May 18, 2007  | COMMENTS     

To the Editors:

Re: “No place to call home” (editorial by Amos Lim, May 4)

Mr. Lim’s editorial is a powerful reminder that, even as states continue to extend equal rights to same-sex couples, bi-national couples still face unjust federal immigration laws that treat them as legal strangers. 

Although our immigration laws place a priority on keeping families together, same-sex couples committed to spending their lives together are not recognized as “families” under current U.S. immigration policies. Furthermore, while the majority of green cards and immigrant visas are issued to the spouses and immediate family members of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, same-sex couples are denied the right to sponsor their same-sex permanent partners for immigration purposes, even if they have entered into marriages, civil unions or other legally recognized relationships in their homes states.

To remedy this injustice, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) reintroduced the “Uniting American Families Act” in Congress. This vital piece of legislation would apply the same standards to same-sex couples that the U.S. applies to opposite-sex couples where one member is seeking to bring a foreign partner into the country.

Human Rights Campaign, along with our coalition partner Immigration Equality, is proud to support this legislation, which would change these discriminatory immigration policies that keep same-sex families separated or living in constant fear of federal penalties or deportation. We call on members of Congress to end the suffering of tens of thousands of couples and support this common-sense legislation.

ALLISON HERWITT
Washington

Editors’ note: The writer is HRC’s legislative director.

We need the help of
progressive groups

To the Editors:

Re: “It’s a marathon not a sprint”
(op-ed by Peter Rosenstein, May 11)

Peter Rosenstein asserts that the quest for gay rights is a “marathon, not a sprint.” I agree with that general statement, although his tactical reasoning for that strategy is at best “Jurassic” in nature.

Rosenstein seems to be unaware that the gay political community is beginning to mature and is getting smarter and more inclusive. Gay organizations have not only included the “T,” but have further sought political alliances with many women’s, labor and progressive organizations that share “our” values. While some people may focus only on the efforts of Human Rights Campaign, they obviously overlook the tremendous grassroots efforts of other organizations, especially in some states that have had active positive transgender participation and leadership.

Raymond Buckley, the newly elected gay chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party has stressed that “we” must earn our power, rather than sit on the sidelines, send our money and wait for political handouts. We have to play the game smarter and better. Peter, welcome to 2007!

BARBRA CASBAR SIPERSTEIN
Edison, N.J.

Editors’ note: The writer is president of the New Jersey Stonewall Democrats. 

‘Partial-birth’ abortion ban is
part of plan to curtail freedom

To the Editors:

Re: “It’s not a gay issue” (op-ed by James Kirchick, May 4)

I take strong issue with Kirchick’s narrow and shortsighted view of the gay liberation movement in his article, in which he questions how taking a position on abortion advances the cause of gay rights.

Kirchick fails to recognize the federal abortion ban for what it is, a red herring. The legislation upheld by the Supreme Court is part of the religious right’s larger strategy to chip away at Americans’ right to privacy in our reproductive and sexual lives.

As gay rights advocates, we know that any erosion of the underlying tenets of the right to abortion has potentially devastating consequences for us. Does Kirchick think those who have fought tooth and nail for this federal abortion ban only want to end there? Does he really think his family and his rights are not next on the chopping block?

The right wing in this country has been able to make so many gains in the past 30 years because they have had a broad vision despite not agreeing on everything. Please tell me that we have learned that narrow identity politics do not serve us.

Just as the gay liberation movement is not only about marriage, the reproductive rights movement is not only about abortion. Our movements have begun to articulate a broad vision for what reproductive justice would truly look like, one that includes the right to create our families and choose how and when to have children, comprehensive sex ...