To
the
Editors:
Re
“Off-duty
officials
take
photos
of
gay
Latino
club”
(news,
July
29):
We
write
to
correct
several
errors
in
this
article,
in
which
some
of
us
were
named,
regarding
Cada
Vez
restaurant.
Along
with
about
40
individual
protestants,
many
of
whom
are
gay,
and
in
addition
to
neighborhood
organizations,
we
have
protested
Cada
Vez’s
request
to
expand
hours
and
entertainment
offerings
beyond
what
is
currently
allowed
under
their
alcoholic
beverage
license.
The
longstanding
dispute
with
Cada
Vez
long
pre-dates
the
once-a-week
Club
Fuego
party,
which
only
moved
to
the
location
this
summer.
The
article
erroneously
reported
that
Christina
Parascandola
entered
Cada
Vez
and
photographed
gay
Latino
patrons
of
Club
Fuego.
In
fact,
she
has
never
been
to
Club
Fuego.
Contrary
to
your
newspaper’s
persistent
claims,
Advisory
Neighborhood
Commissioner
Ramon
Estrada
is
not
a
protestant.
He
is
the
elected
representative
of
the
neighborhood
in
which
Cada
Vez
operates
and
as
such
is
fulfilling
his
responsibility
to
represent
his
constituents.
The
Alcoholic
Beverage
Regulation
Administration
has
encouraged
residents
living
near
Cada
Vez
to
document
any
possible
license
violations
and
any
adverse
effects
on
surrounding
community.
Several
residents
have
used
cameras
to
document
the
size
of
the
crowd
leaving
events
held
at
Cada
Vez
and
the
time
it
takes
them
to
disperse.
Photographs
were
taken
from
across
U
Street,
which
is
very
wide,
and,
given
the
distance
and
lack
of
light,
individual
patrons
are
not
identifiable.
In
fact,
we
will
ensure
that
no
individuals
are
identifiable
in
any
of
the
images
before
they
are
submitted
as
evidence
in
the
protest
process.
None
of
the
protestants
have
used
a
floodlight
or
other
specialized
equipment,
as
Cada
Vez
manager
Charles
Zhou
alleges
in
your
article.
Moreover,
and
contrary
to
what
your
reporter
wrote,
none
of
the
patrons
ever
expressed
to
us
any
concern
about
being
photographed
or
attempted
to
shield
themselves
from
view.
Washington
Editors’
note:
The
Blade
stands
by
the
story
as
reported,
except
to
clarify
that
Christina
Parascandola
entered
Cada
Vez
to
take
photos
on
a
Friday
night,
not
the
gay
Saturday
event.
To
the
Editors:
Re
“Minister’s
apology
falls
short,
gay
leaders
say”
(news,
Aug.
5):
What’s
the
difference
between
what
Willie
Wilson
is
saying
and
the
Washington
Post
Style
section
piece
several
months
ago
claiming
many
schoolgirls
have
sex
with
one
another?
The
only
difference
is
that
the
tone
of
the
Post
story
was
more
approving.
Wilson’s
tirades
are
condemnatory,
of
course,
but
he’s
making
essentially
the
same
point.
The
overwought
reaction
of
lesbians
only
fuels
his
publicity
furnace.
They’d
be
better
off
ignoring
him.
Washington
To
the
Editors:
Chris
Crain’s
July
29
editorial
(“Ask
Roberts
one
big
question”)
gives
a
sobering
view
of
how
Justice
John
Roberts
may
view
the
Fourteenth
Amendment,
which
often
justifies
upholding
individuals’
fundamental
rights
from
majoritarian
intrusion,
especially
on
“moral”
grounds.
I
want
to
ask
exactly
what
the
majority
considers
“immoral”
about
my
inclinations
and
private
behavioral
choices.
Beyond
the
obvious
religious
foundation
of
many
intrusive
moral
values,
the
feedback
I
get
from
some
people
is
that
by
avoiding
heterosexual
marriage
with
children
and
all
the
infrastructure
for
caretaking
that
family
formation
provides,
I
am
shirking
family
responsibility.
I
seem
aloof
and
unemotional
around
issues
of
biological
kinship,
satisfied
with
what
looks
to
others
like
a
world
filled
with
fantasy.
Gay
marriage
and
gay
adoption,
if
allowed,
could
go
a
long
way
in
encouraging
the
sharing
of
family
responsibility
and
in
promoting
personal
goals
that
take
into
consideration
the
needs
of
others
and
that
welcome
dependents.
Others
are
concerned
not
just
that
I
compete
with
them
in
the
same
economic
space
without
sharing
their
burdens.
They
feel
that
my
life
expresses
narcissistic
values
that
demean
them.
This
is
particularly
the
case
with
people
who
have
a
large
psychological
and
emotional
investment
in
procreation,
marriage
and
parenting.
Recent
family
eldercare
issues
have
forced
me
to
deal
with
the
family
responsibility
that
others
take
for
granted
lifelong.
Forced
socialization
with
filial
responsibility,
whether
chosen
or
not,
may
eventually
become
the
underbelly
of
the
gay
marriage
debate.
Arlington,
Va.
To
the
Editors:
Kudos
for
venturing
outside
the
Beltway
to
visit
Great
Sage
(“Who
needs
meat?”
dining,
July
29).
As
the
trend
towards
more
animal-,
heart-,
and
environmentally-friendly
fare
gains
traction,
more
restaurants
and
groceries
are
catering
to
the
vegetarian
demand.
Increasingly,
consumers
are
seeking
out
compassionate
cuisine,
taking
a
stand
against
the
abuses
inherent
in
animal
agriculture.
With
each
dollar
we
spend,
our
meals
can
reflect
our
concerns
about
farm
animal
welfare.
Restaurants
like
Great
Sage
are
flourishing
as
diners
transition
to
a
more
humane
diet.
Humane
Society
of
the
U.S.
Washington
