As I was reading the pieces for this week, I first started by reading Family, Unvalued, after I got through a couple pages I turned to Border (In)Securities where I became aware of the ulterior motive behind Family, Unvalued. Chavez explains that Family, Unvalued uses a strategic homonormative discourse of middle class family values to accomplish a number of objectives that foremost include: introducing the reader to the serious harm that bi national same-sex families endure as a result of current immigration laws; and making recommendations for different bodies of the US gov't on how to remedy the aforementioned problems.(140) More specifically, it's main goal was to pass the Uniting American Families Act, which would change the word "spouse" to "permanent partner." This is problematic because it only allows those reading this piece to view LGBT people through a homonormative lens. As Jackson brought up in class today, I also find the line on pg. 141 interesting..."Although this story involves some queer slippage, as the two scribbled numbers with a drag queen's eyeliner, the transition to their lives in the US quickly reiterates normative narrative as they struggle to provide for their child and do whatever they can to keep their family together." It implies that the slippage was somewhat of an accident. That it would need to be an accident for a man to disclose how him and his partner met if it includes any LGBT reference. Even the mention of the word drag queen, and one might scare off the heteronormative legislatures. Chavez goes onto explain that each bi national LGBT story used in Family, Unvalued is described along traditional notions of the American family. The same questions keep passing through my head, what is normal? Who defines it? Why is it defined? Why are certain people excluded? Chavez goes on to explain how Family, Unvalued fails to address certain groups, those that are underprivileged or not in position to have their voices heard. Unfortunately, Family, Unvalued, had a calculated motive so the issues it presented were exclusionary. Although it touches upon a variety of abstruse issues, it doesn't fully disclose the range of issues at hand.