Letters to the Editor
More Than Sex
I believe this is the first letter I have ever written to Out in the Mountains. I will get right to the point. I thought your last issue of OITM with a picture of a large penis on the back page, was the poorest judgment I have ever seen. What were you folks thinking? Your newspaper appears in several reputable business establishments in Waterbury, to be viewed by anyone passing by. That also includes young children. Many of these business owners support the display or your paper, despite criticism from bigoted individuals.The picture on the back page is nothing short of pornography. Your staff might think it was humorous, but as a professional gay man, I found it offensive. It does not represent who I am or what I condone. I do not like seeing those type of photographs in any publication, let alone one that is representing my community. My first thought was more ammunition for Nancy Sheltra and TIP.
Our community is more than sex. Many may disagree with me, but my life with my partner is the nurturing of our relationship with each other, professional lives, our home, our friends, and most important, our families. A large penis slapped on the back page is far from what I want to be equated with. So come on folks, use some discretion and prudence next time you publish something like that. Before you know it, you'll be in the same class with the National Enquirer, and then I will no longer purchase your paper.
John P. Castaldo
Waterbury Center
No Dildos Please
Did we really need that photo of the “dildo” clad drag queen on the back page of the March edition? I found it offensive and unnecessary. We’d be screaming if this was the mainstream press again using the most outrageous images as representative of our community (as they often do). In this case, we have only ourselves to blame.
Let’s not forget that “our” paper is available everywhere throughout the state. Call me a prude, but I cringe when I think young kids could easily see that picture in “our” paper. We’ll make lots of friends when they go home asking mommy or daddy what that is. Then of course, there are all those bigots who’ll just see more proof we’re all sex crazed. Why help them with their distortions that we know they will use against us?
If OITM wants to claim to be my “voice,” I ask you exercise some tact in how you represent me and mine.
Chuck Kletecka
Waterbury Center
I may not have made the same choice left to my own devices, but probably not for the same reasons as Mr. Kletecka and Mr. Castaldo. On the other hand, I do not intend to make such choices based on whether they might stir up Vermont’s homphobes. And I suggest that leaving sex out entirely betrays a significant part of who we are. — EB
Monogamy Not Required
Dear OITM Editor, Thanks for your premier editorial! You started me thinking more about where we are and where we're going as communities. The questions you asked were insightful and timely and I look forward to reading your next editorial. Having said that, allow me to quibble with one word – you said, “Lesbians and gays in monogamous relationships have the option of obtaining legal recognition in civil union …”
From my point of view, the word “monogamous” in that sentence is an unnecessary and inaccurate qualifier. There is nothing in the civil union law that requires a couple to be monogamous any more than there is in the civil marriage laws of our state. While some churches may require an intention to be monogamous before they will hold a religious ceremony and unite a couple in civil union or marriage, the state does not require such intentions. So why did you find it necessary to use the word? Could it be that you unknowingly hold to a stereotypical image of couples that choose to enter into a civil union? I believe that, just as is the case in the heterosexual world of marriage, a wide range of same-gender couples may choose to enter into a civil union. All they must require is a desire to act as legal next of kin for each other. Whether they are physically intimate with each other exclusively or at all is not the business of the state.
My argument is weakened by the fact I can’t cite myself as an example to break the stereotype. But while an intimate monogamous relationship with my spouse makes me happy, and since I desire to be happy that is the choice I have made, I do not assume that all couples are the same as me and my spouse. Neither should you.
Joseph F. Watson
Leicester
You’re right, it was an inaccurate choice. I meant to convey that a person could not legally be in more than one civil union or marriage at the same time. — EB
A Welcome Welcome
I just wanted to say hello to you in your new capacity as editor.
Your March editorial was great. You asked the crucial question for any queer publication or organization at this point in time -- what happens when the oppression that to a large part defines us begins to diminish?
I guess we'll find out. OITM is lucky to have you.
Alison Bechdel
Jonesville
To The Governor
Dear Howard, Sorry to bother you. I know you are busy. I just wanted you to know that the Putney Town Report came in. It lists 85 Civil Unions through our town clerk from October 2000 through December 2001. We still don’t have any locusts, famine, earthquakes, plague, cross-burnings, or dying sugarbushes. Seems God continues to smile on us as we enjoy the fruits of hard work and good community. I mean for the most part there seems to be enough food and shelter to go around, mainly.
Of the 85 Civil Unions listed, only two couples are listed as Putney residents. The rest are from away – one couple from Louisiana, two from Arizona, three from Florida, and six from California. There was one couple from Alberta, Canada, and one from Midland, Texas – God bless ’em. It sort of reminds me of Vermont’s history with the Underground Railroad. People treated unfairly from so many other places came here on their way to freedom. I am proud to see the tradition continue. And I am grateful to you for helping to make it happen. I know principles can be hard to come by in government. I am glad yours were showing so clearly on this.
If you do run for president of the country, I will vote for you. Not because I agree with everything you’ve done. I don’t. But I think you could give the White House something it hasn’t had in years: a hard worker who hasn’t had everything handed to him from the country club set and a good looking guy who keeps it in his pants. Imagine what a nice change it would be to have someone up there we knew well enough to know when he was lying. That would be refreshing and make me think democracy was still possible.
If you do get to the White House, I’d like you to save a night sometime when the shadow government could hold down the fort and you didn’t have to stay in the situation room keeping score on some war where women and children were bombed into nothing. My husband, Marshall Brewer, and I would like to take you and your wife out to a nice little Italian restaurant on 18th St. we know. I think you’d like it. And God knows, you’d need a break from all the flatlanders asking you about the best places for skiing back home.
Thank you for all your good work.
Sincerely,
John Calvi
Putney
