This comes to us from “OneNewsNow.com” (that’s an ‘Internet website’, so you can look it up yourself.) The Constitution Party is also trumpeting the news on its own website.

We were hopeful back in June, when John McCain had an (albeit “secret”) meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans, that we might see a presidential campaign season without the emotional “wedge issue” garbage, and without open bigots (not a term I use lightly) in the forefront. Now, not so much.

Whatever. Equality Loudoun enthusiastically encourages our members and supporters (as well as those who revile us and so entertainingly compare us to criminals) to ignore all that, and actively support the candidate you think best represents your values.

Here’s a quiz for the undecided: Does this makes sense to you? Because then-Judge Roberts “has publicly stated that his faith and religious beliefs do not play a role in judging,” and “that when it comes to judging, he looks to the law books but not to the Bible or any other religious source,” the “Constitution Party” opposed his nomination as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

For a good number of you claiming to be Republicans (that would include Dick Black, and Lynn Chapman, and Eugene Delgaudio, and Patricia Phillips, and let’s see…who else do we know who is more aligned with the ideas of the “Constitution Party”?) your guy would be Chuck Baldwin. I’m sure he would appreciate the support. You can contact your local party organization here.

The only notable thing about it is that the author happens to be the chairman of the Virginia branch of the “Constitution Party” (which has about as much use for our Constitution as “pro-family” activists have for actual families).

Mitch Turner of Hamilton is “amazed” that anyone could possess a moral authority that leads them to a conclusion other than his own. Imagine! His opinions used to be popular, but now things have changed; “30-40 years ago you couldn’t even talk openly about homosexuals,” and now we expect equality under the law. If people fail to adopt his religious beliefs, he says, all that is left are their own personal beliefs. (The terribly earnest Mr. Turner seems unaware that the view he is professing is itself a “personal belief.” Oh, never mind.) Here, he explains things to a libertarian:

Let’s look at some of their principles: “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives … The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”

The foundation of this country is based on the principle that individuals ARE NOT sovereign over their own lives – God is!

Ok, got it? Individuals ARE NOT sovereign over their own lives. The Constitution conjured up by Turner’s imagination doesn’t actually cherish and safeguard individual liberty, because they don’t accept that there is any such thing. It’s a Constitution(asterisk). Incredible.

Their website seems to use the term “sodomy” quite a bit - but my absolute favorite part is this: The Virginia Constitution Party recommends that voters engage in “guarding their minds” by limiting their source of news and information to WorldNetDaily.com “and other web resources linked from our state party website.” These “web resources” include “news” from the American Family Association, among similar others.

My only question is this: Why is someone like Patricia Phillips still in the Republican Party, impeding its ability to improve itself, instead of helping to build the party that really reflects her views?

What is it this time, you ask? Well, apparently McDonald’s sponsored and purchased a half-page ad in the program for a 2007 Summit on workplace equality. (Pssst. Mister Wildmon, you’ll want to direct your crack team of investigators to check out the sponsors of Out & Equal’s 2008 Summit, coming up in September. McDonald’s did it again. Also, we sure hope that none of those action alerts are issuing forth from Dell computers.)

So what’s the problem? Wildmon explains: “One of [Out & Equal’s] primary purposes is to train employees how to aggressively promote homosexuality within the company they work for..”

Strange. I’ve searched Out & Equal’s website, and I can’t find anything about aggressively promoting homosexuality or any other orientation (it seems to me that “promoting” any naturally occurring human attribute would be a waste of time, anyway. Why bother?) Maybe one of our readers will have better luck locating it. Here’s what Out & Equal actually says:

Our mission is to educate and empower organizations, human resource professionals, Employee Resource Groups and individual employees through programs and services that result in equal policies, opportunities, practices, and benefits in the workplace regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, expression, or characteristics.

Sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. Wildmon must think so too, or he wouldn’t need to claim they’re doing something else. He also says this:

At the bottom of McDonald’s half-page ad in the Out & Equal Summit booklet is this statement: “From neighborhood to neighborhood, coast to coast and around the world, McDonald’s is proud to celebrate diversity” (homosexuality). [Yes, the parenthetical is actually in the original, exactly as shown.]

I’m not sure which dictionary Mr. Wildmon is using. Mine defines “diverse” as:

1 : differing from one another : unlike, i.e., people with diverse interests; 2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities, i.e., a diverse population

“Diversity” is defined as:

1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization; 2: an instance of being diverse

My dictionary does not suggest “homosexuality” as a synonym.

Here are some other randomly selected lines from Out & Equal’s 2007 program ads, as perceived by the brain of Don Wildmon. I believe they speak for themselves.

“Homosexuality - essential to creating the magic at Disney.”

“At Best Buy, we are committed to having a workforce that is as homosexual as the communities we serve.”

And many, many more. The sheer magnitude of products and services that dyed-in-the-wool anti-gay obsessives will be required to boycott must be enough to drive them around the bend.

Please bear in mind that Wildmon’s AFA is the organization that reported the following, because they thought it would be a good idea to change every instance of the word “gay” to the word “homosexual” in their news feeds:

Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has..

“It means a lot to me,” the 25-year-old Homosexual said. “I’m glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me.”

To be credible, we need to be as accurate as possible when articulating an opposing viewpoint. Like so many actors in the anti-gay industry, Wildmon doesn’t even try. How else to explain his description, in the same action alert, of a lobby visit as “an organized march into congressional offices”? Doesn’t the AFA lobby for positions they favor, and encourage their supporters to do so? Would they describe their own lobbying activities as “an organized march”? Why use disingenuous language like this? Why make claims that are demonstrably false, and use common words in a way that makes you sound like an idiot?

Unless credibility is no longer even an option, and the only audience being addressed is so far outside the mainstream that it doesn’t matter what you say to them.

As one reader said about this latest AFA missive, “Somewhere, young William is sharpening his pencil for another letter to the editor. Meanwhile, the folks at the drive-through window are beginning to recognize me.”

I’m going to McDonald’s.

It was a refreshingly pleasant event. Our visit followed a recent post about the efforts of the LCRC to change its image. The prominence in the committee of anti-gay ideologues and their agendas was part of what led to the founding of Equality Loudoun back in 2003, and as we said in the previous post, “we would be delighted by evidence that this has changed, and that our Republican members can fully participate in their chosen political party at the local level.”

The hosts for this event were Roger Zurn (Loudoun’s Treasurer) and Robert Wertz (Loudoun’s Commissioner of the Revenue). I spoke with both of them. To my knowledge, they are members of the moderate wing of the LCRC. When we arrived, we also met Glen Caroline, the new chairman of the committee. He was very friendly and welcoming, as were most of the people I spoke with. Oddly, he didn’t seem very aware that the committee has had a problem with the GLBT community.

There were people associated with the openly anti-gay, “social conservative” wing of the committee in attendance as well. Failed State Senate candidate Patricia Phillips, formerly the state director of Concerned Women for America, who was instrumental in creating the “controversy” over the student play Offsides, and actively gay-baited her primary opponent was there, as was Mark Sell, a close associate of professional gay-basher Eugene Delgaudio.

It must make these types uncomfortable to see people greet me and ask how David is, when they believe that our marriage is “an abomination.” Sell managed to tell me that a gay person would be welcome to “work for Republican candidates,” and that the committee doesn’t care about anyone’s personal life. I take this to mean that advocacy within the committee for the individual liberties of GLBT persons - or even being out - would be an unwelcome introduction of one’s “personal life.” The anti-gay activist wing fails to see the irony of this position. We’ll just leave it at that.

Others active in the committee were more attuned. In particular, LCRC Secretary Mary Gail Swenson pulled Russ and me aside and tried to recruit us both. She warned that although some members of the LCRC would object to a membership application from an openly gay citizen, she assured us that she would advocate for the applicant and would not tolerate discrimination. Her stand may give pause to the more rabid elements, who have been deposed from leadership positions, but are still present and vocal in their attacks on our community.

Russ had a casual conversation with a woman who he believes heckled Equality Loudoun at the 2007 Leesburg 4th of July parade. She wanted his input on how to bring young voters into the LCRC. He suggested that we “must learn to speak their language,” to which she replied “you mean we have to support Ludacris?” No, he tried to explain, it’s just that the things that matter to 20 year olds are different from the things that matter to older people. She seemed not to have any idea what this could mean, giving him a funny blank stare.

As I was leaving, I met Matthew, a representative from the Republican Party of Virginia. I explained that I was there representing Equality Loudoun, and that the LCRC has been hostile to the GLBT community in the past, severely limiting participation. I related to him the story of the 2003 LCRC meeting to which School Board candidates were invited to seek endorsement, and how that meeting was derailed by Patrick Henry College student Eve Marie Barner’s ridiculous resolution demanding the reversal of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v Texas. Matthew seemed interested to learn about these things, and said that he’d add the inclusiveness problem to the list of items he would discuss with Glen Caroline.

I was somewhat heartened. It appears that the mainstream is making an effort to take back the LCRC (which I have to admit, as a Democrat, is a bad development.) As a member of the GLBT community, it’s a great development. Life’s not always black and white. I hope that Glen’s leadership can put an end to the irrational anti-gay bias that has tarnished the LCRC, and the committee can concentrate on the issues that matter to everyone regardless of who they love and what their family looks like. When using our community as a wedge issue no longer works at the local level, it will no longer work at the national platform level either, and the direction taken by this local committee depends on who shows up and makes their voices heard. Good luck to the LCRC!

The campaign’s volunteer recruitment is built around an “8 for 8” theme, asking pastors to recruit 8 other pastors for next month’s call. Among action items for pastors:

Urge people to pray 8 minutes every morning and evening at 8 for passage of Prop 8; Urge people to enlist 8 other people to join 8 for 8 plan; Give at least $8 to protect marriage.com for each member of the family, or $88, or $888; Starting on 8/8/08, begin to volunteer, offer services of work 8 hours for the campaign; Send a note of encouragement to at least 8 other pastors who are standing for marriage; Register at least 8 other people to vote – get 8 other people to apply for permanent vote by mail; Contact 8 families and ask them to participate in the family voting weekend…

Today, Janet Parshall (of Janet Parshall’s America) was discussing the opening ceremonies of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, specifically the fact that they began precisely at 8:08, 08.08.08:

Those people think there’s some magic involved in those numbers…when you don’t believe in God, I guess you have to believe in superstition.

How could you, Janet? How could you?

We conclude by saying that if the letter “had not been published, community members would not have been informed about the increasing extremism of what we call the ‘anti-gay industry.’ We would have missed the opportunity to have this public conversation, which is a valuable one.”

As if on cue, the next letter perfectly showcases that extremism. With claims that “the gay perversion agenda” is to “teach homosexual practice to 1st graders,” and the equation of GLBT people to “pedophiles,” “thieves,” and “welfare whores,” we couldn’t have written a better illustration if we’d tried.

The writer is Ranjani Johnson, who is very active with the LCRC (guess which faction) and the Lovettsville branch of Jay Ahlemann’s Church of the Valley (the church that ran the full page anti-gay advertisements last year). Some readers may remember the 2006 election day story of a woman who had to be repeatedly admonished by the election official for violating the posted Board of Elections rules; she was allowing her several children to chase voters to the door with pro-Marshall/Newman Amendment literature, and having them say “vote for Jesus!” That was Johnson.

She seems annoyed because the “American Psychiatric Institute” (along with all other mainstream medical and mental health associations) no longer agrees with her belief that “homosexuality is the product of a sick mind.” They have “changed with the times,” she says. Yes, that’s generally what evidence-based institutions do. They continually adopt new positions that reflect greater knowledge. Medical associations “changed with the times” when penicillin was discovered, too.

Johnson also believes that it’s “natural” for a child of William’s age to agree with her views, and that such visceral discomfort with GLBT people as she seems to be burdened with “doesn’t need to be taught.” That of course isn’t the case at all; homophobia must be “carefully taught,” as the song says. That’s why such hysteria ensues among the anti-gay set at the appearance of a book about penguins, and why a Massachusetts parent tried to require that his child’s classmates be prevented from talking about their own families at school. In fact, the parents in the Massachusetts case explicitly made the argument that they fear their own inability as parents to counter the exposure of their children to different kinds of families. Their lawsuit was predicated on the claim that the school district is failing to accommodate their efforts to carefully teach their children to share their aversion to gay people.

The idea these parents are trying so urgently to teach is extremely fragile, precisely because it is a construction. It does not reflect reality. This is one of those interesting areas of anti-gay “thought” wherein logical consistency falls by the wayside. Here we have Focus on the Family demagogue James Dobson giving advice about the necessary “training” in gender identification:

Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

In Dobson’s world, children have to be carefully taught to be boys and girls. In Ranjani Johnson’s world, the idea that it’s normal and natural for some people to be gay or transgender is something from which she feels she must “protect” her children. Why? If particular gender behaviors and the idea that gay people are “sick” are natural, then why is it necessary to exert so much effort to enforce them?

We eagerly await the answer.

Purcellville Gazette, August 8, 2008

Positive to Publish Letter

As president of Equality Loudoun, I would like to thank you for your decision to publish the letter from young “William A.” This may surprise some people. After all, our organization strongly objected to the decision last year by some other newspapers to accept a patently offensive anti-gay advertisement from a local church.

These are two very different events (although both were generated by the misleadingly named “American Family Association”). With regard to paid advertisements, publishers have the responsibility to reject material containing claims that are demonstrably false, and that violate community standards. The advertisement of last year failed both of these tests.

With regard to letters to the editor, the standard is different. The First Amendment guarantees each of us the right to express our opinions - short of libel - no matter how offensive they may be to others; there is no constitutional “right” to not be offended. The irony of William’s letter is this: It reveals the sense of entitlement his parents feel to not be offended by the full participation in the life of our nation by a group of people they consider to be inferior to themselves. So strong is their feeling about this that they have taken a position well outside the mainstream of American society - boycotting McDonald’s, of all things. Not only that, they have shown a willingness to use their child as a pawn in the pursuit of this agenda. Readers (and the editor of this paper) have responded with appropriate condemnation of this behavior.

Where I think some readers have been mistaken is in protesting the printing of the letter in the first place. If it had not been published, community members would not have been informed about the increasing extremism of what we call the “anti-gay industry.” We would have missed the opportunity to have this public conversation, which is a valuable one. My greatest hope is that it will help William A. to understand better than his parents the big world in which he lives.

David Weintraub
President, Equality Loudoun

Excuse me, Jonathan, but what would a homosexual comprehend about spousal rights?

“t” is of course absolutely correct; in all but two states, the experience of gay partners would be more in the area of spousal responsibilities. Still working on the rights part, thanks.

This hot “culture war” topic is the subject of an editorial - Gay marriage: A way out - in Monday’s USA Today, arguably the very middle channel of the mainstream. What is presented here - separating the civil from the religious union - is not exactly a novel idea; the significance is in where it appears, presented as an eminently reasonable compromise:

Liberal-minded Americans should like this proposed arrangement because everyone gets treated the same, and the state deprives no one of his or her rights based upon sexual orientation. If a gay couple is denied the right to marry, it would only be because their religious community denied it, in which case they could turn to a church or synagogue that would consecrate their marriage.

Conservatives should like the arrangement because religious institutions will not be forced to recognize relationships that they feel are contrary to the teachings of scripture. Nor will they be forced to call something “marriage” that to them plainly isn’t. At the same time, the proliferation of domestic partnerships would create more familial and financial stability.

What’s not to like? Discuss.

A Boycott

McDonald’s Corporation has been supporting the gay society. I don’t think that what they are doing is right. Homosexuality is wrong. I am not going to spend my money on their food anymore. I don’t think anyone should spend their money at McDonald’s because what they are doing is bad for our society.

I’m asking everyone who agrees with me to participate in a boycott with me until September 1, 2008. I am collecting signatures of people joining me in the boycott. You can also join a boycott on line at AFA.net.

William A. (age 10), Round Hill

The response to this letter has been remarkable, and can be summed up, more or less, as “that poor kid.” Everyone recognizes that the children in these situations are not to blame; objections are to the behavior of the parents.

In addition to this week’s editorial (those who bring us the Purcellville Gazette were “disturbed” by the letter, and suggest that young William find something to do of his own choosing instead), there are nine letters to the editor from people who find this parental behavior troubling. My personal favorite is the one that quotes these infamous lines from South Pacific:

You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, you’ve got to be taught from year to year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear. You’ve got to be carefully taught…You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you’ve got to be carefully taught!

You can read all the letters and the editorial below the fold.

I don’t at all mean to suggest that children shouldn’t be listened to or can’t have valid opinions. Much of the testimony in favor of marriage equality, in fact, is from children who don’t understand why their family is being singled out for unfair treatment. The difference is that these children are speaking of something they know about - their own families. One of the glaring problems that anti-gay activists have in general is this: In advocating for our own equality, GLBT people and our allies only need to talk about ourselves. In advocating against our equality, anti-gay activists need to talk about…us.

This is not exactly a good strategic position for them.

I also can’t help wondering the same thing asked by the Gazette editor: Did young William’s parents teach him about homosexuality? If so, what specific information was involved? Typically, people with these views are opposed to children of Williams’s age learning anything about sexuality at all - so how is it that he would have even a rudimentary understanding of the term he used?

It doesn’t sound as if the “boycott” of McDonald’s is going especially well. Concerned ‘Woman’ for America Matt Barber illustrates the sort of goofy language being used to promote this project, describing the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce as:

an extremist, “gay” activist organization that lobbies for leftist causes, such as “gay marriage,” and pushes for other policies that would grant special privileges to certain individuals who define themselves based upon unhealthy, traditionally immoral and changeable sexual behaviors.

I suggested (only half facetiously) to our discussion list that we should compile a helpful list of other corporations that the American Family Association ought to boycott for promoting such “special privileges” as equity in the workplace. As it happens, one of the letter writers had the same idea. Here is her list, which is a good start:

AT&T, Best Buy, Chrysler, MasterCard, Fannie Mae, Ford, Gap, Macy’s, Sprint/Nextel, Starbucks, IBM, Kraft Foods, Met Life, Nike, Pepsi, Sears, Anheuser Busch, and Yahoo (all from HRC’s Corporate Equality Index). The AFA may also want to consider boycotting electricity, gas and water. California public utility giant PG&E is contributing considerably more than McDonald’s to the campaign to defeat Prop 8, and is spearheading the formation of a business advisory council to oppose the discriminatory initiative.

Perhaps the “A.” family can work next on answering this question: Why do anti-gay activists hate capitalism?

Purcellville Gazette, August 1, 2008

I am Going to McDonalds

What an interesting juxtaposition of the views, priorities and efforts of youth in our community: one (an Eagle Scout candidate) asking this community to support his efforts to enhance the helicopter rescue pad he has already constructed to aid in the medical airlift of members of our community who are in extremis – no matter what their race, religion, gender, political creed or sexual orientation; the other (an unbelievably precocious and activist ten year old) calling this community to support his boycott of McDonalds because the corporation “has been supporting the gay society.” Reading young William’s note of alarm, I was at first afraid that McDonalds might actually be providing food and jobs to our fellow citizens who are homosexual. Consulting the AFA website, however, I found that McDonalds Corporation’s support of Gay Pride Day, same sex marriage and a “diverse workforce” is causing this boy to make the sacrifice of giving up food from McDonalds.

Thank you to the Gazette for presenting me and my wife with these youthful calls to action! This gives us the opportunity to quickly and firmly express our beliefs and priorities. We believe in two well known dictums: (1) Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. (2) We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that ALL [humans] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Based on these beliefs, and in response to the calls of these youth, we hereby pledge to donate immediately to Alex Kenny’s project and we hereby pledge (although we almost never buy fast food) to purchase at least two breakfast meals at a McDonalds every weekend from now through the end of September 2008!

John D. Tew, Purcellville

McDonald’s is Not the Problem

I am writing in response to last week’s letter from William A. (age 10) of Round Hill. William (or more likely William’s parents) urges community members to boycott McDonald’s because the company allegedly “has been supporting the gay society.” While there may be good reasons for boycotting McDonald’s, the corporation’s stance on the gay community is not one of them. As a worldwide franchise, McDonald’s is responsible for representing a much wider pool of consumers than most. It is also obliged to attempt to reach out to all religions, races, genders, age groups, etc. in order to increase its sales. McDonald’s provides some funding to LGBT, as well as to scholarships for children, obesity research, and many other groups. Boycotting McDonald’s for its charitable contribution to one group is narrow-minded and unproductive, as it hinders all of the other charitable acts that McDonald’s can perform.

I also find it interesting that this letter came from a ten-year old child. From my observations, children of this age scarcely understand their own sexuality, much less adult sexuality, whether it be hetero- or homo-. It seems to me that this child’s parents are responsible for the sentiments expressed in the letter, and, as a teacher, I find this discouraging. In our school systems we encourage children to learn about and accept others’ choices, regardless of their own convictions. Accepting others as they are does not consist of condoning or participating in the activities or choices of others; it merely means attempting to respect and understand people’s individuality. The child who wrote this letter is clearly being taught the opposite. Statements such as “Homosexuality is wrong” illustrate that the child has learned to express his opinion as fact.

This puts me in mind of a song in the beloved musical, South Pacific, which deals with this exact issue: “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, you’ve got to be taught from year to year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear. You’ve got to be carefully taught…You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you’ve got to be carefully taught!” If this is what we are teaching our children, then we have more to worry about than McDonald’s.

Amy Lanham, Middleburg

Parents To Blame?

How sad that a ten-year old child has such a close-minded view of the world. Then again, a child lives what he learns and is mirroring what his parents have taught him. I am not gay but was raised in an environment where I was taught a tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and lifestyles. Shame on the parents for filling this child’s head full of hatred. Shame on the Purcellville Gazette for publishing such rubbish that was obviously a coached letter by an adult. Would this letter have been acceptable if “gay” had been replaced with “black” or Jewish”?

If there was a way to cancel a subscription to your newspaper, I would be doing so today. Perhaps writing “return to sender” and having the return postage charged to Purcellville Gazette is the best way to respond.

David Fisher, Purcellville

(Editor’s Note: Should we be selective on all our letters to the Editor, if so, which ones and who decides? Based on the public outcry opposed to this letter, we are pleased by the opposition.)

Deeply Saddened

I was deeply saddened - on several levels – to read the letter in the July 25th issue of the Gazette from “William A, Round Hill (Age 10)”. First, and foremost, I question the judgment of the editor in printing such a thing. We can imagine all sorts of dreadful things being written on all sorts of horrible subjects. If such letters were sent in as attributable to a minor, would they all be printed? If that letter had been written by an adult (presumably written in a more mature manner; but then again probably not, given the subject matter), would it have been printed? If the object of the attempted smear had been to disallow black people the right to dine in or work at McDonalds, or the denial of the same to Muslims, or Jews, or pick-a-minority-any-minority, would this letter have been printed?

But beyond the questionable decision to print such ugliness, one does, as a parent, have to wonder where such an ignorant opinion may have come from. And if the author was indeed ten years old – and that is unknown since the paper declined to print this person’s full name - it is not difficult to draw the line right back to this poor child’s parents. Looking around this country right now, it is sometimes difficult to believe that the year is 2008, and that so many human beings still have such trouble with tolerance and acceptance, not to mention minding their own gd business. And looking in the environs of this particular area, the thinking mind is sent reeling with the possibility that intolerance, bigotry, hatred, and fear mongering will be the wave of the future. The influx of people into this area some years ago is what sent my family out of this town and up over the hill to Clarke County. We’d lived here on 29th Street for more than ten years, and watched with great trepidation as certain influences seemed to be welcomed into our little town with open arms. Well, here’s the product of those influences, I think, and I am profoundly glad that I don’t still live here, since I have things to occupy my time other than blowing mental gaskets every week or so. Yet, I still work in the area, and have many dear friends here, and therefore feel justified in responding to this atrocity even though I’m not a resident here any more.

I am the parent of 14 year old twins. I am well aware of the barrage of nonsense that these children are subjected to on a daily basis. We live now in a farming community that is uniformly white. The vast majority of the children they’ve been in school with are Caucasian, and this has caused me some concern. But it turned out I needn’t have worried – my husband and I have instilled in them since they were young an appreciation for diversity of all types, and they somehow “sponged” those admirable traits into their very being. They are very offhand now about diversity of all types, including homosexuals. The pride I feel about this is immense, yet I cannot imagine the horror of the idea that there are parents out there swelling with pride that their little darlings are not only precious little bigots, but are willing to write into their local paper, and advertise that sad fact. Welcome to the future, if we let this happen.

Kathy Gibb and family, Leesbur

Who’s Next…Sears?

Ah, there’s nothing more uplifting than opening my Purcellville Gazette on a bright Saturday morning, sipping my coffee, and reading the homophobic, hate-mongering words of a ten year old boy from Round Hill.

William A.—please keep in mind that when you are writing an editorial in support of a boycott you really need to explain why you are boycotting. “…Supporting the gay society” really does not do your piece justice. If you’d like us to support a boycott we’d like to know why—in detail. How is McDonald’s supporting the gay community? And how is it bad for our society? While you’re at it you’d better get ready to boycott many, many companies that are considered “gay friendly”. Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual rights group, listed it’s 100 “gay friendly” companies for 2008 so you’d better take note of a few of them: AT&T, Best Buy, Chrysler, MasterCard, Fannie Mae, Ford, Gap, Macy’s, Sprint/Nextel, Starbucks, IBM, Kraft Foods, Met Life, Nike, Pepsi, Sears, Anheuser Busch etc. There are 100 listed so you may want to check them out. BUT, don’t use Yahoo as your search engine because they’re one of the top 100 companies as well (source: worldnetdaily.com).

If you’re going to boycott companies that support gays you’d better start keeping track because there are many more companies than just McDonald’s who are “gay friendly”. Good luck, William, in your future endeavors. It’ll be a sad and lonely world for you when you realize some of your classmates, coworkers, and possible loved ones have the dreaded “gay” disease. Maybe by the time you’re grown up scientists will have found a “cure” for it.

Laura Lieberman, Lovettsville

Why Print Letter?

Why on earth would you print a homophobic letter ostensibly written by a 10-year-old child in your paper? (”A Boycott,” July 25). The subject matter was offensive enough, but factoring in that given the writer’s age the content is most likely heavily influenced if not entirely directed by his parents or some other authority figure, your choice to encourage such behavior by publishing the letter is baffling. Freedom of speech is an essential right, but ask yourselves: would you have printed a letter by anyone, of any age, encouraging a boycott of a company because it hires minorities?

Tonya Ugoretz, Purcellville

(Editor’s Note: When the letter arrived, we were amazed that anybody in our community would have a child write a letter of this nature. For the sake of the child, we did not print his last name. However, if the parents would have been bold enough to sign their own name, we would have printed it in full. If this were to happen, would you suggest we not print it? Where do we draw the line? Anti-Obama letters? Anti-McCain letters? What about letters opposed to Gay Marriages?)

Lost Youth

This is in response to the letter written by William A. (age 10) of Round Hill, published in your paper on July 25, 2008. It was titled “A Boycott”.

William urged everyone to boycott McDonald’s Corporation for supporting gay society. My comment: It made me sad. A 10 year old who should be riding his bike, playing with friends or enjoying a game a catch…is troubled about this? Let kids be kids.

Susan Anastasio, Leesburg

What Kind of Future For William?

It saddens me greatly to read such narrow-minded, bigoted thoughts coming from the pen of such a young child. To think that a 10 year old would already have uncharitable feelings about other human beings is a poor reflection on the state of his world. Where does he go from here? I’m sure his feelings are parroted words from the adults around him, but at an age when he should start to be exposed to and explore the world around him, and accept it, he’s already shut the door to those who are “different”. I feel sorry for this child.

D. Landau, Lovettsville

Forget Politics, Think Health

Hooray for William A.! Boycott McDonald’s, but not just through September 1. William should definitely, certainly, and in no way, shape, or form boycott McDonald’s because it supports what he (or, most likely, his parents) call the company’s support of “gay society.”

I applaud McDonald’s for its support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. What I do not support is the company’s food and marketing campaigns. McDonald’s high-fat, highcarbohydrate, highly unnatural foods are contributing to the increasing rates of obesity-related diseases – including diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and heart disease – in the United States. Nearly one-third of children nationwide are considered overweight. Several recent analyses show that the number of children on adult medications to treat obesity-related illnesses has increased in some cases more than 100% over the past eight years. However, McDonald’s continues to market its food to young people and ethnic minorities, who also are at higher risk of becoming obese and developing diabetes.

William A. was correct on one point: what McDonald’s is “doing is bad for our society.” So bravo, young William! Forego that Big Mac, not just for two months, but forever, and in the meantime, go out and ride your bike or play capture the flag with your friends. Whatever you do, stop worrying about how other people live their lives. Take care of yours, because it’s the only one you have.

Alyson Browett, Purcellville

EDITORIAL: Open Letter to William A. (10)

We were quite disturbed by the tone of your letter to the editor when it was received at our office. We immediately visited the website site you mentioned to see if your parents were listed on the site; we also wanted to know if there was a “kid’s page”, which, thankfully, there was not. Once your letter was published, we started receiving comments via email, phone, and mail from our readers. We even received emails from as far away as Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Your letter has caused quite a stir. One of the prominent areas of concern is most believe you are far too young to be taking such an adult stance on such an important issue. Did your parents teach you about homosexuality? Did you come to the conclusion that it is “wrong” on your own?

As you grow up to be a man, you will no longer have your parents to guide you. While their teachings may have seemingly prepared you for the world, you may be surprised by what you will see and do. You will meet many new people from all over the world, Jewish, Christians, and Muslims. They could be your girlfriend, trash man, firefighter, teacher, professor or even your best friend from soccer camp. How will you judge him or her - based on what you know in your heart to be true, or what you read on a website written by someone you have never met? Being young is supposed to be a time of learning and open-mindedness, not learning to hate. While you may enjoy learning, we do not wish to discourage it; in fact, we suggest that you embrace this for the rest of your life. However, just like TV, some shows are just not worth watching.

We would like to suggest the following activities that would enhance your thirst for learning. These are programs your parents may not be aware of because of their busy schedules. Keep Loudoun Beautiful has a Potomac River Clean Up program where you ride in a canoe for three hours and pick up trash along the river. Besides cleaning up the river, you are able to learn about the environment you live in and how we as people can easily pollute it. Pollution can take on many forms, paper, chemicals, cars, and yes, even words.

Another idea would be to help local Boy Scouts raise funds for Hamilton’s Fire & Rescue’s helicopter pad. The Boy Scouts are working on a project that could someday save a life. We are confident that the folks at the station would show you their trucks and explain the mechanical aspects of pumping water as well as how to handle yourself if a fire were to happen in your home. Imagine, you, a ten year old learning how to escape a fire and the chance to teach your parents this same skill. We are
sure they would be proud of your newly learned skills.

Your letter was printed in a local paper and your job is done. However, this was not for you, you did it for someone else. The summer is not over yet, so you still have time to do something for yourself, perhaps a nice walk along the WO&D Trail to document the birds you see.

Remember, when school starts in the fall, you will be asked what you did over summer break and saying you wrote a letter to the editor is really not that exciting… is it?

You can ultimately herd leftists no more easily than you can herd cats, unless of course deadly force is on the menu of coercive methodologies that can be employed.

While I take issue with the completely partisan framing of this piece by Richmond Democrat (there are many, many Republicans who do not participate in the sort of violent rhetoric cited here, and do not at all appreciate their party being soiled by it; there are also many sites at which self-identified Democrats exhibit uncivil and polarizing language which we have condemned), he is absolutely right that the demonizing language employed by certain elements of the hard right is fully intended to marginalize those with whom they disagree as ENEMIES - enemies of the state, of the family, of God, of civilization itself - and that the consequences are sadly predictable. And yes, those responsible Republicans need to quickly condemn this violent rhetoric to avoid being complicit in its result. Or, as Leonard Pitts, Jr. asks, “is accountability yet another lost conservative value?”

RD is relying heavily on a March 2008 analysis by Jeffrey Feldman of Frameshop, in which he identifies the emerging Republican election strategy (utilizing pundits like O’Reilly, Savage and Coulter):

Through this effort, the right has framed our entire system of politics through a logic of violence, the result of which is that Democrats and Liberals are not just seen as political opponents to Republicans, but as a collective mortal threat to the continuing existence of America.

The language is the language of warfare, specifically drawn from the “war on terror.” Within this very deliberate framing, an opponent of the so-called “conservative” agenda such as an anti-war protester becomes a “domestic insurgent” in an action alert entitled “Fighting the Insurgency at Home”; the intended reader is urged to join his comrades in “securing the area,” and bring signs reading “stop treason.” Is it any wonder that Jim David Adkisson thought he was fighting a war in which he had to kill “liberals” after consuming a steady diet of this garbage?

The “warfare” metaphor is, of course, very familiar to the GLBT community. “Culture war” has been the framing strategy of the anti-gay right for a long time, repeating ad nauseam some version of the claim that uppity “homosexual activists” pose a threat to the continued existence of civilization. In this frame, it is inconceivable that we would experience the same human desire for family, intimacy and security as everyone else; our pursuit of marriage equality can only be explained as “the enemies of our souls…trying to sweep away the very moral foundation of our country,” in this chilling “call to arms” from the Tennessee Eagle Forum.

As their losses in courts and legislatures mount, the rhetoric of anti-gay activists becomes ever more laced with violence and war metaphors. An increasingly deranged science fiction author calls for overthrowing the government “by any means necessary” to “defend [his notion of] marriage”; in a recent strategy call with fundamentalist ministers, leaders of the anti-gay industry describe the three 2008 state constitutional amendments to prohibit marriage equality as “warfare against Satan,” Loudoun’s Chuck Colson names California’s Prop 8, the main focus of the call, “the Armageddon of the culture war,” and the pastor of Cornerstone megachurch howls “we must be consumed with a holy anger…this is the time to fight!” And of course, Loudoun’s “professional bigot” Eugene Delgaudio has raised slanderous hate speech against GLBT people to such an overwrought comic art form that many fail to take him seriously, believing one of his 2005 “fundraising letters” to be an April Fool’s joke (read the letter here).

The purpose of hate crimes and terrorism is to control behavior through fear. Hate crimes perpetrated against GLBT people send the message “how dare you be visible; how dare you speak.” There is a natural tension between the need to directly confront the violent rhetoric that functions as a constant threat, and the other response identified by Feldman as “one of a refusal to be intimidated by threats and a desire to show that one is not going to be silenced by right-wingers no matter how extreme they sound.”

The logic is a reasonable one: “If we alter our behavior, the terrorists win.” However, an adamant refusal to be intimidated and silenced does not require us to pretend that such threats are no big deal. Frankly, acknowledging the danger we are threatened with, and affirming our commitment to equality and justice for all in the face of that danger is a much stronger position to take than is pretending there’s nothing to be afraid of. That is exactly what one of our local Unitarian Universalist congregations has done in this excellent letter to the editor, in part:

Given the threat from such people, it would be tempting to reduce our advocacy on controversial issues, adopt more hostile attitudes toward those whose views differ from our own, or even to restrict access to our church for the sake of physical security. We will, of course, do none of these things.

As was the case when Unitarian Universalists faced threats during the civil rights movement, we will view this attack as a reminder of how much the world needs our continued commitment to equality. Drawing on the Christian tradition, one of many religious sources from which we derive wisdom and inspiration, we will continue to love our neighbors as ourselves and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Feldman speaks of “a fundamental collapse in the civic body.”

When political debate is taken over by violent language and logic, the effect it has on the public sphere is poisonous and debilitating. Conversation itself shuts down, opening up the door for the return of a pre-modern form of politics antithetical to the free and open exchange of ideas through words.

…if we the civic body is undermined–in particular if the kind of conversation running the civic body changes from a free and open exchange of ideas and information to one marked by violent rhetoric, violent ideas, and violent behavior.

When the dominant conversation in the civic body shifts from pragmatism to violence, the state of American democracy shifts, too. Rather than turning to civic space to communicate ideas, learn information, and work collectively to solve problems, a civic body marked by violent rhetoric becomes an arena driven by the need to vent frustration, enforce opinion, and eliminate rivals.

It’s hard to argue otherwise. We see evidence of the collapse in the civic body all around us in the state of political discourse. Attempts to engage in reasoned debate on some blogs quickly attract name-calling and abusive language aimed at shutting people up; even veiled - and not so veiled - threats. The danger is that such thinking - and by logical extension, behavior - becomes normalized. It is incumbent upon all of us to never allow that to happen. The stakes are very high.

On July 29, the Massachusetts House agreed with the state Senate, voting 119 to 36 to repeal a 1913 law (”a shameful vestige from another wrong-headed time of denying marriage to interracial couples”) that prevents out of state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriages would not be legal in their home states. Governor Deval Patrick has said he will sign the repeal.

Last June, the Massachusetts Legislature defeated (by 151 to 45) a proposed state constitutional amendment intended to eliminate the constitutional right to marriage equality for all couples.

The simple fact is, the sky isn’t falling because the partnerships of loving, committed same sex couples are being recognized and celebrated in the public square. The sky won’t fall in Virginia any more than it has in Massachusetts, or in any of the other jurisdictions where common sense and simple humanity has prevailed.

And that outcome is inevitable. I say this with rapidly shrinking empathy for those who feel compelled to stop it, in the wake of murders and maimings in Tennessee by a man goaded into violence by violent rhetoric - rhetoric which is escalated to a call for armed insurrection in this absurd document by science fiction author and radical Mormon Orson Scott Card. Card has a long history of inflammatory anti-gay writing; see for example his uninformed and frankly loopy essay from 1999 arguing for the preservation of “laws against homosexual behavior.”

Near the end of a rambling, illogical dissertation in which he seems to believe that he and those like him are being somehow rendered unable to “raise each generation” to “continue civilization,” he makes this remarkable statement:

[W]hen government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary…

…How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. [Emphases added]

Regardless of law? I suppose that would apply to law whether interpreted by a court, enacted by the elected representatives of the people, or voted on by the people themselves. The “end of democracy,” indeed. Where’s that terrorist watch list when you need it?

There is much, much more to be said about this bizarre screed, but I see that Yonmei at Feminist SF has already thoroughly and most entertainingly said it. I especially appreciated her riff on what Card’s writing reveals about his own marriage. Poor Mrs. Card.