Sweet Sweet Pete

Thank you so much for printing the article about Pete ["Pete Martinez, June 16, 1946—March 17, 2001," May OutSmart, by Ann Walton Sieber]. Friends of Pete’s and many who have just known of his wonderful work through the years will/do appreciate the space you took to remember this true "Hand-maiden" of the Quilt. Thank you for remembering.

Ruth Ellsworth
Board of Directors, NAMES Project Foundation
St. Louis, MO

Pete may have been short in height, but he was tall in every other way. We at the NAMES Project Houston miss him greatly. It will take several volunteers to do his work, but no one can ever take his place. Thank you for such a wonderful article.

Sherra Kahanek
Board Secretary, NAMES Project Houston

Love, Love, Love

The article about Paragraph 175 by John W. Stiles is wonderful ["Those Who Are Left," May OutSmart]. It is sensitive, smart, informed and informative, entertaining and very well written. We all love it. As a matter of fact, we love it so much we would like to include it among the reviews on our website [www.tellingpix.com] and hope you don’t mind.

Michael Ehrenzweig
Producer, Paragraph 175
Telling Pictures/Reflective Image
San Francisco, CA

Dissing Dass

I could not resist writing regarding the interview with Ram Dass ["Holy Man Sighted at Gay Porn House," April OutSmart, by Alan Davidson]. In the grand tradition of Dame Elton John, another old guy is now going to come out and tell us he was gay . . . the whole time.

I am a 44-year-old gay male, I have been out since I was 17, I have worked menial jobs, been brutalized in public, missed countless opportunities, somehow escaped AIDS, but watched as many of my friends and peers died, and now, this person is going to come out and tell me he was gay the whole time, and that he thought it would "interfere" with his message if anybody knew.

I just want to say to him what I say to all of the older men who approach me now, hungry and horny for what they missed: Where were you when I needed you? It occurred to me that perhaps if Ram Dass had gotten his message out and come out of the closet in the ’70s or ’80s, there is a slight possibility it could have changed the entire history of the gay community; maybe we would have been more spiritual, looked elsewhere for fulfillment instead of promiscuity and drugs and alcohol. Perhaps AIDS would not have devastated the community the way it did. Perhaps our entire history would be different now, perhaps not, but we will never know.

My point is . . . No, he does not get to come out now and have credibility and have adoring fans go to his lovely home in the hills overlooking San Francisco and ask to stare into his eyes. No, he has not earned that, not by a long shot.

I’m sorry about the stroke, and I’m sorry he had such a struggle with his sexuality, and I do not wish him any more trouble, but no, he does not deserve credibility or praise.

David Griscom
Houston

Give Bush a Chance

Were you really going to give George W a chance on the White House appointment of a gay official? ["Crouching Bigot, Hidden Faggot," May LeftOut, by Daryl Moore.] I bet you had a negative response prepared and ready for print whether Bush appointed an openly gay official–which you submitted–or if he canceled ONAP (the White House Office of National AIDS Policy) altogether.

The choice was a lose-lose situation for Bush because unless there is a liberal in the White House, open-mindedness is not an option for people of your ilk. You claimed that Bush’s intent appeared to be to shut down ONAP until "public outcry" forced a change in policy. Really? Public outcry from whom? Gays? How many gays voted for Bush? What political risk could Bush have taken by following through with the supposed termination of ONAP?

On the other hand, if W did terminate ONAP, you would have scolded him for bowing to the political pressure of the right-wing, church-going, Bible-banging extremists. You would have said it was a political payoff to Pat Robertson and his friends. You would have argued the decision was in essence a "thank you" to the right for political contributions and for providing the margin of victory in Florida.

But no, you had to go with article number two, not number one. That had to hurt. You do not want to admit that Bush is winning small victories (pursuing ideas and policies he campaigned on) in Washington. Bush is following through with what he said he would do and that bothers you. As a result, you had to end with the most anti-climactic conclusion,"Only time will tell." This isn’t what you wanted, is it?

Mike Crowe
Houston

Rothko Outcry

It was painful to read OutSmart’s April article whitewashing the Rothko Chapel’s treatment of lesbians and gays ["Holy for All," by Ann Walton Sieber]. My partner and I know that we are not the only ones who, in calling the Rothko Chapel office, were shocked and hurt to be rudely treated by its director, Suna Umari. The hypocrisy was obvious to us but surprisingly not to OutSmart’s editor: Our community’s "chapel" could take the high ground and justify its tax deductible status in asking for our money to spotlight human rights problems around the world while avoiding applying to itself even basic civil rights standards.

It’s very telling that Ann Sieber would tout another heterosexual woman and smooth-talking lawyer and politician to boot, Sissy Farenthold, as a "gay hero" for doing very little to help our community but mug for publicity, while dismissively calling one of our own self-sacrificing leaders, Professor Eugene Harrington, "a gadfly" and "shrill" for his principled actions of informing our community about the Rothko Chapel’s prejudice against GLBT people. Basically, he was criticized for doing a better job than the GLBT media in getting the word out about this scandal and then mobilizing conscientious people to push the chapel board to finally do the right thing and overturn Ms. Umari’s bigoted policy. [Editor’s note: It is not Suna Umari’s policy, but was in place when she assumed the position of executive director.]

Ms. Sieber has several good reasons to feel "embarrassed" about writing this article. She should have questioned the scapegoating of a dead woman, philanthropist Dominique DeMenil, for the Rothko Chapel’s anti-lesbian/gay policy. I know what I heard from the lips of Ms. Umari: It was "unacceptable" for us, as a committed lesbian couple, to hold a holy union ceremony in the Rothko Chapel because "we do not permit that type of service in the Rothko Chapel." When I nicely asked if we might hope that at a later date lesbian and gay marriages could be held in the chapel, I was curtly told that "this policy will never change." Ms. Sieber’s writing is an example of why GLBT people cannot rely upon non-GLBT people to fully appreciate nor advocate for our concerns.

We must not forget about the national GLBT "SoulForce" movement’s call to financially boycott institutions, like the Rothko Chapel, which are guilty of spiritual crimes against our people. It’s irresponsible for Ms. Sieber to abuse her position, as editor of one of our community’s important publications, by not bothering to thoroughly research her article (which requires her to go beyond telling us about her own troubled thoughts and worries). How else would the truth be ferreted out? Unfortunately, the resulting article uncritically provided the Rothko Chapel people with a self-serving opportunity to explain away and thus perpetuate its mistreatment of GLBT people. The Rothko Chapel people obviously hoped not to alienate further our community’s good will and risk losing the money it generates and the chapel desperately wants.

OutSmart did not serve our community with this article, and Ms. Sieber should apologize for her disservice. Otherwise, she should seek a more appropriate position, such as the Rothko Chapel’s public relations director.

The Rothko Chapel and its leadership owes apologies to the individuals and couples, like my partner and myself, whom its smug director cruelly turned away over the years as well as to the whole community for its bigotry. The Rothko Chapel should now publicly extend an invitation for reconciliation to truly demonstrate its sincere commitment to acknowledging and fostering our people’s goal of equality and the respect we all deserve as human beings.

Sophie Katz
Houston

Publisher’s Response: The editor’s work at OutSmart is often two-fold: to act as a responsible journalist and to be a conscious social activist. Sometimes the line between these two functions may appear fuzzy, especially if a person may believe one of these functions has greater priority. My personal belief is that both functions are vital, and sometimes necessary, to our role in the community, especially in the personal news commentary we published regarding Rothko Chapel.

You mentioned a very important principle of the Soul Force movement. As journalists, another equally important Soul Force principle is to "seek the truth and confront untruth." Taking the time to communicate with Ms. Umari gave our editor the opportunity to hear Rothko Chapel’s take on the story of how the discriminating policy originated. It then provided an opportunity to discuss with Rothko board members the desire of the community to change them. I’m sorry that OutSmart’s story did not offer the apology from Rothko Chapel that you so rightfully deserve.

And as for Gene Harrington, we recognize and applaud his role as gadfly, and hope he will continue to serve this vital function for the community. –Greg Jeu