While strict constructionist conservatives may assert that “gay and lesbian people have the same rights as heterosexuals to also marry a member of the opposite sex” – their assertion, if legally tested, would be met with criminal penalties for marriage immigration fraud for a gay or lesbian person to marry and sponsor someone of the opposite sex.

Therefore they are wrong, Supreme Court Justice Scalia is wrong – wrong to the tune of “a $250,000.00 fine for immigration fraud, deportation and five years in prison” wrong. Not that very many gay and lesbian people have any sincere plans to marry the opposite sex, but here is where this supposed “gays have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry EVEN the opposite sex” anti-gay rhetoric also fails the legal litmus test. And I doubt that Scalia or anyone in the anti-gay crowd would stand behind their rhetorical argument, put their money where their mouth is and actually post bail for someone trying to prove their assertion.

Absent the provision for same-gender sponsorship, current immigration law establishes a second-class of American citizens who pay taxes, yet are stripped of any legal right to sponsor anyone of either gender.

To remedy this inequity, gay and lesbian people should either 1) be allowed to sponsor a same-gender partner, or 2) be allowed to enter sham marriages and sponsor an opposite-gender partner and granted both a green card and immunity from immigration marriage fraud prosecution. But there should not be special laws that are designed to deliberately fence all gays and lesbians out of the immigration process.

The anti-gay political rhetoric is that supposedly gays and lesbians “tear apart families”. The false notion that gays and lesbians hurt any family is rhetorical fearmongering agenda-based speculation rooted in political ideology. Government-imposed anti-gay discrimination and homophobia is what tears apart families, these situation are living proof of real families, real kids, in real communities – not phony rhetoric. If the supposed “family-values” conservatives are really pro-family and pro-child, then they need to set up to the plate, put their money where their mouth is, can the rhetoric, stick to their core values of marriage, families and children and stop forbidding and prohibiting other people to have families. But I expect most to continue to pipe out hot-air political rhetoric and abandon their core principles any way that they can justify their argument with guilt-by-association comparisons to the laundry list of irrelevant peripheral situations. The rest of us need to stand up and support these efforts to truly make CIR to be “comprehensive” for all couples, families and their children.