Sunday, May 5, 2013

Financial Times article unwittingly exposes the most logical reason not to grant spousal immigration status to gay male couples

This came in from Financial Times:

It starts out as a predictable pro-gay puff piece, chronicling the lives of a pitiable Wall Street banker who's in a relationship with a British guy and worries about not being able to get green card status for his spouse.

Then, though, this passage pops up, which is very telling:

“We are planning to have children and they will have dual citizenship so they will be able to come and go easily. But one of their fathers won’t,” Mr Chavez says. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic senator from Vermont and a long-time proponent of marriage equality, wants to remedy this. He is expected this week to introduce the Uniting American Families Act, an amendment to the immigration bill to provide visas to foreign same-sex spouses of US citizens. “We must end the discrimination that gay and lesbian families face in our immigration law,” Mr Leahy has said. 

This passage demonstrates precisely why the United States must not grant immigration rights to gay male binational couples. To do so will encourage either international adoption on demand or else commercial surrogacy, and it would open the way for gay male couples to engage in such nefarious practices overseas, in the home nations of one of the members of the same-sex couple, while evading regulations that might tamper the human rights abuses in the United States.

See here for the French Order of Physicians' denunciation of surrogacy as a practice. The Human Rights Campaign has a webpage advising gay male couples how to engage in surrogacy so as to evade laws in many US states that ban the practice. It is, as many have pointed out, an echo of practices endemic to chattel slavery in earlier times now considered barbaric.