Dear Editor:

Thank you Diane Witkowski for your astute Creep of the Week choice: Justice Antonin Scalia. Barney Frank was characteristically fearless and totally accurate in calling out Scalia as a homophobe. In fact Barney didn’t go far enough in exposing this errant knave who has disgraced our highest Court for far too long. Scalia is not just a homophobe on the bench. He has arrogantly displayed his anti-gay prejudices in public, even when he is supposedly dispassionately deciding Court cases crucial to LGBT equality. For example, in a 2004 op-ed, “Beyond the Duck Blind”-the title refers to Scalia’s cozy hunting trips with VP Cheney-the staid NYT described how Scalia “delivered a speech to a $150-a-plate dinner of an anti-gay advocacy group in Philadelphia even as the Supreme Court was deliberating in the Texas sodomy case last year.” It’s hardly surprising that he voted against our constitutional rights in Lawrence and Romer as Ms. Witkowski describes. There have also been reports that Scalia will not allow tape or video recording of his public addresses, apparently for very good reason. Maybe GLT could initiate another feature, Creep of the Week to Impeach? Antonin Scalia is my first choice for impeachment.

Charlie Pratt

Dear Editor,

I would like to compliment you and your staff for providing a copy of the Gay & Lesbian Times Digital Edition. I’m sure this on-line version will be of value to many of your readers but perhaps more so for those members of our community who are seniors, home-bound or visually impaired who will be able to benefit from the ‘zoom’ capability. Welcome to the digital age – and thank you.

Tom Kirkman

Executive Director

The S.A.G.E. Center

Dear Editor:

Perhaps instead of friends of Ann Garwood’s and Nancy Moors’ and readers loyal to the paper continue to trade barbs in cyberspace on the G&L Times website, how about the editor invites the entrepreneurs to the office for a story interview regarding the Hillcrest Business Improvement Association and how all parties might move forward to benefit the neighborhood in partnership with the Hillcrest Town Council and community at large?

And perhaps part of that resolution would be to donate the sum mentioned in the paper’s editorial – in cash and not in-kind – to a worthy community nonprofit benefiting the less fortunate folks in Hillcrest, eh?

Lee A. Schoenbart

Dear Editor:

Regarding, your editorial on the Hillcrest Business Association and the Hillcrest Town Council, “Same-sex or not, nepotism is still nepotism”, what does the GLT expect of these ELECTED, UNPAID, VOLUNTEERS, to stop doing business in Hillcrest? Abstaining from the HBIA vote wasn’t good enough?

As members of the Hillcrest community, I would like to know exactly how much of their own time have the GLT editors and staff donated to these organizations? I don’t recall seeing any of their names on the recent Hillcrest Town Council ballot.

Tim Gahagan

Dear Editor,

I have never written to the GLT before, but last week’s editorial on Ann Garwood and Nancy Moors was really over the top. These two individuals have done more for the community in creating a positive environment than any other people I can think of. Not only do they live in Hillcrest, but they work actively to make our neighborhood a better place to live. They spearhead the periodic Hillcrest clean-up days and maintain the HillQuest web resource to neighborhood events and information on our community. Nancy and Ann are role models and examples of true leadership at the grass roots local level.

Sam Dunlap

Dear Editor,

The Hillcrest Town Council (HTC) is happy to have Ann Garwood and Nancy Moors as Board members, and contrary to your publication; their participation is not problematic. The HTC has an open election process for the residents of the Hillcrest community. Both members were elected to the board fairly and most likely for their continued and unending passion for nothing but the best for Hillcrest. I don’t find a problem with a democratic process where community members just have to show up to vote or voice their opinions.

We love Ann and Nancy and know they will continue to make great contributions to our community.

Regards,

John Taylor

Chair, Hillcrest Town Council

Dear Editor:

I have multiple reasons as to why I find using Robert’s death as a political vendetta against Stepping Stone to be repugnant. I want you to be aware of the great emotional turmoil this bashing has caused the residents of Enya House. As Enya House residents we are seeking to move on from all of this–giving the negativity no more power. Stepping Stone has had its past of poor decisions. John de Miranda has been at Stepping Stone for a short period of time. The mud being slung at him is inappropriate and unjust. I have had occasion to speak with John de Miranda about making some changes in policy. He took swift action; keeping me informed of developments. John de Miranda selected Catherine Aquino over Enya House with discerning wisdom. Because of de Miranda and Aquino’s policies, Enya House is functioning with greater peace than I could have ever hoped for. Let the past go and allow de Miranda to make the changes he was hired to do!

Sincerely,

Sebastian T. Xavier

Enya House Resident

Dear Editor:

In a posting of the letter’s section of the G&L Times, a respondent names “Kevin” got it mostly correct, typos and all, and so did a lot of the commentary blowing off steam about the “Coming Clean” piece in the paper.

While the paper may have made generous donations to a most worthwhile community organization such as Stepping Stone’s residential program, and other folks who wish to remain anonymous are still feeling very raw over a tragic death in the community, perhaps the larger issue here is that the G&L Times should have launched a thorough investigation to write an appropriate news story and not inflame those closest to the organization and the victim without all the facts.

The publication’s reader’s poll demonizing Stepping Stone also added to the frayed nerves and further division throughout the community.

Instead of feasting on each other, the community and its leaders – including the publisher of the paper and the board of the organization – should come together to figure out what is and isn’t working at Stepping Stone, why, how to correct the problems and not at the expense of the folks seeking and/or in treatment

Sincerely,

Lee A. Schoenbart

Dear Editor:

I was so disappointed with your article about Ann Garwood and Nancy Moors. Two woman who I have known for about 5 years now. They are examples of how people can be an asset to a community in so many ways, and you painted a picture that was just the opposite. Their hearts are good and the word unethical should not even appear anywhere near their names.

The same qualities that make Ann (or Nancy) a person who can make a difference in a community are the same qualities that allow them to want to be part of HBIA and help them think of ways to promote Hillcrest. To offer space in their HillQuest guide to the organization was merely an idea and an avenue to promote HBIA, and the fact they didn’t vote and later pulled the ad, does that not prove to you they are innocent of what you implied?

The use of the word nepotism was confusing to me. I think it illustrated the fact you were trying hard to make the article dramatic because the facts didn’t support your accusations and implications. These two woman have similar interests, helping their community, so they both serve in an organization that does that, tell me again, why is that nepotism? I feel the word nepotism “implies” putting someone in a place of power that is otherwise unqualified, simply because of their relation to the boss. I can’t imagine you could look at either of these woman’s resumes and tell me they are unqualified. And in this case, who put them in this position, Ann could not have placed Nancy and Nancy could have not placed Ann, so how is this nepotism? See where I am confused. You have accused them of positioning themselves in this organization in order to get a $4800 ad (which probably nets $1000 profit) it’s just absurd and insulting.

Well, I called them after I read your article to say I was upset, Nancy told me they had cried alot that week. Two wonderful ladies, together for like 7 years, buying houses together, fighting cancer, seeing a parent die, having parties, driving in the pride parade, it’s all part of life, but when something hits you like this it is very hurtful, please be more careful in the future.

I have seen my friend Ann sit and talk to homeless people in Balboa park, hey not my thing, but that is who Ann is, and Nancy picks up garbage on University Avenue, that’s who Nancy is....you really got it wrong GLT. Fix it.

Respectfully,

Michael Metzger

Dear Editor:

I read the ‘spot’ that someone put in GLT about Ann Garwood and Nancy Moors.

Hey, some one had to look at that ‘spot’ before it was posted. I was not happy reading something like that. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong media...try Fox News...what a smear.

I have known Ann for about 35 yrs, worked with her, lived next to her and visited Ann & Nancy (for as long as they have been a couple and before).

Because of Ann & Nancy, I have promoted Hillcrest to my friends, donated to various charities that benefit Hillcrest and enjoyed the enthusiasm generated by them about their area.

That little diatribe that someone posted is nothing short of a ‘personal vendetta’ (what else? and not enough nerve to bring up a problem in person???). And you printed it?????????

I personally think you owe the girls an apology for a lapse in judgment.

The Gay Community gets enough hits without having to fend off personal ‘sleaze attacks’ from within. I think in your position you have a duty to not let it happen. Especially when it is not true.

I KNOW Ann did not solicited money from friends when she was sick with cancer. How cruel to attack some one for something like that and even worse...it is not true.

Your ‘bad’, how about fixing it for them. I would feel a lot better about your publication and happy to read it next time I am out there when Annie or Nancy asks me to read something in GLT...as they have done in the past...and I hope they will do again, because you ‘make it right’.

Thanks

Bob Russano

Dear Editor:

I feel compelled to comment of the recent Miss America controversy and the ongoing response to it in the media and the gay and lesbian community.

First and foremost, the question as articulated by Perez Hilton. Why ask a question for which there is only one correct answer if not to precipitate a response that is going to be in opposition to the issue and hence controversial? Mr. Hilton is no naïve; he knew Miss California was a Christian and a conservative. This question was entrapment, pure and simple, in order to put her on the spot and make her chose between stating what was politically palatable or what she actually believes. Why not ask her to calculate pi to the thirteenth decimal point if there is one and only one correct response?

Secondly, Miss America’s response was nearly identical to those articulated by President Barrack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and over half of the voting residents of California. She didn’t say that homosexuality was inherently wrong or immoral or that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against or denied full participation and access to the society in which they live and work. She could (and some says should) have given a more nuanced and conciliatory response to the question. Perhaps, but she spoke her conscience in the face of overwhelming animosity, as witnessed by the negative responses from the audience, and I will not condemn her. I think she knew when she started speaking that she was losing any chance of being Miss USA. Perhaps she

deserved to lose the title, I don’t know.

How many of us might say what was ‘safe and convenient’ as opposed to what we felt was ‘right and just’ when faced with this type of pressure and accompanying consequences and how many of us have suffered the hateful slurs and associated violence for unapologetically being who we are?

I find Perez Hilton’s comments concerning Miss America to be absolutely reprehensible.

It is patently unacceptable to degrade Miss California to the status of a stupid bitch or a dumb cunt because she disagrees on a specific political issue for which the entire nation is divided. Would it be appropriate to refer to the sitting president as an ignorant nigger for holding a similar to view to that of Miss California?

Some will point to Miss California’s recent appearance in an anti-Gay marriage ad as vindication for their hatred of this young woman and her beliefs. Consider the possibility that Perez Hilton’s vicious assault propelled her into the political spotlight and, in fact, created her as the spokesperson for “conventional” marriage in California, where were she ignored, she may have well faded into obscurity.

It looks as if the California Supreme Court will rule in favor of Proposition 8 and the amended State constitution will become the law of the land. This makes the future State initiative challenges to the amended constitution much more difficult to overturn. The struggle that confronts us as a community is to engage and convince our opponents in a constructive and measured way to understand and be sympathetic to our point of view.

The current strategy of confrontation is short-sighted and ultimately counter-productive to the goal of legally-recognized Gay marriage in California.

D.L. Kencik

“We should be applauding Mr. Hilton for seizing this opportunity as a means of revealing how insidious discrimination is.”

Dear Editor:

I am writing concerning your editorial from GLT issue 4/30/09, issue 1114, where you stated Mr. Perez Hilton was not helping matters and should have let the issue go quietly into the night. Moreover, suggesting Mr. Hilton was clearly out of line when he ranted on his blog and owes Prejean an apology, is the exact rational that has kept the GLBT community from owning its equal place amongst our heterosexual brothers and sisters, and has allowed the GLBT community to be discriminated against for so long. Not only does your response demonstrate a lack of leadership, but also, the willingness to standby hoping that time will cure all, or worse, politicians will someday swoop-in and save us.

Instead, we should be applauding Mr. Hilton for seizing this opportunity as a means of revealing how insidious discrimination is, even today, and providing a platform to do so. Miss. Prejean’s statements not only offend the GLBT community, they expose a mindset that is a direct violation of our civil rights, far more serious then qualifying as uninformed or ignorant, and therefore deserve the candid response made on Mr. Hilton’s website.

In your column, you state for Perez, this was the cultural equivalent of World War III, and why not, after all, his civil rights are being trampled on and he’s being classified as a second-class citizen. I applaud him for being able to keep his composure and not call Miss. Prejean a bitch during the pageant. This is not an issue of opposing opinions, but rather an assault on or communities’ civil rights. Furthermore, to suggest this is anything less is a slap in the face to the GLBT community, and every other minority group in America.

It is time for the GLBT community to stop hoping others will do the right thing, and instead, start demanding equal treatment under the law. It is time for the GLBT community to stand-up to people like Carrie Prejean, and no longer allow them to excuse their hateful behavior as religious doctrine, or accept the absurd notion that because one was raised to be a bigot, somehow that makes it okay. In my country, in my bible, we are all equal, and therefore must be treated as such.

Regards,

Sonny Jaramillo

San Diego

Response to John Primavera’s Letter to the Editor GLT, Issue 1114, April 30

Dear John,

For a man over 60, it’s a shame you know so little of gay history.

Before you write letters bad mouthing someone you have never seen nor met, you should have done your homework.

Scour the internet and you will not find one place that lists Gore Vidal as the “first openly gay candidate to run for public office in the US.” But you will find 43 listings with Jose Sarria’s name.

These include every GLBT reference web site as well as Wikipedia and other mainstream historical repositories.

Gore Vidal, who to this day refuses to call himself ‘gay’, surely didn’t run for office in 1960 as ‘openly gay’, in fact, he used the name Eugene Gore. Not exactly easy for the public to connect him as Gore Vidal. His ‘gayness’ may have been known to many, but certainly not to the general public at that time.

Yes, Eleanor Roosevelt was at his side campaigning, but mostly because the Democratic Party saw a chance to win a seat in a long held Republican district. As the founder of Americans for Democratic Action, it was part of her duties to campaign for democratic candidates.

Technically, Gore Vidal is not related to the Kennedy’s. He shared a step-father (at different times) with Jacqueline Bouvier. His mothers’ (Nina Gore) second marriage (1935 – 1941) was to Hugh D. Auchincloss. In 1942, Auchincloss third marriage was to Janet Lee Bouvier, the divorced mother of then 12 year old Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. At that time Gore Vidal was living in New Hampshire attending the Phillips Exeter Academy, and after he graduated in 1943, he joined the U. S. Army reserve and served in the Aleutian Islands.

Jose Sarria may have finished 9th, (not 11th as you stated) but in 1961, even in San Francisco, the fact that an openly gay man could get over 5,600 votes, changed political history forever. From that Election Day forward, candidates had to begin to consider what effect the gay voting bloc might have on their election.

Mr. Sarria is not a transvestite. As a Militant Drag Queen in 1961, Sarria was years ahead of the Drag Queens who were in the front lines of the gay rights movement. Stonewall was still 8 years away. He was involved in the creation of the Tavern Guild in 1962, SIR (Society of Individuals Rights) in 1963 and The Imperial Court in 1964. His leadership and presence gave strength to the many who risked their jobs, families and even their lives for the advancement of GLBT rights.

Since you say you have never seen Sarria, obviously you were not helping to advance GLBT rights, but rather only reaped the benefits of what Jose, Harvey Milk, Brad Truax and many others accomplished both publically and politically.

I believe you owe Mr. Murray-Ramirez an apology, as he neither invented nor concocted the firsts accomplished by Jose Sarria, Brad Truax and Harvey Milk.

J. Wilpolt