Speaking of Cement

Okay folks, we’re coming up on the end of the old letters. Just today and maybe one more day and we should be caught up. The first of today’s letters is in response to a teenage girl who’d written a letter to the editor (likely with mom or dad standing over her shoulder). The next is a response to another letter writer. The third is to our dear representative, Trent Franks (the flaming fool). Then there’s one to the TV stations that refused to air the commercial from UUC churches welcoming anyone. There are a few more various and sundry letters. The last entry was not a letter, but a presentation I gave at the press conference we held outside the state capitol right after the final vote to send their stupid postcard to congress.

Tonight we’re going to attend a meeting of the Maricopa Community Colleges Board of Directors. One of them, Jerry Walker, was on the campus at one of the community colleges a few months ago. It was during Club Days, he was talking with a student and Walker pointed to the rainbow flag and asked the student if that was the “local gay group.” The student replied yes and Walker said,”It’s a shame that they’re here.” The student told him that he (the student) is gay, and Walker replied, “Well, it’s a shame that you are.” We’re going tonight to let the Board know how we feel about Mr. Walker’s comments. The letters…

(August 11, 2004)

Sent as e-mail to Arrowhead Ranch Independent

Dear little CJ-

I wonder where you got the idea that allowing gay people to marry would somehow threaten the marriages of heterosexual couples. Do you think your parents, or any couple you know, would get divorced if gay couples are given equal rights? If that’s all it would take to threaten their marriage, they probably didn’t love each other much anyway.

People who oppose same-sex marriage think their god doesn’t like gay people and he would be mad if we treated them fairly, so they are saying all kinds of silly things to try to scare the country out of that. Kids hear their parents talking, they trust their parents and they usually don’t know enough to question their parents or to reason it out for themselves. By the time the kids are old enough to think for themselves, they are so brainwashed it doesn’t even occur to them to question what they’ve been taught. It’s kind of sad and it isn’t really fair to do that to kids, but it happens. Their parents don’t mean to give them wrong ideas; they probably got those beliefs from their parents in the same way and never bothered to question either.

You say you oppose same-sex marriage “As a youth of the United States of America.” Here in America, CJ, we have freedom of religion. That means each person can choose the religion she or he believes in and the government can’t tell us what to believe. That’s why we have so many religions in America. But there are many people who want this country to be run according to the laws of their religion. When a country is run by a religion, that kind of government is called a theocracy. Many countries have governments like that, but often they are very cruel to anyone who doesn’t believe and act the way they want. I like it here in America, where people are not supposed to beat each other up with their religion. I’d like it better if people would stop trying to.

(August 18, 2004)

Sent via e-mail to Arrowhead Ranch Independent

Don’t assume a person who doesn’t share your morals has no morals. You are entitled to your religious beliefs and the rights of others do end where yours begin, but I find it funny Christians claim that privilege for themselves while denying it to others just because they have the numbers to do so. There is only strength in numbers, not justice.
It’s not gay people who try to force others to live by their beliefs. Should same sex couples gain equal rights, you would be free to continue living in whatever way you choose. You’re the one seeking to deny rights to those you find personally distasteful. I think preaching love and “aren’t we holy” while practicing hatefulness and meanness is immoral.
Lumping homosexuality together with sex acts involving unwilling participants (bestiality, adultery and pedophilia) is a false analogy. Acts that involve willing adult participants should come under the heading None of Your Business. “Scientific research” does not show that homosexuality is harmful; it shows that homosexuals are harmed by society’s treatment of them.
You are not a bigot for desiring Americans to live healthy, happy, moral lives. You are a bigot for assuming the only way everyone will be happy is to live by your code. You are not a malicious hater for disagreeing with homosexuality. You are a malicious hater for trying to beat others down and make them conform to your prejudices.

(October 1, 2004)

(sent through HRC to Trent Franks)

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

As your constituent, I am disappointed by your “yes” vote on H.J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

As the mother of a gay son, I am horrified at your attitude toward gay people and at your willingness to use people like my son to further your own political career by pandering to the religious extremists who have hijacked your party. I don’t know who the hell you think you are with your “holier-than-thou” attitude and your bragging about how you are trying to deny gay citizens equal rights, but you ought to be ashamed of yourself. People like you make the world a more dangerous place for my son and as a mother I do not appreciate that.

Your attempts to push your religious beliefs into our law books are completely inappropriate in a country that brags about freedom of religion and claims a separation of church and state. If you can’t keep your word to uphold the Constitution and you can’t keep your religion out of my laws then you don’t belong in politics.

Using the Constitution to discriminate against any group of people is shameful. You people who call yourselves “compassionate conservatives” are a joke. You want to use our Constitution to give special rights to heterosexuals just because they are. That’s stupid. You are a bunch of homophobic morons and I’m sick of all of you.

The Republican party likes to claim itself the party of less, and less-intrusive, government, yet you are the ones who do not find it inappropriate for the government to stick its nose into the bedrooms of Americans and to regulate what they may and may not do there. How idiotic. The granting of civil marriage licenses is not, and should not be, a religious issue. Why do churches get to declare who is able to marry if we are not a theocracy?

When it suits your argument, when you’re scared the Constitution could be interpreted as requiring every state to uphold a same-sex marriage performed in any state, you claim it should be up to the states to decide. But then when a state looks like it might decide to allow gay couples to marry, you change your position real quick. Then you want to say it’s wrong for any state to allow same-sex marriage because you’re afraid other states would have to recognize those marriages and you want to amend the Constitution to ensure that gay citizens never get equal rights. So which is it? Is this a states issue and each state should decide for itself? Or is it a matter for federal law and you’re willing to use our Constitution to bash our gay citizens? Shame on you.

Sincerely,

(December 6, 2004)

Sent via e-mail to:
Chairman and CEO, NBC Universal Bob Wright
PRESIDENT AND CEO, CBS Television Leslie Moonves
Chairman, FCC Michael Powell

Dear ______________,

I am an atheist and the mother of a gay son and I am mad! I do not go to church, I have no ties to any religion and I have no stake in the promotion of any particular faith. I do, however, have a stake in protecting the separation of church and state guaranteed us by the Constitution and in trying to build a country where the words “justice for all” and “freedom of the press” have meaning.

Is it not enough that gay people are constantly reminded that they are not welcome…in the military…in the Boy Scouts…in the classroom…in the courts…? Must you silence anyone, even a church, who would dare to reach out to them with a message of welcome?

You feign shock and sorrow and do your sappy and incessant “personal interest” stories when someone like Matthew Shepherd is murdered by a couple of homophobic thugs; hey, anything for a story, right? But then you go out of your way to make sure that gay people continue to be marginalized. What is wrong with you people?

And since when is it the job of television networks, using the public airways, to ensure that only those messages approved by the White House are to be aired? You fear to air anything that opposes something Bush wants? It’s bad enough that you’ve become the lap dog messengers of every lie the administration tells about Bush’s “war on terror.” We sure can’t depend on you as a source of news if you aren’t even willing to risk disapproval from Bush to air an ad from an “unapproved” church. What the hell is going on here? Are you scared the White House will stop feeding you sound bites and you might actually have to go out and do some investigative reporting for your news broadcasts?

You have set yourselves up as shills of the dominant political party, you refuse ads from any church that is not “state-approved,” you are willing to censor the message of groups that dare to include those who have been ruthlessly excluded from society. And you want us to trust your message? Not any more.

Shame on you.

Arrowhead Ranch Independent
(December 2, 2004)
Via e-mail

Someone suggested investigating societies that supported homosexuality. That sounded interesting, so I’ve been doing that. A couple of suggestions for those who would like to investigate for themselves: get on the Internet and do a Google search on the word “berdache;” there are many good articles about Native American societies who, before the invasion of Christianity, held people of “two spirits” in high esteem; in many tribes they were healers, prophets and arbiters who understood and served as a bridge between males and females. Also, here’s an address for the web site of a person who has taught and written on the subject of homosexuality in ancient cultures:

http://www.nathanielwandering.net/Sex%20in%20the%20Past.htm

This site has discussions of classical Greece and Rome, Melanesian society, as well as Taoism, Islam, Buddhism. A Google of “homosexuality history” led me to discussions of Samurai warriors, Buddhist monks, and the knowledge that homosexuality was accepted in China until the rise of the Communist People’s Republic of China. That was very interesting; thanks to the writer for the suggestion. Now I’m going to start investigating those societies that supported ignorance and bigotry; I think I’ll begin with Nazi Germany.

(February 3, 2005)
Sent via e-mail through HRC

Denounce Secretary of Education’s Intolerance
Send this message to Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to let her know you disapprove of her intolerance. Urge her to reconsider her comments. We have included suggested language, but we encourage you to make the letter more personal.

(Their Version):

I’m writing to express my disappointment at your decision to promote intolerance by denouncing the episode Sugartime! on the show Postcards From Buster.

(Postcards From Buster is meant to promote a “vivid, multicultural portrait of America and the world,” according to the show’s website. Teaching children about respect for differences promotes tolerance — a value that children should be learning.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth are at a disproportionate risk for suicide and creating a climate where children are taught that differences should be feared does nothing to promote understanding.

Same-sex couples are raising children in almost every county in the nation. These families deserve just as much respect and dignity as their neighbors.

I urge you to reconsider your statements about the episode. I look forward to hearing back from you.)

(My Version):

I’m writing to express my disappointment at your decision to promote intolerance by denouncing the episode Sugartime! on the show Postcards From Buster.

Good grief, woman! What is wrong with you? Postcards from Buster is now some evil lesbian plot? That’s just moronic. They were going to show the kids the process for maple sugaring; they were not intending to televise a sex act on national TV. I think the problem is not that you were afraid kids would be exposed to some kind of lecherous pornography, but that they wouldn’t. You’re afraid kids would see a couple of women who love their kids, who run a home, who make maple sugar. You’re so afraid it might be hard to justify your own homophobia if you were to be confronted with any portrayal that shows gay people in anything but a horrible light. Squeeze your eyes shut real tight, stick your fingers in your ears and say “La, la, la” real loud so you won’t see or hear the sight and sound of a normal family.

Please reply and explain why my son’s family is not worthy of equal respect.

Sincerely,

(February 20, 2005)

Editor-

I am appalled at our mean-spirited Legislature with their idiotic “Postcard to Congress” encouraging an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex couples from marrying. I sat in the House gallery and watched some of our Representatives lie through their teeth in order to push this measure forward. And the truth is that the time spent on “discussion” was an utter waste. There was nothing that could have been said that would have changed their minds. The ones pushing for this hateful thing do not care what anyone else has to say. Several representatives begged for understanding of the lives of gay people and their families, including one representative who asked for tolerance of her own brother and daughter. One of them spoke of the danger of taking away the rights of the states to set their own rules for marriage. One of them asked that, since the goal of the bill was ostensibly to “protect marriage” it include prohibition on divorce. While this was going on, the sponsor of the bill, Warde Nichols, sat at his desk, laughing and apparently joking with Carol Burges, who was playing with the toy elephant on his desk. Meanwhile, Representative Gorman was watching streaming video on her laptop computer. These clowns don’t care about people; their humanity can be bought for a few votes. What a sad, stupid lot we have guiding this state.

Press conference presentation

(February 21, 2005)
Arizona House of Representatives lawn
After they voted to send a “postcard” to Congress

I’ve noticed that it seems to be so easy for some of our Representatives to say really mean and hurtful things about gay people. They disparage their most important relationships, they intimate that gay people are pedophiles; they feel the need to shield children from any knowledge of the families of gay couples. I actually had two of them ask me personally, “If we change the definition of marriage, how could we keep three or more people from marrying, how could we keep people from marrying their dogs, where would we draw the line?” This is just an obtuse way of saying there is something so awful and so undeserving about gay people that if we included them in those worthy of the most fundamental right, the right to marry, then we would have sunk so low that we might as well allow people to marry their dogs, or adults to marry children.

I think maybe it’s easier to say those things when you are referring to a nameless, faceless, invisible class of people, the rather amorphous “They.” So, to our Representatives, if you are watching this, I want to remind you that every time you say something like that, you are speaking directly to me. I am the mother of a gay son; his name is Tony; he’s 33 years old and he’s six feet tall, but he is still my baby, he’s my son and I love him. You may think you can hide your prejudice by not directly attacking individuals, but I’m a mom and when someone is trying to hurt my kid, I take that very personally.
Now to answer their question, “Where do we draw the line?” Every time a law is made, or changed, lines are drawn. Every time we have changed laws relating to divorce, those laws changed the lines around marriage, we moved the lines about what is and is not okay in a marriage. In fact, on the same day that our Representatives last voted to ask Congress to use our Constitution to bash our gay citizens, our Senate finally declared that it is not an inconsequential thing for a man to rape his wife. By saying this, they changed the meaning of marriage. They moved the line just a little bit to allow married women the right to say no, and the world did not end. It is the job of our elected leaders to figure out how to draw those lines and when necessary, to move those lines, without surrendering to chaos. In this case, they claim they are not competent to figure out how to do so. I agree. So I’ll tell you where to draw the lines. You draw the lines around two consenting, adult persons who choose to enter into the legal marriage contract. You draw the lines around my son and his partner.

In the future, our lawmakers would do well to remember that when they say things about gay people, they are speaking to every mother who holds a gay child in her heart. So here I am; I’m the mom. If you have anything to say about my son, come out here and say it to my face.

Okay, that’s it for today, and I promise that tomorrow will be the last of the old letters. Wish us luck tonight.