Gay Today: Letters to the Editor

Pen Points
Letters to
Gay Today

Ashcroft's Internet Porn Threat

It's all hot air. Ashcroft and the fundies can huff and puff all they want, but porn on the internet ain't going away, especially at a site where one has to pay with a credit card or provide some other proof of age.

Some will start squealing about the Communications Decency Act, but unless Bush somehow manages to get five justices to the right of Scalia appointed to the high court, nothing will happen. Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist were all part of the 9-0 vote that struck down the CDA, and they're still around.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is begining a crusade against Internet porn, but does he have a prayer?

I am all for suppression and prosecution of those involved in kiddie porn and those who go after children. Clinton did prosecute scum like that, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Bush administration will continue the process. However, attempting to regulate the content of the Internet will not work in this country, because the courts will not allow it and the people will not stand for it.

Don C.

Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan and the Re-Infection Question

I did go to Andrew Sullivan's website and read his response to the allegations.

While I will admit that Sullivan is a master at manipulating the written word, he only served to reinforce my feelings about him.

Now, let me be very clear on something here... lest you get the idea that I am nothing more than a hard-headed, senseless ass. If I had not followed Andrew Sullivan for so long... and were only now being introduced to his work... I would find the man to be a bloody genius. He has the keen ability (as Signorile also points out) to twist and tangle information and sound bites in such a way that they come off as his own original thoughts.

After reading and listening to hordes of what the man has to say... one gets to the point that you can read through the fluff and see the real stuff underneath.

For example... to quote Sullivan himself... he says: "What about "re-infection"? Signorile argues that it is possible for someone to be "re-infected" with HIV, generating new strains that could possibly worsen or possibly ameliorate your health. I am aware of this theory and the slim reed of research it is based upon."

This is the type of irresponsible journalism that I have come to expect from Sullivan. "Slim reed of research", INDEED! These are the types of accusations that he uses to attack AIDS researchers and activists. At least, today, that is. Do not be surprised if, down the road, he changes his tune... adopting the stance that re-infection (or super-infection) exists and that he has been warning people for ages about it. If so, it would not be the first time that he has done such flip-flops.

I agree that it is good for people to change their views with knowledge. What I would add to that is that if one has previously attacked others for their views.. and then ends up adopting those same views... that he should also cop to it. That is, admit that his views have changed and make some type of amends (read: humbling) for his vicious attacks.

Related Stories from the GayToday Archive:
Bush Chooses Fanatic for the Attory General's Position

Sex, Scandal & Andrew Sullivan: Risky Cruising Exposed

Republican Leaders Declare War on Gay America

Related Sites:
Scouting for All

Andrew Sullivan
GayToday does not endorse related sites.

I find especially revolting that Sullivan feels that his personal sexual proclivities should be able to be kept private because he is not "an elected" official. To quote wise words: "He has no choice but to accept ALL the ramifications of celebrity, many of which are unpleasant". Unfortunately, Sullivan doesn't think that he should have to.

My humble opinion is that if he feels free to attack the private lives of others, then he should stand ready to have his own attacked, as well.

J.D.
California

Remember These Names When Voting

The U.S. Senate today voted on the anti-gay Boy Scouts amendment. It will have little effect, as equal treatment is already guaranteed by a number of court cases, but the author of the amendment said it best himself:

Helms said his amendment is meant to combat "the organized lesbians and homosexuals in this country of ours."

From the U.S. Senate's Web Site: (Roll Call Vote No. 189 Leg. )

June 14, 2001 1:54PM

TITLE: Helms Amendment No. 648

Required For Majority: 1/2
Result: Amendment Agreed to

YEAS --- 51
Allard, Dorgan, Lugar, Allen, Ensign, McCain, Bennett, Enzi, McConnell, Bond, Fitzgerald, Miller, Breaux, Frist, Murkowski, Brownback, Gramm, Nickles, Bunning, Grassley, Roberts, Burns, Gregg, Santorum, Byrd, Hatch, Sessions, Campbell, Shelby, Carnahan, Helms, Hollings, Smith (NH),Cochran, Hutchinson, Smith (OR), Collins, Hutchison, Stevens, Conrad, Inhofe, Thomas, Craig, Johnson, Thompson, Crapo, Kyl, Thurmond, Domenici, Lott, Warner

NAYS --- 49
Akaka, Edwards, Mikulski, Baucus, Feingold, Murray, Bayh, Feinstein, Nelson (FL, Biden, Graham, Nelson (NE), Bingaman, Hagel, Reed, Boxer, Harkin, Reid, Cantwell, Inouye, Rockefeller, Carper, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Chafee, Kennedy, Schumer, Cleland, Kerry, Snowe, Clinton, Kohl, Specter, Corzine, Landrieu, Stabenow, Daschle, Leahy, Torricelli, Dayton, Levin, Voinovich, DeWine, Lieberman, Wellstone, Dodd, Lincoln, ,Wyden, Durbin