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
education
for
our
young
people,
access
to
health
care,
and
yes,
abortion.
Narrow
thinking
and
divisiveness
will
not
serve
our
movement.
Recognizing
the
deeper
agenda
of
those
who
attack
us
and
the
connections
between
our
movements
will.
ALISA
WELLEK
New
York
Editors’
note:
The
writer
is
coordinator
of
Causes
in
Common,
a
national
project
of
the
LGBT
Community
Center.
