New Times / Letters to the Editor

Davis will contribute

Travis Evans - Arroyo Grande

The article “Time Served” (Feb. 18) was timely, well written and well researched: kudos to your reporter, Matt Fountain. It is surely time for Bruce Davis and other rehabilitated inmates to be released and allowed to become useful citizens instead of a continual financial burden on our society. Politics and union jobs have for too long biased our penal parole system.

I have known Bruce Davis and a few other inmates who deserve freedom in my more than 40 years of visiting C.M.C. Bruce is a sweet, gentle, repentant family man who can be a real benefit to the youth of our day. I have observed him closely for many years and welcome him into my home and life anytime. If I were still an employer, Bruce would have a job with me. We have all made mistakes in life and we all want to be forgiven. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Bruce Davis should be released now, so he can help prevent other youth from going astray through gangs, drugs, or alcohol.

---

Moved by physician's courage

Lindy Wood-Russell, RN   - Atascadero

Thank you for publishing Richard O’Neil’s brave, candid commentary about his illness (“My health-care crisis,” Feb. 11). I found it to be absolutely 100 percent true. I do not personally know O’Neil, however I would see him frequently walking around the hospital corridors. I am a Registered Nurse and was working at French Hospital Medical Center in 2008. Though he was never in my care (I believe he was on the med/surg floor and I’m on telemetry) I could always tell by his expressions if it was a good day or a bad day for him. When passing him in the hallway as he chatted with friends or co-workers, I never heard him complain. I think it speaks to the kind of person he is. Unfortunately in this world bad things happen to good people. His commentary has reminded me to cherish the valleys in my life and not allow suffering to outweigh the joy in life. Please extend my best wishes to him for a continued recovery.

---

Street vendors should stay

Hank Kosmala - Arroyo Grande

Regarding the letter “Ban street-corner vendors in AG” (Feb. 25), how many people have bought flowers from those street corner vendors who could not afford the very high prices flower shops charge? In these hard times, how many people have had a smile put on their faces because they’ve received flowers, thanks to the street-corner vendors? My wife and daughter were two of those happy people: That’s why I am a customer of one of those vendors.

---

USDA has clarified organic certification

Brise Tencer, Union of Concerned Scientists - Washington, DC

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently finalized regulations that will ensure organically certified production practices are in keeping with the spirit of what an organic label means to consumers.

The organic rule already required that producers afford livestock access to pastures to receive certification, but the new rule will clarify vague language about how much grazing is enough and the limited circumstances under which animals can be denied pasture access. Previous requirements, for instance, allowed some products to receive the certified organic label although the animals rarely set foot outside a confined animal feeding operation.

To obtain the label under the new rule, producers will have to give livestock access to the outdoors year-round and graze animals throughout the grazing season, which much be at least 120 days. In addition, the rules ensure the minimum amount of an animal’s food that must come from pasture. A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that grazing animals on pasture is not only less damaging to the environment than raising animals inside confined operations, but that meat and milk from grass-fed cows can contain higher levels of good fats that may provide health benefits.

The new USDA rules will remove ambiguity for producers in meeting organic standards and give consumers greater confidence that milk and meat bearing the organic label have been produced in ways that truly benefit people, animals, and the environment.

---

Diablo's a risky bet

Marty Brown - Atascadero

I attended one of the recent meetings held by the NRC regarding re-licensing the Diablo nuclear power plant and had intended to ask about the radioactive tritium that has been found mysteriously leaking from nuclear plants elsewhere into groundwater, but I did not speak up because the subject was mentioned by another concerned citizen. My question would have been and still is: Has the NRC gotten any closer to the answer to this? The Tribune reported the Vermont Senate voted to close the Yankee plant after 2012; in other words, no re-licensing because of leaking radioactive tritium at that facility.

So far, we do not know whether we have the same problem here at Diablo. But the nuclear plant is 30 years old, it’s near at least two seismic faults, its piping and equipment are aging, and there’s nuclear waste stored above ground, so whether the plant should be licensed for another 20 years is of great concern to county residents. And the cost! With billions of taxpayer dollars guaranteed to the nuclear industry and no way to guarantee radioactive waste can be safely stored for millennia, I say this is too much of a gamble to bet on.

---


Ag and open space is the top priority

Bill Denneen - Nipomo

It is not often when I agree with Andy Caldwell but his commentary (“Will our SLO lifestyle suffer a SLO death,” Feb. 18) hits the nail on the head. It deals with the state requirement for every community to accommodate its share of growth: “this despite the fact that not every community has adequate water, sewage, and transportation infrastructure to accommodate such growth”. Agriculture and open space must be our top priorities—not “slurbanization.”

---


Ag and open space is the top priority

Bill Denneen - Nipomo

It is not often when I agree with Andy Caldwell but his commentary (“Will our SLO lifestyle suffer a SLO death,” Feb. 18) hits the nail on the head. It deals with the state requirement for every community to accommodate its share of growth: “this despite the fact that not every community has adequate water, sewage, and transportation infrastructure to accommodate such growth”. Agriculture and open space must be our top priorities—not “slurbanization.”

---

Congressional districts should be increased

Gerald Manata - Paso Robles

I have always been troubled by the idea of using campaign finance laws to try to combat big corporate spending in political campaigns. The current laws are complex and easily evaded and corrupted by the big money spenders anyway, and then there is the issue of free speech.


The millions of dollars necessary for Congressional campaigns pay for TV and radio ads, written propaganda, rent on a dozen or more local offices, their staff and equipment, etc. The Congressional districts are so large that this is the only way to reach all the people effectively.


With grass roots democracy, however, money is largely irrelevant. If districts were small enough to the point where a candidate could talk directly to all the voters personally in a campaign season, one wouldn’t need big money to run, and its use by the opposition would be negated.

The downside of this, however, could be an unwieldy House of Representatives with 10,000 or so members. Perhaps the districts could be subdivided into, say, 10 elector districts, with the people voting for their elector. The 10 electors, in turn, could vote for the district representative.

And then there is the Senate. Here is where big money really talks and is needed. Haven’t we outgrown the historic need for this body? Let’s just get rid of it.

---

Testing the water

Richard Strasburg
 - Morro Bay

If I play the war card and promise to start at least one war every year, can I be President?

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Cliff Branch - San Luis Obispo


Editor’s note:  New Times received many letters in response to the contributed commentary “Confession of a homophobe,” which appeared in the Feb. 25 edition; too many to publish in print this week, even in the extra space especially allotted. The letters continue at newtimesslo.com. All of the responses except one strongly criticize or mock the opinions expressed in the commentary. Headlines have been omitted.

How sad: As the editor, you chose to have New Times feature a rambling diatribe from a homophobe (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25). Would you have featured a similar essay from someone who wrote a hateful rant about African Americans or some other minority?  I can only conclude you secretly want to promote this point of view or you simply want to stir up controversy. Either way, you should be embarrassed.  


---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Lindsey Dias - Paso Robles

I just picked up New Times and I believe it may be the last time I do so. I am utterly appalled you would allow Otis Page’s opinion to be displayed so large in your newspaper (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25) along with a photo as though it deserves such a spotlight. This type of anti-gay commentary shouldn’t even go into print. I understand this is the opinion section of the paper and everyone is rightfully entitled to his/her opinion but please, this one individual’s thoughts/ideas are extremely offensive and frankly, horrible to consider. Why would New Times support such viewpoints by allowing them the opportunity to be read by thousands of people? Shame on anyone involved in allowing this obscene commentary to be printed in what I used to view as a good newspaper.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Rev. Curt Miner - San Luis Obispo

Given New Times’ usual progressive/tolerant stance on most issues, I was very surprised to read “Confession of a homophobe” in your Feb. 25 edition. Although I support Otis Page’s First Amendment rights, I also support responsible reporting and journalism practices: Printing such a commentary as this, which is largely based on bigotry,
irrational fear (the definition of a phobia, as it turns out), ignorance, and misinformation does not represent responsible journalistic practices
on your part, in my opinion. I hope this is not a sign of the “Times” about what we can expect in future editions.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Fred Hornaday - San Luis Obispo

Thank you for allowing Otis Page to clarify his prejudice in the opinion pages (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb.25) for it is a prejudice still held by many. Blinded by a religious fervor, they fail to see their own spiritual poverty, fail to recognize true love among others, and remain incapable of unconditional love themselves. May their intolerance serve to remind us how far we’ve come since the days of Jim Crow, universal male suffrage, and the prohibition of mixed-race marriage—all of which were upheld according to the same righteous devotion extolled by Page. In the name of Jesus Christ, he should let go of his divisive anger. His piety could be so much better directed at ending the war, instead of trying to stop love.    


---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Ken Goodman - Arroyo Grande

The issue not included in the commentary “Confession of a Homophobe” (Feb. 25) is the intimidation by homosexuals against those who are critical of their agenda. This was evident with Prop. 8, when homosexuals forcefully reacted against the Mormons and Catholics who supported the measure. This intimidation was substantiated in the media and in the recent Federal Court hearing on Prop. 8 heard in San Francisco.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Charles Myers, William Donovan - Baywood Park

Judging by his “Confession of a homophobe” commentary (Feb. 25), it seems Otis Page has thought about our sexuality tirelessly of late. Despite his fixation on what we may or may not do as same-sex partners (and he does express rather rich and specific imaginings in his article), we never concern ourselves with his sexual practices.
 
Evidently, Page is convinced that we and other gay U.S. citizens want him to express his sexuality differently. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply wish to participate fully and equally in the social institutions favored by the United States Government. We desire equal treatment under the law. We leave Otis to his fantasy world: He seems so devoted to it.


---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Ben Allen - Boston, Mass.

The goal of the LGBT civil rights movement is simply to gain the same legal protection for our romantic and intimate relationships that’s currently given to heterosexuals. To suggest we are trying to encourage heterosexuals to engage in same-sex relationships is a ridiculous fantasy (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb.25).  Why would we care?

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Janice Mundee - Templeton

Otis Page knows just enough big words to be dangerous. His commentary, “Confession of a homophobe” (Feb. 25), is filled with illogical generalizations. Mainly, he worries that the legalization of gay marriage will have everyone dabbling in homosexuality, so that the world becomes one big, hedonistic, crazy, sexually laden love fest.

In answer to that, let’s take someone like me. Unlike Page, I fully support gay rights and the right of gay persons to be married. Unlike Page, I do not fixate on what goes on between two adults in the sexual arena. Frankly, it’s none of my business. Yet, despite my support and overall acceptance of homosexual rights, I have no interest in becoming gay or in experiencing sex with another woman. Whether gay marriage becomes legal or not, my private life will remain between me and my husband.

I hate to say this to Page, but it has been my experience thatsometimes those who are the most vociferous against gay folks, tend to have a strain of gayness themselves, which they are attempting to denyor suppress. It’s like they can’t accept their own gayness, so theyreach out to attack and destroy. In his commentary, Page wrote he believes that the legalization of homosexuality would result in “heterosexuals ... indulging in same-sex excursions.” To me, this says volumes—not about what society would do, but really what he would do. My take is that if gay marriage were legalized, he would feel compelled to jump on over and experience the other side. Page, life is too short: I say it’s time to accept your sexuality now, and stop waiting for Uncle Sam’s permission!

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Ann Calhoun - Los Osos

I’m so glad Otis Page finally explained his homophobia (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25). For years, he’s regularly written to express his opposition to all things gay, but he never made it clear just what it was about “The Gay” that bothered him so much. 

Now, with his “confession,” his fears are clear: Page believes that if all legal and social restraints against gay people are lifted, “ … what excuse would a heterosexual have in not indulging in same-sex sexual excursions?” In other words, lift society’s legal and social opprobrium against gay people, and straight people (including himself?) would suddenly be unable to contain their suppressed sexual urgings and would want to have sex with gay people. 

I’ve long suspected that repressed (and feared and hated) homosexuality was at the heart of homophobia, but it was refreshing to read a confession that finally spelled it out so clearly and honestly.  Now Page’s future jeremiads will make a little more sense. But I’m afraid he’s going to be in for a huge disappointment: Granting gay people equal legal rights and social respect as full citizens won’t cause straight people to go gay, and won’t stop Page’s forbidden, fearful urges.  

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Jim Mallon - San Luis Obispo

As Paul Simon would say, Otis Page (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25) is a One Trick Pony: “He gives his testimony / Then he relaxes in the weeds / He’s got one trick to last a lifetime / That’s all a pony needs.”  I was going to quote Shakespeare (“The lady doth protest too much”) but why waste the Bard’s talents on such a sad little man?


---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Allan Cooper - San Luis Obispo


Otis Page has presented us with an astonishing dilemma (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25). He concludes that when gays attain equal rights he, and presumably all other heterosexuals, will be forced to commit acts of sodomy in order to avoid being labeled homophobes! I am now convinced he has a screw missing somewhere. I wonder whether it everoccurred to him that given his “logic” all practicing homosexuals would have to be heterophobes. This is clearly not the case.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Dan Williams - Arroyo Grande

Tell Otis Page he’s off his rocker (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25). First point: In no way whatsoever would any LGBT person expect or want straight people to change the way they love. No LGBT person is going to get upset if anyone doesn’t engage in homosexual or bisexual activities. Gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals are not asking us to change, they just want to be able to be like us, and love how they are designed to love. Pop culture is the source encouraging straight people to experiment with homosexuality/bisexuality activities, especially young girls.

Second point: It is not a choice to be gay. Why would anyone choose to live so difficult a life? Love is hard enough to find, limiting it even more would be crazy. Every LGBT person I know knows it is not a choice. And yes, it happens among animals. It is a hormonal anomaly that changes what type of pheromones a person/animal is attracted to. Gays just happen to be attracted to the hormones of the same gender. It’s not something that can be wished away. To choose it would be wrong, but nearly all of the time it is not a choice.
    

I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus taught us to love everyone, and not judge. Leave judgment to God. We don’t have the right to say someone can’t love.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Patrick Mallon - San Luis Obispo

The funniest part about Otis Page’s opinion piece “Confession of a homophobe” (Feb. 25) was his admission that he might be “belaboring the point.” You think? Page has been writing this same drivel for years. I used to spend time writing pithy responses refuting his illogical points about the “homosexual agenda” but it became so tiring  that I finally just wrote a Mad Lib about Otis so that others might  pick up the mantle (New Times, April 25, 2007). Alas, he’s still at  it. But I think I finally see what the problem is and why he is so  vehemently opposed to any form of recognition or tolerance for homosexuals.

He gave himself away in his latest diatribe with this  statement: “With homosexuality being legally recognized and accepted  by society, what excuse would a heterosexual have in not indulging in  same-sex sexual excursions?” And there it is: Page is afraid that if  homosexuality gains societal acceptance, his resolve is going to weaken and he will finally give in and go Brokeback Mountain with some longstanding but heretofore unknown male crush. He should just go for it.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Steve Hardy - Oceano

Regarding the commentary by Otis Page (Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25), methinks he doth protest too much!    

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Chris Harmon - San Luis Obispo

The civil rights movement’s mission was not to make everyone black, but rather to end the institutionalized discrimination and the pervasive racism that perhaps still runs rampant in many parts of this country. Do racists still exist? Sure, and it’s not illegal to be one, though it may be illegal to act on that racism.


The same can be said about the current equality issues being fought by such homosexual rights groups as Equality California and the Human Rights Campaign—what Otis Page (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25) would call, “the homosexual agenda.” Their goal is to eliminate institutional discrimination against homosexuals in such areas as marriage and military service. It is most certainly not to make everyone “indulge in same-sex sexual behavior” as argued by Page.

Page’s commentary is so riddled with logical fallacies (especially his overuse of “slippery slope” arguments) that he convincingly paints himself as a homophobe. His lack of logic is irrational and is based on fears of what might happen to heterosexuals if certain rights are extended to homosexuals. To have irrational fears is to be phobic, and when you have irrational fears about homosexuals, that’s homophobic. QED, Page is a homophobe. Thanks for clarifying that for us, Page.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Gina DeGirolamo - Paso Robles

When I picked up the Feb. 25 edition of the New Times, I was curious to read the commentary advertised on the cover “A homophobe confesses his bias.” I thought I was going to be reading something that was possibly enlightening and, with some sarcastic humor, be supportive of the gay equal rights movement. Instead I found the illogical, discriminatory remarks of the self-confessed homophobe. If I didn’t think this article was so absurd, I would find it very upsetting. While I am quite disappointed in an open-minded paper like New Times printing this article I am happy to respond to Otis Page’s gibberish.

As a 47-year-old gay woman I must say I never considered I should expect heterosexuals to conform to my way of living as Page suggests in his argument against gay marriage. If he chooses to keep his homophobic agenda, it is his Constitutional right to do so. The so-called issue he brings up is absurd: “With homosexuality being legally recognized and accepted by society what excuse would a heterosexual have in not indulging in same-sex sexual excursions?” Well, Page, I would imagine the excuse would be the same as it has always been and that is, it is not a heterosexual’s interest or indulgence. It is a homosexual’s interest and indulgence.

His concern for himself as a heterosexual is pretty typical of turning and twisting this issue around. The only people who are being affected by not making same-sex marriage legal are homosexuals. And the only people who will be affected by making same-sex marriage legal are homosexuals. 

Page suggests that the homosexual community has an “agenda” to manipulate heterosexuals into becoming homosexual. Homophobia has nothing to do with whether or not anyone participates in same sex relationships. It has to do with the unnatural fear of homosexuality. Once same sex marriage becomes legal I can assure Page the gay community will not expect him, or young people, to participate in same-sex relationships any more than we would expect him to rid himself of his homophobia. I believe the same Constitution I expect will protect me and grant me the same rights as every other citizen will grant him protection under the First Amendment to continue his homophobic diatribe.

I am not sure how he tied together homophobia and heterosexuals when he stated “It is reasonable to conclude that a heterosexual’s refusal to not actually indulge in same sex sexual behavior would be the basis of being again accused of homophobia.” I have many heterosexual friends and family members (like my parents) who do not participate in same-sex sexual behavior and I do not consider them homophobic. Do not fret Page, you will always have the right to be a heterosexual homophobe. 


---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Stephen R. Marsden - Los Osos

If there is a prize for arrogance all other contenders should despair. Otis Page (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25) is certain he is right and people who disagree with him are wrong (a charitable predicate adjective, considering his point of view). Natural Law is on his side; all questions about human nature and the obvious fact that humans are far more than their biology aside. He has fabricated and presumes to speak for a god on his side who’s entrapped in a tiny box.

I politely decline to subscribe to his tidy little model of nature and I certainly will not bow to the merciless and petty little Baal he constructed. I will stake my 34 years of faithful love for one man against all of his small-minded condemnations. In all my life I was never once tempted to experiment with heterosexuality, though I must acknowledge temptations, promptings, and legal sanctions aplenty exist. If I—a blatant degenerate and sinner damned by his god—were able to control myself, then perhaps he should be lecturing people who raise children who have neither self-control nor a moral compass, instead of vilifying people like me.

I had good parents, teachers, and mentors who taught me to live decently and to love fiercely. I have the gift of faith in a God actually worth the title. Yes, I made a “choice” many years ago. I chose to live an authentic life, not a lie. I chose not to deceive some hapless woman so I might “pass” and spare myself the costs of the acceptance of the gift I was given. I chose to walk humbly before a transcendent God rather than invent a god of my own that would make all of my choices “right.”

The late Jacob Bronowski wrote about the conflict between actual knowledge and the “certainty” that ideologues like Page trade on as truth. In that essay he quotes Oliver Cromwell, writing to the Presbyterians in Scotland: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” We might all do well to ponder those words.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

John Knight - San Luis Obispo

I would like to thank Otis Page for his enlightening comments concerning the long-term consequences of tolerating homosexuality (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25). I myself have seen the ill effects of tolerance and acceptance firsthand. I had the misfortune of being born to parents who were committed to a specific “agenda” who made sure I was indoctrinated at a young age to support their views. Before I knew it I was attending weekly “rallies,” listening to propagandistic lectures, and memorizing sections of their manifesto. I had many friends who, because it was legal and accepted by society, began “experimenting” with the church; sadly, some are still weekly attendees.

I was able to break free, but I fear my children may one day be tempted to join this lifestyle, drawn by the lure of communion snacks, not knowing the slippery slope. If only more people could see like Page, that if people are given the liberty of choice, they might actually make their own decisions.  And what kind of world would that be?


---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Gloria Wilson - Paso Robles

When Otis Page described what he believes would be the consequences of gay rights (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25) he was obviously writing from fear. His fear that gay people would take away his rights makes him a homophobe. If he honestly feels that engaging in sex with another man is an “indulgence,” then that means he must be gay or bisexual. Unless a person is in denial about their sexuality, there is no reason that person should fear they will be seduced and encouraged into “sin.” He claimed to have no hate for homosexuals, yet had no hesitation stereotyping them. If he feels promiscuity is a problem in the gay community, then why not vote for gay marriage! Marriage is about love, not sex.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

John Fiore - San Luis Obispo

In his commentary “Confession of a homophobe” (Feb. 25) Otis Page’s first assumption is that he is accused of being a homophobe because he believes sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I believe he is accused of being a homophobe because he writes about homosexual practices so much.

He assumes he is the arbiter of what is moral but I recommend Page should kiss off, unless he wants to detail his sexual practices. His house of cards falls down with his first sentence. Shame on New Times for giving him space.

Page presumes there is a campaign to influence and indoctrinate youngsters to become homosexual, that legalizing same-sex marriage would silence critics. He stated that if one wouldn’t try same-sex acts, they would be accused of being a homophobe. I don’t know any straight person, including myself, who cares to try sex with anyone of the same sex, because that is not how we were born. There are those who experiment, but a minority who won’t create children does not threaten the propagation of humans.
Having children and raising them to the point where they can have children, while considering the effects of increased population on the Earth, is what is essential to prolonging our species. Let’s focus on how best to parent and take care of our Earth.

Page believes criticism of the homosexual lifestyle might be censored and even made illegal. The same First Amendment rights he stands on apply, and we should all welcome and even fight for his right to speak his opinion. New Times is just inciting us all by printing this opinion that has no facts behind it. The real question is why I was compelled to read it. New Times may as well have printed a commentary from a Holocaust denier, maybe from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We should not be subjected to the same old rant with no facts and no substance. Let’s get out of people’s bedrooms and give equal rights to everyone.

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Merle Bassett - Cambria

Had Otis Page (“Confession of a homophobe,” Feb. 25) bothered to research the definition of the word “homophobia,” he might not have confessed to being a homophobe. Homophobia: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.”

No one is accusing him of hating gays as that emotion is not included in the definition. The definition of the word “irrational” is: “not logical or reasonable.” And that is what Page’s commentary is—not logical or reasonable. Gay men and women do not want special treatment or to be tolerated. The homosexual agenda is the same as the heterosexual agenda: to be afforded one’s civil rights, no more and no less. Not included on the agenda is “teaching” children how to become homosexuals. That cannot be taught anymore than heterosexuality can be. Page’s commentary poses many questions and I have one for him. When will he give up his irrational ideas about morality and sexuality?

---

re: Confessions of a homophobe

Caylin Daniel Post -

You certainly found yourself an inflammatory bigot to publish and I have to say I am incensed. Although I do not expect you to publish an article from a 23-year-old gay street kid with no formal education in writing, I figured I would give it a shot. I would appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion to Otis Page’s commentary (“Confession of a homophobe, Feb. 25).


I wear a coat of many colors but my mama didn’t make it for me. It is a patchwork that tells the story of my life, each piece representing something important I wish to remember. Stitched to my left pocket is a piece of white cloth with two red rings joined by an equal sign, symbolizing marriage equality.

As I tear the filter off the Marlboro Light in my hand (close encounters with toxic sludge leave me wanting something a little stronger) I see there are people who claim to understand their First Amendment rights. I can’t help but disagree as I think of a quote I heard in high school: “Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins.”
I feel as if I’ve just been punched in the face.

There is an evident trend of acceptance for a small group of people —homosexuals—who want nothing more than equality. There is also a group opposed to this, who seeks to undermine their efforts. Throughout the history of this country, many groups have struggled for the same thing. Women, the native inhabitants of this continent, those taken from their homelands in bondage to serve as slaves, and many others as well: all attacked while struggling to overcome the same ignorance, fear, and intolerance from a group that singled them out because of a chromosome or a pigment, for being different. They fought an uphill battle to stand as equals when their only crime was being born.

There are countries today where groups of people are persecuted for their choice to worship a specific deity. Most Americans abhor the oppressors, shaking their fingers and giving stern looks. And yet, many of those same Americans denounce homosexuals living on the same soil, screaming, “It’s your choice. Shame on you!” A choice? Please ask the confused teenagers all over the world who feel utterly alone, as they repeat the mantra: Why am I like this? Ask them if it is a choice.
There are those who claim to want to protect the future of our nation: the youth. Yet the suicide rate among homosexual teens is higher than that of their socially and morally acceptable counterparts. Why?

It couldn’t be because of the rampant homophobic vitriol spewed by the hate-mongers convincing them they are disgusting, evil, abominations unfit to live and destined to burn, could it?

Above all else, they are concerned about the children. The majority that supported Proposition 8 demonstrated their benevolence toward the youngsters of town by passing out bright yellow balloons emblazoned with bright blue words of hate as they walked around dressed up as princesses and pirates to stuff their plastic pumpkins full of candy on Halloween. Downright dirty tricks, fear tactics, and overt lies were the weapons of those who opposed equality. And now there are those who have the nerve to label our struggle as The Homosexual Agenda and accuse us of using propaganda to further our cause.

There was work being done. Work to dispel untruths and provide information to a majority that simply did not understand. People who didn’t realize their friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives who are homosexual want nothing more than to be accepted for who they are and considered as equal in the eyes of the law without having to worry about being harassed, assaulted, or killed. How a quest for acceptance could be demonized to the point of being considered a campaign to defile the minds of children, corrupt the morals of teenagers, and destroy the institution of marriage is simply beyond my ability to comprehend.

To make blanket statements about all gay men, stereotyping them as half-naked, sex-crazed, exhibitionists is not only unfair, it is wrong.
I know many homosexual men who are in long-term, monogamous relationships. Some are even happily one piece of a non-traditional family puzzle. This isn’t causing opposite-sex couples to end their marriages in divorce (although everyone loves a scapegoat) or society to come crumbling down around conservative ears--not any more than wet T-shirt contests and other examples of heterosexual debauchery, at least.

Gay pride events are exactly what the name states: being proud to be yourself no matter whether as a gay man, lesbian woman, bisexual person, transgendered individual, or straight ally (yes, it is possible to accept others, even though they are different, without becoming tainted.) It is a celebration of life and love, not some recruitment zone to ensnare sons and shave daughters’ hair.


The question Page raised “what excuse would a heterosexual have in not indulging in same-sex sexual excursions,” if being homosexual became socially acceptable, is a fine display of melodramatics. Bravo. Heterosexuality is the socially acceptable norm, as no one denies. Homosexuals are presented with an overwhelming surge of pressure on a daily basis to conform to society and be “normal” by its standards. If such pressure were really a threat than the whole homosexual epidemic would have been nullified as homosexuals succumbed and began practicing traditional, socially acceptable, opposite-sex practices.

There are those who will try to use the term “homophobe” ironically and act as though they are being unjustly labeled. They will say that future charges of homophobia will not end and they are correct.

The reason is simple: Homophobia will not end. They should not cry out for sympathy. They are not being called faggots and queers because of something they cannot control. They are being called homophobes: They earn their title and they should wear it with pride.



---