Why The Opposition To Same-Sex Couples Benefiting From Immigration Reform?
Comments (1)
A recent story in the Washington Post highlighted an obstacle to immigration reform
There's no legitimate rationale for opposing Obama's proposal (Steven C. Webster, Creative Commons).
For people who aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of immigration law, the U.S. Code allows married heterosexual couples the right to sponsor their spouse's application for a visa, increasing the likelihood and speed with which their spouse receives one. This rule faces little opposition because without it, couples in loving, committed relationships would be split up simply because one of them was not born an American citizen.
Because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages (even if they’re legal at the state level), married gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to benefit from this rule. President Obama is asking Congress to change this, and he’s finding a lot of support from members of his own party. But, unsurprisingly, the other side of the aisle hasn’t been as amenable to cooperation. The question worth asking here is: why?
Arguments about same-sex marriage “undermining the sanctity of marriage” are well documented. Arguments about preveting gays and lesbians from adopting children because they may “harm the child” are (while unsupported and offensive) acknowledged as well. We can even pretend for a moment that arguments about gay soldiers hurting “unit cohesion” and about hate crimes violating the First Amendment can be taken at face value.
The problem is that none of these arguments apply to the proposal that President Obama has put forward. He’s not asking to make same-sex marriages legal at the federal level; he’s not seeking to allow gay adoption; he’s not asking to allow openly gay and lesbian people into the military; and he’s not seeking to enhance protection against hate crimes. He’s simply asking that people in committed relationships not be separated and denied entrance into this country just because they’re in a relationship with someone of the same sex.
Let’s check out some of the GOP's rationales for opposing this proposal to see if they’re rooted in legitimate concerns for “family values,” or if they're rooted in something a little more nefarious.
When asked why he opposed the measure, John McCain said:
“Which is more important: LGBT or border security. I’ll tell you what my priorities are.”
At first glance, this response looks a little bit like a non sequitur, but the Senator should be given the benefit of the doubt. So, let's dig a little deeper into the meaning of what he’s saying.
He could be saying that gay and lesbian immigrants are a threat to national security. However, given the fact that most terrorists are religious fundamentalists who think homosexuality is a capital offense, I highly doubt that many members of the LGBT community are lining up to join Al Qaeda. Similarly, the other major strain of terrorists - the kind that shave their heads and engage in Nazi salutes - are equally hostile to gays and lesbians, and are very unlikely to enlist their support.
Given these facts, we can assume the Senator from Arizona is speaking of the political effects of the President’s proposal. He’s probably referencing the fact that it will be difficult to get conservatives to sign on to such an effort. But, that doesn’t answer the question: why should gays and lesbians be excluded from being with the people they love simply because they’re gay or lesbian?
Maybe Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy and public affairs at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, will have a better answer:
“It’s an overreach. Immigration is hard enough as it is and adding another controversial issue to the mix makes it even harder. I’m surprised the administration would risk sacrificing 11 million people over this issue. It’s very combustible.”
This answer also seems to lack a rationale for opposing the extension of rights to same-sex couples. Appleby’s statement isn’t even factually correct. This isn’t a “combustible” issue. A plurality of Americans support extending these rights to gay and lesbian couples.
It took a little bit of digging, but we may have finally found the answer to the question of why one side of the aisle opposes these protections. This entry comes from the Family Research Council (FRC) by way of the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"In March 2008, Sprigg [a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the FRC] responded to a question about uniting gay partners during immigration by saying, 'I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than import them.' He later apologized, but in February 2009, he told Chris Matthews, 'I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.' 'So we should outlaw gay behavior?' Matthews asked. 'Yes,' Sprigg replied."
This quote doesn’t require much explanation. But the Republican Party is fairly large entity, and to imply that all Republican opponents to protecting same-sex immigrant rights hold the same views as Peter Sprigg (someone who is not a Republican official) would be irresponsible without some explanation.
The head of the Republican National Committee (RNC) would probably say that the Family Research Council is not the official mouthpiece of the Republican Party. However, given a lack of explanation for the party’s concerted opposition to President Obama’s immigration rule, we don’t really have much else to go by.
The ties between the FRC and the Republican party on policy toward the LGBT community are numerous and extensive. The organization’s president, Tony Perkins, wrote the Republican Party’s platform on gay marriage in 2012. Two “friends of the FRC” (their words, not mine) were responsible for overseeing the official Republican position toward equal rights for the LGBT community. The Republican Party’s standard bearer in 2012 (Mitt Romney) even took the time to address the FRC's “Values Voter Summit” last year.
Not everyone in the Republican Party is a bigot. Opposing same-sex marriage, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and myriad other protections for gays and lesbians doesn’t necessarily make you a bigot, either. People have different values, backgrounds and experiences that shape their belief systems.
Yet, we must be willing to ask what rationales exist for denying same-sex couples the right to be with one another. This issue has nothing to do with marriage, adoption or combat. And if opponents to President Obama's proposal can’t come up with a solid answer, maybe it's time they took a good, long look in the mirror.
