On September 7, 2009, a letter to the editor appeared in the Visalia Times Delta. The writer was speaking against support for SB 572, Harvey Milk Day. As is common for conservatives who rail against anything remotely connected with homosexuality, the writer presented a list of statements about the bill that have no basis in reality. The online comments were interesting, if you would like to see typical responses, check out www.visaliatimesdelta.com and click on the Opinion link. The text of the letter, and the response I sent are included here, after the jump.
Thumbs down to our state Legislature. Our state legislature is currently considering SB 572, Harvey Milk Day.
This would be a California state holiday.
It would commemorate Mr. Milk’s life and lifestyle.
School children (our 8-, 9-, and 10- year-old kids and grandkids) would be required to investigate the sordid details of his early life: molestation, sex with minors, and later, multiple sex partners, as well as his later life as a San Francisco supervisor for reports, etc.
I am totally against this bill. I encourage others to contact the governor and have him veto this bill. He vetoed this same bill last year.
Mr. Milk has already been hugely recognized for his achievements: in the gay community, the U.S. Medal of Freedom by our president, induction into the California 2009 Hall of Fame, and Hollywood made a movie about him.
The California Department of Education is against this bill, citing children do not need another day off.
George Moscone, the San Francisco mayor, was also gunned down this day, but nobody hears about this. Why not? He was not gay.
It is horrible that he was shot, but he was not a person deserving of elevation to the status of a state holiday.
NANCY KIRKLAND’
Visalia’
My response:
Nancy Kirkland’s letter (Sept 7) is so full of misinformation and outright falsehoods, I don’t quite know where to start.
The only accurate statements in her letter are the second sentence, where she says “our state legislature is currently considering SB 572, Harvey Milk Day”, and her sixth paragraph. Everything else she writes is wrong.
Nancy erroneously states that children as young as 8 years old would be “required” to “investigate the sordid details” of his life, and then lists a series of items designed to make it seem like the intimate details of Mr. Milk’s sex life would be required reading by third graders. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any “reports” would be about his political achievements in San Francisco, which were many, and historic. He was instrumental in the battle to change San Francisco’s at large Council race to district based. As the first openly gay elected official in the United States, his achievements were historic, and deserve recognition. His struggles to bring political recognition and influence to a previously marginalized segment of the population is worthy of our respect, and study. “Reports” are more High School level study than third grade, but it sounds much more dramatic to claim 8 year olds will suddenly be taught about gay sex than it is to simply state the truth.
Another false statement in Nancy’s letter is that Harvey Milk day will be a state holiday, giving children a day off from school. This also is not correct. SB 572 institutes a Proclamation by the Governor each year, recognizing Harvey Milk. Nobody gets to play hooky from school, or from work. Age appropriate materials would be available for schools to use in their normal curriculumss to educate children about the political and sociological events surrounding Harvey Milk’s life in San Francisco, and his ultimate assassination by Dan White.
Nancy’s sixth paragraph is correct. Harvey Milk has been recognized by many for the groundbreaking work he did in the battle for full equality for GLBT Americans. Recognized by many, but not by the State of California. It’s way past time that situation was corrected. Young GLBT Californians need examples of positive role models. Harvey Milk wasn’t perfect, nobody is, but his struggles, and successes, in the political arena demonstrate that dedication and perseverance to one’s goals can produce great results.
Nancy’s comments about Mayor Moscone’s death being ignored simply because he was not gay is both misinformed, and bigoted.
Mayor Moscone has been recognized for his contributions and achievements, and has a major community center named in his honor. The Moscone Center is a major public facility in San Francisco. There is no Harvey Milk Center, however. So who is really being ignored, Nancy?
Nancy, and so many others, operate from a position that any statement about homosexuality that is not complete and total
disapproval and disparagement, is “advocating” a “lifestyle” she finds unacceptable. That is not the case, and recognizing a
man for his achievements does not mean everything he ever did in his life must be accepted as a standard for emulation.
In the final analysis, Nancy does not want Harvey Milk recognised simply because he was homosexual. That’s what makes her a bigot.
Jim J. Reeves, Jr.
Visalia
No comments:
Post a Comment