NOVEMBER 7, 2009
   Login or create a new account  ?
Join Washington Blade on FacebookJoin Washingtonblade on MyspaceJoin Washington Blade on Twitter!
MORE INFO
Send letters and op-ed column submissions to forum@washblade.com
MOST VIEWED
National News:
Parker heads to runoff in Houston mayoral race

National News:
Maine rejects marriage law

Editorial:
So much for loving thy neighbor

Local:
D.C. same-sex marriage supporters press case

National News:
Running into ‘a DOMA problem’ in health care reform

 
Letters to the Edito

HOME > VIEWPOINT > LETTERS

Feb 13, 2004   | COMMENTS      Printer Friendly Version

Gay life presents inherent danger
To the Editors:
Re “String of killings puts Tampa gays on edge,” news, Jan. 16):
There is a reason why the practice of homosexuality is denounced by every major religion from Catholicism to Scientology. There is a reason why homosexual acts are condemned by every religious leader from Pope John Paul to the Dalai Lama.

This reason is the practice of homosexual acts is unhealthy, dangerous and wrong.

These poor young men in Florida believed the lies of those who push the homosexual agenda, and have now paid with their lives. Very sad indeed.

But there is help available. Homosexuals can go straight. It is not too late. Nothing is impossible to someone who honestly seeks to change.
ROBERT RAUSH
Santa Monica, Calif.


‘Woody’ is hypocrite for slamming Rosie
To the Editors:
I came pretty close to laughing when I read Michael Alvear’s column taking Rosie O’Donnell to task for not only not coming out when her talk show was at the height of its popularity, but for “defending her silence” as Alvear put it. (“With friends like Rosie…” op-ed, Jan. 23).

Alvear then goes on to describe O’Donnell as being “morally wrong for her silence.”

I beg your pardon? This coming from someone who was writing an excessively graphic advice column called “Need Wood” under a pseudonym until it suited him to “come out” with the fact that he is also “Woody Miller”?

Doesn’t this strike anyone else as being at least somewhat hypocritical?

I’d like to remind Alvear that coming out is a personal journey that each person has to negotiate on his own terms. Even if the person involved has multimillion-dollar contracts and celebrity status that could be used as sort of a bully pulpit. Perhaps O’Donnell was thinking about the invasion of privacy in her partner’s life.

Alvear should be careful about throwing stones into someone else’s supposed glass house. Karma’s a bitch, and it’s always having puppies.
MIKE SARZO
Glenn Dale, Md.


Log Cabin ‘Uncle Toms’
in denial on Bush
To the Editors:
I can’t decide which has been more surreal: the Log Cabin dance of denial about President Bush, or the Washington Blade’s commitment to covering the dance without the tiny grain of irony that even the healthy among us now require to stay sane (news, Jan. 30).

I recall an Uncle Tom explaining that a credible case could be made that gay Republicans had put Bush in office. Will they now take responsibility for the costly, demeaning battles we face?
GREG MARCANGELO
Washington


Hate rhetoric won’t save Bush reelection
To the Editors:
In President Bush’s State of the Union address, which was a thinly veiled piece of election year politicking, he called for the protection of marriage. His attempt to further marginalize gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer communities only further demonstrates his bigotry and the chokehold the immoral and ignorant religious right has on his presidency.

The president is running scared because he recognizes that the morally bankrupt, prejudice-filled, and hateful rhetoric of the right no longer has a death grip on American lives, values and politics. It is only a matter of time before the constitutional promise of liberty and justice for all made more than 200 years ago becomes fact not fiction for all people living in these United States of America.
BRANDON LACY CAMPOS
Chair, National Lavender Green Caucus
Green Party of the United States
Washington


Don’t get hung up on the ‘m’ word
To the Editors:
Let’s ask ourselves whether the good fight should be for the rights and privileges every other culture in America enjoys, but should we use a word other than “marriage”? Do we really want to be associated with a word that has a 50-percent failure rate among heterosexuals?

If I were in a committed relationship, I would not want to have to travel to New England to legitimize it in the eyes of the law. I would not have to call it “marriage” to feel legitimate.

What I would want under the law is for the relationship to be legally recognized, to receive the same tax credits and breaks as every other American couple, to adopt a child without challenge if my partner and I so desired, to visit my partner in the hospital without restraint and to inherit all we worked toward as a couple should he die — and vice versa.
LEE A. SCHOENBART
La Jolla, Calif.



email       password


Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Spacer
Spacer
Spacer

Washington Blade Window Media CONTACT US: E-mail | Masthead | Location and Directions
© 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy
Advertise with us!