Your Name In Lights (I got published!)
Feb. 27th, 2004 07:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsWell, you never know what an editor will do.
I'll tell you, I'm thrilled to be published. I've only been published in college and high school papers (and yearbooks). Now I can officially say that I've been published in a large metropolitan newspaper. The Houston Chronicle picked up my letter to President Bush, and it's in today's paper.
Strangely, they changed it from addressing Bush directly, from being an open letter to a pure op-ed piece. I'm not sure it has quite the same impact. I will admit that when I did my edit, it lost some of the personal accounts since i needed to get points in more than I needed to say, I agreed with this, I don't like that. Still, I do mention that I'm affected by this decision, that it is personal to me, and that's what I needed to do.
Still, I hope my message comes through. I'm not going to get direct feedback, but i'll have to look for future letters to the editor to see if anyone notices. I'm happy to be published, it's been a goal of mine for a while. It's just upsetting that it had to happen with such a stupid action, but that's how inspiration works.
The story: Bush Has Lost This Republican's Vote, in the Houston Chronicle
Oh, and they did call me and asked if I wanted to be officially be credited as a Republican, I thought, well, I've voted for enough Democrats to probably be an Independent moderate, but I said, sure, knowing the greater impact it would have. It's not untrue, though, as I've only voted in Republican Primaries before.
Since the Chronicle tends to hide archives for subscribers only, I'm going to add the text of the article here...
Bush has lost this Republican's vote
By MICHAEL EDWARDS
President Bush recently endorsed an amendment to change the Constitution of the United States to deny Americans' civil rights to equal access to benefits offered by the government to couples. If passed, discrimination would be entered into a document that stands to ensure liberty, freedom and equality.
The question is, does this action truly represent Bush's principles, or is he just pandering for votes in an increasingly competitive campaign? Maybe he's not considering the families that he is hurting -- families of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, and the families they create. Bush is invalidating these family ties and making them or their sons and daughters second-class citizens, not eligible to share the full promise of this country.
Gay Americans should receive the same treatment, the same benefits and the same protections that all other citizens enjoy. When the president of the United States expresses that a religious view of civil marriage should cause us to consider the removal of civil rights from a group of citizens, the attainment of equality for all has taken several steps back.
There are millions waiting to take part in marriage, but in the last 40-plus years, the institution Bush wants protected has been eroded by access to the Pill, no-fault divorce and couples choosing not to marry. None of this erosion happened because of gays. It's an institution that was broken by those already given access. Still, the fact that gays and lesbians would want to take part in that institution should attest to its endurance, strength and importance to society.
Religious definitions of marriage are untouched by opening civil marriage to all couples, regardless of gender. Churches and other religious organizations can still marry people using the tenets of their faith. Inclusiveness in civil marriage will allow all Americans to be able to benefit from stable relationships, and committed partners, something Bush has already stated is an important to the health of our society.
It is argued that the proposed amendment would still allow states to provide civil unions for same-sex couples. Civil unions are not the solution to equality; they are the same as segregation was in our schools. Trying to provide a semblance of the same rights through creation of a wholly separate set of partner benefits allows jurisdictions to pick and choose from the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.
The language of the proposed amendment is designed to take away any possibility that gay citizens would have their relationships recognized.
Bush states that the voice of the people must be heard, but he presents a draconian plan to work to stop any state from using its sovereignty to decide this issue, and create true, public discourse of the issue. This amendment would actually trump the checks and balances our society has created to respect both the rights of the individual, and work for the common good, issues that do not always result in the most popular decisions, but have strengthened this nation.
I'm a citizen who can't share fully the same rights and protections that others receive, simply because of whom I would have a relationship with. My relationship may be invalidated by the courts, my partner or I may be prevented hospital visitations, and our wills may be contested by others. Married couples take this and more for granted. No one should ever be told that their love isn't up to governmental standards.
The president has stated that he is a uniter, not a divider; and yet, Bush plays the same politics of class warfare, intolerance, prejudice and fear that any other candidate does. One would hope that a politician would rise above such petty tactics as supporting a divisive measure that hurts Americans and drives them to a second-class status, trying to sweep them back into the closets, all to pander to a group of voters who support this discrimination.
I have hopes that a president, charged to uphold the Constitution, would understand that the Constitution represents all of the people, not just those who are his voting base. Unfortunately, I no longer have that faith in Bush, and I cannot support him this fall. He may want to consider the loss of my vote, and the loss of other votes of gay Americans who supported him last election. I cannot, and will not vote for a candidate who so blatantly supports discrimination, whether that discrimination directly affects me or not.
When Bush endorses discrimination, when he decides that people's loving relationships are invalid, when he denies that all citizens should be able to share the American Dream, America loses.
Edwards, of Houston, is a Republican who voted George W. Bush in 2000.
I'll tell you, I'm thrilled to be published. I've only been published in college and high school papers (and yearbooks). Now I can officially say that I've been published in a large metropolitan newspaper. The Houston Chronicle picked up my letter to President Bush, and it's in today's paper.
Strangely, they changed it from addressing Bush directly, from being an open letter to a pure op-ed piece. I'm not sure it has quite the same impact. I will admit that when I did my edit, it lost some of the personal accounts since i needed to get points in more than I needed to say, I agreed with this, I don't like that. Still, I do mention that I'm affected by this decision, that it is personal to me, and that's what I needed to do.
Still, I hope my message comes through. I'm not going to get direct feedback, but i'll have to look for future letters to the editor to see if anyone notices. I'm happy to be published, it's been a goal of mine for a while. It's just upsetting that it had to happen with such a stupid action, but that's how inspiration works.
The story: Bush Has Lost This Republican's Vote, in the Houston Chronicle
Oh, and they did call me and asked if I wanted to be officially be credited as a Republican, I thought, well, I've voted for enough Democrats to probably be an Independent moderate, but I said, sure, knowing the greater impact it would have. It's not untrue, though, as I've only voted in Republican Primaries before.
Since the Chronicle tends to hide archives for subscribers only, I'm going to add the text of the article here...
Bush has lost this Republican's vote
By MICHAEL EDWARDS
President Bush recently endorsed an amendment to change the Constitution of the United States to deny Americans' civil rights to equal access to benefits offered by the government to couples. If passed, discrimination would be entered into a document that stands to ensure liberty, freedom and equality.
The question is, does this action truly represent Bush's principles, or is he just pandering for votes in an increasingly competitive campaign? Maybe he's not considering the families that he is hurting -- families of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, and the families they create. Bush is invalidating these family ties and making them or their sons and daughters second-class citizens, not eligible to share the full promise of this country.
Gay Americans should receive the same treatment, the same benefits and the same protections that all other citizens enjoy. When the president of the United States expresses that a religious view of civil marriage should cause us to consider the removal of civil rights from a group of citizens, the attainment of equality for all has taken several steps back.
There are millions waiting to take part in marriage, but in the last 40-plus years, the institution Bush wants protected has been eroded by access to the Pill, no-fault divorce and couples choosing not to marry. None of this erosion happened because of gays. It's an institution that was broken by those already given access. Still, the fact that gays and lesbians would want to take part in that institution should attest to its endurance, strength and importance to society.
Religious definitions of marriage are untouched by opening civil marriage to all couples, regardless of gender. Churches and other religious organizations can still marry people using the tenets of their faith. Inclusiveness in civil marriage will allow all Americans to be able to benefit from stable relationships, and committed partners, something Bush has already stated is an important to the health of our society.
It is argued that the proposed amendment would still allow states to provide civil unions for same-sex couples. Civil unions are not the solution to equality; they are the same as segregation was in our schools. Trying to provide a semblance of the same rights through creation of a wholly separate set of partner benefits allows jurisdictions to pick and choose from the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.
The language of the proposed amendment is designed to take away any possibility that gay citizens would have their relationships recognized.
Bush states that the voice of the people must be heard, but he presents a draconian plan to work to stop any state from using its sovereignty to decide this issue, and create true, public discourse of the issue. This amendment would actually trump the checks and balances our society has created to respect both the rights of the individual, and work for the common good, issues that do not always result in the most popular decisions, but have strengthened this nation.
I'm a citizen who can't share fully the same rights and protections that others receive, simply because of whom I would have a relationship with. My relationship may be invalidated by the courts, my partner or I may be prevented hospital visitations, and our wills may be contested by others. Married couples take this and more for granted. No one should ever be told that their love isn't up to governmental standards.
The president has stated that he is a uniter, not a divider; and yet, Bush plays the same politics of class warfare, intolerance, prejudice and fear that any other candidate does. One would hope that a politician would rise above such petty tactics as supporting a divisive measure that hurts Americans and drives them to a second-class status, trying to sweep them back into the closets, all to pander to a group of voters who support this discrimination.
I have hopes that a president, charged to uphold the Constitution, would understand that the Constitution represents all of the people, not just those who are his voting base. Unfortunately, I no longer have that faith in Bush, and I cannot support him this fall. He may want to consider the loss of my vote, and the loss of other votes of gay Americans who supported him last election. I cannot, and will not vote for a candidate who so blatantly supports discrimination, whether that discrimination directly affects me or not.
When Bush endorses discrimination, when he decides that people's loving relationships are invalid, when he denies that all citizens should be able to share the American Dream, America loses.
Edwards, of Houston, is a Republican who voted George W. Bush in 2000.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Bravo!
Date: 2004-02-27 05:48 am (UTC)In about a year, you've gone from being unsure and anxious about your place in the gay world to spokesperson. You've gone to your first bear event, found a partner, gone to a bear bar solo, come out to your dad...and come out to your mom... along with a plethora of other firsts. You're also advancing yourself as a writer.
Bravo!, not only for being published and bringing reason and logic to so many people, but for your incredible personal growth.
Re: Bravo!
Date: 2004-02-27 09:35 pm (UTC)I'm gaining on the confidence thing, but man, I'm still very nervous about a lot of things (the relationship is a source of endless consternation right now, again, nerves from lack of experience), we'll see where I can go from here.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 05:49 am (UTC)I think you get the "shortest leap from 'coming out to Mom' to writing an op-ed piece on gay rights for a major newspaper" award for 2004. :grin:
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 05:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 05:53 am (UTC)You did a very good job articulating what alot of gays and lesbians feel.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 05:53 am (UTC)Between the gay amendment and the indecency activism at ClearChannel, there have been a lot of letters going out to people these past several days.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 06:29 am (UTC)CONGRATULATIONS!
Yay!
Date: 2004-02-27 06:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 07:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 07:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 07:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 08:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 07:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 07:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 08:02 am (UTC)I'm going to echo something a couple of people have already brought up: your evolution is amazing.
When I first started doing LGBT writing/activism, I was often surprised at the kudos and strokes I got from other activists, not only about my work itself, but about my "hitting the ground running." The timeline between my coming out and becoming a voice in the community was short. It wasn't until a couple of years later that I realized how infrequent that is.
Woody put it to me very well: many people come out and don't need or want to speak on behalf of the community. And many people, even once they come out, have so much to struggle with that they just don't have the ability to add their voices. In the bi community in Boston, we get maybe one new person a year who can really add powerfully to the work we do, who is more than just a nice new face.
As one guy who hit the ground running to another, let me just say, it's always great to see, and let's talk in a year or two, when you start to realize that you're pretty amazing.
I'm really proud to be part of your circle, today.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 09:46 pm (UTC)In this case, I've been reading everyone, getting opinions and mulling them around in my mind, and then I make my decisions. Being able to make that into a reasoned argument, that's what works. Listening, taking things in, that's what forms a foundation.
Strangely enough, Live Journal has been one of the biggest and best things for me. Being able to take in so much from so many people has helped me understand, and gave me strength. Sure, there's the memes and junk, but there's also real humanity, with real stories that can help us all.
I'm really happy to be a part of your circle. It's a different life, and I learn from it. You're fascinating.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 10:11 am (UTC)Thank you for providing a great voice in the wilderness. I hope you only see joyous things because of this!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 09:27 pm (UTC)It's a nice step forward with my writing, and perhaps I can use this to build on.
I will be interested to see what reaction, if any the Chronicle runs in the next couple of days.
Superb!
Date: 2004-02-27 11:43 am (UTC)You ROCK man!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 11:44 am (UTC)followed by standing ovation
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 09:31 pm (UTC)yay!
Date: 2004-02-27 01:33 pm (UTC)damn - i go to sleep for a week and miss EVERYTHING
Date: 2004-02-27 03:00 pm (UTC)CONGRATS
i know that took a lot and i'm happy for you ...
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 06:45 am (UTC)Great stuff!
Date: 2004-02-28 08:10 am (UTC)the BS I've heard from the mass media concerning
gay marriage. Your letter is smart, well-written, and (even if you had to cut a few hundred words) dead-on.
Congrats again on getting published and on a very
important step in your life.
Congrats!!
Date: 2004-02-28 09:23 am (UTC)Even though the cat is out of the bag with mom, does she happen to read this newspaper?? Dealing with the fact that she has a gay son is one thing, dealing with having an activist gay son is a harder pill to swallow. I remember a period during my own coming out in which my mother was starting to accept it, but felt very shameful about sexuality (didn't want to tell her friends, etc) because she thought it meant that she had failed as a mother.
Re: Congrats!!
Date: 2004-02-28 01:58 pm (UTC)Actually, I do have a couple of copies, and I will show it to them tomorrow night at dinner (after early-voting in the primary - yikes!) So I'm sure it will be an interesting part of our conversations.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 08:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 06:16 am (UTC)