Dad-blast-it, but my original thread has already been archived. Here's the backstory:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1636477And here's the update:
First, I want to thank those of you who put in your two cents with the city council -- and encourage anyone who hasn't to do so. There's no time limit on this, and a steady stream of letters
after the time the council may think the situation is "over" may actually have more impact.
Next: I'm going to the students' meeting tomorrow (Monday) morning; the thing they were doing on Friday wasn't an official meeting, and the student advisor called to say I should come Monday instead -- which is A-OK by me.
I waited until today to send my own letter to the city council, after learning that the San Jose Mercury News was going to pick up the story, and expecting they would publish it today (Sunday) -- which they did.
And am I ever glad I took a gamble and waited -- the Merc story was even more revealing, and gave me even more inspiration to make a few points.
Here's the Merc article -- I think anyone with even a passing interest in this issue will find it quiet enlightening:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/8737533.htmFinally, as promised, here is the letter I just sent to the LACC (with copies to both the Mercury News and the local paper):
Subject: The Intolerance of "Tolerance"
Gentlemen:
There are so many things wrong with the City Council's decision to deny the proclamation of June 7 as Gay Pride Day, it is difficult to know where to begin.
As a lifelong resident of Los Altos -- and a third-generation Los Altan whose family was here when Main Street was literally still a dirt road -- I am compelled to express my dismay over the latest evidence that this is simply not the town I grew up in.
Can you tell me exactly when my town devolved into a such a stronghold of intolerant conservatism? Was it about the time I began to notice the proliferation of pro-Proposition 22 lawn signs? Or did it begin earlier than that? You'll have to tell me, because I feel like Rip Van Winkle, waking in a place I barely recognize.
No, wait -- now that I think of it, I do recognize this place after all: It resembles Washington, D.C., and Mayor John Moss reminds me of a certain Commander-in-Chief whose personal views at first appeared fairly reasonable -- but who ultimately caved in to appease a perceived base of anti-gay religiosity (regardless of whether that base wields as much influence as Mayor Moss -- or George W. Bush -- may think).
Mayor Moss is quoted in Sunday's San Jose Mercury News: "There were people in the audience whom I know are rather religious and they tend to take the teachings of the Bible very literally and in that regard, they would have been upset,'' he said, acknowledging the presence of Town Crier Publisher Paul Nyberg "probably influenced'' his vote. "Seeing him reminded me that he and people like him would be upset about it.''
Must I remind the Council -- and especially the ultimate representative of my city -- that the words "Bible" and "vote" should not even be considered in the same thought, let alone uttered in the same breath?
Must I remind the Council that, contrary to what hardcore fundamentalists would like everyone to believe, the United States was _not_ founded as a "Christian nation," and that the wall between church and state is a very solid wall indeed? (I would be more than happy to educate the Council about what the Founding Fathers really had to say about the "Christian nation" concept.)
With all due respect, gentlemen: How _dare_ you allow your _civic_ duty to be influenced by religion? This is an unequivocal breach of the _true_ and _secular_ values upon which this nation was founded.
Even Mr. Nyberg was apparently shocked that "his presence may have played a role" in your decision. While it is highly doubtful that Mr. Nyberg and I would agree on anything else in this life, I too am shocked.
I hope none of the councilmembers takes the easy out by claiming that issues of national importance have no bearing on issues of local importance. Such a statement would be not only irrelevant, but hypocritical, in light of the city's recent record on such issues.
Most curious to me is Mr. Packard's conviction that it is not, as stated by the Mercury News, "the city council's place to take a position on sexual orientation."
And why not, Mr. Packard? Did the City of Los Altos not take a position on the federal Patriot Act, just this past February? Did Los Altos not take a stand on an issue of national importance? How does the issue of the Patriot Act differ from the issue of equal civil rights for lesbians and gay men -- or, in this case, lesbian and gay youth?
Surely, there must be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Republicans in this town outraged by the idea of opposing a federal law championed by George W. Bush. Was the Council not concerned that these constituents might be "upset" over the city's position on that?
The truth is, Mr. Packard, the City Council _did_ take a "take a position on sexual orientation." And that position is clear.
Let us now turn our attention to the concept of "tolerance." Gentlemen, neither the members of the Gay-Straight Alliance nor those of us who have been combatting ignorance and bigotry since before these students were born have any tolerance for mere "tolerance." What these students want is nothing less than acceptance, and confirmation that they too are full-fledged citizens of their community. Your decision delivered the clear message that they are not -- and that their community is only willing to "tolerate" their presence, as long as they climb back into the closet and agree not to acknowledge exactly who they are.
Not _what_ they are, mind you, but _who_ they are.
I cannot begin to fathom what King Lear meant by the statement, "These days, there are a lot of problems with tolerance." Surely, he could not have been in agreement with my conviction that "tolerance" simply isn't good enough; I expect he meant that acceptance of diversity is too uncomfortable a concept for the Council to deal with head-on.
As for his hope that "Perhaps this will teach (the students) a lesson about tolerance of conservatives," I believe Mr. Lear is 100% correct. I believe the Council has taught the students a very clear lesson indeed, and is helping to prepare these students for the "real world" -- which, unfortunately, can be quite cruel and very intolerant.
I am glad the current City Council members (with the sole exception of Curtis Cole) did not occupy any decision-making positions in, say, Montgomery, Alabama, circa 1964 -- or today February might be recognized only as "Tolerance History Month."
In the end, I suppose the students should actually be quite grateful to the City Council. You could have easily passed a simple proclamation, with little fanfare, and that would have been the end of that. But by offering these kids sloppy seconds, you have ignited a firestorm of controversy, and attracted a great deal of attention to their cause.
You have also fueled the determination of those already willing to battle bigotry wherever it shows itself. You may have crushed a few spirits, but you have also temper-steeled the hearts of many more.
I expect more than a few of the councilmembers are now afraid that next year, somebody is going to propose a Gay Pride parade down the center of Main Street. I hope someone does, if only so that we may see how the Council deals with the issue -- or not. Will the Council deny a permit for a Gay Pride parade, while silently condoning the annual "Pro-Life March" on the very same street?
If you think a "Pro-Life March" does not offend any of your constituents, you are sadly mistaken. However, we who support and defend Roe v. Wade "tolerate" such displays, in the true sense of the word "tolerance": We may not like it, but we do nothing to _stop_ it.
Do I expect the Council to reverse its decision? Heavens, no. And, frankly, I doubt that ten letters, or ten million, would have any effect on your decision, nor on the personal views of each councilmember who chose to deny these students their rightful place in Los Altos "society."
However, I do hope this controversy will teach conservatives their own lesson: that handing a starving man a dirt sandwich and calling it caviar doesn't _make_ it caviar. You handed these kids -- and all lesbian and gay adults in Los Altos (and I assure you, we do exist), as well as their families, and their allies -- a dirt sandwich.
I also hope you learn that lesbians and gay men are finally claiming -- albeit slowly -- their birthright as citizens of the United States, whether you or any "biblical literalists" like it or not. You know as well as I do that the day will come when lesbians and gay men are allowed to sit at the same table with their heterosexual counterparts. Will it take Los Altos until then to recognize the separation of church and state and finally "award" its gay citizens a place at the table?
Why won't you do the right thing _now_? What are you afraid of?
Finally, I must try to impress upon each of you the impact the Council's decision has on the life of every gay and lesbian person under your jurisdiction.
Perhaps none of you has any gay or lesbian children. If you had, I assure you that your concerns about a few anti-gay religious fundamentalists would take a back seat to your concern that your child be afforded every right and privilege as any other child.
Perhaps only then would you be able to fathom the importance of this issue, and begin to understand just how hard a slap in the face you have delivered to these students and their supporters.
Perhaps only then could you begin to understand why, when faced with a lifetime of discrimination and fear-fueled bigotry, so many gay and lesbian teens buy into the idea that they are, indeed, less worthy than their heterosexual counterparts.
Perhaps only then could you begin to make sense of the mind-numbingly, off-the-scale suicide rate among gay and lesbian youth.
According to a U.S. Health and Human Services report, "gay adolescents were two to three times more likely than peers to attempt suicide, accounting for as many as 30% of completed youth suicides each year." That means you're looking at a suicide rate as much as six times that of straight teens.
Had you been told, all your life, that at best you are not worthy of the same consideration as the rest of the population, and at worst that you are mentally ill, a freak of nature, and a walking abomination, you too might consider the "easy way out."
I am not suggesting that the Council's decision is about to cause any of the GSA students to go home and kill themselves. What I am telling you, in no uncertain terms, is that your decision to deny the students their equality simply compounds the mistreatment they have already received, and will continue to receive throughout their lives. You have added to the problem. And I assure you that your contribution to intolerance will stand out sharply in the minds of these students for the rest of their lives.
You had the opportunity to make a positive difference in the lives of twenty young people who asked for nothing more than that their city government affirm their equality. You, in essence, told them they simply don't count.
As a constituent, I am truly ashamed of your actions on my behalf -- and I sincerely regret that my vote helped put two of the current councilmembers in office.
Call it buyer's remorse.
Respectfully yours,
.....
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
