Dear Editor:

Until July of 2004 I lived in Boston and wached the Catholic priest scandel unfold each and every day; finally, pedophile priests were removed from their duties, arrests made, trials commenced, the arrogant and lying Cardinal Law dethroned, and the Roman Catholic church forced to pay for the sins of its priests- both the pedophiles and the leaders who knew, ignored, and moved the priests from parish to parish. I saw the sins of the Catholic church spread nationwide, then worldwide and knew the issues would continue for years. I thought the Catholic church had hit bottom...until this week.

The denial by Bishop Brom to allow a Catholic funeral for John McCusker hit a new low; Brom now thinks he (or the Roman Catholic Church) is the enforcer of business practices and even advertising. No trial, no jury...just Judge Brom. Is he going to deny Cathloic burial to the owners of pharmacies and stores that sell condoms and adult books, medical workers that assist at abortions, restaurant owners and workers that cater to gay clients, theatre owners who allow gay productions, health workers and teachers that instruct on the use of condoms, etc? Now the Bishop states the business owned by McCusker even enticed adults in with slogans like.. “Tired of playing with boys? Come play with men!”. Perhaps if alot of priests had followed this slogan, the Catholic church would be in better standing financially and morally than it is today.

John Mc Cusker, I didn’t know you, nor do I know Bishop Brom. I would rather have known you because you led a good, decent life, filled with love, compassion, equality and forgiveness....virtues that escape Bishop Brom.

William F. Reed

Dear Editor:

We applaud Bishop Robert Brom’s decision to personally celebrate the funeral mass of gay nightclub owner John McCusker. Having met Bishop Brom on occasion, he has always impressed us as a thoughtful, skilled leader of our diocese. He is one of the finest homilists we have ever had the pleasure of hearing. His original choice to deny the McCusker family a mass in San Diego seemed odd – both for him and the church. His reversal and apology are greatly appreciated. We believe they reflect the Bishop's true character.

The bishop now has the opportunity to maintain and enhance an ongoing dialogue with San Diego’s Catholic gay and lesbian community at the diocesan level. This chance should not be squandered. The Catholic Church is large enough for all to fit. Its strength in part, is its diversity. Rather than a sad stumbling point, the McCusker situation could usher in an era of greater understanding and compassion. How “Christian” that would be!

Jim Abbott

Dear Editor:

Outrage is not a usual emotion for me; however, when I heard of the Bishop forbidding the Catholic Churches to hold a memorial service for John McCusker, outrage is the only word I can describe for my feelings.

This is the same Catholic church that has allowed services for mafia bosses, yet using as an excuse the fact that they didn’t approve of John’s business? Is that more important than John, a loving soul, serving on the Human Dignity Foundation or giving generously of his time, talents and money to further human rights, wherever he could?

At the same time, I applaud St. Paul’s for opening their doors and want San diego to know that the Religious Science churches in San Diego honor and celebrate all people, just the way God designed them, just the way they are. As a minister, I would have been honored to perform John’s service and my church’s doors are always opened wide.

Rev. Marcia Hootman

Dear Editor:

Mental Health services are a popular topic lately. The voters approved hundreds of millions of dollars for new programs. Our gay communities have a special interest in this process.

Can you imagine being a severely depressed gay twenty year old, kicked out of your home at age 16 and now seeking mental health help? In the process everyone talks about being “healthy” and “straight”. Can you risk sharing your thoughts and feelings? Do you believe that all health workers respect and understand all sexual orientations? Except for a hospital clinic, there is not a sign that says we do not discriminate against people because of gender or sexual orientation. There might be a sign that says we respect your rights (trust me I am from the government).

If I am in a counseling group or a medication clinic and mention my same sex relations, will the therapist and my peers attack me? Maybe yes. What if I also have clinical paranoia? Do the doctors still say my problem is just bad choices?

Some of us have bought into the cruelty of being kicked out of our homes as a kid or being guilt tripped and “shamed” into depression, illness and even suicidal behavior. It still happens today!

While we are starting to gain our rights and respect in jobs, housing, marriage, and public visibility the mental health field is dragging behind, in my opinion.

I ask you to express your opinion to the California and County Departments of Mental Health as well as you legislators.

In California, public mental health services are required by law not to discriminate regarding a client’s ethnicity, race, color, ancestry, gender, marital status, sexual orientation and other protected characteristics. But, law enforcement only starts with the client and patient.

The California Department of Mental Health recognizes the need for mental health services to be competent and knowledgeable about client’s race, ethnicity and language. The state requires that county mangers have competency and training plans for these cultural characteristics.

The state does not require such cultural competency or any training regarding gender or sexual orientation.

The state’s mental health oversight group, called the California Mental Health Planning Council, advised the department of mental health to implement both gender and sexual orientation training and competency requirements. The department has declined.

I think that requiring therapists and others to be competent when serving all ethnicities and languages is necessary. It is also necessary that they be competent to serve all genders and sexual orientations. Without extensive public input the state won’t change.

Joseph Mortz

Dear Editor:

John McCusker was a human being; his life was a precious gift. I wish to send my condolences to both John’s family, and the local Gay Community. We are a National GLBT Catholic organization, who firmly believes that John is at peace, and in the loving embrace of our Lord.

No one has the right to sit in judgment of John’s life, and that includes Bishop Robert Brom of the San Diego Diocese.

One can be critical of those who sit in authority within the Church, and question their decisions, without being accused of hostility to the Church. Certainly if the present clergy sexual abuse scandal has taught us anything, it has taught us that. The McCusker family has every right to challenge and question the Bishops decision. I would remind Bishop Brom that another brother Bishop used this tact, and he was Cardinal Law of Boston.

The McCusker family obviously loved their son, and only wanted their child to be buried in the traditions of their Church. What is so terrible about this? Every life is precious, and so was John McCusker’s. What good or evil this young man has done with his life is a matter for God’s judgment, not Bishop Robert Brom. What is troubling for me about the Bishops position is that he completely ignores the “Primacy of Conscience,” or the concept of “Internal Forum.” He has judged this young man by who he associates with. I wonder if the Bishop would be so quick judge Jesus with the same criteria because of his association with sinners.

The real issue here is not the young man; rather, I believe it to be sound pastoral practice. I have been to many funerals in my life, and have to come to the realization that the funeral is more for the family than the one who is being buried. I would hope Bishop Robert Brom would make some type of pastoral outreach to the family especially as we enter Holy Week. Now is the time for reconciliation, not recriminations.

Again to the family and the San Diego GLBT Community please except the Rainbow Sash Movement’s sincerest condolences on your and our loss. All of you will be in our prayers as we enter Holy Week.

Joe Murray

Dear Editor:

I had to read it twice to be sure, but you indeed wrote in your 3-3-5 editorial, “Yet despite meth’s devastating effects, including its hand in rapidly increasing HIV infection rates, our local media, community leaders and politicians have barely batted an eye at this worthy adversary.” I blinked a few times and read, “We need a collaborative effort amongst politicians, community leaders, bars and the adult industry.” In an office full of queens, how is it you’ve yet to find the use of a mirror?

I contacted you last September regarding the deplorable conditions at the then, Mustang Spa. I told you of the blatant drug use and of the bare backing going on in the public areas. I spoke of the broken plumbing, (then and still owned by and the responsibility of the F Street corporation,) and the subsequent unhealthy, disgusting conditions threatening public health. You told me that this was not news worthy because you knew the place was being sold to a new owner. There is a new lease holder, but when I was in the club last month, I believe I saw the same person managing the new 2200 Club, I saw last August managing the Mustang.

One would not know it by the comments reportedly made by Nicole Ramirez-Murray in a 1-20-5 “news article” promoting the reopening of the 2200 Club, but the place has been a haven for all kinds of tweekers and the subsequent irresponsible and dangerous behavior for over ten years. There are police records showing overdoses and drug arrests, suicide attempts and even deaths. The last two deaths to occur in the building were in June ’03, and in March ’04, only a year ago. Once can still observe people under the influence of crystal methamphetamines loitering around the business. Friday, March 4, ’05, I saw two police cars and an ambulance, police officers and paramedics going in and out of the 2200 Club at 7:00 in the morning. One does not need a bag to carry in a glass pipe and bindle.

To be very clear…I am not against bath houses, to the contrary. I believe such places can be a safe, clean, STD educational environment. I am however, against irresponsible and dangerous activities that diminish and ultimately destroy our community. “Where are our politicians on this issue?” you asked, why haven’t they “made drug abuse in the gay community a priority?” I have no quip to describe the hypocrisy because I find absolutely no humor in the fact that the GLT is only now taking interest in what has become another health crisis in our, sometimes referred to, family.

It took the creation of a drug resistant super strain of virus for a “renewed focus…upon gay sex, HIV and its relationship to methamphetamines.” This is an abject failure of local media and community leaders. You queried, “when does personal freedom become a personal liability?” I submit the more important and relevant question is; when does personal freedom become a community and public health liability? “Tina’s back in the news,” you proclaimed…..sorry fact is, she never left town.

Kevin McCarthy

Dear Editor:

I watched the President’s news conference this morning and am more confused than ever about how and who does and who should determine the constitutionality of our laws. Maybe one of your readers can clear this up for me.

Let me get this straight, President Bush feels the courts shouldn’t be making decisions regarding the constitutionality of laws but rather the people should be making those decisions. Isn’t that the definition of anarchy, citizens taking legal matters into their own hands? If this isn’t anarchy, then tell me, who would be in charge. If courts didn’t make decisions regarding the constitutionality of law, wouldn’t segregation and slavery still be legal and wouldn’t inter-racial marriage still be against the law? Maybe I have it all wrong, maybe he believes that only the so called “activists” judges should not be making these decisions but that he would approve of judges making these determinations if they think as he does.

Excuse me, but it is my understanding that our free democratic system specifically requires that at the state and national level, the legislatures, our law makers, pass the laws. Under our system, aren’t the courts and the judges responsible to determine the constitutionality of laws and with applying the laws to the citizens? Aren’t law enforcement officials charged with upholding the laws, and lastly the citizens to obey the laws?

I’m sorry, but the President can’t have it both ways. He needs to pick either a land of law and order or a land of anarchy. I hope he or someone will make it clear to me soon as I am getting very confused as to who decides what is legal and what is not. Of course, if the President decides in favor of anarchy and negates the duty of the courts and their judges to interpret the laws, then he can stop expending so much time and money loading the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with people he feels will interpret the laws the same way he and his supporters interpret them. If indeed the President opts for anarchy and it works, then why not entirely do away with courts and judges. As a side benefit, that would totally negate the need for lawyers.

William E. Kelly

Dear Editor:

The Catholic Church’s decision to disallow memorial services for Mr. McCusker is despicable. I’m sure the church had no problem accepting his contributions and offerings over the years. One wonders why parishners continue supporting Catholicism, as allegations, and misconducts continue to surface. Perhaps the community should boycott tithes to the church, and offer its money elsewhere such as The Center, or other such organizations that are nonjudgemental, and continually help people. Indeed, my heart goes out to Mr. McCusker’s family and friends. Hopefully, his untimely passing will serve as a wake up call for those who continue to support such hypocisy.

Michael Lamb