When the Obama administration announced in August that it would be conducting a case-by case review of active deportations, this seemed to ensure same-sex binational couples would have the opportunity to stay together, especially given that the working group included an LGBT liaison. Though the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the federal government from granting green cards to foreign-born same-sex spouses, advocates argued that those cases could be deemed low priority and at the very least delayed until the law is changed or found unconstitutional by the courts. Immigration and Customs Enforcement even agreed to defend same-sex couples from deportation.

But according to a report from The Advocate’s Andrew Harmon, the Obama administration seems to have dismissed this approach. At a January high-level meeting with LGBT groups, White House officials rejected a hold on green card petitions from the same-sex binational couples, arguing they had to enforce DOMA. Advocates have pointed out that the White House can avoid denying green card applications without granting permanent residency — that extended limbo is still better for couples than the immediate threat of deportation. In fact, as Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, told Harmon, this decision is a complete reversal of the support the administration had been giving:

TIVEN: We wanted to make clear to the administration that this is a priority for us, that it’s a new big ask of the LGBT community. In many, many meetings over the past six months, with different players and different agencies, [the administration] has been quick to say, without hesitation, that our legal arguments are quite sound. So it’s frustrating to hear this idea from them that it’s basically no big deal for individuals to fall out of lawful status.

Congressional leaders like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have spoken out on behalf of couples who face the threat of deportation. Though some couples have been spared deportation in high-profile cases, Immigration Equality estimates there are some 36,000 couples at risk or already living in exile.

Texas Republican senate candidates Craig James, a former NFL player, and Ted Cruz went after former Dallas mayor Tom Leppert (R) for marching in a gay pride parade during a debate yesterday in an effort to portray Leppert as “pro-gay” and out of touch with conservative values. Both men pledged to stay away from gay festivities if elected and James went so far as to suggest that being gay is a choice that will be punished by God:

MODERATOR: Are you saying Mayor Leppert is in favor of gay marriage?

CRUZ: What I am saying is that when a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride, that’s a statement – and it’s not a statement I agree with.

JAMES: I think right now in this country, our moral fiber is sliding down a slope that is going to be hard to stop if we don’t stand up with leaders who don’t go ride in gay parades. I can assure you I will never ride in a gay parade. And I hear what you’re saying, Tom, but leaders – our kids out there people need to see examples.

MODERATOR: Do you think people choose to be gay?

JAMES: I think it’s a choice, I do.

MODERATOR: It’s not in the genes?

JAMES: I think that you have to make that choice. But in that case right there, they are going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions. We should not give benefits to those civil unions.

Watch a news report on the debate:

Leppert explained that he opposes marriage equality, but said that as mayor, “I had the responsibility to represent everybody, but everybody understood where my faith was. I will tell my role as a Christian is to reach out and touch everybody.” Long-shot candidate Lela Pittenger added that while she “respect[s] what Tom was saying, that he felt like he was to engage the entire community,” “I’m not going to walk down the street with them celebrating what I believe to be a sin.”

John Wright of the Dallas Voice has a full video of the exchange:

Cindy McCain — the wife of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and a supporter of marriage equality — does not believe that the Republican party is on the “wrong side of history” for opposing same-sex marriage. During an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett ahead of Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate in Arizona, McCain claimed that members of the GOP have “diverse opinions” on the issue and blamed the media for portraying the party as anti-gay:

BURNETT: Do you find it frustrating that there’s a perception among the voting public, and maybe it’s a wrong perception, but there’s a perception that to be a play-by-the-rules Republican, you can’t be friendly to gay marriage, you can’t be friendly to abortion. All of these things, that social issues still define the party.

C. MCCAIN: I disagree with that. I think the media portrays that. I think being a Republican, being part of the party for — as many years as I have and knowing the Republicans the way I do that is not the case and that’s not the bulk of Republicans that believe in that, at all. The vocal ones, maybe the ones that are on the far right side of the issue, but I — certainly in the state of Arizona –

BURNETT: Right.

C. MCCAIN: — we are open-minded Republicans and believe in equality for all.

Watch it:

Mitt Romney channeled the social conservative positions of Rick Santorum during last night’s GOP presidential debate in Arizona, arguing that religious organizations should be allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in the adoption process and claiming that children deserve a home “with a mother and a father”:

ROMNEY: And when we have programs that say we’re going to teach abstinence in schools, the liberals go crazy and try and stop us from doing that. We have to have a president who’s willing to say that the best opportunity an individual can give to their unborn child is an opportunity to be born in a home with a mother and a father. [...]

We battled, for instance, to help the Catholic Church stay in the adoption business. The amazing thing was that while the Catholic Church was responsible for half the adoptions in my state — half the adoptions — they had to get out of that business because the legislature wouldn’t support me and give them an exemption from having to place children in homes where there was a mom and a dad on a preferential basis.

Watch it:

In 2006, however, Romney seemed to accept the idea that same-sex couples can adopt a child. “They are able to adopt children…And I’m not going to change that,” he said, noting that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adoption. “Obviously, that’s their right,” he explained in 2007.

But in aiming to secure the GOP presidential nomination for 2012, the former Massachusetts governor has walked back his support for gay and lesbian families and has adopted a more nuanced position on same-sex adoption. During an August GOP debate, Romney pledged to institute a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a between a man and a woman “because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and dad.” He doubled down on that position during a town hall in New Hampshire in October, arguing that while he would support “partnership agreements” for same-sex couples, “the ideal setting to raise a child for a society like ours is where there is a man and a woman.”

Ultimately, the Romney campaign maintains that same-sex adoption “should be assessed on a state-by-state basis,” a point the candidate himself failed to make in trying to close the gap between himself and Santorum at Wednesday night’s debate.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) accused President Obama of “cowardice” and trying to have it “both ways” on marriage equality during a contentious appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Thursday. Christie defended his recent veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry and reiterated his call to put the question to a popular referendum, arguing, “the Democrats in my state are criticizing me saying my feet are firmly planted on the wrong side of justice. I said yesterday, yeah, my feet are firmly planted right next to President Obama.” “He could have gotten more votes in New Jersey out of Democrats in the legislature — not all of them voted for it –if the President would have taken a stand,” Christie added.

But the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart challenged Christie’s comparison, pointing out that Obama opposes state efforts to deny rights to gay and lesbian Americans and has ordered his Justice Department to stop defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act:

CAPEHART: Governor Christie, I heard you say that you have your feet firmly planted next to President Obama on this issue, but the key difference between you and the President is while you support putting the civil rights of a minority up for a public referendum, the President is certainly not in favor of that.

CHRISTIE: Has he said that, Jonathan? Jonathan, has he said that? I haven’t heard him say that…The President is silent on this like he’s silent on every issue that’s difficult for him. [...] Let’s have the President of the United States show some courage, come on this program, look into the camera like I’m looking into the camera, and state his position. He won’t because he wants to have it both ways. I’m not looking to have it both ways, I vetoed the bill. That’s my position. What I’ve offered to the supporters of same-sex marriage is if one of your reasons for why I should have voted signed it was because you’re telling me the majority of the people of New Jersey want it, then prove it. Put it on the ballot and prove it. At least I’m standing up for what I believe in. The President has hidden on this issue, Jonathan, he’s hidden on it….This is the type of cowardice that we don’t want.

Watch the entire exchange:

Capehart went on to defend the notion that marriage equality is a civil rights issue that should not be left to the whims of voters. Civil marriage is “an issue of equality, of equal treatment under the law,” he explained. “It’s an issue of whether — if I were to get married to my partner and we were to have children, that my children would have the same protections that your children have because you’re able to legally marry.” “In that regard, we’re talking overall a civil rights issue and what African Americans continue to struggle with is exactly what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are struggling with today.”