TO
READ
THE
letters
and
e-mails
to
this
newspaper
in
response
to
a
few
opinion
columns
by
Jeff
Gannon,
you
would
think
he
represents
a
grave
threat
to
the
achievement
of
equality
for
gay
Americans.
In
fact,
many
of
his
loudest
critics
represent
a
much
more
serious
obstacle
to
the
success
of
the
gay
rights
movement.
Gannon,
of
course,
made
headlines
earlier
this
year
after
a
softball
question
he
asked
President
Bush
at
a
press
briefing
led
members
of
the
White
House
press
corps
to
do
some
digging
into
his
background.
They
discovered
that
Gannon’s
legal
name
was
Jim
Guckert
and
the
media
outfit
he
represented,
Talon
News,
was
owned
by
a
wealthy
Bush
backer
and
published
reports
severely
slanted
in
the
president’s
favor.
Then
things
got
really
interesting,
when
liberal
gay
blogger
John
Aravosis
got
a
tip
that
before
entering
journalism,
Gannon
had
advertised
online
as
a
gay
male
escort.
Gannon
largely
evaded
questions
about
the
claim,
suggesting
he
merely
owned
the
sites
or
provided
web
consultation
services.
Gannon
also
avoided
questions
about
his
sexual
orientation,
leading
this
newspaper
to
report
in
February
that
he
attended
a
gay
sex
party
in
Virginia.
A
week
later,
we
apologized
for
the
story,
saying
that
while
accurate,
we
had
unnecessarily
reported
on
private
details
of
Gannon’s
life
that
were
not
critical
to
the
story.
Since
then,
Gannon
has
become
a
target
celébre
for
liberal
bloggers,
one
of
a
handful
of
shorthand
symbols
they
use
for
all
they
see
wrong
with
George
W.
Bush’s
America.
So
it
came
as
a
surprise
to
many
readers
when
the
same
Jeff
Gannon
showed
up
on
the
opinion
pages
of
this
gay
newspaper
and
its
affiliated
publications,
arguing
in
his
debut
column
that
liberal
gay
bloggers
were
too
far
on
the
fringe
of
American
politics,
dragging
down
the
rest
of
the
gay
rights
movement
with
them.
THE
OBJECTIONS
TO
Gannon’s
column
came
pouring
in,
mostly
encouraged
by
Aravosis
and
others
who
were
the
target
of
Gannon’s
first
column
and
have
long
been
his
chief
critics.
Some
readers
disagreed
with
the
substance
of
Gannon’s
views,
but
most
unleashed
more
anger
at
the
messenger
than
the
message.
The
flurry
of
e-mails
called
Gannon
every
name
in
the
book
along
with
a
few
brand
new
entries.
Predictably,
many
of
the
attacks
were
colorful
if
obscene
references
to
the
gay
escort
site.
Others
took
aim
at
this
newspaper
and
its
editors,
questioning
whether
we
had
taken
leave
of
our
senses
or
were
merely
stooping
our
standards
to
garner
attention.
One
particularly
angry
reader
asked
rhetorically
if
he
could
expect
to
pick
up
the
following
week’s
paper
to
read
an
opinion
column
by
an
“ex-gay”
explaining
the
way
out
of
homosexuality.
“I
wish!”
was
my
reply.
The
job
of
any
good
opinion
section
is
to
challenge
readers,
not
just
preach
to
the
choir.
For
that
reason,
our
Forum
pages
are
open
to
anyone,
gay
and
non-gay,
whether
or
not
they
support
the
goals
of
the
gay
rights
movement.
But
Jeff
Gannon
doesn’t
represent
that
sort
of
challenge.
He
doesn’t
oppose
gay
equality.
In
fact,
he
confirmed
just
this
week
that
he
is
bisexual.
Even
still,
he
is
very
clearly
a
conservative
who
supports
the
policies
of
the
Bush
administration,
and
that
plus
his
headline-grabbing
past
has
been
more
than
enough
to
enrage
some
gay
liberals.
LET’S
SAY,
FOR
the
sake
of
argument,
that
the
role
played
by
newspapers
isn’t
enough
to
justify
publication
of
provocative
views
by
someone
as
controversial
as
Jeff
Gannon.
Let’s
say
that
this
man,
or
his
opinions,
somehow
deserve
to
be
excluded
from
this
“tolerance”
about
which
we
all
preach
so
much.
Then
remember
this:
We
gay
Americans
do
not
have
the
luxury
of
intolerance.
When
it
comes
to
minorities,
we
are
remarkably
minor.
Kinsey
was
nice
enough
to
propagate
the
10
percent
myth,
but
subsequent
surveys
place
us
at
even
smaller
numbers,
well
under
half
that
amount.
And
about
one-quarter
of
us
—
of
us!
—
voted
for
the
election
and
the
re-election
of
George
W.
Bush.
If
we
cannot
tolerate
the
viewpoint
of
someone
who
tries
to
explain
why
one-quarter
of
us
like
and
support
the
president,
then
how
can
we
expect
the
96
percent
of
Americans
who
are
heterosexual
to
listen
seriously
to
our
demands
for
equality?
The
growing
polarization
of
American
politics
has
taken
root
within
gay
America
as
well.
The
explosion
of
liberal
gay
bloggers,
many
of
whom
spend
about
as
much
time
on
the
“gray”
of
most
issues
as
Rush
Limbaugh
and
his
“dittoheads,”
has
only
exacerbated
the
proud
queer
tradition
of
disdain
for
gay
Republicans
(“Nazi
Jews”)
and
the
caricature
of
conservative
Christians
(“religious
right,”
“religious
political
extremists”).
Whatever
the
public
opinion
surveys
may
say
about
the
growing
acceptance
of
gays,
we
have
lost,
and
lost
badly,
every
ballot
measure
to
date
on
marriage,
and
the
numbers
haven’t
improved
since
Alaska
and
Hawaii
voted
on
the
issue
almost
a
decade
ago.
Our
activists
groups
have
grown
quite
fond
of
talking
about
the
“conversations”
we
need
to
have
with
straight
America.
Well
half
of
that
conversation
involves
listening,
not
talking.
And
if
we
won’t
even
listen
to
the
heretical
views
of
our
own
kind,
then
how
can
we
...
