WASHINGTON (BP)–Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore says that as president, he would extend to homosexual couples the same priority immigration status granted heterosexual married couples, the CNSNews.com Internet news site reported Oct.10.
In other words, if an American entered into a homosexual union in a foreign country, U.S. immigration policy should prioritize immigration for the foreign spouse, according to Gore.
“I think that the rights of an American who gets married to someone from another country should be afforded under a legally protected civil union in the same way,” Gore said during a September 26 interview at an MTV town hall forum for young adults.
Critics complain that such a proposal might harm immigration policies, disrupt the balance of power between states and the federal government and advance the homosexual agenda here in the United States, according to CNSNews.
“That policy would be a real setback to proponents of open immigration,” said Dan Griswold, associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. “It would raise lots of opposition to immigration,” he said. “It’s not a very good idea,” he concluded.
Peter LaBarbera, director of the Americans for Truth Project, said Gore’s proposal is contrary to existing law and to public opinion.
“This is another case of Al Gore pandering to the homosexual lobby,” said LaBarbera. “Most Americans would not agree to allowing immigrants into the country based on a so-called marriage in Amsterdam or wherever it’s going to be legalized,” he said.
“I wish the Bush campaign would make an issue of this,” he added. The Bush campaign did not return a call today, seeking comment.
LaBarbera said granting preferential immigration to homosexual “civil unions” would be a thinly disguised effort to make such unions legitimate, nationwide. Civil Unions, which afford homosexual couples the same benefits as heterosexual married couples, are currently legal only in Vermont.
“The whole history on this issue is them pushing the legal envelope,” said LaBarbera. “So I think the danger of what Gore is saying is if they would give that special treatment, then that would help their cause in America,” he said.
“Obviously, what they’re going to do is have people get married, even if it’s two Americans, by going to wherever there is the most liberal marriage laws and then come back and [start] test cases on whether the U.S. will recognize these marriages,” LaBarbera predicted.
LaBarbera also accused homosexual advocacy groups of contradicting their own statements on the matter.
“The gay activists have been saying for years that there’s no need for the Defense of Marriage laws; there’s no pressure to recognize other marriages,” LaBarbera said. “Now, we have one nation which is coming close to recognizing so-called gay marriage, and [homosexual activists are] saying we hope the U.S. recognizes these marriages.”
Michael Greve, a scholar on federalism with the American Enterprise Institute, said the Gore proposal would create upheaval in current federal and state law.
Federal law does not recognize homosexual unions for purposes of federal benefit eligibility and leaves to states the choice of whether to recognize such unions, said Greve.
“What would happen if the federal government all of a sudden undercut its own position on this, I don’t know,” said Greve. “I doubt that Gore has thought that through,” he said.
“Could these people stroll in and say, ‘you’ve already recognized this in granting us immigration status. You cannot now turn around and say it doesn’t count for, let’s say, federal Medicare?'” Greve wondered. “And then, once you’ve gone down that road, could a state then withhold its share of Medicaid funding? I don’t know,” he said.
But Greve was certain that the political pressure to recognize homosexual marriages would be the result of the Gore proposal.
“No matter how long and hard you argue it’s only for immigration, I doubt that as a political matter you can make that plausible,” Greve said. “States will feel politically compelled to recognize these contracts the first time one domestic partner has a car accident [in one state] and the hospital [in another state] won’t recognize [the marriage],” said Greve.
According to Greve, the size and scope of government is at the root of the homosexual marriage controversy.
“If we lived in a society where people go about their contracts and that’s the end of it, and weren’t constantly hanging on the state, that would be one thing,” he said. “What makes it hard is that just about everything people do is subsidized, or in one way or another shaped by the government,” he continued.
–30–
Hall is a staff writer with the Internet news site CNSNews.com. Used by permission.
