Imperfect Allies and Gay Rights

* When I learned that President Clinton got the support he was (supposedly) looking for to lift the ban against gays and lesbians in the military (“Study Funded by Pentagon Blasts Gay Ban,” Aug. 27) only to ignore it, I was furious! Angered not only by the “salt on the wound,” but angry because I just knew that even with this smoking gun of disingenuousness, there would continue to be Clinton apologists in the lesbian and gay community. Enter David Link (“Look Who’s Marching With the Thought Police,” Commentary, Aug. 30).

Link would have gay and lesbian people scrounging around for crumbs as if that’s the best we could do. The trouble with “imperfect allies” is, if they don’t harm you now, they eventually will, as Clinton has beautifully demonstrated.

Bill Clinton lied to lesbian and gay voters. He is not a “flawed friend” or “imperfect ally”; if so, who needs enemies? (Ask Lani Guinier.) Rather, for self-respecting gays and lesbians everywhere, Link himself is a “flawed friend.”

LINDA J. BERARD

Diamond Bar

* Link implies that the Rev. Eugene Lumpkin, in his literal biblical belief that “gay men should be stoned to death” yet with a voting record “in accordance with a broad definition of gay rights,” is of the same ilk as Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Randy Shilts and Larry Kramer--an “imperfect ally” for the gay community. Sorry, David, but the latter have foibles which are a far cry from the ideological endorsement of murder!

Link further states that when Lumpkin voted (while serving on the Human Rights Commission in San Francisco) he was able to “put aside his private religious beliefs to further what he thought was the public good.” It is difficult to consider murder as a religious belief. Furthermore, isn’t it obvious that an individual who espouses murder ideologically, regardless of actions to the contrary, is inherently dangerous?

The gay community must show patience with the slow process of attitudinal and ideological change but there are limits, especially when it comes to elected officials who might consider for even a second the possibility of our death for religious-right principles.

TONY EXTER

Los Angeles

* Once again a gratuitous anti-Catholic slur mars the dignity of your paper. I was glad to see Link’s defense of religious freedom, but then was dismayed--though not surprised--to find him using the word “Vatican” to represent bigotry and evil: “Ironically, some of these gay leaders are beginning to sound like their counterparts in the Vatican, blithely believing in a unified vision of a right-thinking world in which dissent is a thing of the past.”

Whether the Catholic Church actually believes in any such thing is open to debate. The real problem here is not Link’s obviously negative view of the Catholic Church--let him have his opinion--but rather The Times’ willingness to print his derogatory comment. Would you dare to take such a disrespectful attitude toward any other faith? Link himself tiptoes around the assertions of a Baptist who apparently believes that Link, a gay man, should be stoned to death. Would he be so circumspect if the Rev. Lumpkin were Father Lumpkin? Then again, I can’t recall ever having heard of a Catholic priest say that gays should be stoned to death. Hmm.

If I seem to be making too big a deal out of a single sentence, consider whether you would print a similar sentence which referred not to the Vatican but rather, say, to Jewish leaders. Since you’re obviously not pro-Catholic, your attempts at “objective” discussions--like Father Andrew Greeley’s column (Aug. 22) or the slanted treatment of celibacy on the Religion page (Aug. 28)--are insipid and hurtful.

ELIZABETH MAGALETTA

Van Nuys