Hurricane Andrew.

I would like to applaud Andrew Sullivan's recent article ["Sex, Lies, and ... Us," October 27] regarding President Clinton. As a lesbian Democratic liberal, I am sickened by the undying loyalty the GLBT community is asked for when it comes to Clinton. As outlined in Sullivan's article, Clinton has done nothing for our community other than offer harm. Not only did he sign DOMA he also had the nerve to defend his actions via his religious beliefs in an interview conducted by The Advocate. When will we wake up and tell Clinton that his religious beliefs have nothing to do with our right to marry, that we have every right to serve openly in the armed forces, and that he is as much to blame for the hate crimes committed against our community as the assailants?

Lois Kleisinger

Birmingham, Mich.

Sullivan's poorly reasoned commentary was tiresome and utterly paradoxical in light of the author's true views. While The Advocate circulated Sullivan's critique of Clinton's conduct, Sullivan continued his "big passionate fit" on C-SPAN, affirming his support for former president Reagan, the very president who not only opposed government funding of AIDS-related research but who did so with public displays of antigay hatred.

Sullivan's "logic" yields numerous contradictions: (1) Sullivan scolds Clinton for lying, even though he seems comparatively undisturbed that Reagan lied about the existence of the arms-for-hostages deal we now know as "Iran-Contra"; (2) Sullivan faults Clinton for "don't ask, don't tell," even though he tolerated Reagan's absolute exclusion of gay people from the military; (3) Sullivan even chides Clinton for failing to allow DOJ support for the Romer v. Evans respondents, even though Reagan appointed the virulently antigay Supreme Court; justice who led the Romer dissent and demeaned gay people in the process.

Sullivans's passion undermines his logic. While I too disapprove of Clinton's support for DOMA, I have also not forgotten that the party of Reagan sponsored that hateful legislation. How disappointed I was that Sullivan did not side with Republicans defending the privacy of their sex lives as "irrelevant" to their job performance!

James Garland, Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Finally! A gay publication with the guts to print something about Clinton besides how wonderful he is for our community. As Sullivan so convincingly points out, Clinton has been anything but our knight in shining armor. Sadly our causes are now enmeshed in the public consciousness with a lying, philandering perjurer. Clinton and the Democratic Party have shown over and over they'll say anything to get our vote and then happily ignore us after the election. Over and over we take it, showering Democratic candidates with our money and votes. Paralyzed, gay leaders now spend all their time apologizing for Clinton and rationalizing the community's continued, unabashed support with the tired "He's better than the alternative" refrain. Is he? We should all remember that the most significant social legislation enacted during most of our lifetimes impacting gay Americans, albeit HIV-positive ones, remains the Americans With Disabilities Act, signed into law by George Bush. What is Clinton's great legacy--"don't ask, don't tell"?

Carl Trehus, Grapevine, Tex.

I vehemently disagree with Sullivan's views on Clinton. I think we have fared quite well under Clinton over the past six years. Sullivan is wrong when he says it would have been better if Clinton had never addressed the subject of gays in the military. Any public discussion brings us into the public's living rooms and challenges their misconceptions and, hopefully, prods them into changing their views of us.

Glenn Crinnion, Abingdon, Md.

If I'd read Sullivan's essay four years ago, I would have been outraged by his words. Two years ago I would have been mildly curious. Last week I could only nod my head in complete agreement.

Stuart Sadick, Newton, Mass.

Has Sullivan gone completely insane? Richard Socarides has it right [My Perspective, October 27]. Clinton is the most gay-friendly president we've ever had. Actually, he is being gay-bashed by the religious right--controlled Republicans because of his pro-gay stance. I don't have much hope for gay rights with the thinking of the likes of Sullivan.

Nathan White, Naples, Fla.

Sullivan's article was very much to the point. It cut through all the double-talk our national organizations do to bring in those almighty dollars. Not only is the religious right sleeping with the Republican Party, but our community leaders have become bedfellows with unsavory types as well. It is amazing what a few dollar bills and a few hollow words can get you in Washington. In the long run I prefer the truth, even if those words tell me I don't have a place at the table. Then I can take action and decide what to do. All Clinton has done is to feed us some Spare, and HRC wants to dress it up and call it roasted pork with plum sauce. No thanks--I'd rather dine alone.

Frank Asher, Washington D.C.

To say that Clinton has "presided over the rise of the religious right" is absurd. The religious right came into being and gained influence during the two previous Republican administrations. As for fueling the hatred of the religious right, I quote Moritz Goldstein, as did historian John Boswell: "We can easily reduce our detractors to absurdity and show them their hostility is groundless. But what does this prove? That their hatred `real.'" To believe their hatred of homosexuals needs "fuel" is to misunderstand the pure reality of that hatred; it simply and irrationally is. Clinton sold his soul for political expediency, but in the long run how does it compare to the sell-jobs of the other two, who weighted the Supreme Court with appointees who consistently chisel away at the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, thereby creating a far greater threat to the rights of gay men and lesbians than anything Clinton has or hasn't done. True, Clinton is a political coward. But don't tie cans to the dog's tail when the tails of other dogs deserve them.

Michael Jeter, Los Angeles, Calif.

Cover Stories

I write to express my dismay over the cover to the October 27 issue. Why does the cover portray adolescents being intimate in bed? This reinforces the extremely damaging stereotype of the buffed-and-tanned, eternally young, Hollywood-obsessed gay hedonist that the content of some of your articles seeks to battle in the mainstream press. The Advocate seems to be its own worst enemy for the cause it purports to promote.

Malcolm Morris-Rose, Chicago, Ill.

Could you have possibly tried a little harder to choose cover models who look older than the age of consent? I'm really not a prude, but your cover photo choice seems hardly appropriate for the sodomy article. The children are very nice, but must The Advocate resort to kiddie porn to move its product?

Rob Durkin, Butte, Mont.

Your reckless cover photo of potentially underage boys in bed, with the line "What you do in bed is illegal," does a disservice to the community and the cause. Although the story has nothing to do with age, you have reaffirmed an erroneous stereotype in the minds of the thousand of homophobes who might see the cover at a newsstand but would never buy the magazine and read the article. Teenagers don't pay your salaries; get them off your (bed) covers!

Gary Gray, Pittsford N.Y.

Lavender-green card

Here's one more reason to worry about archaic, seldom-enforced sodomy laws: immigration ["Scene of the Crime," October 27]. According to The Wall Street Journal, a recent immigration law is gaining enforcement steam and warping past

its original intent. Resident aliens are subject to arrest and deportation if they've been convicted of a felony. what does this mean for gays? Consider the felonious condition many of us may be in, depending on the state we're passing through. Any gay person who's not a citizen could be summarily and permanently deported once caught up by one of those outdated sodomy laws. If you, your partner, or your friends are resident aliens, this looks ominous.

RELATED ARTICLE: Reader comments from www.advocate.com

* "Right now in many state we're criminals, and that needs to be changed before we can hope to be given equal rights. It doesn't make sense to give equal rights to criminals."

* I don't think anyone should spend too much time trying to repeal a law that not many people pay attention to. However, I do think it's an important thing to fight for in case there are people who would like to lash out and use the law against any member of the community."

* I think we have several more compelling issues to tackle first. The image of us as roller-skating drag queens and child molesters that continues to be fed daily into our homes must be diligently monitored and countered."

* "While the laws are still on the books, they can always be used against us by gay-hating lawyers, juries and judges. They must be repealed."

* "We have many more pressing issues to deal with right now, like hate crimes and educating the public or homosexuality?"

Jim Tolson, via the Internet