Letters to the Editor

  • Tuesday June 27, 2006
Share this Post:

Great parade

I don't know how organizers did it, but this year's parade was one of the best. There was no long and boring stopping and starting, the flow was continuous and it was wonderful! In the past, this very same parade would have ended at 4 p.m. instead of this year's ending time of 1:30. Thank you to whoever it was that was able to find a way to make this happen. I learned to just ignore the commercial stuff and instead just appreciate the fact that the parade itself was loaded with great spirit and sexy, beautiful, imaginative, creative, and wonderfully outrageous people giving their all. Thanks.

P.S.: Before the parade started I saw members of a really hot belly dancing group and I was looking forward to seeing them dance past, but they never did. Please put that group in the parade next year.

John Reed

San Francisco

Pride Parade, a little boring

I can't imagine what it takes to put together such an event. I, and most all others, thank the organizers for all the very hard work they put into the annual parade, it has to be a monumental job.

This year though, I just thought it was a little boring with something bright here and there but overall, people I've talked to thought it wasn't as exciting as in past years.

I first starting viewing the parade in 1976 and for many years, the energy from those participating was overwhelming. These days, it seems very political, though the support groups like PFLAG are not only extremely important to all of us but greatly appreciated.

If they were to keep each group closer together to keep the flow and energy going, that would be so much better, instead of these long gaps. Also, there weren't many floats to ahhh about at all. Plus, how many grand marshals were there? It seems we had an endless group of these people.

Hopefully, next year the organizers will think up some new ideas to make it much more exciting. Again though, we all thank you dearly for all the hard work that goes into such events.

George L. Ramas

Walnut Creek, California

Greens and abortion

Cecilia Brown, of the so-called Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, is of course, entitled to her opinions, and entitled to call herself a Green if she wishes to do so ["Gay pro-life group to have presence at Pride," June 22]. But please let there be no misunderstanding about the Green position on abortion rights. Our national platform clearly states, "Women's right to control their bodies is non-negotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available."

The Green Party of the United States has some of the strongest platform language of any party anywhere in the world supporting the rights of women, including abortion rights, and the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people. As the author of the platform plank on LGBTI concerns, I can say that the ethical and political underpinnings of both sets of planks are the same. We believe deeply that individuals should be empowered to make the most intimate choices concerning their lives, including those with regard to sexuality, gender, and reproduction. This notion is firmly rooted in our key values, which include social justice, feminism, and responsibility. To learn more about our values and positions, visit www.gp.org.

We are not a party that bends on fundamental principles, and we are not afraid to lose support for standing up for what we believe. We believe in abortion rights, non-negotiably.

Paul Quick

San Francisco

'Do no harm'

In Roger Brigham's article on the fertility clinic case ["State high court to hear fertility clinic case," June 22] , lawyer Jennifer Pizer says, "Doctors all take the Hippocratic oath – to do no harm."

Actually, "do no harm" does not appear in the Hippocratic oath; it's from "Epidemics," another essay by Hippocrates. She could look it up.

If she really wants to quote Hippocrates, she should just fudge it (a fine legal tradition) and simply say "As Hippocrates wrote..." or some similar wording.

Chris Maynard

Bronx, New York

Love for all, but�

My experience with the "Go Team" profiled in your paper ["Fundies met by cold stares in the Castro," June 15] should interest those questioning their motives. I was approached by a team member who wanted to talk to me about "Christ's love." I said to her that I was more interested in whether she loved me. She, of course, said yes. I asked, "Do you love me enough to support my right to marry the person I love, the same right you claim for yourself?" Her steadfast refusal to answer said all I needed to know.

The kind of "love" this group has to offer is the same old condescending, self-indulgent, self-congratulatory, counterfeit that has been the libation of the oppressor throughout history. Love without respect for basic human rights is, to paraphrase Christian scripture, like faith without works – DEAD.

Chris Harrill

San Francisco

Loved GAWK event

These comments are about my being part of the Gay Writers and Artists Kollective event of June 10.

That event was one of those small priceless gems in my life that I can look at and be reminded that local creativity still means something. I really did appreciate being part of it. For the few of us who come to realize that there are no illusions left about why we create art except that we must keep doing it, to have GAWK and Jon Sugar around to bring us all together to an audience in the Castro open to the new is a wonderful gift. I would perform there again in a heartbeat.

Trick Kernan

Oakland, California

Bush and marriage

Joseph Lovestone called same-sex couples "shrill" because they are not willing to compromise their citizenship [Mailstrom, June 22]. He thinks that President Bush is transmitting a nuanced message to LGBT Americans directing us toward legislative remedies to resolve the denial of our equal protections.

Here are quotes from the so-called activist courts that have issued decisions regarding same-sex marriage:

Hawaii, 1996: "Defendant [Director Lawrence Miike, Board of Health] presented insufficient evidence and failed to establish or prove any adverse consequences to the public resulting from same-sex marriage."

King County Superior Court from Washington state, 2004: "�the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage � is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest�"

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2003: the state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

California Superior Court, 2005: "Thus, the denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary."

New York State Supreme Court, 2005: "Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing."

Mr. Lovestone thinks President Bush's radio address from June 3 opens a door of opportunity. In that address Bush said: "These court decisions could have an impact on our whole nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else."

Consequently, "� I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and � I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification."

I feel very sorry for Mr. Lovestone. It cannot be easy to think so little of your own citizenship that you would dismiss the reasonable decisions of courts in favor of the politically motivated bigotry of the Republican Party. It requires extraordinary denial to support an administration that consistently exhibits animosity toward him.

I think Mr. Lovestone would make a perfect partner for Susan Kennedy, Governor Schwarzenegger's lesbian chief of staff. The two of them have a great deal in common. Lovestone thinks that states should legislate marriage equality and Kennedy works for the Republican Governor that vetoed legislation to enforce same-sex marriage.

It sounds like a match made in heaven. I think they should marry each other. Together they can continue to be sycophants, desperately seeking validation from any Republican that will give them the time of day, if not a pocket full of cash to keep their mouths shut.

Hey, if you can�t beat them, you might as well join them, right, Mr. and Mrs. Lovestone?

Patrick Connors

San Francisco

Send letters to the Bay Area Reporter, 395 Ninth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. Letters must be signed, and include an address and daytime phone number for verification purposes only. Unsigned or anonymous letters will not be published. E-mail letters are accepted at