Posted on 09/23/2002 6:34:43 PM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - A liberal New York congressman believes non-U.S. citizens engaged in a homosexual relationships with U.S. citizens should have immigration privileges identical to those of an alien married to a citizen, and nearly a quarter of the members of the House of Representatives support the idea.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the so-called Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 690)on Valentine's Day 2001. Last week, Nadler issued a press release touting the 100th cosponsor signing onto the bill.
"The legislation is just common sense," he said. "That's why it has reached the triple digit mark in co-sponsorship, and bipartisan co-sponsorship, at that."
Those cosponsors include only two liberal Republicans - Rep. Constance Morella (Md.) and Rep. Jim Kolbe (Ariz.), himself an active homosexual - and one Independent, Rep. Bernard Sanders (Vt.). The other 97 cosponsors are Democrats.
Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, told CNSNews.com that the "achievement" of gathering 100 cosponsors for this type of bill means little.
"There are plenty of wacky bills out there with as many sponsors," he said.
Nadler argues that the legislation only mandates equal treatment for allegedly equivalent relationships.
"My bill is simply a matter of common sense and fairness," Nadler claimed. "Why do we allow the government to tear apart committed and loving couples just because of who they love?
Knight doubts the sincerity of Nadler's benevolence.
"This is a direct attack on marriage," he continued. "Mr. Nadler is saying that homosexual relationships are the equivalent of marriage and therefore marriage should no longer have a place in giving preference to people who immigrate to the United States.
The bill would require the Immigration and Naturalization Service to extend the same privileges and benefits to non-citizen homosexual sex partners of U.S. citizens as those extended to legally married non-citizen spouses of U.S. citizens. The proposal defines a "permanent partner" as an individual 18 years of age or older who:
- is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment;
- is financially interdependent with that other individual;
- is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone other than that other individual;
- is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual; and
- is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under [U.S. law].
Knight said the results of minimizing marriage in such a way would be perilous.
"This bill would make the United States a magnet for homosexuals to come to our shores," he said. "And given that homosexuality is looked down upon around the rest of the world, it would give the rest of the world one more reason to conclude that the United States has gone over the edge and is no longer the 'shining city on the hill' but is really a decadent society that everybody else had best avoid."
Under current immigration law, only non-citizen spouses and other immediate family members of U.S. citizens receive preference for admission to the country and for "permanent resident alien" status.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
This guy talks like a autonomatron. What planet is he from?
Actually, the article skirted (ahem) around an interesting change in INS practices in recent years. Under a Clinton change, you can be granted asylum in the United States if you declare that you are gay and are from a country that persecutes homosexuals. (Middle eastern and African nations, mostly.) No one made a peep against this when the government started doing it.
As a christian, I believe that if a homosexual is being tortured, it is my responsibility to shield them from that violence. Adultery is a sin as well, and I feel as strongly about how Saudi Arabia treats that one. If I had my druthers, the rest of the world would clean up it's act, so nobody would feel the need to come here other than to vacation.
my parents are going to be so disappointed to learn that they failed, utterly, in inculcating commen sense in me.
"The tone and tendency of liberalism...is to attack the institutions of the country under the name of reform and to make war on the manners and customs of the people under the pretext of progress." - Benjamin Disraeli
Do they have to have known each other very long, and can they change their minds about the commitment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.