advertisement
advertisement
|
Friday, August 20, 2004
To the Editors:
As one of the founding members of the D.C. chapter of PFLAG, I would like to
state that I do not agree with the statements by PFLAG, the National Gay & Lesbian
Task Force and other gay groups that the New Jersey governor was “courageous” for
coming out. (“Gov.
McGreevey resigns,” Web news, Aug. 13)
Sure it is difficult to be in the closet and to come out, but he only did
it because he was forced to because of the threat of being blackmailed.
I am absolutely appalled that a political figure would place a lover on the
state’s payroll at a $110,000 yearly salary, and I can’t help wondering
what exactly the job entailed. In brief, James McGreevey is a scumbag!
Not only has he possibly destroyed the lives of two women and two children,
but he also shames the office of governor. His crime is not being gay, but
rather being a coward, liar and opportunist.
Although I have always been an advocate for gay rights, I think that the gay
community, especially PFLAG, must realize that gay people are just like everyone
else — good and bad.
That is the only way to achieve equality.
Silver Spring, Md.
To the Editors:
Re: “EMILY’s List founder assailed over FMA nod” (news, Aug.
13):
Torie Osborn, whom I mentored, criticizes me for saying “shame” on
Ellen Malcolm of EMILY’s List, for supporting a South Carolina candidate
who says she favors an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution.
Torie said, “There is a childish pleasure that one takes in pointing
out personal contradictions, but [they’re] ill timed and petty.”
Well, then, shame on Torie. Asking multi-millionaire, influential lesbians
and gay men to not support those who oppose our civil rights is hardly “childish.”
We have demanded nothing from these gay leaders; not giving money to our enemies
is the least they can do. EMILY’s List should have sat this one out.
Malcolm’s support of a candidate who favors the anti-gay Federal Marriage
Amendment is not merely a “personal contradiction,” it is acquiescing
to the right wing’s central campaign against gay rights, the prohibition
of marriage equality, and with it our claim to equal citizenship in this country.
When Torie Osborn dismisses a civil rights issue like equal marriage rights
as “petty,” it is an insult to our entire community. For her to
dismiss demands for marriage rights as “ill timed,” the day after
California annulled the marriages of 4,000 plus lesbian and gay couples (including
hers), it is a further insult to our community.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is about more than just marriage equality.
This battle is about whether LGBT people will not be official second-class
citizens.
It is long past time that we demanded accountability from both our leaders
and politicians of both parties.
Executive Director
DontAmend.com
Los Angeles
To the Editors:
Re “Three
gay men attacked in Rehoboth,” news, Aug. 6:
I was surprised to read that Mark Aguirre, the gay Rehoboth Beach city commissioner,
does not consider the recent attack in Rehoboth a gay bashing.
The three assaulted men said they were in their car when the verbal abuse began
and remained so until the perpetrators kicked the vehicle. While there were
a variety of responses available to them, it’s important to remember
that defending yourself is not a crime, nor is standing up to combative and
aggressive bigots.
Aguirre seems to believe all the individuals were intoxicated and this somehow
diminishes the severity of the incident. If this is so, many visitors and residents
at beach communities should be aware that their rights on a weekend night are
different than a weekday afternoon.
The three gay men who were assaulted said they did not initiate the verbal
abuse, were not the first to approach in a threatening manner, did not throw
the first punch and did not bring pipes to the crime scene.
If the drag queens at Stonewall taught us anything, it must be that we won’t
stand idly by while our rights are compromised, while our freedoms are questioned
and while our elected public officials and police officers blame us for crimes
committed against us.
Washington
To the Editors:
Chris Crain’s editorial (“ENDA
Gets trans-jacked,” Aug. 13)
not only misses the mark; it is aimed in the wrong direction.
Crain fails to realize that, under a non-trans-inclusive ENDA, he and any
other gay person can still be discriminated against solely because of their
same-sex sexual orientation. All a discriminator would have to do is couch
their reasons for such discrimination as being based upon the individual’s
behavior as opposed to their stated or inferred same-sex romantic preference.
For example, if sued based upon the language of the currently proposed ENDA,
a defendant would have a very good chance of escaping liability by claiming
the discrimination was because the person’s behavior in dating or holding
hands with someone gave the impression that the person was transsexual or transgender.
Or, they might claim that they don’t care about the individual’s
preference for or attraction to members of the same sex — just the individual’s
behavior that crosses gender lines.
Perhaps the worst aspect of Crain’s position is that it seeks to sub-marginalize
one group of people within an already outgunned minority. Any distinction between
the “GLB” community and the “T” community is illusory
and false.
We are all gender variant — and therefore transgender — by virtue
of our identity, behavior, sexual orientation, and/or choice of sexual partners.
Twinsburg, Ohio
To the Editors:
Cheryl Jacques defends the Human Rights Campaign’s decision to oppose
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act unless it bans discrimination against
transgender people. (“Putting
the ‘T’ into ENDA,” op-ed,
Aug. 13).
Rather than honestly defend the decision as the altruistic gift to transgender
people that it is, Jacques instead chose to manipulate lesbians, gay men and
bisexuals into believing that the addition was crucial to their own equal employment
opportunity.
Jacques claims that if ENDA passes without additional protections for “gender
identity or expression,” employers could win in court by claiming a gay
man was fired not because he was gay, but because he was “effeminate.”
The problem is that Jacques is just plain wrong. An employer who discriminates
against an employee as too feminine or masculine already violates the existing
federal ban on sex discrimination.
In fact, Jacques has the loophole exactly backwards. An employer in a state
without a gay rights law will lose the case brought by the “effeminate” man
unless the employer can prove the man was fired because he was gay. Sexual
orientation is the loophole, and the traditional ENDA would close it.
The decision about whether to add trans protections to ENDA should be made
free of HRC’s self-serving disinformation. When a gay rights organization
goes beyond educating its members and begins manipulating them for its own
institutional purposes, it abuses their trust, risks relegating their interests
to an after-thought, and, if it continues, ought to make them rethink their
loyalty and support.
Albany, N.Y.
Editors’ note: The letter writer is an associate professor at Albany
Law School.
To the Editors:
Chris Crain’s editorial, “ENDA
gets trans-jacked” (Aug. 13)
argues that trans people are already protected so their inclusion is unnecessary,
employing an array of twisted and self-serving reasoning to imply that trans
people should patiently wait our turn.
Have gay people themselves ever acquiesced to such “trickle-down” incrementalism?
I think not, and that Crain could make such a suggestion, let alone attempt
to re-cast our claims as somehow selfish, is offensive.
While it is certainly true that trans people are sometimes discriminated against
because they are perceived to be gay, employers would surely recognize in court
the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
Such “protection” amounts to less than a fig leaf. Despite a few
cases finding protection for trans people under Title VII (“sex”)
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that recognition is not universal.
Crain’s second premise is based on narrow-minded anxieties. While ENDA
has no chance in any form under a regressive Congress, ordinances have been
passed around the country using the very language HRC has now agreed must be
included in ENDA.
Nothing could be more mind-boggling than Crain’s own insistence that
HRC’s decision not to support ENDA without trans protections is “immoral.”
What is truly immoral, and simply foolish, is for any member of a marginalized
community to so egregiously marginalize another, even more marginalized community
for the sake of mistaken political expediency.
Sanctimony aside, this isn’t about what’s right and wrong. This
is about prejudice, and the clear fact that Crain himself harbors anti-trans
bias. By taking the posture of “me first and you just shut up,” Crain
has again demonstrated, at least on this issue, his own mean-spirited iniquity.
Silver Spring, Md.
|
