Cyrus D. Mehta's article, which rightfully brings to light immigration consequences of the denial of same sex marriage has seemed to have sparked a controversy. In her rebuttal to Mr. Mehta's position, Esther Valdes seems to take an inconsistent position, one based on logic, the other based on misconception and religious belief. I beg to differ, and do not put any religious connotation on marriage. That's what makes this country great - separation of Church and State, and the belief that all should live free and have access to equal justice under the law. The government grants rights under the Constitution, not the Bible. I would just hope that any governmental decision to limit rights of citizens is based upon Constitutional, not religious principles. Our society, and our nation, is at a crossroads. Will gays be allowed the same freedom under the law as are heterosexual partnerships, or will narrow-minded religious zealots be allowed control the lives of others, people who believe, as does Ms. Valdes, that homosexuality is a "choice"? It is a wonder that Ms. Valdes claims that, "Homosexuality is an immutable characteristic . . .". I do agree with her that it is definitely an immutable characteristic of certain human beings, but not that it is a "choice", any more than is race a choice. Ms. Valdes concludes with the argument, "We must abide by the oath we took and uphold what is just and true." Just who are "we"? And "we" must be "true" to what? Her religious beliefs, her idea of justice? Do not include me in "we", and do not include me in any movement that would deny common decency and equal rights to any law abiding segment of our society.
David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM