Letters

Silent majority must speak up on gay rights

The courage of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, N.Y., and, most of all, the gay and lesbian couples who have taken the boldest of leaps over the broom, is truly inspiring. Across the country these average people are asserting their rights as citizens and insisting on their dignity as human beings.

While politicians on the so-called "religious right" fulminate about the dire threat to the fabric of family and society, the silence of the majority is golden--as the processions flow by. President Bush, grasping naively for popular appeal while inciting his fundamentalist base, has overreached once again with his proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He continues to make a mockery of his pledge to be "a uniter, not a divider," as this latest attempt to deny civil liberties follows on the heels of his restrictive and infamous PATRIOT Act.

The churches will independently determine what sanction to give same-sex marriage; the state, on the other hand, is obliged to treat all individuals equally under the law. To encourage all states and Congress to follow Massachusetts' lead and adopt this policy, I am proud to join the ranks of this "Satin Rebellion" in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. I intend to help lead us toward a more cohesive, not divisive society on this and many other issues. Although condoning same-sex marriage is a difficult accommodation for many who resist the imprimatur of "marriage," I am confident American's hearts will open wider, as they always have, if at times reluctantly.

I have not been active on gay rights issues in the past, nor have most of us been vocal concerning our support for the civil rights of gay and lesbian individuals. In the vortex of this debate, it is time for heterosexuals to stand alongside their courageous brothers and sisters who are fighting for equal citizenship and the benefits derived therefrom. I am running for public office and must speak with a clear and resonant voice on same-sex marriage because I refuse to leave the field to demagogues who wish to exploit this issue for political gain. Therefore, we look forward to engaging opponents in civil debate, in the public forum, and on whatever ground they choose, whether political or moral.

--Rick DeVoe,

Candidate,

3rd Congressional District

Leave my beefy American Idol alone

I can't believe that you wrote such a negative piece on a person who is getting ready to perform in your town ["Off the Charts: Ruben Studdard," March 4]. [Editor's note: Studdard actually canceled his performance.] What was your motivation? Why did you rehash so many old news stories? Let me give you another take on Ruben Studdard, bring you up to date, while clarifying some of your misperceptions.

First of all, Ruben won "American Idol." Clay Aiken could have sold 1 million records in one day, and still that fact will never be negated. Ruben Studdard had no power to make himself the American Idol; that was done by the American public. I know there are some who think a fat black guy is never good enough, or could never beat a slender, white guy. But guess what, he did!

Secondly, why the negative focus on money? I think I just recently read an article about Clay where he said that was one of his favorite perks, the money. Why can't Ruben be materialistic? You make some assertions regarding the Flava incident, but considering the settlement was private, you were not privy to the negotiations or the outcome, other than pure speculation. So why bring it up--could it be just to tarnish Mr. Studdard's reputation?

Then you play up the lyrics to a song with some sexual content. Bland, truthfully, by most R&B standards, so why bring it up, why not use the lyrics to "What If," a stirring beautiful love song: "Baby, I would give up everything/ I don't care about none of this/ My life don't mean nothing, not unless you are a part of it"? Or what about: "For all we know, this may only be a dream/ We come and we go like the ripple on a stream" from "For All We Know"? I resent all of you people who lump all R&B/hip hop artists into this one negative stereotype, the one that hypersexualizes them and makes them more materialistic or even more sexual than they really are.

If you must include the innuendo, speculation and titillation, you need to include the positive as well. Some examples could be that while Clay Aiken has sold a lot of his critically panned single and CD, Mr. Studdard was actually nominated for a Grammy Award while selling tons of his CDs and single as well. Or, you could have included that he taped a public service announcement for AIDS awareness, or that he has a cameo in the upcoming teen flick Scooby Doo, his stellar performance of "Superstar" All-Star Weekend or Super Bowl weekend, when he performed a stirring national anthem. Finally, this very week he was promoting literacy by reading to schoolchildren.

I could go on and on, but then I would be doing your homework, as you should have done before writing this drivel. I must ask again, Mr. Briggs, what was your motivation?

--Dawn Coe,

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Passion lacks focus on Jesus' teachings

The Passion of the Christ has inspired much controversy. Most of this controversy seems to have, like the film itself, missed the point.

This film is not anti-Semitic. Many of the Jews singled out in this film are portrayed as courageous and kind, even though they are not necessarily burgeoning Christians. The only Jews being portrayed negatively in this film are the arrogant and corrupt leaders who would stop at nothing to see dead a man who would destroy their base of power, and those blind rabble who would follow such. The most negative portrayal is of the Roman soldiers who, for no personal reason, take great delight in torturing and maiming the prisoner Jesus.

The true failing of the film is that it focuses almost entirely on the suffering of Jesus, while touching only briefly on the teachings of the man. Whether or not you see him as savior or divine, you cannot deny the power of his message: Love. Love thy neighbor, but also love thy enemy. There is no room for hatred in Christianity. This is a lesson which very few Christians have ever learned, though it is central to their faith. They would glorify the pain and anguish of the man who died for their sin, but they would ignore the fact that he gave them the means to not sin. Simply: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The same simple wisdom taught by such luminaries as Confucius and Buddha, 500 and 600 years earlier.

I do not consider myself to be a Christian, nor even a religious man. But I would certainly consider myself a better person if I could hold true to the teachings of Christ, whether or not he ever lived.

What does it say about us as a people that we find more inspiration in suffering and death than we do in love and wisdom?

--Robert Tarkenton