Feb 13, 2009   | COMMENTS     

To the Editors:

While naming reasons why we are not enjoying more LGBT human rights, it is time to focus on the real reason why we have failed to do so. As an ex-military gay man, who served two terms in the U.S. Air Force in Ubon, Thailand, during the first Tet Offensive, I know what it is we are not doing for ourselves, which would bring our demands to the forefront and win the ultimate victory.

Each and every other minority of humans throughout history has done one thing to throw off the oppressor.

What is it, you ask? We must unite. There are far too many gay organizations, each going their own way, alone and powerless with none supporting another, and we can see the results (or lack thereof).
 
I see little or no evidence of us bringing our resources, numbers, talents, funds and determination together. I’m not asking that these fine and well-meaning associations disband; just that we come together under one huge bloc of power and have our demands met once and for all. 

I am not asking the impossible, just the improbable. Put ourselves aside, our egos on the shelf, line up with our LGBT brothers and sisters and straight allies, channel our resolve and win our basic human rights. Until we unite as one, it will never get done. 

As my lover and partner of 30 years says, “Alone, we march, together, we conquer!”

JAMES M. McDONALD
New York

Politicians like Adams should be held to higher standards

To the Editors: Re: “Defending Sam Adams” (editorial by Kevin Naff, Jan. 30)

Though we live in what may be characterized as a Puritanical society, I agree with gay sex advice columnist Dan Savage that “no double standard exists regarding the sexual behavior of gay officials and that Adams would face the same problems if Breedlove were female.”

Naff contends that “[t]his is another example of hypocritical, holier-than-thou partisans trying to use sex to bring down a gay public official.” To the contrary, Dan Pinello — a gay government professor at the City University of New York — says that he “didn’t think the Adams scandal had “excessive or inordinate gay overtones.” I suppose the persons you describe as “self-righteous” include all those Portland citizens — gay and straight — who question the moral fitness of a man by whom they feel betrayed, not necessarily due to any sexual misconduct but on account of other surrounding behavior.

While what you describe as “right-wing bloggers” may be “up in arms” about politicians such as Sam Adams, left-wingers — gay as well as straight — have been up in arms about the depravity of public officials like straight Republican Sen. Newt Gingrich, who broke no laws; gay Republican Rep. Mark Foley, who broke no laws; and GOP Sen. Larry Craig, who was guilty of a misdemeanor.

While there may be “no evidence that Adams did anything illegal,” there is irrefutable evidence that Adams falsely accused his political adversaries of smearing him, which is tantamount to slander; and that he hired an investigative journalist to a city planning position, for which all agree she is singularly unqualified. The purpose of her hiring appears to have been squelching her story on his misconduct. (This is a violation of the Portland City Code of Ethics for Public Officials, not to mention it interferes with an open and vigorous free press.)

Adams took selfish advantage of a personal “power imbalance” for the purpose of coercing Beau Breedlove into lying about a sexual indiscretion, which Breedlove himself has said was a relationship that “crossed the line a couple of times.”

Much like some Portlanders, you are willing to forgive and forget given your opinion that Adams is well qualified for the position of city mayor. But suppose he had gotten elected despite not being well qualified? What then? I guess former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment should have been decided on the basis of whether he has “just the qualities the [state] needs right now.” 

You inquire: “Who will seek public office if they’re expected to have never had sex or made a mistake”? I do not believe in holding anybody — including high office seekers — to a standard of perfection. But there are laws, regulations and codes that hold public officials to higher standards than the common citizen.

You have given as examples of what you perceive to be a double standard: President Bill Clinton and Sen. David Vitter, whom you note are two straight politicians who “managed to hold onto their jobs.”
 
President Clinton held onto his ...