gender reassignment and the ins
Keeping the streets free from criminals and safe for families seems a simple and laudable goal. As a mother herself, Catherine Hanaway understands the fears that run below the current in every mother’s heart. As our U.S. Attorney, she has been faithful in putting her intuition to work as she cleans the streets of those who would threaten our safety.
Why then do I not feel a rush of relief to know that Eric Affholter went to jail last week? Hanaway held the requisite press conference to expose the sinister plot and assure us of our continued safety. But the most daunting emotion I can muster is confusion. Of whom am I to be afraid?
The Cliff Notes version of the story is pretty simple, at least as immigration stories go. Eric and Pedro (Cerna-Rojas) are a committed couple in a consummated covenanted relationship. Pedro came to the U.S. on a visitor’s visa and stayed with a student visa (Webster University). International students finding life partners with U.S. citizens is nothing new, college students often find their mates between classes. The INS (our Immigration ‘service’) anticipates this and allows continued residency if the covenant commitment can be substantiated.
As a person who appreciates logic, I wondered why Eric and Pedro didn’t simply offer substantiation of their covenant commitment. As a public defender, Eric had far more access to legal channels than most. Certainly he would know that the importance of securing their covenant commitment and following the appropriate paper trail with the INS.
Ironically, they have. At least as much as our law will allow. The INS rules, always complicated, are nothing short of draconian in the wake of 9/11 in an attempt to make us feel safer. Due to their anatomical sameness, Pedro and Eric’s covenant commitment is not recognized by either the State of Missouri or the INS. The depth of their love and the breadth of their commitment are irrelevant to their legal right to reside safely together in Missouri.
Enter Collette. Collette is a friend of both Eric’s and Pedro’s. She is willing to enter a committed covenant relationship with Pedro. Given their anatomical difference, this covenant is recognized by the state of Missouri (which to date has no sexual activity requirements). This covenant is presented to the INS and Pedro is granted continued residency.
People enter marriages for a zillion reasons, probably only a few of them really laudable. Never has love or even commitment for that matter been a prerequisite for marriage. I understand that “mail order brides” are still available and recognized as legal, hard as that is to believe. To marry a friend in order to help that friend cannot be a crime, can it? If Collette can legally give Pedro her kidney, surely she can give him her hand in marriage?
Not without sex. For those of us still confused as to the crime committed, Hanaway spelled it out, “the relationship (between Collette and Pedro) was never consummated”. They did not, according to Hathaway, have sex. I never knew that was criminal! Hetero-couples take note: your vows are only as good as your sexual activity.
Since Collette is really only along for the ride, and the real problem is the covenant commitment between two people of anatomical sameness, I have a modest proposal to resolve this problem. Gender reassignment. If Eric swaps out his anatomical parts for parts more like Collette’s, then Hanaway (the INS, the State of Missouri, and everybody else who has their nose in Pedro’s bedroom) would acknowledge the covenant commitment already shared by Pedro and Eric.
Instead, Pedro is on the run, Eric is out of jail on bond, and Collette is avoiding interviews. Do you feel safer yet?
