dojA001280.xml

dojA001280.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-12-12

I have attached a letter including my
comments on how I think it would be
fair and appropriate to disseminate the
funds for the Sept.11 victims.





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

Re: September 11 Victim Compensation Program

Dear Mr. Zwick:

I am writing in response to the Department's November 5, 2001 request for public comments regarding the Department's forthcoming regulations for implementing and administering the "September 11 Victim Compensation Fund" established by the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act ("the Act"). As that Act makes clear, the purpose of the Fund is to provide compensation to any persons who were physically injured in the September 11 terrorist attacks as well as to the surviving "relatives" of those who died.
I strongly urge the Department to promulgate regulations ensuring that compensation is available to all surviving family members of those killed, including the committed partners and the non-biological children of gay and lesbian victims. Just as the terrorists drew no lines in killing people, our country must draw no lines in compensating those who suffered the most personal of losses from these horrific deaths. In promulgating its regulations, the Department should look not to legal formalisms that may define relatives or families for purposes of other laws, but rather to the realities of the lives of those who were killed and those who loved and were dependent on them.
Indeed, it is clear from the Act that this is precisely the approach the Department must take in administering the Fund. The Act specifically identifies a number of "economic" and "non-economic" losses for which compensation is to be awarded from the Fund. These include burial costs, loss of earnings, physical and emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of society and companionship. It is unquestionable that the survivors of those killed on September 11 suffered these types of losses regardless of their sexual orientation or marital status or their formal legal relationship to the deceased. Indeed, grief and economic loss know no such boundaries. The emotional devastation and economic loss caused by the death of one's partner is not any less because that person was of the same sex as the survivor. A child's anguishing loss of a parent is not any less because there was no biologic tie. Since the purpose of the Fund is to compensate survivors precisely for the types of losses suffered by family members of those killed, the Department's regulations should not and indeed cannot properly exclude anyone who was a family member in fact.
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 tragedies, as various victim-relief funds were being established, some on the extreme radical right criticized relief agencies that had made clear their intent to make funds available to assist not only surviving married spouses of persons killed in the attacks but also the surviving partners of gay men and lesbians who had been killed. These cruel and reprehensible calls for the exclusion of gay and lesbian families from relief efforts have been accompanied by claims that the effort to provide relief to all who have suffered is somehow a push for a so-called "gay agenda." However, the determination of who was actually victimized by the September 11 attacks, of who actually suffered loss, of who actually is grieving, is not about advancing some alleged political "agenda." What is at issue here is a human tragedy of unimaginable horror and dimension, and about the fair and humane treatment of all who have personally suffered from the acts of the terrorists.
Many gay and lesbian Americans lost their lives on September 11. Many of them left behind loved ones, including partners and children whose lives were intertwined with theirs and who were dependent on them for financial as well as emotional support. A number of them are known to have engaged in heroic acts that day, and they have been praised as national heroes. It would be an insult not only to those heroes, but to all who died on that tragic day, for the Department to draw artificial lines defining loss and grief. In fact, it would be unconscionable. We urge that the Department's regulations reflect these concerns.
Sincerely,

Individual Comment

2001-12-12