|
Friday, April 09, 2004
To the Editors:
The Washington Blade has extensively covered the Human Rights Campaign’s involvement
in the Massachusetts and national marriage equality fight, and I wanted to
take this opportunity to inform the Blade readers of our work in this struggle
and our role in the history of the GLBT movement.
The setback in Massachusetts was a disappointment but only one step in a long
process. Despite some of the toughest lobbying restrictions anywhere on out-of-state
dollars, HRC stood side by side with Massachusetts groups, investing almost
$600,000 to support the campaign to protect marriage equality in Massachusetts.
Since November 2003, when the Goodridge decision came down, we funded focus
groups to help the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other organizations
in Massachusetts understand voter attitudes and opinions. We made our staff
available to every aspect of Massachusetts Equality’s campaign and put ads
on the air and in leading daily newspapers. This level of support will continue
unabated for the next two years.
On the national front, the Federal Marriage Amendment remains one of the most
dangerous threats to our community. If the amendment passes, a national ban
will be all but permanent.
That’s why we’ve launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to fight the amendment,
with state-by-state voter organizing, opinion research, an aggressive communications
strategy and a unique online advocacy effort.
The campaign includes the Million for Marriage Web site, which is on the cutting
edge of modern activism. Participants have generated literally millions of
letters to members of Congress and state legislators across the country.
The struggle for marriage rights is the fight of our lives, and we need the
participation of everyone in the GLBT community. HRC will continue our vigorous
work with national and local partners to bring about the day when every GLBT
American enjoys the most important right of all: equality.
Executive Director
Human Rights Campaign
Editors’ note: The letter writer is also
a former Massachusetts state senator.
To the Editors:
Re “Graham
calls for lesbian bar to close following stabbings,” news, March
19:
When your reporter called me about the “lesbian bar” Between Friends, I explained
that this was not about it being a lesbian bar.
It was about the most definitely non-lesbian promoters with whom the bar had
contracted, who under their liquor license had brought in a very rough crowd
that led to all manner of problems including murder, stabbings, assaults, noise
and other nuisances.
I also discussed the years of effort that the neighborhood and I had put into
these club issues, including the closure of two such bars in the past two years.
But I asked your reporter to be sure not to paint this as a “lesbian bar” issue.
Then your reporter’s competent appeared with this headline: “Graham calls
for lesbian bar to close following stabbings.” But what really irritated was
the subheading, quoting me as saying, “We don’t want this kind of crowd on
U Street.”
The reader who actually read the article would know what crowd I was referring
to, but at a casual glance it suggested that I did not want lesbians on U Street.
Of course, nothing is further from the truth. As the owners of Between Friends
will tell you, I worked with them when they first sought a license. I helped
them on various issues. I welcomed them to the neighborhood.
They are welcome, but murder and mayhem is not. Please spare me from the headline
demons!
D.C. Council member (D-Ward 1)
Washington
To the Editors:
That John Kerry should feel empowered to determine “whether marriage is for
the purpose of procreation and it’s between men and women” (news, March 6),
and then change his mind and say that isn’t his reason for opposing gay marriage,
shows once again the arrogance with which he and his ilk, regardless of political
affiliation, claim the freedom to impose their views and limitations upon the
freedom of others.
Often they cite their religious convictions in defense of such nonsense, thus
usurping the role of God, for they claim to know his mind better than anyone
else.
John Kerry’s own marital life — two marriages and an annulment — shows how
precarious it can be to deal in absolutes. So have the hearings into President
Clinton’s extramarital affair. The marriages of Clinton’s many judges on Capitol
Hill were also exposed for what they were: dysfunctional unions fraught with
betrayal and illicit affairs.
Yet these are the same people who seem to be saying, “I shall preach what
I won’t practice and practice not what I shall preach. I shall issue forth
laws, which you must obey, but not I.”
Washington
|
