Readerforum.

The marrying kind

It is important to understand that California's Proposition 22 has nothing to do with protecting marriage as its proponents would like us to believe ["Wedded to Equality," February 29]. It contains absolutely nothing to eliminate the real threats to an institution that has a near-45% failure rate.

This initiative is a blatant attempt by religious zealots to legalize their homophobic discrimination and force their myopic interpretation of moral values upon all California citizens. They conveniently ignore the fact that there is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriages and that California recognizes common-law relationships. They close their eyes to the fact that not all religions nor every congregation within any given denomination agrees with their stance.

These bigoted proponents also fail to comprehend the basic fundamentals of our Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights--specifically, the First Amendment. Proponents say the measure is not antigay, yet it is primarily gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered citizens who will be denied equal rights if this proposition should pass.

Andrew Barker, Idyllwild, Calif.

The February 29 issue could not have come at a better time for me. I am currently in the process of planning my commitment ceremony. I was shocked to hear how some famous gay couples view gay weddings. To wait until it is legal may be a long process, so why not do it now and then again when it becomes legal--a "pretend" marriage. Waiting may be great for Melissa Etheridge and her partner, but for me and mine, we can't wait to pledge our love for each other. Along with our daughter and close friends, we will commit ourselves. Then the day it becomes legal, we will do it again with the same amount of pride we had the first time.

Kathleen Inks, Riverside, Calif.

I am outraged that I live in a country that allows two total strangers to marry after participating in a Fox television pageant ("Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire") while I have to say good-bye to my foreign-national partner because our state department delays issuing the paperwork to keep his visa current and I cannot "many" him to keep him with me. I cannot marry the person I love, but any two publicity-seeking idiots can go on television and marry for the attention it will bring them? That's the sanctity of marriage I keep hearing about?

Phil White, Boston, Mass.

The U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions are documents that limit the powers of the government and establish the rights of the people. A constitution can only grant rights; it cannot ban or block them. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, it put limits on the power of the government and described the rights of the people. Nowhere did it contain any bans or descriptions of what rights people do not have. Therefore, if you are a patriotic American who believes in freedom, whether you believe in legal gay marriage, you must not support a bill that bans any one right. To allow such a bill in any state or at the federal level would be to lead our country down a road that will twist and invert our Constitution to the point where it does more harm than good.

Benjamin Kammerer East Meadow, N.Y.

Perhaps if U.S. gays would stop aping straight marriage with church ceremonies, bridesmaids (or groomsmaids), throwing rice, and all the other nonsense and start concentrating on getting support for legislation that would give gay and lesbian relationships the legal and financial validity that straight marriage has, we could achieve something as cleverly rational as the French Pacte Civile de Solidarite.

Luis Torres, San Antonio, Tex.

You missed the boat on gay marriage. Granted, you were correct in stating that the answer is not to adopt antigay laws that prohibit government from recognizing same-sex marriage while recognizing opposite-sex marriage. We would be sorely mistaken to go the other way, though, and adopt more laws adding more categories of marriage to the one the government already recognizes. The real answer is to get government out of the marriage business entirely. What business is it of government to choose one type of marriage as preferable to another? More laws just mean more lawyers and more lawsuits.

Robert Hansen, Portland, Ore.

Orgy of compassion

I am curious as to how Brendan Lemon's Last Word column [February 29] paralleling social investment with sexual compulsion got published. May I suggest you turn this negative article into two positive articles: one that highlights the benefits of investing in social causes, the other exploring the roots of sexual compulsion in the gay community. I commend Lemon for adopting two AIDS orphans. It's just so sad he thinks that being "madly horny" is somehow related.

Kent Ducote, Key West, Fla.

The health item on page 20 of your February 29 issue states that "7.8% of the HIV-positive men in a recent CDC study were determined to have been infected through oral sex," an obvious warning that we need to once again redefine safer sex. Fifty-two pages later, Lemon glorifies a "party pig" giving head to a chorus line of strange men. What point was Lemon making? Was I supposed to be saddened by the fate of the orphans, aroused by the image of anonymous sex, or jealous that I never get invited to orgies? Do we need to know Lemon's personal sexual escapades? Is he boasting? Then, to add racist insult to injury, Lemon suddenly feels connected to these Africans and their plight when he makes eye contact with a "tall black guy" who apparently has sparked his libido.

This article read like the infamous letter to Penthouse: "I never thought this would happen to me, but ..." If I want a masturbatory aid, I'll buy Inches; I don't read The Advocate for erotica any more than my straight friends buy Hustler for quality journalism.

B.J. Solarczyk, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Forward, march

Millennium March? We wouldn't miss it for the world ["Putting It Together," February 29]! We are two Utah lesbians in our 40s. We went to the 1993 march on Washington, and it was a powerful, life-changing experience for us. For people from places like Utah, a national event like the Millennium March can be an opportunity to gain strength and courage to face incredible odds and huge opposition in areas where it is really easy to feel isolated and oppressed. The empowerment we gain at events like the MMOW can last us for years.

If you're not a jaded longtime activist, if you haven't done dozens of these kinds of events before, go to the march. If the critics don't succeed in ruining this event for the rest of us (and we don't think they will!), it should be a tremendous weekend for GLBT people and our friends, families, and allies.

Kathy Worthington, Sara Hamblin Salt Lake City, Utah 

I came out of the closet as the gay movement was being built, and I helped to build it! The corridors of power were the streets. Thousands marched on Washington in 1979, despite the murder of Harvey Milk, despite the faction fights. I shed tears of joy being in the nation's capital with other openly gay people. We returned to Washington in 1987, hundreds of thousands, despite the death of millions from AIDS. This time tears of joy were shed as we were addressed by a president of a trade union (Cesar Chavez) and a candidate for U.S. president (Jesse Jackson). We were there in 1993 taking a vow of gay marriage, tears in my eyes as the ritual was performed by a man with whom I had had many a faction fight.

This April I will again march in the streets of Washington. Despite all the divisions we will again make history and cry with tears of joy, inspiring future people gay and straight to learn from our struggles to help build a better world!

Peter Goodman, Hamden, Conn.

For the record

Comedian Suzanne Westenhoefer, the subject of our February 15 story "Funny Girl," will in fact be touring extensively in support of her latest CD, I'm Not Cindy Brady. The comic also reports that her gay sister, Joan, "is actually older than I am--but no one cares about that except us."