Six Questions

The election cycle is upon us, and I'm getting requests to support candidates for federal and state office.

I don't give my money away mindlessly, and I don't make contributions to politicians who "talk the talk" but who will toss gays and lesbians overboard when push comes to shove.

So I respond to requests for contributions with six questions:

Six Questions for Federal Candidates

(1) If a bill is presented to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, do you pledge to vote against the bill?

(2) If a bill is presented to repeal DOMA, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(3) If a bill is presented to repeal "Don's Ask Don't Tell", do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(4) If a bill is presented to extend federal nondiscrimation laws to gays and lesbians, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(5) If a bill is presented to extend hate crimes legislation to cover sexual orientation, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(6) If asked by constituents or the press, do you pledge to make your positions public?

Six Questions for State Candidates

(1) If a bill is presented to put a referendum for repeal of Article XIII, Section 13, of the Wisconsin Constitution on the ballot, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(2) If a bill is presented to put a referendum to amend the Wisconsin Consitution to allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples in Wisconsin, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(3) If a bill is presented to grant domestic partner benefits (health insurance coverage, life insurance, bereavement and sick leave, pension rights for surviving partners) to state employees, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(4) If a bill is presented to extend state nondiscrimation laws to transgender Wisconsinites, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(5) If a bill is presented to allow gay and lesbian couples to jointly adopt children, do you pledge to vote for the bill?

(6) If asked by constituents or the press, do you pledge to make your positions public?

If a candidate answers all six affirmatively, I make a contribution. If not, I don't. It is that simple.

I'm not a purist. I vote for the best candidate available. But when it comes to contributions, I have a choice, and I make it.

I contribute to groups and candidates that I can count on to stand with gays and lesbians, thick or thin.

The Advocate Interview

Senator Barack Obama addressed GLBT issues in an interview published in this week's Advocate.

It is Obama's most complete statement on GLBT issues since the August 9 Logo-sponsored debate among the candidates, and I think that it is worth posting:

Q: Let's start with what's hot, why the silence on gay issues? You've only done one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

A: I don't think it's fair to say silence on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I'm not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you've got limited amount of time, you've got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

But I haven't been silent on gay issues. What's happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.

So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven't done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on ... I promise you the African-American press says the same thing.

Q: And Spanish-language?

A: And Spanish-language [outlets] had the same gripe. Just generally, we have generally tried to speak to broader audiences. That's all that is.

Q: I think the underlying fear of the gay community is that if you get into office, will LGBT folks be last on the priority list?

A: I guess my point would be that the fact that I'm raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box -- that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I'm not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It's easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.

Q: If you were elected, what do you plan to do for the LGBT community -- what can you reasonably get done?

A: I reasonably can see "don't ask, don't tell" eliminated. I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law.

Q: You think it's transgender-inclusive?

A: I think that's going to be tough, and I've said this before. I have been clear about my interest in including gender identity in legislation, but I've also been honest with the groups that I've met with that it is a heavy lift through Congress. We've got some Democrats who are willing to vote for a non-inclusive bill but we lose them on an inclusive bill, and we just may not be able to generate the votes. I don't know. And obviously, my goal would be to get the strongest possible bill -- that's what I'll be working for.

The third thing I believe I can get done is in dealing with federal employees, making sure that their benefits, that their ability to transfer health or pension benefits the same way that opposite-sex couples do, is something that I'm interested in making happen and I think can be done with some opposition, some turbulence, but I think we can get that done.

And finally, an area that I'm very interested in is making sure that federal benefits are available to same-sex couples who have a civil union. I think as more states sign civil union bills into law the federal government should be helping to usher in a time when there's full equality in terms of what that means for federal benefits.

Q: I assume you're talking about the Defense of Marriage Act.

A: Absolutely, and I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.

Q: Do you think it's possible to get full repeal of DOMA? As you know, Senator Clinton is only looking at repealing the plank of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned unions.

A: I don't know. But my commitment is to try to make sure that we are moving in the direction of full equality, and I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I'd like to see us lead here too.

Q: Back to "don't ask, don't tell" real quick -- you've said before you don't think that's a heavy lift. Of course, it would be if you had Joint Chiefs who were against repeal. Is that something you'll look at?

A: I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there's increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy -- ya know, we're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.

Q: Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn't that what you're asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage, is to wait their turn?

A: I don't ask them that. Anybody who's been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don't think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It's not my place to tell the LGBT community, wait your turn. I'm very mindful of Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" where he says to the white clergy, don't tell me to wait for my freedom.

So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn't be equal because there's a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I'm operating. And I've said this before -- I'm the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn't mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an anti-miscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

That's a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That's not a decision for me to make.

Q: Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.

A: But he didn't overturn anti-miscegenation. Right?

Q: True enough.

A: As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it's absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I'm ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99 percent of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I've shown leadership.

Q: What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?

A: Well, it starts with my mom, who just always instilled in me a belief that everybody's of equal worth and a strong sense of empathy -- that you try to see people through their eyes, stand in their shoes. So I think that applies to how I see all people.

Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Golden, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn't proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Q: Did you have a chance to ask him about being gay?

A: I'm sure we did, but as I said, he was really comfortable in his own skin, and the relationship was a strong friendship and I never felt as if I had to get over any mental hurdles to be close to him or to learn from him. He's probably somebody who had a strong influence.

Q: How old were you then?

A: Eighteen ... 19. It does remind me, though, I remember in my first two years of college that was when I first saw students who were self-identified gay and lesbian come out and start organizing around gay issues, so that would have been in 1979 and '80. I think what's encouraging is just to see how much progress has been made in such a relatively short period of time.

Q: Just draw that thought out a little bit in terms of comparing it to the African-American civil rights movement.

A: You always want to be careful comparing groups that have been discriminated against because each group's experiences are different. I think that the transition toward fuller acceptance of the LGBT community has happened without some of the tumult and violence that accompanied the civil rights movement. But we still have a long ways to go, and I think that it also obviously varies geographically. I think in urban communities, you can't say there's full equality, but in terms of the LGBT community daily round they're not as likely to experience certainly the discrimination that they experienced 25 years ago.

Whereas, in the African-American community, you can still see some fairly overt racism. On the other hand, in rural communities, I think attitudes are slower to change.

Q: There's plenty of homophobia to go around, but you have a unique perspective into the African-American community. Is there a ...

A: I don't think it's worse than in the white community. I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities.

Q: Do you think there's a specific prescriptive, which is not to say that there's more homophobia in the African-American community. But is there a different answer to ...

A: Well, I think what's important is to have some of that church leadership speak up and change its attitudes, because I think a lot of its members are taking cues from that leadership.

Q: Do you have any regrets about the South Carolina tour? People there are still sort of mystified that you gave Donnie McClurkin the chance to get up on stage and do this, and he did go on sort of an antigay rant there.

A: I tell you what, my campaign is premised on trying to reach as many constituencies as possible, and to go into as many places as possible and sometimes that creates discomfort or turbulence. This goes back to your first question. If you're segmenting your base into neat categories and constituency groups and you never try to bring them together and you just speak to them individually -- so I keep the African-Americans neatly over here and the church folks neatly over there and the LGBT community neatly over there -- then these kinds of issues don't arise.

The flip side of it is, you never create the opportunity for people to have a conversation and to lift some of these issues up and to talk about them and to struggle with them and our campaign is built around the idea that we should all be talking. And that creates some discomfort because people discover, gosh, within the Democratic Party or within Barack Obama's campaign or within whatever sets of constituencies there are going to be some different points of view that might even be offensive to some folks. That's not unique to this issue. I mean, ironically, my biggest … the biggest political news surrounding me over the last three weeks has been Reverend Wright, who offended a whole huge constituency with some of his statements but has been very good on gay and lesbian issues. I mean he's one of the leaders in the African-American community of embracing, speaking out against homophobia, and talking about the importance of AIDS.

And so nobody is going to be perfectly aligned with my views. So what I hope is that people take me for who I am, for what I've said and for what I've displayed in terms of my commitment to these issues, but understanding that there's going to be a range of constituencies that I'm reaching out to and working on issues that we have in common, even though I may differ with them on other issues. And that's true, also, by the way ... well, I think that's going to be true so long as I'm reaching out beyond the traditional Democratic base.

I have been, and continue to be, frustrated with Obama's position on marriage equality.

Nonetheless, I support his candidacy and intend to vote for him. Obama's positions on GLBT issues are slightly stronger than Senator Clinton's, and none, with the possible exception of the underlying rationale of his position on marriage equality, is dangerous.

I have no reason to believe that Senator Obama will go to the mat on GLBT issue, but he seems committed to doing what is politically realistic, and he, unlike Senator Clinton, "gets it" in the sense that he seems to understand that the cause of GLBT equality is not just another "special interest" to be accommodated, but represents a core civil rights issue that must be resolved as part of the American story. To his credit, unlike Senator Clinton, Senator Obama speaks out on GLBT issues in forums where GLBT issues are about as popular as pig shit, and GLBT issues are woven into the fabric of his campaign rather than set off in a box. That makes a difference in my mind.

But we need to hold Senator Obama's feet to the fire, as we do all politicians. I support Senator Obama, but I intend to do what I can to hold his feet to the fire. I think all gays and lesbians should do so. We can, and I believe should, support Senator Obama, but we cannot, and should not, hitch our wagon to his star.

Why? Gays and lesbians are, in Democratic politics, the first thrown overboard when stormy waters rise, as we saw this year with ENDA and hate crimes legislation at the federal level. In Wisconsin politics, Democratic politicians are so relieved that the anti-marriage amendment took "God, guns and gays" off the table that their relief is palatable. And Republicans, of course, are hopeless on both the state and federal level at this point in our nation's history.

So what's to do?

I believe that gays and lesbians need to force the issue, to hold our society's feet to the fire.

As an example, I made a decision when Wisconsin's anti-marriage amendment passed in November 2006, that I would, while the amendment remained in Wisconsin's constitution, make political or charitable contributions to groups that furthered the cause of gay and lesbian equality, and none others.

I identified a number of groups that met my criteria, I set aside a pot of money to be given to those groups, and I followed through with contributions.

The question I ask myself when approached by any other group is this: "Is this group sufficiently strong on advocacy for gay and lesbian equality that I can justify a decision to divert contributions from the groups I've already selected?"

The answer is almost invariably "No".

I've made an exception to this rule for a local stewardship group that is going to need money to preserve and protect land along the Dells of the Wisconsin River. I've set aside funds, held in reserve, to give to them when the money is needed to acquire land to be put into conservancy, and, if and when possible included in State Natural Area 283. My reasoning is that this group's need is a "now or never" need -- once the targeted lands are developed, the process is irreversible -- and important enough for the future to justify an exception to the rule.

But otherwise I've stuck to my guns, declining to give money to campaigns or groups are not actively engaged in furthering gay and lesbian equality.

I think that it is an important principle. While the anti-marriage amendment stands, I cannot pretend that it is "business as usual" in Wisconsin, giving money to worthy causes without regard to whether or not those contributions will further the cause of gay and lesbian equality. I have a limited amount of money to give away, and I'm not going to waste it.

What goes for charitable and advocacy groups goes for politicians, too, in my view.

With the exception of a very small number of Democrats like Tammy Baldwin, few politicians, Democrat or Republican, can be counted on to risk election or reelection over the issue of gay and lesbian equality. I believe that we should support politicians who support us, however mildly, but I don't think we should be cozying up to politicians to "talk the talk" but are likely to turn and run when the going gets tough. What is the point in that?

Which brings me to Senator Obama.

I've come to believe that Senator Obama understands the reality of discrimination against gays and lesbians in a way that few politicians since Barry Goldwater have understood it. Unless I believed that, I would not support him at all.

But even with Obama, there is a line. I do not believe that Senator Obama, unlike Tammy Balwin, is someone who will go tot he mat. He needs his feet held to the fire.

It is up to us to make sure that happens.

Oh, Jesus!

The Face of HIV/AIDS

It is rare that Sauk County makes the national news. We did so this week, when a Reedsburg grade school became the target of the Religious Right's ire. The Associated Press tells the story:

REEDSBURG, Wis. (AP) — An elementary-school event in which kids were encouraged to dress as members of the opposite gender drew the ire of a Christian radio group, whose angry broadcast prompted outraged calls to the district office.

Students at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg had been dressing in costume all last week as part of an annual school tradition called Wacky Week. On Friday, students were encouraged to dress either as senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex.

A local resident informed the Voice of Christian Youth America on Friday. The Milwaukee-based radio network responded by interrupting its morning programming for a special broadcast that aired on nine radio stations throughout Wisconsin. The broadcast criticized the dress-up day and accused the district of promoting alternative lifestyles.

"We believe it's the wrong message to send to elementary students," said Jim Schneider, the network's program director. "Our station is one that promotes traditional family values. It concerns us when a school district strikes at the heart and core of the Biblical values. To promote this to elementary-school students is a great error."

Schneider co-hosts "Crosstalk," a nationally syndicated call-in Christian radio show.

After the program aired, both the school and Reedsburg School District office were flooded with calls complaining about the event.

The response surprised Principal Tammy Hayes, who said no one had raised any objections beforehand. She said a flier detailing Wacky Week had been sent home with children the prior week, and an announcement was also included in teacher newsletters.

The dress-up day was not an attempt to promote cross-dressing, homosexuality or alternative gender roles, district administrator Tom Benson said.

"The promotion of transgenderism — that was not our purpose," Benson told the Baraboo News Republic. "Our purpose was to have a Wacky Week, mixing in a bit of silliness with our reading, writing and arithmetic."

The theme for Friday's dress-up day came from students, Hayes said.

"It's different every year. They basically present the ideas, and they vote on what they would like from Monday through Friday," Hayes said. "... They did not mean anything by this day. They were trying to have fun and come up with a fun dress-up day."

About 40 percent of the student body dressed up Friday, Hayes estimated, with half portraying senior citizens and half dressing as the opposite sex.

"I can assure you we will not be having this day (again)," Hayes said.

It looks like "Wacky Week" has gone the way of kid-friendly baseball games, another casualty of our increasingly tense and edgy culture, a culture in which adults living on the razor edge of social disintegration make it their business to take the joy out of childhood innocence.

I would hardly have thought that so innocent a day of kids having fun -- "Wacky Week" has been going on for years, apparently, and at least the folks in Reedsburg have the sense to know that it has nothing to do with the "homosexual agenda" -- would be worthy of a special broadcast interrupting scheduled programing. But the Religious Right is nothing if it is not excitable, and loves to make much ado about nothing, I guess because it has nothing but nothing going for it.

The local reaction seems to be much the same as mine, with a healthy dose of "Oh, screw off ..." added in.

Along those lines, folks in the rest of the county don't generally think much of Reedsburg, the home of the Norman Rockwell Museum and not a lot else. Reedsburg is, in most ways, a quiet, pleasant Midwestern town, I guess. I buy my cars and trucks from Schultz Chevrolet/GMC Pontiac, and it has the only half-decent Mexican restaurant in the county. In times past, it was home to Rosie's Cafe, which served the best breakfast in a hundred miles. But it has a reputation for being insular, and it seems to exude a permanent resentment because Baraboo is the county seat, and it isn't. So those of us in the rest of the county tend to look down our noses a bit at Reedsburg.

But nonetheless, it seems that most of us, even those of us who don't think much of Reedsburg, think Reedsburg deserves a break. As the song goes: "Every time I go to town, the boys start kicking my dawg around ... makes no difference if he is a hound, they gotta stop kicking my dawg around." Folks are talking about the flap, both in Reedsburg and in the county, and the general opinion seems to be that the Christians should stop kicking Pineview Elementary around and let kids be kids.

The Baraboo News-Republic, our county's daily paper, is running an online poll about the issue ("Did Reedsburg school officials make a mistake in allowing grade school students to dress up as senior citizens or the opposite gender as part of their Wacky Week?") and the vote so far is 81% "No".

Not that public opinion will make any difference to our local fundamentalists. Our fundamentalists in Sauk County are a lot like Reedsburg -- insular and resentful -- without the benefit of being either quiet or pleasant.

The Baraboo News-Republic is the county sounding-board, and publishes three or four letters to the editor a day. It also runs two local weekly columns, one by a different local minister each week and the other by Myra Furse, who is an old-style progressive of a certain age. Myra's columns are generally local boosterism with a progressive twist -- she writes as often as not about local kids doing extraordinary things -- and the local pastors' columns are usually reflect a variety of our "civic religion" -- ethics in daily life and so on. Neither Myra's nor the preachers' columns are typically cause for controversy.

But every few months, the Reverend Timothy Dunbar, who is a retired fundamentalist preacher with too much time on his hands and an unseemly obsession with homosexuality, lets loose with some diatribe about us faggots. And that sets the dogs to barking in the opinion columns and letters to the editor in the Times-Republic.

The response typically follows a pattern: Myra Furse, our progressive columnist and United Church of Christ, I believe, often follows with a "tolerance" column. The Reverend Arthur Christofersen or his wife Audrey chime in with a "all Christians don't think like Reverend Dunbar" letter, and the Reverend Stephen Getsigner, a local boy who is now a minister in San Antonio and who actually attended a seminary, writes in to point out that modern Biblical scholarship doesn't support Reverend Dunbar. Timothy "Christ the" King, of Reedsburg, or Ruth Ann Dawson, of North Freedom, write in fervent support of Reverend Dunbar. And so it goes, week after week.

The last word -- the letter right before exhaustion -- usually comes from Clarence A. Best, of Baraboo. Best is in his 70's, so it takes a while for him to get moving, I guess, but when he does, he goes nuclear. His letter this week was typical in style and tone:

Bible's messages are clear and not outdated

This is in reply to several individuals who misinterpret God's holy word and twist the true meaning to have it say what they want to impress you with. But, of course, the Bible warns us of wolves in sheep's clothing.

To validify my interpretation I got in touch with several Christian ministries; Radio Bible Class Ministries, Billy Graham Ministries, Benny Hinn Ministries, Jack Van Impe Ministries, Kenneth Copeland Ministries, and Pastor Tom Dunbar, to compare their overall interpretation of scriptures.

First of all, Myra Furse wants you to believe in Frederick Lane, and the point that he's counted 450 English versions of the Bible, and that there are certain variances in scriptures. She would also have you believe that the Bible is not for modern times, that it's outdated; strictly a humanist point of view, of course.

For your information, Furse, God's holy word is the same yesterday, today and forever, no matter what version you read. It's more relevant in this day and age than any other time in history. I guess if you are hard-pressed to find any Bible scripture condemning homosexuality as sin then you must have the same translation Stephen Getsinger has: the San Antonio version. If it's not in red letters, then all other scripture goes for naught. How convenient!

However, Furse, Getsinger, the Christofersens from Reedsburg, and any other humanists should check out the following scriptures: I Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19-21, Romans I: 18-32, and Jude 7, to mention a few. Any of the mentioned ministries would be willing to assist with a proper interpretation.

Let me be perfectly clear about the term "wannabe preacher." It pertains to any preacher who deliberately misinterprets God's holy word to appease homosexuals and lesbians. And, yes, I will continue speaking out against wannabe preachers, especially those like Getsinger who persist in spreading their putrid and deliberate misinterpretations of God's holy word. Get it right, Getsinger! Homosexuality /lesbianism is sin, and AIDS is the stigma for this sin of choice. Gee, I wonder if repentance has been omitted from their Bibles, also.

Remember, Getsinger was the one who said that he and his wannabee homosexual/lesbian scholars interpreted Sodom and Gomorrah as a hospitality issue. How's that for distortion! I guess Jude 7 is not in his Bible, which goes to show how ignorant he is of scripture.

I also asked the above ministries what the fall of five kingdoms in the Old Testament; Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece; and the Roman Empire of the New Testament was all about. Quite simply, according to "Bible History 101," it had to do with idol worship and sexual perversion. This nation is on the same course.

Whoa unto any preacher for not taking a stand for Jesus. Whoa unto them on Judgment Day when they stand before God trying to explain why they led God's people down the wrong path. And whoa unto them when God says, "Away from me, I never knew you."

I will continue to pray you all will be born again.

Clarence A. Best, Baraboo

I suppose Myra, the Christofersens and Reverend Getsinger will pray for Clarence, too, maybe along the lines of Best's companion in homophobia, Julaine Appling, who closes her weekly radio broadcasts with "For Wisconsin Family Council, I'm Julaine Appling, reminding you the Prophet Hosea said, 'My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.'" In Best's case, a little knowledge would go a long way.

Michael points out the letters back and forth with a mixture of glee and disgust. I usually do no more than laugh, but this week Best caught my eye, and ire, by dragging out the treadworn "AIDS is God's vengeance on gays ..." bullshit.

So I wrote in, and my letter was published this morning:

Young people need facts on HIV to make good choices

Clarence Best, in his most recent Biblical exposition in the News-Republic, opined that "Homosexuality/lesbianism is sin, and AIDS is the stigma for this sin of choice."

Perhaps so, but if Best is even close to the truth, then the God he worships is cruel, and worse, incompetent.

Cruel and incompetent? Yes. According to UNAIDS/WHO statistics released in 2007, roughly 30 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS. Of that number, 22 million live in sub-Saharan Africa, 15 million are women, and 2.5 million are children. Almost all — over 90 percent by most reasonable estimates — are straight.

Killing millions and millions of straight people to "stigmatize" those of us who are gay and lesbian is both cruel and incompetent. The idea that God does so is akin to the idiocy that Hurricane Katrina, which wiped out the homes of scores of thousands of poor folks in New Orleans, was God's way of punishing the French Quarter, which remained largely untouched.

If Best wants to believe in such a God, that is his business. None of mine.

But Best and others like him spread ignorance, and ignorance kills.

Worldwide, young people aged 15 to 24 account for over half of the new HIV/AIDS infections. In the United States, HIV/AIDS is growing fast among young straights, including teenagers.

The myth that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease" is ignorant and dangerous. Our young people need accurate information about HIV/AIDS to make intelligent choices.

I'm afraid that I may have set off another round of barking, but I'm sick to death of fundamentalist ignorance, and I'm tired of being a whipping boy for fundamentalist sexual insecurity -- guilt and fear about all the mucking around they did out behind the barn before they discovered boobs and Jesus.

I don't, despite my getting into the fray this time around, understand why the News-Republic wastes time on intra-Christian religious wars, with each side damning and blasting the other.

It isn't as if the News-Republic couldn't better use the space to publish news. I mean, just yesterday the News-Republic ran an article about turkeys attacking postal workers.

So with news like that to report, who needs letters from over-carbonated fundamentalists?

Apparently, we do. "Speak Up" letters are always on the "most viewed" list -- people love to see just how nuts their neighbors really are, I guess.