advertisement
advertisement
|
Friday, June 01, 2007
To the Editors
Re: “Damn right we support a woman’s right to choose” (letter to the editor by Matt Foreman, May 11)
Despite my deep respect for Matt Foreman, his rant only proved James Kirchick’s point that abortion is not an LGBT issue (“It’s not a gay issue,” op-ed, May 4).
Foreman’s only argument — that some women who need abortions are lesbians — would turn every political issue into a gay issue. Lesbians sometimes file for bankruptcy, bisexuals sometimes get injured at work and transgender people sometimes have car accidents. But bankruptcy, workers’ compensation and traffic safety are not gay issues, except to the limited extent sexual orientation or gender identity somehow becomes germane to it.
The glaring omission from Foreman’s letter was any explanation as to how the sexual orientation of lesbians is germane to the abortion issue. Indeed, Foreman emphasized the undifferentiated needs of every woman, “no matter her sexual orientation.” But if a gay rights group can include abortion in its mission only by resorting to the idea of “equality within a larger social justice framework,” as Foreman did, that is a concession that abortion per se is not genuinely a gay issue.
Pro-choice groups, moreover, do not reciprocate Foreman’s mission-blurring generosity. When criticized for endorsing pro-choice candidates who are anti-gay, such as South Carolina’s Inez Tenenbaum, pro-choice groups are quick to declare that they do not make gay rights a part of their mission. Gay groups that stretch their missions to include abortion rights should at least demand a little reciprocity.
More to the point, gay groups should not force pro-life gays to sacrifice their views on a non-gay issue in order to support LGBT-rights groups. And those groups especially should not do so to curry favor with straight pro-choicers who will turn around and endorse an anti-gay candidate because, at the end of the day, gay issues are “not their issues.”
Finally, I doubt Foreman will so vehemently insist that Lawrence v. Texas is shackled to Roe v. Wade. when the court overturns Roe, as it may soon do. Although I am pro-choice, there is a significant ethical difference between having consensual sex in private and terminating a fetus. Luckily for gay rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy sees that difference. Blurring it does not help save Roe; it only increases the risk to Lawrence. And doing that is irresponsible for a gay rights group.
STEPHEN CLARK
Washington
Editors’ note: The writer is a professor of constitutional law at Albany Law School in Albany, New York.
Misguided judge is
moralizing from bench
To the Editors:
Re: “Georgia lesbian mother reunited with child she hopes to adopt” (news, May 25)
I have never been as disturbed and offended by anything as I was when I read about Judge Parrot’s ruling.
I am the birth mother of two beautiful children who were adopted into a same-sex couple household. My children could not possibly be happier or better cared for. Sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to parent and raise a child.
Judge Parrot is putting his own prejudices above the law and trying to create new moral laws from the bench. Judge Parrot should be removed from the bench and blacklisted from ever presiding anywhere again. A judge’s place is not to decide whether he thinks that something is morally correct, but whether something is legal. There are a number of things I would like to call Judge Parrot at the moment, but I think misguided is the kindest and most reasonable.
VALERIE PEEK
Key West, Fla.
2nd term for Pace would
be prove tragic for gays
To the Editors:
If Gen. Peter Pace is advanced by President Bush for a second term as chair of the Join Chiefs of Staff and confirmed by the Senate, he may become the longest-serving chair since the position was created after World War II.
This would be a tragedy for gays. In March, in a public interview, he denounced homosexual acts. If confirmed, there will likely be negative consequences.
One is that commanders of the services, to please their bosses, might step up their efforts to oust gay men and lesbians from the services. And it would demoralize the estimated 60,000 gay men and lesbians currently serving under his command.
The question is whether our community will be passive over his gratuitous homophobia or raise holy hell to prevent him from having a second term.
Recent developments suggest a soft response.
The local gay community did little to prevent the elimination of about one-third of our gay entertainment establishments to make room for an expensive and unnecessary new stadium to accommodate the worst-performing team in baseball. Frank Kameny and a few others worked to save these popular businesses, but there seemed to be limited support from area gays.
If the gay community takes it on the chin and allows Pace to gain a second term, the message may well be that it is OK to abuse lesbians and gay men.
ERIC COX
Washington
|
