Saturday, March 11, 2006

One More Thing About Gay Marriage

In the middle of the gay marriage debate, I've noticed that most people have focused on the economic benefits afforded to married couples. What I think is missing is a debate about a basic right that is protected by immigration laws that all Americans have the opportunity to pursue. Unless, of course, they happen to be gay.

Ragnar Mentaire, in his recent post, stated: If they're not quite human, what else would Glenn Grothman and Ralph Ovadal like to deny them. The pursuit of happiness? Liberty? Life?

Now that you mention it...

Consider: Two people meet. They fall in love. They get married. One is an American citizen; one is not. If the situation I'm describing involves a man and a woman, there is process in place that would, upon completion, grant permanent residency to the non-citizen and allow that couple to begin the pursuit of happiness together.

The US Government has this to say about it:
Every year thousands of American citizens marry foreign-born persons and petition for them to obtain a permanent residency (Green Card) in the United States. Spouses of U.S. citizens are considered "immediate relatives" under immigration laws, therefore they are excluded from all numerical quota limitations. This means that there is an unlimited number of Green Cards available to foreign nationals who marry U.S. citizens.

I think many Americans take for granted that we have the right to love, marry and be with anyone we chose. It is, in my opinion, a cornerstone of our basic freedom. In the case of two gay people, however, it is not the case. This right is denied them.

Because no gay marriages are currently recognized, no gay couple in which one of the two people is not a citizen can begin the process of permanent residency. This is only because spouses of gay people are not considered "immediate relatives" since gay marriages are not recognized.

Why is it that as a heterosexual I have the right to petition for a green card for the person I love, but a gay American does not?

And what's more, how can we pretend that this is not a violation of a basic civil liberty, given our current laws that protect heterosexual couples?

I'm interested to hear what you all think about this. I happen to know two people, deeply in love and committed, that are currently separated because neither of their countries recognize gay unions. I had never thought about it before, but it just doesn't seem right to me.

3 Comments:

At 2:29 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Billiam said...

Question, if it's ok to open up marriage, then you have to allow for the whole spectrum. Not just gays, but the WHOLE psectrum. After all, we wouldn't want to descriminate. So if 6 people want to be married, who are you to tell them they can't? If a man wants to marry his horse, who are you to tell him he can't. Equal protection and all that. You see the pandora's box?

 
At 3:56 PM, March 12, 2006, Blogger Dad29 said...

Billiam is echoing Scalia's language in Lawrence, the Texas sodomy case.

In this, Scalia was correct. This is the law of unintended consequences.

 
At 3:56 PM, March 12, 2006, Blogger Dad29 said...

Billiam is echoing Scalia's language in Lawrence, the Texas sodomy case.

In this, Scalia was correct. This is the law of unintended consequences.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home