Dear Editor:

I would like to respond to the unfair criticism leveled against District 3 Councilmember Todd Gloria in last week’s Letter to the Editor.

Todd Gloria has taken a firm and vocal stance against Proposition 8. I was one of the organizers of the Join the Impact protest that was held on November 15, 2008 and Todd not only marched with his fellow San Diegans in protest of Proposition 8, but also gave a rousing and emotional speech at the rally. In addition, Todd has been very visible around our city, attending numerous functions as a representative of both District 3 and our LGBT community.

Regarding the protest held on March 4, 2009, this protest was held mid-week during working hours. It was difficult for many people to attend the protest and it was announced at the protest that Todd was tied up in an important City Council committee meeting. I think it is unreasonable and irresponsible to suggest Todd should have skipped his duties as an elected official to attend a protest. In fact, it could potentially be counter-productive to our cause if the public believes our elected LGBT officials are eschewing their duties in favor of personal issues.

The letter also implies that somehow Todd was responsible for the City of San Diego not filing an Amicus Brief with the California Supreme Court. An Amicus Brief is a legal opinion filed by someone who is not a party to the case. However, the City of San Diego is in fact a party to the lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. Being a party to the lawsuit shows a level of support for gay marriage rights that far exceed an Amicus Brief.

Lastly, may I mention that Todd led the effort to get the San Diego City Council to support Senate Bill 572 which designates May 22 as “Harvey Milk Day” in the State of California.

To suggest Todd is not advocating for our community is not only unfair, but blatantly false.

Nicholas Moede

Dear Editor:

Your editorial of 3-19 was so very inspirational promising and challengeing personal best. I found it extremely insightful of you to acknowledge that though dialog “[our] publication—-can achieve its goal of proving [ourselves] with relevant meaningful information and analysis of those issues affecting our community.” I will certainly take to heart your pledge to “work to make sure all sides are given a voice and that all voices are heard.” Raising the bar of this esteemed news magazine is quite a noble goal and your dedication to service will no drought out shine ALL those before you. Congratulations on becoming the editor de juor.

This is at least the forth time in five years I have read this same crap from an incoming editor. The fact is this publication, or more accurately your publisher, does not allow discourse. Oh sure, one can be a lame ass gossip columnist and call a fellow drag queen “an ugly man in a dress” or one can argue whether dykes on bikes should be at the front of the parade, but just bring up the abject failure of this very community regarding HIV infection amongst our youth or question the hypocrisy woven into what has become the “industry of AIDS,” and any meaningful honest dialog is no where to be heard.

It would not bother me so much that letters still trickle-in misrepresenting the closure of Club 2200 accept that this publication has never reported all the facts. There has been a real effort to turn the incident into some kind of “San Diego Stonewall.” Blame the big bad police chief! Blame the ignorant mayor! Blame the over zealous city attorney! Blame anyone not in that mirror!!!

I was there. I kept the case from becoming lost in a bureaucratic black hole. I acted in what I believe to be the best interest of my community when I contacted the fire, health and police departments. In a fascinating civics lesson in local politics, I now better understand the roles of SD City Code Enforcement vs. the City Attorney, civil vs. criminal court. YET not one of your “BEST” reporter ever ask me even ONE damn question.

Ultimately the operators of Club 2200 VOLUNTARILY closed at the end of April 2007. They had had until then to correct the substandard electrical work that had been done without the proper permits.They CHOSE not to conform with state codes as dictated by the California Electrical Safety Orders. I have purposely withheld this last fact just to see how far the lies would go. Along with everything else, the place was a fire trap.

You stated that you would “continue to stand guard to the guards.” I will end with the same question with which you began. “Who shall stand guard to the guards themselves?” This is yet to be answered.

Kevin McCarthy