April 4, 2006
To the Editor:
If the courts are to deliver a decision regarding same sex marriage in the next few months, as indicated by Paul Schindler in “Next Step Toward the Altar” (Mar. 30-Apr. 5), it seems to me time is of the essence. Schindler throws support toward Mayor Bloomberg because he “voiced support for gay marriage, even as he appealed a favorable ruling from a Manhattan court.” And Bloomberg allowed his promised meeting with GLBT leaders to lapse into a “two-month delay in making that pledge a reality”, while, apparently with personal grievance, “the mayor chose to snub the leader of the Empire State Pride Agenda.”
I find it more and more difficult to swallow the strategy of “some LGBT New Yorkers [who] may quibble with choices and decisions Alan Van Capelle, the [Pride Agenda] executive director, has made” for continuing their support for a Republican mayor whose promises are not weighted by his actions. We’re baffled by the constant run-around, the delays, the half-hearted support—except when e-mailing requests for campaign funding—by GOP and Democrat leaders. Mayor Bloomberg marched in the St. Patrick’s Day parade after our community was equated with Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.
Schindler himself states, “A critical part of the reason that the gay rights movement advanced so slowly was the reluctance of so many powerful people in America to stand with us.” I’d have said “powerful people in New York,” because the support lacking most is in our own backyard. Is not a defeat in the courts being facilitated by Bloomberg, and will that not send the game back to “Start” in the Legislature?
I don’t know where your next step toward the altar is taking place, but it seems likely that it will be Canada for my partner of 17 years and me—who have raised a daughter—not New York. Alan Van Capelle didn’t mean to open a new window of thinking, but the fresh air certainly smells good.
Donald W. F. Larson and Mark Issacs
March 25, 2006
To the Editor:
I fear I am stating the obvious, but clearly your publication, in sharp contrast to the other(s?), is far superior in its coverage of LGBT matters of importance. I am surprised every year by the stir caused due to the non-inclusion of gay people in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade (“Pols Don’t Rain on Bigot’s Parade,” by Andy Humm, Mar. 23-29). Have these people heard of the U.S. ban of gays in the military? The parade is funded by a private organization run by the Catholic Church. As Americans, we must respect their right to invite—or not!—anyone they wish. We can feel hurt and disagree, but really, it is only a parade!
We should put the same energy into fighting the real causes. Have these protesters read Doug Irelands article you wisely published on page one (“Shia Death Squads Target Iraqi Gays?”) Has anyone noticed the similarity between those who would kill human beings in Iraq and Iran because they are gay and those who are responsible for giving them that power? George W. Bush is front and center on Iraq; Iran is our worst nightmare, and, apparently, this administration is bowing to them. Benedict XVI’s election is reviving the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now known as the “LGBT Inquisition.” Am I the only one who is terrified by this situation? Gays will never be fully welcomed by organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church. When will LGBT Catholics accept that and get on with their lives?
Anthony D. Iannuzzo
April 4, 2006
To the Editor:
The push to enact marriage protection laws has me trying to remember where I had left my long-ago misplaced Baltimore Catechism. I recall, from early instruction in my Roman Catholic faith, that marriage was one of the sacraments instituted by God himself. I just don’t remember that its sanctity would one day have to be further established by Florida amendment (“Florida Amendment Ruling Okayed,” by Arthur S. Leonard, Mar. 30-Apr. 5). The idea now has me concerned about protecting all seven of the sacraments. By the way, does anyone know from whom we will be protecting holy matrimony? I can understand protecting BINGO—if we don’t get a little preemptive about it, the next thing you know the Lutherans will be into our game.
West Branch, Iowa
March 18, 2006
To the Editor:
Let me get this straight: every major Democrat running for statewide office in the state of New York is openly for gay marriage, but not Hillary Clinton? (“Leaked Memo Stirs Firestorm,” by Paul Schindler, Feb. 23-Mar. 1) Why is that? Could it be that Hillary, as a presidential candidate, needs to run well in the 2008 Southern primaries?
Hillary says a marriage is a sacred bond only between a man and a woman. Her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Both Bill and Hillary know how to take our money, take our support, and then triangulate the GLBT legislative agenda into a political football. Just because Hillary raises money for partisan gay hack groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force doesn’t mean she is reliable on gay marriage. There is no reason why the GLBT voting community should be wild about Hillary running for president as long as she is against gays taking vows but not against taking gay political support.
Michael R. LaPaglia
Wilton Manors, Florida
Please address letters to the editor to
Or fax them to 646-452-2501
Or mail them to 487 Greenwich St., Suite 6A, New York City 10013.
You must include your phone number, which will be use for confirmation purposes only. The editors reserve the right to edit all letters due to space constraints.