Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Houston Voice, No. 999, December 17, 1999
File 010
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Voice, No. 999, December 17, 1999 - File 010. 1999-12-17. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. October 23, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/223/show/199.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(1999-12-17). Houston Voice, No. 999, December 17, 1999 - File 010. Montrose Voice. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/223/show/199

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Voice, No. 999, December 17, 1999 - File 010, 1999-12-17, Montrose Voice, University of Houston Libraries, accessed October 23, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/223/show/199.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Voice, No. 999, December 17, 1999
Contributor
  • Hennie, Matthew A.
Publisher Window Media
Date December 17, 1999
Language English
Subject
  • LGBTQ community
  • LGBTQ people
  • Gay liberation movement
Place
  • Houston, Texas
Genre
  • newspapers
Type
  • Text
Identifier OCLC: 31485329
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries Special Collections
  • LGBT Research Collection
  • Montrose Voice
Rights In Copyright
Note This item was digitized from materials loaned by the Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM).
Item Description
Title File 010
Transcript HOUSTON VOICE • DECEMBER 10, 1999 VOICES AND ECHOES VIEWPOINT Log Cabin Republicans play ihe civil rights doormat by MICHAEL ALVEAR Beating up on the Log Cabin Republicans is addictive. Like eating potato chips, you can't just stop at one punch. I feel guilty, though, because the organization does a certain amount of good. In a lurching, Frankenstein sort of way. Recently, LCR's Georgia chapter was instrumental in throwing a fund-raiser for George W. Bush. Attendees estimated that as much as 80 percent of the crowd was gay. Yet the speakers, including U.S. Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), never once acknowledged that fact; never once uttered the word "gay"; and never once addressed a single gay issue, pro or con. Coverdell appeared again at Georgia LCR's Dec. 1 meeting, and again he never uttered theg-word. What kind of a loser do you have to be to give your money to a candidate that won't even acknowledge your existence? What kind of doormat would sit at a function and not ask the recipients of tens of thousands of dollars to acknowledge the contributor's presence? I've had cheap tricks before, but never anyone willing to bend over so quickly. Well, not without dinner, anyway. George W. Bush has gone on record saying he won't even meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and that he would not appoint anyone to his administration if he knew they were gay. So what does LCR do? Throw a party for him. A friend once told me that the Republican philosophy can be summed up in a two-sentence cheer—"Hooray for me! Fuck you!" If that's true, the Log Cabin cheer should be "Hooray for them! Fuck us!" LCR should be taken to the woodshed. Or we could whack them right where they are, since their pants are perpetually around their ankles anyway. Though I don't consider myself conservative or Republican, I actually believe in LCR's mission. I've given them money, supported their concept (if not its execution), and I believe Rich Tafel, the LCR national executive director, is one of the most articulate spokesmen of the gay movement, conservative or liberal. In a way, LCR is poised to make more important gains for gays than groups on the Left. Republicans are in control of the House and Senate. Loathing and reviling them makes for good sport, but poor strategy. Even if the Democrats win back both houses, we're still left with a big problem—no relationship with half of the U.S. power base. And that's where LCR comes in. Common sense, which is a completely foreign concept to the Left, is an LCR tenet: The best way to stop your enemy is to make him your friend. But whatever horse sense Rich Tafel and his well-intentioned band of neo- cons started out with, they fritter it away with some of the most asinine strategic moves I've seen since the Left burdened us with the weight of "LGBTQ." The Left may be a bunch of disrespectful, back-biting PC mongers who prefer perpetual victimhood over incremental victory, but at least they've managed to hold on to their dignity. Sort of. Moderating the Republican party through dialogue and influence is an admirable goal. Giving up your dignity in the process is not. LCR's preferred strategy in the face of abuse and ingratitude is silence. It's their version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Don't ask the Republicans to acknowledge you, and they don't have to tell anyone they did. It doesn't bother me that Sen. Coverdell, who's never seen a gay issue he didn't vote down, addressed an LCR meeting. I applaud it. It's the beginning of constructive dialogue. What bothers me is that the LCR leadership doesn't pull him aside and say, "Look, I know we're miles apart on many issues but even Arafat acknowledged Israel's right to exist. We don't expect you to come out swinging for ENDA and against DOMA, but we do expect you to at least say the word 'gay' and express some gratitude to the gay community for its support of Republican causes." It seems like such a pitiful thing to ask for in exchange for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that gay Republicans donate to the party. But LCR apparently doesn't believe it can rise to the level of pity. Michael Alvear lives with his liberal boyfriend, his libertarian Labrador and republican Viszla, who refuses to acknowledge him when he gets fed. He can be reached at mikealvear@aol.com. LETTERS Prosecutors should prosecute, not advocate To the Editor: We fervently disagree with the Houston ,Voice's editorial expressing displeasure with the outcome of the Matthew Shepherd trial ("The defense got it right in the Shepard case," Nov. 12). The Houston Voice unnecessarily criticized prosecutor Cal Rerucha for making the trial more about "a robbery gone bad" than thc fact that it was an anti-gay hate crime. There was a logical reason for this. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute and pursue justice, not be a gay rights advocate. A guilty verdict that assures McKinney will never leave prison and have the opportunity to terrorize another Matthew Shepherd should not bother the Houston Voice. McKinney was punished to the fullest extent of the law, justice was served and for this we are grateful. It is clear that any would-be gay basher who saw the outcome would realize that there is a heavy price to pay for his or her actions. This point is incontrovertible. Perhaps the most specious part of the editorial is the section that accuses gay organizations of "whitewashing" the hate that killed Matthew Shepherd. HRC has addressed this fact in every major media outlet in the nation. We have produced two television public service announcements with Judy Shepard and have held numerous press conferences to lobby for hate crime legislation where we discussed Matthew Shepherd's sexual orientation. HRC's outspokenness on the Shepard murder as an anti-gay hate crime is clearly doc umented and should* have been more accurately reflected in this editorial. Anabel E. Evora Human Rights Campaign Bradley bests Gore but gets no respect To the Editor: Presidential candidate Bill Bradley has the best stands on gay issues in this election and possibly in the history of presidential politics. Democratic rival AI Gore places a distant second. ("Gore, Bradley spar over gay rights," news, Nov. 26). Bradley proposes non-discri mina Hon in employment, housing, and public accommodations; Gore—employment only. Bradley's health care program specifically provides for gay and lesbian families; Gore's, to the best of my research, does not. Although, neither candidate supports gay marriage, Bradley proposes "gay unions" with all the benefits and rights of marriage; Gore's DP plan is still being formulated. With these stellar gay positions, you would think Bradley would be welcomed with open arms by our gay and lesbian leadership. It's been quite the opposite, however. Rep. Barney Frank publicly bashes Bradley over differences on how to achieve gay civil rights, our national organizations simply ignore Bradley, and the Human Rights Campaign misrepresents him in com- parison to Gore on its web-site. Just as our national organizations have not informed us about the other gay civil rights bill currently in Congress, even though it would grant full civil rights, so too have they kept rather mum about Bradley's existence and his plans for comprehensive gay rights. This silence contrasts sharply with previous Democratic primaries, when the same organizations made sure ever)' candidate's pro-gay statements were publicized from coast to coast. Most disturbing however, HRC's web-site comparing Y2K presidential candidates on gay issues fails to mention most of Bradley's pro-gay positions, and then suggests Gore is the better candidate on gay issues. Attacking a pro-gay candidate, inaccurately reporting his positions, silencing his message, or just plain pretending he doesn't exist are all strategies we might expect from our right-wing adversaries, but certainly not from our friends and leaders. Don George Atlanta Lesbian club opens its doors To the Editor: Recent criticism of a policy at Club Rainbow has prompted my business partner and I to offer an explanation of our intent to ameliorate the misunderstanding. We would like to clarify that we do not hate men in any capacity. We strongly believe in tlie concept of unity. It was never our intention to discriminate or offend anyone in the community. Qub Rainbow's tagline "Exclusively for Gay Women" was originated for two reasons: Marketing. It w.as our intent to inform the lesbian community that there w.as an establishment that catered to their niche. Safety. From the club's inception we wanted to ensure that we provided a safe environment where lesbians could congregate and socialize without fear of harassment from heterosexual males who prey on lesbian women. While our methodology in obtaining our goals may seem insensitive, we assure vou it was merely naivete. If we had the foresight to comprehend the brouhaha that has ensued, I assure you we would have conveyed our message in a different manner. Consequently, we have a taken steps to accomplish our goals and maintain a semblance of community unity. Keep in mind that we are novices in the realm of owning and operating a nightclub. It is our first foray into the world of business. -Although Club Rainbow is a lesbian establishment, we have retired our tagline because we welcome any and all patrons who are willing to respect the clientele of our establishment. Alexis VJasifuddin Club Rainboxv Let us know what you think Send the editor your letters (400 words maximum) or op~ed submissions (800 words maximum). Names may be withheld upon request, but submissions must include a name and phone number for verification Houston Voice, 500 Lovett, Suite 200, Houston, TX 77006 fax: 713-529-9531 • e-mail; editor@houstonvoice.com
File Name uhlib_31485329_n999_009.jpg