WEDNESDAY'S LETTERS: Cheers for Strupp's Column, Coulter Offensive and Greedy, More Dan Brown Plagiarism?

By: E&P Staff In today's letters, readers respond to Joe Strupp's column on editorial boards and gay marriage, Ann Coulter is evil, and more Dan Brown questions.


***

Strupp 'Brave' in Gay Marriage Piece

I just read [Joe Strupp's] brave piece calling for newspapers to condemn the Gay Marriage Amendment. I was particularly heartened that [he] shared [his] experiences covering gay issues and identified [himself] as straight but an ardent advocate. Just as the suffragettes needed their male champions, the gays and lesbians need those of us who are straight to step up on their behalf. I am speaking to various gay groups throughout Ohio during my leave-of-absence for my husband's senate race, and it is heartbreaking to hear the pain in so many voices. "How much can we take?" one tearful man asked me last week. How can I possibly answer that? So much unnecessary harm.

I do see signs of hope, even here in Ohio, which passed one of the most heinous anti-gay laws in the country in 2004. When the state's General Assembly attempted this year to push a law through banning gay adoptions, even conservatives around the state balked, arguing that it would hurt children. The proposal died in committee.

Connie Schultz
Columnist (on leave), The Plain Dealer
Cleveland, Ohio



As half of a gay couple now celebrating our 13th anniversary, and as an ardent advocate of marriage equality, it's very refreshing to hear [Joe Strupp's] viewpoint. My fiancee and I are eagerly looking forward to marrying in our home state of Washington, where we are lucky that both major daily papers support our right to love and care for each other. Our neighborhood newspaper ran our nuptials announcement, with photo, in 2004 when we were wed in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, as [Strupp points] out, many newspapers are not nearly so understanding. I tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the Yakima (Washington) Herald to run the nuptials announcement for a lesbian couple after they married in Oregon in 2004. The Herald's reason for not running it? Because marriage for two women wasn't legal in Washington State. I wonder -- if women were not yet allowed to vote in Washington State, how would they treat the subject?

...

And finally I want to talk about the question [Strupp poses], perhaps rhetorically, "I remain puzzled that gays and lesbians are not taking their battle for true equality to the streets in huge numbers." We do sometimes, of course. My fiancee and I have marched several times for marriage equality. But huge numbers? No. For one thing, many gay people -- just as many straight people -- are not interested in marriage, at least not at this point in their lives. In fact, marriage is seen by some as conforming. For another, unlike people of color, it is all too easy for gay people to hide who they are. This works to our disadvantage by allowing many gay people to take a pass, as it were, and let others do the work of equality on their behalf. One might think of it this way: If being "black" were something that people could have hidden, would there have been the riots and street marches of the '60s? Or would they have preferred to assimilate and "pretend to be white?" When being out can get you fired, beaten up, or legally kicked out of your apartment in most of the country, it's no wonder that many prefer to be anonymous.

Regardless of these points, I want to reiterate that I really appreciate [Strupp's] piece. After all the horrible things that political and religious leaders, and some journalists, are saying about people like me and my fiance, it's nice to hear some encouragement.

Ken Molsberry
Seattle, Washington



There are certain issues (Civil Rights in the 60s, Darfur, AIDS etc.) that fall outside the clear lines of journalistic objectivity and require reporters to actually make moral judgments about one or the other side of a controversy. Fortunately, most of the stuff we deal with day-to-day (in politics anyway) is morally muddy and both sides tend to be odious, cynical and interchangeable. But when I was walking past a group of anti-gay protesters on Capitol Hill, I got the distinct urge to pour my Poland Spring over their heads. I didn't. But you get the point.

Glenn Thrush



After reading news articles I can see why some people are not happy with (activist) judges changing the definition of marriage. There are several things I would like to point out as a conservative myself.

Sexual orientation is immutable. There are literally hundreds of scientific studies that support this fact. That means that gay people are born gay. As a matter of fact there are theories based on scientific study that suggest the brain is "masculinized" at a different point of time during pregnancy than the physical gender is formed. Science not only believes that sexual orientation is not a choice but science also believes they know why people are gay. The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association and virtually all other reputable medical associations believe sexual orientation is NOT a choice.

Gay parents are good parents. Many studies document the fact that gay people are great parents and, as such, should be able to raise children in an environment that supports core values like freedom, individually responsibility and institutions like marriage. As a conservative, this is the main reason I want gay marriage instead of domestic partnership.

Gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriage. There is no validity to the argument that gay marriage somehow changes or weakens heterosexual marriage. When you look at reasons given, they are just contrived and bizarre.

Judges are exposed to all this information when they hear cases regarding "gay marriage". Based on the above facts, a judge would have to be an activist judge to NOT allow gay marriage because the constitution clearly requires gay people to be treated equally. One must however know the facts about being gay to understand this point. Ironically, to prove this point one only needs to see that the only way to STOP gay marriage or civil unions IS to amend the constitution.

...

Daniel Gri



Americans don't support [Strupp's] position on gay marriage. People care about the cost of gasoline, Iran, Iraq, global poverty, the World Cup. With so many other issues to discuss, why bring that up now? Sound familiar?

Robert Holmgren



I want to applaud [Joe Strupp's] recent column calling for editorials to speak out against the "cheap trick" used by Republicans and President Bush to push the ban on gay marriage. It's clear that the struggling President is looking to distract the American public from the current pitfalls of the administration. Advocates like [Strupp] give this recent college graduate a renewed inspiration for a world that is as corrupt as it is virtuous.

Tim Inthirakoth
Boston, Mass.


***

Brown Palgiarism Elsewhere?

I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the apparent "borrowing" by [Dan] Brown from the movie Foul Play, which came out in the late-seventies and starred Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn. In the movie, a cop and an academic seek to uncover a conspiracy to kill the Pope all the while being chased by a killer albino. Sound familiar? The plot to kill the Pope is the theme in Brown's "Angels and Demons" (although the Catholic element is present in both of his works), the rest forms uncanny (if unintended) parallels to the denouement of "The Da Vinci Code."

William Foreman
Los Angeles, Calif.


***

Coulter Hits a Nerve With 'Today' Show Comments

It's official: we've lost our minds. People boycotted the Dixie Chicks because Natalie Maines made an innocuous statement (by comparison) in public about a public official. Ann Coulter, the darling of the right wing, goes after private citizens who are direct victims of 9/11, an event which she and her ilk have shamelessly exploited since 9/12, and I'd like to know who is organizing the boycott against her. Certainly not NBC. People like Coulter have never felt a real human emotion in their respective lives; otherwise, they wouldn't be capable of spewing the idiocy they spew. And while the 9/11 widows have taken their tragedy and tried to, at least, use their own personal lessons for the greater good, Coulter just keeps making money off of anything she can. I hope the next step for these real women (unlike the caricature cardboard cutout Coulter), is to sue Coulter for defamation. I'm sure they will make better use of the proceeds from her "book" than Coulter would.

Suzanne Leitner



I wonder: did NBC Today Show have an agreement not to talk about Ann Coulter's voting case in Florida and just focus on her latest missive , no, missile? It would have been great to have Miss Coulter clarify why she voted in a precinct where she was not registered, which she has even failed to do with Florida authorities. These network breakfast TV shows are shows for shills, and I am not entertained in the least. Are you listening advertisers?

Dean Schott
Glenview, Ill.