 |
|
Pen Points
Letters to Gay Today |
|
New York Times Magazine Writer Responds Again Reference: New York Times Magazine, May 28, 2000 “An Inconvenient Woman”
All three, at SLDN's pressured insistence, have since issued a denunciation saying "neither the Lesbian & Gay Coalition for Justice nor Servicemembers Legal Defense Network ever advised, recommended or otherwise suggested that Ms. Calpernia Addams self-identify as a man.? They are parsing vocabulary here. They want you to know they never POINTEDLY proposed this. And that she "self-identified." They read in what I've written that they TOLD Addams this was the best and only logical course. I did not write that.They would prefer I said, SLDN "broached the topic of Addams self-identifying as a man" and Addams, no veteran activist, was "given absolute power and autonomy to elect to do that, or not." Addams agrees with this, as it says in my piece, she was the one who accepted the male nomenclature. She "self-identified." To her eventual dismay. What do I believe? That SLDN felt the only acceptable outcome of this meeting was to turn Addams back into a man. They were lobbying for a major newspaper story on the case at the time, but the reporter was balking: "How can you say this was a gay hate crime if the soldier had a girlfriend?" That was why they took the meeting in the first place. They presented the quandary to Addams and did indeed say it was all up to her. But what choice did she have? Michelle Benecke is a lawyer. She knows better than to lie. But she has trapped all of us, including you it seems, in this semantical eddy. For what reason, I can not know. She does not come across badly in my piece, nor do any of the activists. What shocks me is your easy acceptance of her charge, how fully and ravenously you swallowed it, even going so far as to declare in your own quote--strange, that, quoting yourself in your own story, don't you think?--that not only had I invented reporting for my story, but I did so deliberately, and with malice. That is inexcusable journalism, Jack. Knowing as I do now your long history in the alternative press makes me even more disappointed. Finally, I must say you are the first person I have heard from who has read my piece in an anti-SLDN way (that is, besides SLDN). The response I get is one of great understanding: That they chose a successful strategic route through a very complicated issue. They were incredibly sensitive to Calpernia. Perhaps not fully enlightened about what it means to be transgendered. But who is? There is no need to reply to this note. I'm taking today off from this hypercharged mess. A Carbon Copy Received: To Dr. Laura Dear Dr. Laura,
a.. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? b.. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c.. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d.. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? e.. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f.. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? g.. Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Poppers: The Dose is Everything
That you have escaped serious effects from the use of poppers makes me happy, but it should not be taken by others as license to use these substances to any great extent. I spent 20 years in the fast gay lifestyle of San Francisco and saw an almost invariable link between Kaposi's sarcoma and the use of poppers. I, personally, would never use them. I also do not smoke. Please do not get me wrong, I am not some sort of a health nut or a Puritan; I just love my body and mind and want to be able to function normally for as long as possible. I am now 70 and loving it.
Fred Cline, |
GayToday's Senior Editor Jack Nichols (above) once again was criticized by the author of a New York Times Magazine article blasted as biased by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network 
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to best follow them.
© 1997-2000 BEI