Dear Editor:

I wanted to express my shock and outrage at the treatment that the Pride board of directors is receiving as of late. It seems that the gay-hating climate which is currently so popular in this country has seeped into our own community, which saddens me greatly. Demanding the resignation of the entire board of directors? The GLT editorial regarding Bishop Brom who denied burial services, and later recanted was kinder than the editorials directed at the Pride board:

“Bishop Brom should have personally apologized to the public, fielded questions, and permitted an open discussion with the GLBT community”

But no, an open discussion with the Pride board apparently is not acceptable. The great crime they have committed can only be rectified by stepping down in shame. What was the great crime? Oh, right, there was no crime. No lives were lost, nobody was harmed. All that happened was that a group of people tried to do what they believed was right.

I find it interesting that this seems to be a non-issue for the straight and/or right wing community. You would think of the Pride board was really such an evil bunch of child-molester lovers that the right-wing community would be having rallies demanding that Pride come to an end.

I believe that this outcry is politically motivated by a group of individuals who want to take control of the city’s largest civic event, and all of the cash flow that comes with it. It is very convenient to hide behind the excuse of wanting to keep our children safe. Hey, child molesters are the only ones its more acceptable to hate than gays, what a great opportunity to wave them around and use them as a political power play. Is this new board of directors going to run a background check on each and every one of the over 1000 volunteers that participates in Pride each year? What about the 150,000 or so that attend? This new board of directors will be quite busy, since I think they will need to take over some other organizations as well, Pride can’t be the only one facing this problem.

Well, I guess that the excessively homophobic “ex-gay” James Hartline got exactly what he wanted. He drove a wedge right into our community.

Molly Reeve

Dear Editor:

Can someone tell me why donna frye felt that planning for a council meeting was more important than appearing/riding in the gay parade on saturday. i have been a supporter and was totally shocked that she failed to appear, esp. when jerry sanders, christine, bonnie and toni atkins were all proud, present and showing their smiling faces!!! i wrote her campaign to express my disappointment and to let them know that i just may be taking a closer look at jerry sanders. he seemed quite comfortable and not phobic at all about being with our community.

Someone with the paper should research and address this situation. She can’t possibly think that she has the gay community in the palm of her hand...and doesn’t she realize the voting power of our block??

Lionel E. Hernandez

Dear Editor:

“Top Five Reasons Why I Missed the Pride Parade”

5. Up late partying the night before with the Pension Board.

4. Stunt-double called in sick.

3. What? You don?t have a Donna Frye impersonator?

2. Was having a “Conversation with Nicole.”

1. All kidding aside, the LGBT community is very important to me and I believe my voting record matches my words. Please understand, however, that after giving 110 percent to my city council job and campaign for mayor, I needed a day off to spend time with my family, get some much needed rest, and prepare for a very busy docket at city council. I apologize if I disappointed you by not being there in person. With thanks for understanding,

Donna Frye

Dear Editor:

As a former resident of Chula Vista (1977-86, 1987-95) and as an openly gay Latino man (since 1987). I am thrilled about Mayor Steve Padilla’s decision to come out. My hope is that many more gay people, youg and old, living outside cities with sizeable gay communities will come out. I can attest feeling quite lonely as a gay teen-ager while living in Chula Vista, perhaps now, some other gay, Latino teen, feels less lonely. Congratulations Mayor Padilla!

Carlos Chavarin Jr.

Dear Editor:

As a recent transplant to San Diego and a past board member of San Francisco’s Parade and Celebration during a very tumultuous time, I was interested in this current “Pride” controversy. I’m sad to say, I found the board’s letter to be weak and of little real value. To say: “We misjudged our communities”, shows a board woefully disconnected from its community.

Part of being a strong board is ensuring that the Executive Director or P.R. person maintain proper and open relations with the public. To say:

“Let all of us now redouble our efforts to be open and honest.” with all due respect, sounds more like a group of “Snake oil salesmen” trying to sell the same “bottle of integrity” they’ve just been accused of lacking in.

Nonetheless, this controversy smacks of a “Witch Hunt”. I’m dismayed that some very vocal people are leading a “lynch mob” to completely destroy San Diego’s “Pride” organization over this heated issue, and Mr. Ramirez, GLT and others have succumbed to this “gay baiting”. I can just see James Hartline and cohorts howling, over the harsh blow they’ve dealt to our community. We need to resolve this matter not with the decorum of a lynch mob, but with the restraint of a wise and cohesive community. People like Hartline fully expect us to act inferior to them.

I’d suspect there have been other convicted child molesters within this and many other organizations over the years. Only recently has the public been able to keep track of them. As a result, this board was obviously made to take sides with regards to convicted, registered child molesters, and concerned same, and opposite-sexed parents. It became a 50-50 choice, and they made the wrong choice. I recommend some sort of in-depth independent community centered investigation. I don’t advocate jumping to prosecute every single board member before determining exactly who was at fault.

I believe parts of this board, and executive director need some severe shaking up, as I perceive them to be too set in their ways to hear any new ideas. I would also say there are some very hard working, dedicated men and women who were actually way too busy focusing their volunteer energies on producing the event. I don’t think all board members have served out of a lack of integrity, and leadership, and I don’t believe that such a punishment, as forced resignation should be tossed “across the board”.

The way in which the GLT and the public at large is handling this doesn’t make me want to jump in and volunteer my valuable time and energy to help heal our community’s “Pride” board. San Diego “Pride” will soon need a new infusion of leadership, vigor and ideas, but simply shaming every existing board member into resigning will not help in recruiting new members, nor will it help to maintain the dignity this community has worked so hard to encourage over the past thirty years.

Christopher Martin

Dear Editor:

It is not clear to me why the pride board should be asked to resign for dismissing the provocations from the right and standing for the civil rights of three volunteers when they had a parade to run. Apparently, the board’s politically expedient apology and eventual dismissal of the 3 volunteers was not expedient enough.

I don’t claim to understand child abusers, but certainly there is a process of rehabilitation available to them. Notably, the role of these volunteers did not seem to place them in contact with children any more than the thousands of other people who attended the festival, particularly since the festival is not a day-care center or child-centered environment. Sadly, it was not a time for our movement to take a principled stand here in San Diego. Intolerance and political servility ruled the day. As a freshman in high school, our liberal teacher with forethought innoculated us against the political right by assigning Arther Miller’s play “The Crucible”. Please familiarize yourself with its contents, such as Abigail’s confession “I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil!”, before attempting more excoriating editorials and public humiliations.

Bernard Turgeon

Dear Editor:

In matters regarding sexual offenders it is very hard to step back and take an objective look at the situation. It is, by its very nature, an emotionally charged subject. However, to paint every man and women who bears that onus with the same broad paintbrush is akin to the straight community lumping all gays together as one stereotype. Each individual is unique in their situation and their circumstances.

The Pride board, in its initial decision regarding the retention of two volunteers handling setup at the festival, was following a long tradition in our community of recognizing the individual’s situation and circumstances, rather than painting everyone with the same color. This is what we would hope a board would do – weigh the facts of the individual cases. If we wanted to work with generalizations, there would be no need for human presence on a board. We could just let the “moral majority” of the community rule. This is exactly what has held the gay community from achieving equality for so many years in the global community.

As an autonomous non-governmental body, the Pride board is not elected by the community and thus has no obligation to unseat itself due to the understandably vocal cries of the emotionally indignant in our community. Before any board member makes this very personal decision, I implore cooler heads to prevail. Much good has been done by this group and should not be undone by those who seek blood in our community.

Jim Hennum

Dear Editor:

The phone lines at Donna Frye for Mayor nearly melted on Monday as the LGBT community called en mass wondering “Where was Donna at this year’s Pride?”.

As the former volunteer coordinator with Donna’s campaign, I got my fair share of calls from friends who wondered what happened. I was asked if Donna took the LGBT community for granted, or if she skipped the parade because of the controversy surrounding Pride this year or was she simply trying to curry favor with moderate republicans who were considering voting for her.

As someone who has known Donna Frye for many years, I can tell you that she certainly is not lacking in courage. Nor is she pandering to our community’s opponents, it is not in her nature. And she certainly has never taken any voter’s support for granted.

Nicole Murray Ramirez rightly praised Jerry Sanders for the courage to buck his political base and appear at Pride. But I cannot abide the possibility of once again choosing symbolism over substance. Too many times politicians have come to our community’s events, taken the applause and votes, and then disappeared when we needed them.

Whether it’s the Boy Scout’s illegal lease in Balboa Park, clean needle exchange, medical marijuana or any other social justice issue, Donna has been there when it counted and has never shown an ounce of hesitation in supporting our community - even when that support has had its costs.

Although I am tired of forgoing our community’s needs, Nicole is also right to point out that this election is too important to place our own needs ahead of the common good. But I would also point out to Nicole that Jerry Sanders, like Dick Murphy is a master of the symbolic. He can talk the talk, but he has yet to honestly walk the walk. He is quick to take credit for the work of others when it comes to the police department, the Red Cross and United Way, but how much was he really responsible for?

We already had a photo-op mayor - now we need working mayor. Donna was at home working while Jerry was getting his picture taken. That gives me a pretty good idea of who is who in this race.

Timothy P. Holmberg

Dear Editor:

What Would Jesus Do about sex offenders? How about forgive them?

Of course we don’t want them working alone with minors or having supervisory or disciplinary power over them, but we can’t expect them to avoid any event that includes children. Yes there are children at the Pride Festival, but most attendees are adults, and most volunteering opportunities would not place volunteers dangerously close to children. Also, sex offenders are free to attend the Festival just like they’re free to attend any other public event that doesn’t check their background. If they wanted to pursue minors, it would make more sense for them not to volunteer—they’d have more time, and there might be no record they were there.

I’ll admit I don’t know the details about these particular individuals. I don’t know whether there was some reason we would need to prevent them from doing free work at an event they can attend anyway, but I’m guessing those who raised the issue don’t know those details either, or don’t care.

That Hartline, Sheldon, et al. were just trying to cause trouble for the gay community through un-Christian, and in some cases untruthful, accusations—also known as bearing false witness against neighbors—seems clear.

What remains unclear to me is why anyone should take them seriously.

Sean Sell

Dear Editor:

Keith Anastasi and Steven B. Johnson have written letters to both the Union Tribune and G&L Times claiming that the gay community is being “devastated” and “ravaged” by the correlation between methamphetamine use and HIV infection.

Let me put these alarmist views in perspective.

According to San Diego County, there were 461 new HIV infections this past year. If Johnson and Anastasi’s estimate is correct that “30% of newly HIV infected gay men indicate that crystal meth played a role in their infection”, this translates into 138 persons. Considering that there are an estimated 300,000 gay people in San Diego County, the infection rate could hardly be considered a “devastation”.

Johnson also claims that syphilis rates are skyrocketing. Again according to the county health department, there were 136 cases of syphilis this past year, with 109 cases the previous year. 136 out of 300,000 is hardly a skyrocket.

I submit that the vast majority of gay people are responsible condom users. Please, Johnson & Anastasi, no more letters to the editor claiming otherwise.

Brent Montejo