dojN002280.xml

dojN002280.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-22

Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:39 PM
Comments on Sept. 11th Victim Compensation Fund

Kenneth L. Zwick, Director
Office of Management Programs
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Main Building, Room 3140
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530

RE: The Interim Final Rule implementing Public Law 107-42, the Sept.
11th Victim Compensation Fund
Dear Mr. Zwick:

I am commenting on this rule as a private individual, a patriotic
American, and one whose thoughts and prayers go to all who lost a loved
one in the terrorist attacks Sept. 11th.

Two aspects of this fund concern me. First, the urge to reward benefits
to illegal aliens. Second, the urge to reward benefits to unmarried
loved ones, including homosexual partners.

First, the illegal aliens who lost loved ones certainly deserve human
compassion and sympathy. However, as a question of public policy, such
compassion isn't the role of the government, but of individuals. The
government must make it plain that its first duty is to uphold the law.
Otherwise, the government undermines the rule of law, which undergirds
its position of legitimate authority. If the government winks and nods
and overlooks the fact the aliens are living in a state of lawbreaking,
and thus issues financial compensation to those lawbreakers, then our
government slaps in the face every person who obeys the law.

It is the duty of the government and of government officials to uphold
the law. Illegal aliens, even those who suffer personal losses,
including in such a tragedy as Sept. 11th, must suffer the consequences
of their willingness to break our nation's laws. Their continued
callous disregard for our laws must be the defining issue here. Had
they not broken our immigration laws, they would not have been exposed
to the danger. Had they obeyed the law and immigrated lawfully, they
would then deserve government recognition of their loss. However, to
overlook their lawbreaking on the one hand and to reward it on the other
would be to commit a wrong against every lawful person who suffered the
same loss.

During the War Between the States, General Stonewall Jackson had to
punish a young soldier who had deserted his ranks. The soldier's family
came to plead for the boy. The General, with tears in his eyes, said he
would be not be showing mercy toward the boy but harm toward the rest of
his soldiers if he excused the offense without punishment. In the
present instance, the government would be doing grave harm to the rest
of the victims (and the nation's citizens) if it turned a blind eye to
the eager willingness of the illegal aliens in question to exploit our
nation by breaking our laws. This loss should properly be a consequence
of their wrongdoing.

Second, to compensate unmarried loved ones of victims would do violence
to the sanctity of marriage. This institution from time immemorial has
fundamentally set apart one personal relationship from another. To
reward those who have not committed themselves to one another, morally
and legally, through marriage does the same violence to this unique
state as would overlooking the breaking of immigration laws.

In the case of homosexuals, the loss is to be sympathized, but not
compensated through this fund. Homosexual relationships should not be
equated with heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Marriage is recognized
for its uniqueness and is exclusively reserved for male and female in
virtually every culture over the course of history. Only hetersexual
couples can procreate, and one of marriage's unique characteristics its
its procreative ability and provision of the optimal environment for
childrearing.

Virtually every social scientific study confirms that the family,
defined as one man and one woman united in marriage, provides the
balanced influence upon children from the feminine and masculine.
Furthermore, social science research overwhelmingly confirms that
children reared in a male-female marital environment face much greater
odds of avoiding social ills such as teen pregnancy, dropping out of
school, etc.

Though homosexuals may have lost a partner, they did not lose a spouse
-- legal or otherwise. The government must not undermine the
institution of marriage as traditionally defined be compensating
unmarried partners. By affirming marriage, the government obeys the
Defense of Marriage Act, stands on the firm foundation of social
scientific evidence, and on the side of the vast majority of the
American people.

Thank you for considering my views.

Respectfully,

Individual Comment
Vienna, Va.

2002-01-22