some people suffer in the meanwhile? Yes. Definitely yes. Some will even die. A fuckton more are going to die and/or suffer horribly if this current situation erupts into violence and bloodshed. That doesn't mean appease-appease-appease without end, but once you uncork the war genie it doesn't go back in the bottle easily. You think the US is bad now? Take a look at how the US fights in a war. Imagine that turned in on itself.

Fuck you, I'm waiting for the election - assuming we have one.

[Gandalf]

The longer US progressives have waited to water the tree of liberty with the blood of innocent bystanders, the more appalling acts of repression and corruption the Trump administration has carried out; how much difference is waiting for an election whose only possible outcomes are both awful going to make?

I'm sorry - where was it specified that "innocent bystanders" be killed? I thought the point was to go after the actual culprits rather than thrashing around and killing at random, or killing one's fellow suffering masses.

If you're going to invoke the ghost of Jefferson at least get the damn quote right: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. NOT "innocent bystanders".

God, you're stupid. And tedious.

Pointless violence gains nothing. Targeted violence may or may not work.

The point of waiting for an election is that maybe things can be fixed without bloodshed. Or do you think a US coup, or another civil war, is going to end well for anyone? The US Civil War killed half of all US soldiers killed in all US wars combined (and yes, that includes "undeclared war" like Korea and Viet Nam). We're quite willing to slaughter each other. Hell, just look at the peacetime carnage currently in our streets any given weekend. What the hell do you think a civil war in a nation with the sort of resources and bloody-mindedness the US can bring to bear is going to look like? I would prefer to NOT find out, thank you very much.

Will some people suffer in the meanwhile? Yes. Definitely yes. Some will even die. A fuckton more are going to die and/or suffer horribly if this current situation erupts into violence and bloodshed. That doesn't mean appease-appease-appease without end, but once you uncork the war genie it doesn't go back in the bottle easily. You think the US is bad now? Take a look at how the US fights in a war. Imagine that turned in on itself.

Fuck you, I'm waiting for the election - assuming we have one.

Isn't the way more likely interpretation of that post that Zaune was deliberately playing with Jefferson's quote in order to make a point?

[Broomstick]

What, that's he's in favor of shedding innocent blood?

[Jub]

What, that's he's in favor of shedding innocent blood?

If I had to guess he's saying that no matter how targeted the violence is it will inevitably spread and engulf innocent bystanders. Civil wars tend to be even messier than normal wars and normal wars are already bloody awful affairs.

[aerius]

Interesting. So the president with the lowest approval rating in the last 80 years commits, and I quote:

This is one of the most blatantly Nazi-esque and despotic acts we've seen yet from this regime, one which appears to start laying the ground work for stripping millions of people (ie, anyone born outside of a traditional marriage) of citizenship.

And you, and the people of the US aren't willing to stand up to it because reasons.

I find this interesting since people are willing to protest, riot, and keep on doing it until much lesser wrongs were righted, for instance, the Rodney King riots back in 92, or the mass protests held in several major cities following the shooting of Trayvon Martin. And yet, when in your words, you have the existential future of your entire nation at stake, you, and the people aren't willing to exercise your 1st Amendment rights beyond writing angry words on the internet.

[Broomstick]

So... you entirely blew by my post regarding blabbing on the internet about what a person intends to do in what is becoming an increasingly fascist police-state?

[Broomstick]

And you, and the people of the US aren't willing to stand up to it because reasons.

I find this interesting since people are willing to protest, riot, and keep on doing it until much lesser wrongs were righted, for instance, the Rodney King riots back in 92, or the mass protests held in several major cities following the shooting of Trayvon Martin. And yet, when in your words, you have the existential future of your entire nation at stake, you, and the people aren't willing to exercise your 1st Amendment rights beyond writing angry words on the internet.

It's because we're getting to the point where words alone might not do the trick. The first amendment protects thought, speech, and religion. It does not protect actions.

The average person has to become uncomfortable enough/fearful enough to move from words and shouting to, shall we say, more assertive and physical action with all the risks that entails. Trump and his associates are already coming for the immigrants and Muslims. Until the average person realizes he or she could be next all too many are willing to hide their heads in the dirt.

In other words, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

[Gandalf]

What, that's he's in favor of shedding innocent blood?

If I had to guess he's saying that no matter how targeted the violence is it will inevitably spread and engulf innocent bystanders. Civil wars tend to be even messier than normal wars and normal wars are already bloody awful affairs.

One could argue it's already involving innocent bystanders. The US is quite good at just having a steady stream of violence to satiate national bloodlust and boost polling numbers, negating the need for a proper war. I guess Broomstick's fear is that the violence normally pointed at foreigners might be pointed at US citizens?

[Broomstick]

Have you seen the weekly death toll of US citizens dying by violence? In the US everyone is potentially a target of violence, citizen and immigrant alike. Last year 40,000 people by guns, with knives, clubs/bludgeons, and hands/fists/feet all totaling up to rather large numbers.

No, I am worried about a civil war. Not the already horrific random murders and terrorist attacks but an actual war. Given what we do to each other in "peace time", and conduct in prior wars, that would be very, very much worse. It's one of those things a rational person should be afraid of.

[Jub]

One could argue it's already involving innocent bystanders. The US is quite good at just having a steady stream of violence to satiate national bloodlust and boost polling numbers, negating the need for a proper war. I guess Broomstick's fear is that the violence normally pointed at foreigners might be pointed at US citizens?

I'm pretty sure I pointed out this same thing in another similar thread.

I was just trying to explain Zaune's apparent misquote using a bit of logic.

[Solauren]

Question: WHEN was this policy enacted? I don't see any dates in the article.

I ask because Same Sex marriage was only legalized in On June 26, 2015. Near the end of Obama's time in office. The policy could predate that, and simple not been removed or repealed yet.

As much as I hate to say, this one might not be on Trump for enacting.