Connect with us

National

Gay sex remains a crime under military law

‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal leaves sodomy ban unchanged

Published

on

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN, said his group’s top priority this year is to secure the certification by President Obama and military leaders for completing repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Much of the nation was riveted over the drama surrounding the congressional vote last month to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law barring gays from serving openly in the military.

But in a little-noticed development, Capitol Hill observers say Congress is in no mood to take a follow-up action recommended by Pentagon officials — the repeal of a longstanding military law that classifies consensual sodomy among both gay and straight service members as a crime.

Gay rights attorneys and experts in military law say the sodomy law provision known as Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice has been rarely enforced in recent years in cases where sexual activity has been consensual and “fraternization” between officers and lower ranking members has not be a factor.

And the experts say a 2004 decision known as U.S. v. Marcum by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services placed limits on the enforcement of Article 125 based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision one year earlier that declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional.

Yet because the military court did not overturn Article 125, its characterization of gay sex as criminal acts punishable by court martial will remain on the books until Congress repeals the statute, leaving in place what some activists say is an unfair stigma associated with gays and lesbians in the military.

Gay rights attorneys have said the Supreme Court could overturn the military sodomy law by affirming that the Lawrence v. Texas decision fully covers the military. But it could take years before a new military case reaches the high court.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which has led efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said his group’s top priority this year is to secure the certification by President Obama and military leaders for completing repeal.

The repeal law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in December doesn’t allow full repeal to take effect until the president, the Secretary of Defense and chair of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff determine troops and commanders are fully prepared for the change.

“So I would say no, that our top priority for this Congress is not the repeal of Article 125,” Sarvis told the Blade. “Do I think it should be repealed? Yes. Has SLDN been working over the last several years for repeal? Yes.”

Among those agreeing with Sarvis’ assessment is gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

“I’m skeptical and frankly at this point I don’t think it’s a good idea to press ahead with that one,” Frank said Tuesday, noting that gay rights opponents would likely use a debate on sodomy repeal in the military to push “hidden agendas.”

Sarvis summarized the views of other LGBT advocates when he said the Republican-controlled House would almost certainly refuse to even consider a bill to repeal Article 125. He said the need for pushing other LGBT-related issues in the military and other areas outweighs expending resources on Article 125.

Although Article 125 applies to gays and straights alike, gay rights advocates have said military authorities used it to target gay and lesbian service members in the past, especially in the years prior to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” If it remains on the books, some wonder whether a future president less supportive of LGBT rights might reinstate its full enforcement.

Longtime D.C. gay rights leader Frank Kameny, who assisted gay service members in the 1970s and 1980s, long before SLDN and other LGBT rights groups existed, said military investigators waged what he and other activists called “witch hunts” to identify and discharge gays on grounds that they violated Article 125.

Under Article 125, “any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense,” the article states.

Under the 2008 version of the military’s official manual for courts martial, unnatural carnal copulation under Article 125 is defined as a person taking into his or her “mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal…or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person.”

Sarvis and Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, an arm of the University of Southern California that studies issues related to gays in the military, each said they know of almost no cases in recent times where service members, gay or straight, have been prosecuted under Article 125 for engaging in consensual sex in private.

The two noted that nearly all Article 125 prosecutions in recent years have involved additional infractions and violations, such as allegations of rape or sexual harassment or of sexual activity between an officer and a lower-ranking enlisted person.

The latter category of cases, known as fraternization, is considered a strong breach of military rules because sexual relations between an officer and a subordinate are believed to harm the system of order and discipline deemed important in the military.

Bridget Wilson, a San Diego attorney in private practice who has represented gay and lesbian service members for more than 20 years, said she agrees with Sarvis and Belkin’s assessment about the infrequency of Article 125 enforcement in recent years for consensual sex.

But Wilson said the pressure that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has placed on gay and lesbian service members to conceal their sexual orientation during the 17 years it has been in effect has led to many cases where service members “fabricate” a non-consenting allegation to protect themselves from being thrown out of the service.

If a service member ensnared in an investigation over alleged acts of sodomy admitted to having consented to such acts, Wilson said, it was equivalent to an admission to being gay and grounds for an automatic discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“What I do see is false accusations of assaults,” she said in describing some cases faced by her clients. “You get a lot of, ‘I was so drunk last night I don’t remember a thing’ after he gets busted for having sex with another man.”

According to Wilson, some military prosecutors have interpreted impairment on the part of a service member due to alcohol consumption as a sign that the service member could not give true “consent” to a sexual act.

“So the problem with ‘I was so drunk that I don’t remember a thing’ is it could convert from [consensual] sodomy into forced sodomy with very serious consequences in the criminal courts,” she said.

With the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Wilson said she is hopeful that the perceived need by frightened service members to fabricate a non-consenting sex allegation to avoid being discharged from the service will become a thing of the past.

She said military authorities notoriously handled similar cases with straight couples engaging in alleged sodomy differently because there is no “straight” version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“They might find themselves punished by losing a stripe or losing leave time—that sort of thing,” Wilson said. “For my same-sex clients, before ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ goes away, they’re out. They’re gone. And they’re probably facing administrative separation with an other-than-honorable discharge.”

In its widely publicized Nov. 30 report, the Pentagon’s Joint Service’s Committee consisting of top military leaders — which recommended the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — also called on Congress to repeal Article 125.

The committee report points to both the U.S. v. Marcum decision, which limits the enforcement of Article 125, and the Lawrence v. Texas ruling that declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional as they pertain to consenting adults in the privacy of the home.

“In light of these decisions, we recommend that Article 125 be repealed or amended to the extent it prohibits consensual sodomy between adults, regardless of sexual orientation,” the report says.

“The other prohibitions considered punishable under Article 125, including forcible sodomy, sodomy with minors and sodomy that is demonstrated to be ‘service discrediting’ (i.e., in public or between a superior and subordinate), should remain on the books,” the report says.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said HRC favors a prompt repeal by Congress of Article 125. He said the group also disagrees with the military court decision upholding Article 125 under some circumstances and feels the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision, which overturned state sodomy laws, should also cover the military in its entirety.

“HRC expects that post-DADT repeal, Article 125 would only be used in circumstances involving non-consensual acts, so there should be no negative impact on gay and lesbian service members,” Cole-Schwartz said.

Former Army Lt. Dan Choi, who emerged as one of the nation’s most visible opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after being discharged under the statute, said he recognizes that Congress is unlikely to repeal Article 125 any time soon. But he criticized SLDN and other LGBT groups for not being more aggressive in pushing for its repeal at the present time.

“Leaders [should] do what is important and difficult and lead,” he said.

Bryan Thomas, a spokesperson for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Senate Democratic leaders were reviewing the Pentagon report’s call for Congress to repeal Article 125. He said a Senate repeal measure would most likely be introduced as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill, but he had no further details by press time on whether or when such a measure would be introduced.

“We expect the administration to submit a legislative proposal for repeal or revision of Article 125 of the UCMJ, and such a proposal would certainly be carefully considered by the committee,” Thomas said.

Spokespersons for Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Republican leaders in the Senate could not be immediately reached.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Idaho

Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents

HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday

Published

on

The Idaho Capitol building in downtown Boise. (Photo by Rigucci/Bigstock)

The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”

The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.

House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.

The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.

According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”

A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.

“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.

State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.

“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.

The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.

“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”

In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.

During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.

“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”

The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.

The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.

A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.

Continue Reading

State Department

Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded

New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo

Published

on

(Image by rusak/Bigstock)

The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.

The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.

Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.

“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”

The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.

Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR

Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.

The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.

Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.

The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Continue Reading

National

‘They took him!’ Gay married couple torn apart by ICE

As Allan Marrero remains in ICE custody, his husband Matt continues to fight tirelessly for his release.

Published

on

Allan Marrero and Matthew Marrero (Photo courtesy of the couple)

For 113 days, Allan Marrero has been in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, while his husband, Matthew Marrero, has been using every available avenue to secure his release.

Since Nov. 24, 2025, Allan—originally from the Cayman Islands—has been held at multiple detention facilities across the United States. His detention began after what was meant to be a routine, good-faith marriage-based green card interview at Federal Plaza in New York City, marking two years of marriage with Matthew.

Advocates, including Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis, and attorney Alexandra Rizio, have been actively involved in supporting the couple and navigating the legal challenges posed by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The case highlights the Trump-Vance administration’s aggressive use of immigration enforcement to detain and deport individuals, even in circumstances where applicants have established legal claims to remain in the U.S.

Timeline of Allan’s detainment

On Nov. 24, Allan and his husband Matt arrived at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City for what was supposed to be a routine, marriage-based green card interview. They were accompanied by Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister from Middle Church in Manhattan, where the couple attended and Matthew sang in the choir.

They arrived early for their 8 a.m. appointment, prepared and hopeful. Despite growing news coverage about increased immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump, they believed in the process and felt confident they had done everything right.

“They brought with them a three-inch binder documenting their entire life together—photos, letters, legal records, and other evidence,” Ashcraft said.

“From the moment you get to Federal Plaza, the process is extremely traumatic—and that’s by design,” she explained. “There’s nothing warm or intuitive about it. It’s dehumanizing, and parts of it feel barbaric.”

Immediately after meeting the USCIS officer, something felt off.

“We came with a three-inch binder of our entire life—photos, letters, everything,” Matt said. “We were dressed up, ready, confident we had done everything right. The first thing she said was, ‘I don’t want that. Take it all apart.’ That was the moment I knew something wasn’t right.”

The officer then asked the couple for their passports—something neither of them had on hand. That seemed to be strike two, signaling that, just as with previous steps in this process, the interview was already off course because of the woman behind the desk.

As the couple was told to move to a new room for their interview, Ashcraft was denied entry with them. This struck all three as odd; Ashcraft had attended immigration and green card interviews before to provide spiritual guidance and bolster claims of legitimacy, with no issues. Coupled with the initial hostility over the binder, it was a clear sign that the day would not go as hoped.

“There’s no real policy—it’s whoever is in front of you deciding what the rules are at that moment,” Ashcraft added. “Whatever they say goes. That’s what makes it so dangerous.”

Inside the tightly controlled interview, tensions escalated.

“I looked over at my husband when she asked how we met—just instinct. He’s the love of my life,” Matt said. “She snapped her fingers in my face and said, ‘Don’t look at him.’ We’re telling our love story, and I’m not even allowed to look at my husband.”

The officer then raised questions about a missed immigration hearing for Allan in 2022. 

Allan had lived in the United States since 2013 and had been diligent about maintaining his legal status and personal growth. During that time, he had entered a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction—a commitment that, coincidentally, caused him to miss the scheduled court hearing. Medical records explained by Alexandra Rizio, Allan’s attorney, corroborate this.

Because the judge did not know Allan was in rehab, a removal order was issued in his absence.

“He didn’t realize that he had a removal order in his name,” Rizio, the Make the Road New York attorney, explained. “When you have a removal order, it means ICE can pick you up at any moment. He walked into that interview completely unaware that he was at risk of being arrested on the spot.”

Allan Marrero and Matthew Marrero (Photo courtesy of the couple)

The officer acknowledged that their marriage was legitimate but denied Allan’s green card application. She told them they would need to appear before an immigration judge, signaling that his journey to legal status was far from over and still subject to the whims of others.

“She told us, ‘Out of the goodness of my heart, I’ll let you leave today. I could have called ICE, but I won’t,’” Matt recalled. “My husband started crying, I was a wreck.”

Despite that comment, the couple was escorted through a series of back hallways. Allan’s file was handed off to ICE officers, and the supervisor walked away.

“They walked us down this long hallway, took his file, handed it to ICE agents, and just left. No explanation, no warning. Suddenly they’re telling him to put his hands behind his back, and I’m standing there asking, ‘What is happening?’”

The gravity of the situation escalated.

“He was crying, I was crying, we were hugging, and I kept saying, ‘It’s going to be okay,’” Matt said. “And then they just pulled him away into an elevator and left me there. It happened so fast it didn’t even feel real.”

A supervisor entered briefly to distinguish between what could be controlled inside the office and what could not be controlled outside. Rizio called this a deliberate choice to intensify the emotional pressure.

“What the officer could have done was say, ‘You have a removal order—go hire a lawyer,’” Rizio said. “That would have been the humane and reasonable response. Instead, ICE was called, and they arrested him.”

Outside the room, Ashcraft heard the chaos unfold.

“The next thing I heard was Matthew screaming down the hallway: ‘Amanda! Amanda! They took him!’” she recounted. “That’s how it happened—just like that, after everything they had prepared.”

For the next 36 hours, Matt had no information about his husband’s whereabouts.

“For 36 hours, I had no idea where my husband was,” he said. “No phone call, no information, nothing. It felt like he had just disappeared.”

The following morning, Matt’s mother and sister drove down from Connecticut to help. They returned to Federal Plaza with Allan’s anxiety medication and contact information, only to be told minutes later that Allan was no longer there. The couple could not locate him through the ICE online system. Only after contacting an attorney did they learn he had been transferred to Delaney Hall, a detention facility in New Jersey.

Matt and Allan’s mother drove to Delaney Hall in Newark, an industrial area where families—including children—waited in the rain. Inside, staff initially insisted Allan was not present, despite documentation proving otherwise. After long delays, they were finally allowed to see him.

This was the first time Matt felt the point-blank homophobia of the detention system.

“When I finally saw him, they told us we couldn’t touch,” Matt said. “I’m watching straight couples kiss and hold each other, but I can’t even hold my husband’s hand.”

“You ripped my husband away, didn’t tell me where he was for 36 hours, and now I’m not allowed to console him?” he added. “It was so cold—it felt completely inhuman.”

Conditions inside detention quickly became grueling.

“He was moved in the middle of the night, chained at his wrists and ankles, not told where he was going,” Matt said. “They kept the cuffs on for days—he had cuts and bruises.”

“The worst part isn’t even the facilities—it’s the transport,” Matt continued. “You’re chained like an animal, trying to eat a bologna sandwich and drink water while shackled. You can barely move your body.”

Allan remained at Delaney Hall for approximately two weeks. One night, he told Matt that groups of detainees were being taken out in the middle of the night without warning. Shortly afterward, he was among them.

Around 12:30 a.m., Allan called to say he was being moved. He and others were gathered in a visitation room and held for hours without food or beds. By midday, they were shackled again, loaded onto transport, and flown out of state. His location once again disappeared from the ICE tracking system.

Over the next several days, Allan was moved through multiple locations, including a holding area near an airport in Phoenix, where detainees were kept in overcrowded, tent-like enclosures without seating. He remained in restraints for extended periods and was denied access to his medication.

From there, he was transferred through facilities in Texas and Louisiana before ultimately being sent to a remote detention site in the Florida Everglades, informally known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

Conditions there were severe. Detainees were held in cages with dozens of men in each enclosure. Sanitation was poor, with overflowing toilets near sleeping areas. Exposure to the elements and limited access to medical care caused Allan’s health to deteriorate. Phone calls were limited to short, scheduled windows.

“He told me about being in a cage in the Everglades—30 men, toilets overflowing next to where they sleep,” Matt said. “There were signs about poisonous snakes, and he said, ‘If one shows up, I’m going to die—there’s nobody here.’”

“ICE officers would tell them, ‘You’re a burden to your family. Just sign your self-deportation papers,’” Matt added. “He would call me crying, saying, ‘Just let me go, forget about me.’ That’s psychological warfare.”

Ashcraft reflected on the system’s cruelty.

“At every step, it feels designed to be as insular, as cruel, and as impenetrable as possible,” she said. “At every turn, we’re seeing a new kind of cruelty…Someone will say, ‘They can’t do that,’ and we have to say, ‘Actually, they are.’”

Eventually, Allan was transferred to a detention facility in Natchez, Miss., where conditions were more stable and he was finally able to receive his prescribed medications. Around this time, his legal case began to shift.

His attorney submitted documentation showing that the missed 2022 hearing had occurred while he was in a verified rehabilitation program. The same immigration judge who had issued the original removal order agreed to reopen the case and rescinded that order, restoring Allan’s standing.

“The judge agreed with us and granted bond. At that point, we thought he would be released and we could move forward. That’s how the system is supposed to work,” Rizio said.

In early February, a bond hearing was scheduled. Matt traveled to Mississippi in anticipation of Allan’s release. The legal team presented extensive documentation, including letters of support from members of Congress, as well as evidence of Allan’s marriage and community ties.

Instead of releasing him, ICE exercised its authority to place a 10-day hold while considering an appeal. During that time, Matt remained in Mississippi, visiting Allan regularly.

“ICE decided to just ignore that and not release him. They used something called the ‘auto stay’ provision to keep him locked up anyway,” Rizio said. “It’s essentially them saying, ‘We don’t like the judge’s order, so we’re not going to follow it….That feels crazy—because it is crazy. There’s no real statutory basis for it. It’s a regulation that allows them to operate outside the bounds of what the law actually says.”

Before the hold period ended, a second immigration judge became involved. Without reviewing the full evidence or receiving a newly filed green card application, the judge issued a decision in advance.

“A completely different judge—who isn’t even an immigration specialist—stepped in and denied an application that wasn’t even before him,” Rizio explained. “I have never seen anything like that in 14 years of practice.”

She has argued that the decision was procedurally improper and legally flawed.

“He decided, based on rehab records showing recovery and sobriety, to label Allan a ‘habitual drunkard.’ He cherry-picked information and ignored the evidence that he had successfully completed treatment.”

When the 10-day hold expired, Allan’s legal team attempted to secure his release again, but ICE cited the new ruling to continue detaining him. By that point, Allan had been in detention for more than 100 days.

“He could have walked out of detention with a green card,” Rizio said. “Instead, he’s still sitting in detention because of actions that simply shouldn’t have happened.”

“None of what I just described reflects a system that cares about justice,” she said. “It feels like punishment. I feel very confident these actions are designed to make people give up… Allan has already lost over three months of his life. He’s never going to get that time back.”

“We did everything right,” Matt said. “We followed the law, built a life, got married, had a clear pathway to citizenship. And now my whole life is on pause. If someone wants to understand this, imagine someone coming in and kidnapping the person you love most—taking away all your control. That’s what this feels like.”

Allan remains in detention in Natchez while legal challenges move forward. Throughout his time in custody, detainees have reported being pressured to accept voluntary deportation, often being told they are burdens to their families. Despite the mounting legal and emotional toll, Allan continues to fight his case from inside detention, while his family and community advocate for his release on the outside.

The couple has set up a Go-Fund-Me to help with the financial costs of this ongoing situation.

The Blade contacted ICE and DHS for comment but did not receive a response.

Matthew Marrero and Allan Marrero (Photo courtesy of the couple)
Continue Reading

Popular