Dear Editor:

Thank you for printing my two recent letters to the editor. I am gratified by the response and am content that people are talking about this issue. I must respond to the recent Letter from Nicole’s friend of 29 years, the Honorable Al Best.

Your retired honor. Please read my first letter, or my second letter. Do not stoop to parroting what Nicole has said in her column. I have never wished anyone a devastating disease, I only commented on her writings exhibiting characteristics of one with the disease. How many times do I have to say this I never wished him/her Alzheimer’s.

Al Best, you do not know me intimately and you have hurt my lover by discussing private things I told you privately in your letter. People I choose to know intimately would not behave this way. However doing this and recounting storys about body bags still does not change the fact that Nicole was wrong. I did not defame Nicole for her history but for her mistaken opinion and her use of her column in a self serving way.

I do not have to have been active in the community to have the right to say this and someone who was a judge should know the fats before slandering one and accusing one falsely of wishing someone a disease.

Even 10,000 more stories of Nicole’s selfless devotion does not change the fact that she was wrong about this movie. Nicoles reputation good or bad speaks for it self, I did not attempt to do surgery on it, frankly I would think it is not salvagable. Its not like I mentioned trailors in Arizona...

Expressing opinions about the dangers of Hiv or the greatness of this movie were not a mistake.

I do not owe Nicole an apology, tell me that it is untrue that Nicole lives off others generosity, tell me what poor unnamed soul Nicole visits and offers comfort to.

And show me where it is written in Gay 101 that our community does not include even the likes of me who dare to have been married and have children.

And the last time I checked, the Pope did not approve of me or my lover and probably would not care to prescribe acts of contrition, but I would venture that he would agree that HIV is a dangerous disease and Angels was a worthwhile and important movie.

I understand Nicole has done many wonderful things for our community, but she was wrong about this movie.

I Never wished Nicole any disease, Alzheimer’s or otherwise.

I was going to stop writing letters, but felt compelled to respond lies about me.

If you and Nicole say it enough times, it will still not become the truth.

Thank you Gay and Lesbian times for fostering this dialogue.

HIV and Aids is dangerous and deadly, this is the truest fact.

Lets fight this disease and not each other and pray for the day a cure is discovered.

Dennis E. Mayer M.D., F.A.C.S.

Dear Editor:

I was shocked to see another refererence to Dr Dennis Mayer wishing alzheimers disease on someone. I have followed this public discussion from the start and never recall seeing this in print. What is the job of an editor? I think Dr Mayer deserves a line or two from you and implore you to review all the writings and put this part of the discussion to rest.

I was also shocked to see that the Hon Al Best felt compelled to defend Nicole in this forum. The last time I had the pleasure of spending time with Al he recalled stories from long ago about Nicole. My favorite was the one where Nicole was with a client at a construction site and the floor gave out and she ended up on the floor of the floor below. Paramedics were called and administered medical treatment. It makes me wonder how many people publicly commend Nicole and privately condem her. Should Nicole keep her supporters close and her detractors closer.

Gary Fisher Mayer

Dear Editor:

Let me comment on three items in your February 12th issue.

1. In your editorial, you state that “Gays and lesbians can marry, starting as soon as May 17, in Massachusetts!” Not so. As a former resident of that state, I can tell you that Massachusetts law requires a three-day waiting period between the issuance of the license and the actual wedding. Therefore the first day that same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts is May 20th. So if anybody is planning to fly to Massachusetts to be married, take the whole week off!

2. In her article on the 76th Assembly District Primary, Rachel Ralston reported Vince Hall’s assertion that one of his opponents, Heidi von Szeliski, had only helped gay and lesbian rights as a paid consultant seeking billable hours. Ms. von Szeliski replied that “The kinds of projects I have sought out have reflected my personal values.” Ralston did not, unfortunately, pursue the issue of what kinds of projects these were, but the February 11th City Beat reported two of them. One was Ms. Szeliski’s work for Wal-Mart, the low-wage, low benefit, anti-union big box chain, which the managements of Ralphs, Von’s and Albertson’s grocery stores are now using as a pretext to drive down wages and benefits for their own employees; hence the strike. The other was her effort on behalf of Sea World’s successful 1998 attempt to get exempted from San Diego’s height limit on coastal property. Question: if the only billable clients Ms. von Szeliski seeks out are those that reflect her personal values, what is this seemingly anti-labor, anti-environmentalist candidate doing in a Democratic primary? And why is Chris Kehoe, who used to be on the Coastal Commission, endorsing a person with these values?

3. In an article on the Mayoral race, the same reporter refers to the appointment of “Assemblymember Toni Atkins” as Deputy Mayor. Last time I checked, the hard-working Ms. Atkins was still a city councillor. This is the kind of dumb mistake we all make – I made them when I was writing for gay papers in Boston – but the process of editorial checking normally caught them before the article went to press. Who was asleep at the switch?

William A. Koelsch

My son is a 14 year-old gay teenager. He’s smart, kind, honest, decent, and ethical. He’s a member of the Hillcrest Youth Center, where he serves on the Leadership Council, and he takes his duties as a youth leader as seriously as his other responsibilities, including schoolwork, homework, walking the dog, emptying the trash, and keeping his room somewhat livable.

I love him dearly and my hopes and dreams for him are the same as any parents: a good education, a successful career, happiness, good health, a loving partner, and, should he choose, marriage and children.

From when he was quite young I knew that eventually my life would change, and I tried to prepare myself to be ready for the discrimination that I knew he would face, because I recognized he was gay before he did – just as I recognize when he’s about to get sick, when his tantrums are not because he’s being bratty, but because he’s tired or hungry, or running a fever, or just going through the usual teenage angst. When I was young my mom used to say she had eyes in the back of her head – that’s why she knew everything that was going on before I knew it myself. I know now it wasn’t some incredible phenomenon that my mother was blessed with (or cursed with, depending on the circumstances) but plain old “mother’s instinct”, a natural occurrence that begins from the minute you give birth – which is why it’s beyond my comprehension when some (a lot of) parents of gay youth (and adults) are shocked, horrified, distraught and angry when their kids “come out” – but I digress, and that’s another story …

I’m sure by now you’ve read Richard Louv’s piece that ran in the “Opinion” section of Sunday’s Union Tribune: Gay marriage isn’t what it used to be.

Until I read it, I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I was so uneasy about the gay marriage onslaught that is the one of the hottest topics in the press right now – after all, I’m for it, I’ll fight for it, and I want my son to have that choice.

I couldn’t agree more with Louv’s comment “There’s a time for agitation, and a time for common cause…” – I worry that we may be pushing the envelope too far at this time, and that by keeping this topic in the media forefront we will, as Louv suggests, “guarantee another four years of George Bush” – thereby ensuring a judiciary that is not just unfriendly to legalized gay marriage, but is vehemently against it. I hope with all my heart that this will not be the case, but the train has already left the station and it may be going too fast to halt at the next stop.

Anne Bernstein

Dear Editor:

How anyone can endorse a mayoral candidate from the Republican Party is beyond me, in these days where we see our rights being swept away with every Republican election sweep. Your publication has given the thumbs up for Ron Roberts, because he has been a “friend of our community.” Yet, how can you justify endorsing any of the three Republican candidates (which in my mind are virtually interchangeable on EVERY other issue), when their party is that which seeks to amend the constitution so that Gays and Lesbians cannot legally marry in this country. It does not make sense.

Jim Bell, the obvious alternative, has not only pledged full support for any and all of our causes, but he is a man of his word. I have personally seen him rallying with the rest of us, at the No on Prop 22 March, at Gay Pride events, and at all of the Peace Rallys held in and around San Diego. His tireless efforts over the years have enabled him to literally, write the book on how the San Diego/Tijuana Region can easilly become self-sustaining with regards to energy issues among others. The current Mayor as well as the City Council respect him and use his published information when creating policy issues, especially concerning the environment.

Sure, Jim Bell comes from a Green Party background. But unlike your statement in the editorial, he is NOT running as a Green this time around. He is, in fact, running as the ONLY Democrat. With three very strong Republican candidates splitting their vote, Jim Bell has a viable chance to (finally) win the Mayoral seat. This is the reason why I am so puzzled that the Gay and Lesbian Times, or any other Gay paper has not jumped on the opportunity to back Jim’s campaign. You may argue that Jim Bell has “jumped parties” to attempt to win the Mayoral election. You bet he has. Wouldn’t you, if you saw a valid opportunity to win the seat? Our city – our country – needs someone with his Green background.

Please consider publishing my letter in lieu of a retraction on your misstated facts that Jim Bell is running as a Green Party candidate.

Thank you...

Drew Searing

Dear Editor:

I read in this publication that the voter turn out in the March 2000 election for 92103 was at an all time low. I don’t remember the exact number, but I remember being so embarrassed because of the low turnout. Who could blame the low turnout? The Mormon Church implemented an assault on gays with their Prop 22 anti-marriage campaign. At that time, the feeling was hopeless.

Here we are in 2004, and we are faced with another presidential election. This time we simply can not afford a low turnout. In the state of the union address, George Bush called the gay community second class citizens when he said he would support an amendment to change our constitution to ban gay marriages. It does not matter if gay marriage is on your radar screen. Being called a second class citizen should be enough to get you to the polls in both March and November.

What could happen if George B. Bush is elected in 2004? Well, John Ashcroft could be nominated to the Supreme Court. John Ashcroft hates gays, hates dancing, is scared of calico cats, and drapes 100 year old statues at the Department of Justice because he is offended by the statues’ nudity.

I am not saying the Bush has tapped Ashcroft for the job, but since part of Bush’s base is the religious right, that appointment is possible. Based on Bush’s past record, I would not be surprised if Ashcroft is appointed. Ashcroft would be on a mission to destroy the gay community.Congress would be powerless to stop it.

We simply can not afford to sit this election out. The results of elections this year will have effects on our community for yours to come. Lets not have an embarrassing low turn out for this election. It takes 5 minutes, and your one vote could change the world. Just ask people who live in Florida.

If you do get out and vote, take the time that day and make sure that at least five of your fiends have voted. The election is that serious. We need every single vote that we can pull out from under any rock. Now is not the time to be apathetic. Either vote, or allow Bush to make us second class citizens.

Mike Petrogeorge

Dear Editor:

If you’re queer or gay-friendly and voted Schwarzenegger in as our governor because of the “Kennedy connection” and you thought he was more centrist than right-wing – think again.

On national television, which is getting lots of repeated airplay on the news, the Governor equated the rights of gays and lesbians to prove their commitment through marriage with the right to bear assault weapons and sell illegal drugs.

He also believes he can help George Bush win the presidency through California. It has yet to be reported anywhere in the news that Schwarzenegger has asked Bush to force the FERC to return the state’s $10 billion from the electricity deregulation nightmare. The return of $10 billion would certainly ease the state’s fiscal woes without having to vote in favor of the $15 billion the governor is asking us to do.

All Californians, regardless of party affiliation, would be wise to remember the $10 billion owed us, as well as the president’s close special-interest ties with Enron’s brass, by not voting for Bush.

Do you still want your representatives in Washington to amend our Constitution to allow foreign-born characters like Schwarzenegger to hold our country’s highest office while making it illegal for a portion of the population to marry? I think not!

Lee A. Schoenbart

Dear Editor:

How much longer can you stay in this abusive relationship? How much longer will you support a party that stabs you in the back every chance they get? This is a dysfunctional family at its worst. You helped Bush get into the White House and look how he has rewarded you! You cannot support this man again!

Denise McCanles