BritCits Divided Family of the Week - Joshua and Edward

Josh and Edward

“It is a human right to live with your partner.”

Josh is a British citizen, who met Edward, from the India, in October 2013.  They formalised their relationship to become husband and husband in a civil partnership on December 12th 2014 in Josh’s home town in Somerset, celebrating their having found each other with family and friends.

Edward was in the UK as one of the brightest and best international students we so want to attract.  However for Josh and his family, Edward’s contribution was much more significant; Edward alleviated the depression Josh was suffering from, obliterated his suicidal thoughts and helped Josh find motivation in life to pursue his psychology degree, and stop claiming benefits.  Josh felt loved, valued and encouraged to becoming a better person. He could finally with Edward’s support, see that his career goal of becoming a clinical psychologist was feasible.  Josh felt more at home with his sexuality and thus able to break down the barriers he had put up around him.

Not long after meeting, the couple moved in together and Edward truly became part of Josh’s family.  Josh’s mum travelled from our Somerset to meet the person who was responsible for her son’s happiness in March 2014 and got on famously with him.  Josh reminisces about those days together; Edward cooked a delicious lunch and Josh’s mum was so pleased with the positive role Edward was playing in her son’s life. 

Edward subsequently visited the rest of Josh’s family in Somerset and Wales.  He was welcomed into the fold immediately and like Josh’s mum, all felt grateful to the man who had rescued Josh, seeing that with Edward, Josh was the happiest he had ever been.

Josh and Edward were in love and couldn’t bear to spend a day apart. They met each other’s friends, even Edward’s ones from India, on Skype, became a large part of each other’s lives.  Josh met Edward’s family as well, and was similarly welcomed into their ranks, particularly getting on with Edward’s brother.  Neither partner could have asked for things to have worked out better in terms of being able to fit our lives together so well.

June 2014 saw Edward submitting his dissertation and the couple moved out of their student accommodation and into Josh’s mum’s home, living also with the mum’s partner and Josh’s younger brother.  Getting to spend that time together as a real family made both realise they didn't want this to end. 

The couple made arrangements to settle down together in their own place and started looking for jobs in order to support themselves and build a life together.  They exchanged promise rings on their one year anniversary and committed to a life together.

Edward was made two job offers, both in his field of expertise – but neither could provide sponsorship.  The alternative was for Edward to apply to remain as Josh’s partner.

Plans for their civil partnership were accelerated with the couple opting for a small and intimate family gathering.  The service at the registry office was followed by a celebration party with family and close friends. It was very small and very personal, and perfect.

The couple researched on ways to legalise Edward’s stay in the UK beyond the validity of his student visa, also looking into options for Josh to move to India.  However given Indian laws, found that would not be viable in the long-term.

Josh and Edward hugging goodbye at the airport, as Edward leaves in accordance with his visa conditions.

Edward left the country as per the terms of his visa.  Josh meanwhile is working really hard to earn money and find a suitable job paying over £18,600.  The couple feels trapped because of the financial requirements which are proving very hard to satisfy and mystified when they’ll be able to see each other again.

It is beyond their understanding why Edward, with a Masters degree from a UK university and as the partner of a British citizen cannot stay in the UK.  He would be a huge asset to the country, would have no recourse to public funds, would contribute by way of taxes and NI contributions – and Josh, a British citizen, would be able to live with his husband.

Update:  In July 2015, Edward was granted a spouse visa and he is now in the UK, setting up his own business. What an entrepreneur!

Same-sex Surinder Singh


https://www.facebook.com/groups/446875418783647/

A new Facebook support group for same-sex couples exercising EEA free movement.

Via EEA visa... EU free movement.

More Facebook campaigns and support groups : http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/facebook

Stories from same-sex couples : http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/lgbt

Surinder Singh guides : http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/surinder%20singh%20for%20newbies

Huddersfield couple Matt Mallinson and Brett Rice fight deportation threat - over £361.20

Source :Huddersfield Daily Examiner

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-couple-matt-mallinson-brett-7699373

This couple are £361.20 short of the income requirement - and face division or exile as a result. Inflexible and crazy.

Divided families - international roundup (Sunday night reading)

Sources :Vox, Guardian, NPR, CBS, BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, Jerusalem Post, UNHCR

Vox : 'Meet the attorney who got Uganda’s anti-gay law overturned'

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6005841/meet-the-attorney-who-got-ugandas-antigay-law-overturned

'Nicholas Opiyo is a 34 year-old attorney who lives and practices law in Kampala, Uganda. He was appointed to a team of lawyers that was tasked with challenging and ultimately prosecuting Uganda's infamous Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). In fact, Opiyo was the lead counsel for the issue on which the case was decided. After a four-day trial, the law was officially declared "null and void" by a constitutional court in Uganda on August 1.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/uganda-anti-gay-law-null-and-void

************

Guardian : Florida same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional in federal court

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/florida-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional

'A federal judge on Thursday declared Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, joining state judges in four counties who have sided with gay couples.'

NPR : Same-sex marriages on hold in Virginia after Supreme Court weighs in

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/20/341944611/same-sex-marriages-on-hold-in-virginia-after-supreme-court-weighs-in

'The decision was widely expected and tells little about how the high court will ultimately rule on the issue. It merely preserves the status quo.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/with-virginia-on-hold-same-sex-marriage-cases-await-supreme-court/

************

BBC : Arrests at protests against Israeli interfaith wedding

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28831114

'Four far-right Jewish protesters have been arrested at the wedding of a Jewish-born woman who converted to Islam and an Arab Muslim man in Israel.

'Several hundred demonstrators rallied outside the reception hall in Rishon LeZion on Sunday, amid high security. The groom, Mahmoud Mansour, had sought a court order to try to stop the protest from taking place but failed. '

'Right-wing extremists can't break the love of a Muslim man and Jewish woman in Israel' :
http://www.smh.com.au/world/rightwing-extremists-cant-break-the-love-of-a-muslim-man-and-jewish-woman-in-israel-20140818-1058hp.html

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Police-to-be-out-in-force-as-extremists-plan-to-protest-Arab-Jewish-wedding-371338

************

UNHCR : Escape to Samos

http://tracks.unhcr.org/2014/07/escape-to-samos/

'Hundreds of Syrian refugees make the treacherous journey to Samos Island in Greece. Only some of them find sanctuary.'

Lesbian asylum-seeker sentenced to death
https://www.allout.org/en/actions/aderonke

'Aderonke's family was killed and she was arrested, tortured, and sentenced to death in Nigeria – because she's a lesbian. She fled to safety in the UK.

'Now, they're trying to send her back into danger. Aderonke, like dozens of other LGBT asylum-seekers, is stuck in a process that the UK government has already admitted humiliates and abuses them. It doesn't work or protect anyone.

'But, if thousands of us speak out right now, we could get the Home Office to take the next step and halt the deportations. Will you sign the petition to Home Office Secretary Theresa May now?'

Theresa May MP: Immediately retract Anne's removal directions to Uganda

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/theresa-may-mp-immediately-retract-anne-s-removal-directions-to-uganda

'Anne was forced to flee her village because she has relationships with women, and rented properties to other lesbians. On 21st March she received removal directions for her deportation to Uganda. Her deportation is scheduled for Wednesday 9th April. Anne will face certain danger if she is returned to Uganda.

'Anne's case is the first documented scenario where a landlord letting property to gay tenants has been violently persecuted, since the passing of Uganda’s Anti-Gay Law last month. It is an extremely concerning indicator of the consequences of passing this Law; consequences which can only be expected to accelerate in severity if appropriate support and protection is not afforded to those at risk. The wider ramifications of Anne’s imminent deportation, and consequent danger to her life must not be ignored. The harm certain to befall Anne on her return to Uganda will act as a direct deterrent to landlords currently providing housing for gay people in the country.

'I urge you to immediately retract Anne's removal directions to Uganda. '

Background :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

Sarah & Angelina

“All we want is to live our lives together, as a married couple.”

Sarah is a British citizen who first met her partner, Angelina three years ago when she went to work at a USA summer camp in Texas. They are both 25 year old graduates.

The couple began their relationship a year later, when Sarah returned to the same summer camp, and after reviewing their options, both decided to both apply for a year's work visa to live and work in Canada, as neither USA nor UK allowed the other to apply for any a temporary work permit.

They lived in Canada happily. Although both on minimum wage jobs, this was sufficient for them to live in rented accommodation comfortably; they could afford basic luxuries without any sort of dependency on the government or anyone else. They planned to marry in the UK, but the visa conditions (just to get married there, not for settlement) were so expensive and onerous that they decided it was easier and cheaper to marry in Canada. They did, in a beautiful low-key ceremony in Victoria, British Columbia.

Having thought about it long and hard, and discussed it between them, both agreed but in both our minds we decided that living in the UK would be a happier life for both of us, for various reasons.

Angelina joined Sarah in the UK in July 2013. They planned that Sarah would find a job paying £18,600, and after six months, they would get moving with the paperwork that would let Angelina stay here, and finally begin their lives together with some permanence.

Sarah was even then concerned with the difficulties around obtaining a job paying over £18,600 at entry level and wrote to her Conservative MP, Charles Walker. His response was that he could not possibly imagine opposing these rules, and that she should turn her attention to getting a job as soon as possible. Charles did however eventually relent and wrote to the immigration minister when Sarah pointed out that this threshold was even harder for a single mum to meet.

Now Sarah and Angelina are three months into their time here, and despite applying for many jobs, Sarah is no further to gainful employment than when she began looking. Every recruitment agency she has liaised with has indicated that her experience will not get her this salary; every day marks more time that she will have to be apart from her wife.

Feedback from four interviews was ‘lack of relevant experience’ which is difficult to get without a job. A job that pays over £18,600.

The couple grows increasingly desperate for options as the job rejections roll in every day, and it becomes increasingly apparent that Sarah may not be suitable just yet for anything that meets the threshold.

What makes it increasingly frustrating is that Sarah’s parents are more than happy to be co-signers of any paperwork – to be their guarantors. However the Home Office has this is not an option. The fact that Angelina's work history, which is much more impressive than Sarah’s (although still not enough to make her eligible for a Tier 2 visa) is not taken into account is baffling, and just another barrier. It just seems that this is an impossible task for a British citizen to be able to sponsor their wife; the person they love.

Despite the heartbreak, stress and intense pressure this situation has brought upon her life, Sarah finds it comforting to know there is a support base for those in exactly the same, or even worse situations than she and Angelina find themselves in.

Jack & Shah

“Is my entitlement to live with my husband less than that of someone earning a higher salary?”

Jack is a British citizen, whose husband is from Malaysia. The couple met when Shah was a student in the UK. After two years together they chose to formalise their relationship and get married.

Shah returned to Malaysia to finish his studies after his time in the UK. Jack joined him for ten months on a tourist visa and would have been happy to live there permanently. However, it’s not feasible as in Malaysia, being homosexual is illegal.

So the only chance this couple has to be together is in Jack’s home country, UK.

Jack has only recently started his accounting apprenticeship, so it could be years before he manages to reach the £18,600. Although his parents have offered to support the couple and provide them with accommodation, this is not taken into account by the Home Office, despite the fact that the couple does not need or desire to be on state benefits.

Shah is currently in the UK on a tourist visa and will have to return to Malaysia within a few months. This couple is therefore facing a very uncertain future, with the prospect of being separated for years to come.

A year and a half into their marriage, they are soon to be separated for an undetermined period of time, simply because Jack does not earn £18,600.

Jay & Alberto

“We just want to live our lives together..without interference from the state..”

Jay is a British citizen. He is in love with Alberto, from Brazil. They met in the summer of 2012, when Jay was travelling to South America for holiday and adventure. As luck would have it, on the third day of his trip, he met Alberto – a meeting which would go on to affect his entire life.

There was instantly something between them. Itineraries were amended to maximise time together. They both knew they were in love and had found something special together. Jay asked Alberto to be with him permanently, to marry him and to live with him in London. Jay naively thought the process would be straightforward. He left Alberto in Brazil and returned to UK. As Jay had been travelling he didn’t have a salary nor any savings. So they decided to wait for a few months so they could save up, before applying for the proposed civil partnership six month visa.

They managed to get together the huge amount of documentation required for the application. They filed the application in February 2013, and waited. In May we finally received a response. Due to an error, Alberto had not sat the complete English test. He had scored almost 90% in the reading and listening test but had not sat the speaking and writing side. Alberto’s high score and their obvious communication in English was not sufficient enough.

This was heartbreaking and stressful following such a long wait. Jay immediately booked a flight to go and be with Alberto. They had been apart too long already. They had lost the huge application fee and were not given the opportunity to be able to prove Alberto’s level of English.

Alberto decided to visit the UK before returning to Brazil for the re-application. Brazilians normally don’t need a visa to enter the UK for visits up to six months, however because he had been refused a visa already, they were advised to apply for one. However, in a catch 22, they were refused the visit visa anyway, because they had lready been refused the earlier visa! This was incredibly frustrating. That someone could decide Alberto would overstay his visit because he had had a refusal. Why after trying to do things legally and correct would he want to be in the UK illegally? It didn’t make sense.

So now they’re going to reapply for the proposed civil partnership visa – another £900. It is upsetting at the length of time they’ve had to be apart. Alberto still has not met Jay’s family after over a year of their being together. Alberto and Jay’s grandmother were never able to meet each other.

Jay is a hard-working tax-payer. He exceeds the financial requirements, yet finds the process difficult.

Jay has never claimed any benefits. He has a good job and Alberto is a talented graphic designer who should also be able to find work in the UK and pay taxes. With no recourse to public funds.

All this couple wants is to start their lives together, build a home, have a family, contribute to society and the economy and lead the lives they want together – without interference from the state. There should not be so many obstacles in the way.

No recourse to public funds - as seen in fiance, spouse and civil partner visas.

Jay and Alberto

Life of a Brit in exile

http://becomingtwinmummies.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/1592/

'I have made several starts on this post, as you might well imagine. But there are two little squirts and now a full time job which are rather taking up all of my time...'

If you are interested, please stop by at this website, BRITCITS and this facebook group, I LOVE MY FOREIGN SPOUSE to find out more, and lend your support. Many of the issues are being discussed, including leaving the UK to work in Ireland, gaining residency for both spouses and then returning to the UK visa free. This option is removed for many who are caring for British children from previous relationships, who’ll lose their UK home if they move etc etc. Thankfully it’s open to us, but Theresa May, and the (similarly right wing) immigration authorities of Germany, Austria and the Netherlands are putting pressure on the EU to tighten the laws for free movement of workers, so I’m concerned that we don’t have much time.

For me a crucial ideological difference is that when using the EU freedom of movement, you are presumed an innocent and truthful citizen when applying – the permits are entitlements which are not allowed to be refused unless the government sees you as a threat to public security. By contrast, national immigration in the UK treats all immigrants as suspects until proven innocent – the home secretary very deliberately lumps us all together with the rhetoric of criminals and the image of extremists such as Abu Hamza (and I am not sure I even subscribe to the public image of him, seeing as it is formed by Daily Mail scum)...
By the same author - fantastic set of resources on free movement in Europe : https://delicious.com/roxx79

'Love sees no borders and should never have to!'

https://twitter.com/so_lucas tweets :
@BritCits Please share my story: http://reflexiveaction.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/the-lgbt-fallout-of-uk-immigration/

Ok then!

'IT'S BEEN six years exactly since I first received a message on my MySpace account from my now soon to be husband. One year later, after many many Skype conversations, we met in Barcelona, Spain. Vincent turned out to be everything I expected, and more. For the first time I felt like I met someone who was not only a perfect partner, but best friend. Every time I think back to the first time I met him in person it sends butterflies straight to my stomach. Needless to say, we decided that we would make a real go of the relationship, promising that one of us would move over after we both graduated from University.

As with many bi-national couples who have decided to move closer together, we decided that the easiest way to make the leap was by getting married. The UK, being a step further along LGBT equality path seemed like the most obvious choice. This is because although the USA has some equal marriage laws at the state level, it is not recognised on a federal level and therefore immigration is not possible. Everything seemed rosy, that is, until the UK government changed a law which makes it almost impossible for bi-national couples to come together.

The new law states that for a spouse to come to Britain the sponsor must be earning over £18,600. Triple the amount of the previous law which only required £5,500 a year excluding housing costs. The reason? A government consultation decided that £18,600 was the minimum someone needs to earn for a two-person household to avoid being a “burden on the state.”

According to the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2011) 40% of the UK population would not be able to sponsor their spouses under the new law if they had to. That’s twenty five million people. Not to mention that if you start looking at the average wages of particular parts of the UK, or particular groups of people like women and under 30s, that number goes even higher.

Initially my efforts to understand the law were directed at the many arbitrary decisions that were made on the part of the consultation. For example, four out of the five expert bodies that were consulted strongly argued for the law not to be changed, or that many countries have much more practical and sensitive laws regarding family immigration (Australia for example). Instead, my focus should have been on the question. Rather than “What income needed to support the family without them becoming a burden on the State,” it should be, “How effective is the current maintenance threshold for family immigration and what possible alternatives are there?”

By not asking the right question, the most important issues were left completely neglected. For example, the UK is only one of twenty nine countries which recognise same sex couples right to a family life. This means that many of the members of the European Convention of Human Rights are in breach of Article 8 (right to family life). Whether or not the new UK legislation also breaks that article are yet to be seen.

LGBT couples across the globe are suffering daily in their fight for equality and right to recognition of their relationships. It is ridiculous that the UK and America are still lagging behind on these issues and that laws can be passed with such disregard to the limited options couples like my fiancé and I have. Citizens within the European Union have freedom to move without such red tape and as two recent graduates with a lot to offer it makes no sense that we would be penalised yet again because we happen to be gay.

Love sees no borders and should never have to!'

Originally posted at : http://reflexiveaction.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/the-lgbt-fallout-of-uk-immigration/

Juliet

Juliet

“I am keen for my small family to be near my parents, to gain recognition of our family as a legal unit and be around to look after my parents as they get older.”

Juliet, a British citizen and a qualified teacher, lives in Thailand. She is hoping to sponsor her civil partner, a qualified chef, to return to live in the UK with her and their twins.

The couple, who met in 2009, planned to live with Juliet’s parents in West Sussex, but are unlikely to be able to secure work in the area prior to arriving in the UK.

Juliet’s family’s local MP is Peter Bottomley (Conservative).

“We had the most amazing year – finally, success in our attempt to become pregnant and our wedding in Hanoi, Vietnam. We had no idea about the new visa rules because we’d been tied up starting our new life together and supporting Great Britain in the Olympics.”
“We never planned to raise this family in Bangkok – we were conscious that we could not be a legal and protected family here. After a year of trying to get pregnant, once it actually happened I felt very strongly that I wanted the twins to bond closely with my own parents. We discovered the impact of the new rules and felt like we’d been hit in the face with a sledgehammer. Absolutely devastating.”

Juliet feels people – including politicians – simply don’t understand the implications of these new rules.

She realises she is one of the lucky BritCits, in the sense that she is currently living with her spouse and employed abroad; but, despite her earning over the £18,600 threshold, it is unlikely they will be able to move to the UK as planned.

This is especially problematic for them because, as a same-sex couple, they cannot stay together indefinitely in Thailand where their civil partnership is not recognised; with kids in the
picture this is especially important – UK law allows for Juliet’s partner to register legally as the second parent of their children at birth, but not to live where these laws apply!

For ex-pats, returning from abroad is a period of great adjustment and the arrangements can be time-consuming. Juliet was aware that, under the previous rules, she could return to the UK and allow herself some time to adjust to family life. Juliet and her partner would have been able to look for work with her parents offering support in the form of childcare and living costs. They would have been able to demonstrate no need to access public funds as the couple have modest savings of their own and a property in the UK.

Juliet’s parents were more than happy to provide third party support if required and were delighted that Juliet wanted to raise her children close by. They will also need Juliet close by to look after them, as they get older.

All these plans were thrown out the window, however, with the changes on 9th July 2012.

The new rules require a job offer to be signed and sealed in the UK before allowing a successful spouse visa application. As a primary school teacher with 9 years’ experience, in theory this poses no problem and just a slight change in the couple’s approach. But getting a job offer as a teacher from abroad is not easy – most schools will require lesson observations as part of the interview and give preference to those applying from within the UK.

If Juliet wants to move to the UK with her family, her options are now:
a) Find a teaching job in advance, not easy;
b) Move with their children and look for a teaching job, facing at least six months apart from her partner during the twins’ formative years;
c) Stump up £62,500 in cash and demonstrate that she would not need access to it over the next few years.

In the case of (a) or (b) this would mean a probable move to London, without support from her family; (b) would mean being a single parent trying to meet the £18,600 income criterion while looking after two children.

London makes proving secure accommodation problematic. Are the couple expected to take out a rental contract on a London property they have never seen while they await the visa result, throwing money down the drain? Would they be penalised for applying while using the homes of friends with a spare room, or a couch for Juliet to sleep on, while she is job hunting? The 1985 Overcrowding Act states that living rooms DO count as bedrooms, but the rules’ qualification of ‘for their exclusive use’ may rule this out. Another example of the measures put in place for no reason other than to present an obstacle and prevent decent hardworking Brits from exercising their right to live in their own country.

In London, Juliet would also lose the family support she moved home for and her parents would lose the support they will increasingly need from her. Additionally, she would have to spend half her salary on expenses such as childcare. In this case, she would qualify for working tax credits – benefits she would not be in need of if she were just allowed to be here with her partner!!

How is breaking this family apart better for the British economy?

As Juliet’s brother is in the same position – working in Tanzania, with a Tanzanian partner – the future is quite grim for Juliet’ parents, both British, both getting old, and both alone in the UK. For now, they can handle the long-haul flights to Asia and Africa, but this will become an increasing burden. They are being denied the right to see their grandchildren and being denied to have, in their old age, their own children around them. Juliet’s parents were tax-paying public sector workers throughout the whole of their working lives, until retirement. Why should they too be denied such basic rights by our politicians, who are being paid to look out for British people's interests?

Juliet has been employed without a break since she qualified as a teacher in 2004. She is a graduate with not one but two postgraduate qualifications, and has worked in UK state schools for five years. Like many others, she is now being prevented from returning to her home just because she fell in love with a foreigner. Juliet’s partner is also a graduate and has also been gainfully employed or managing her own business for ten years without a break.

Juliet says that if the rule changes had come with fair warning, discussion and publicity, she could have planned her life around them. She never imagined when she left on a two-year work contract in 2009 that she would be prevented from returning to her own country.

The very core of fairness for all applications has been removed: assessment on a case-by-case basis of couples’ demonstration that they won’t need state help. Whatever the government says, people’s whole circumstances demand proper consideration. By their very definition, the new ‘Fixed Requirements’ are
utterly unfair.

Juliet suspects removing the use of discretion and assessment of individual cases results in a reduction in processing times, thus giving the impression of improved efficiency. Better for Britain? Better for MPs' propaganda!

Tearing apart families causes untold suffering at the most personal level, and the welfare of innocent children should be properly prioritised. For children, the security and love of their family is of vital importance and destroying or interrupting them can cause irreparable damage. The Conservatives said this themselves in their pro-family pre-election spiel … but is it a qualified importance that can be disregarded on the most arbitrary technicality? What hypocrisy! What damage they will do!

This isn’t a couple coming to the UK to sponge off benefits. This is a couple coming to the UK to give their kids – British kids – a better life, and to provide support and care for ageing British parents.

They are not asking for anything more than British citizens have a basic right to already.

Suzanne

“UK puts a price tag on love”

Suzanne is British, with an American fiancée, living in the north-east of England.

They’ve been together for nearly three years and planned to marry this year.

Suzanne earns £16,600. She earns less than the £18,600 requirement, a salary she is unlikely to earn for a long time, because the average wages in northern England are lower than in the rest of the country. However, the cost of living is also lower and £16,600 can go a long way.

Their only recourse is to try and save up over £20,000 in cash – a figure the government has plucked out of thin air, to make up for the £2,000 income deficit from the £18,600 per annum salary requirement. An amount that will take years to save, if ever.

Suzanne cannot move to the US because the American government does not recognise same-sex unions. So, their lives are on hold, and their right to a private life is held in check by two countries with equally discriminatory laws. The UK puts a price tag on love, and America has a gender requirement.

Since they have no idea when they will be able to be together, the separation is slowing chipping away at their sanity as they struggle to stay on track; relationships are hard enough to maintain at the best of times.

However, enforced distance results in additional frustrations, distress and depression.