Apparently, not all white men are bigots

I just wanted to thank Brett Berry for having the courage to write his column entitled "Queer eye for the 'values' guy." It gives me hope that not all straight white males are bigots whose elementary school knee-jerk reaction to the thought of two men together (a.k.a., "Ewwwww, gross!") is the only reason that my people have fought so hard for the right to just marry someone we love only to see every attempt defeated time and time again. It just frustrated me almost to the point of tears to see pictures of rural, and sometimes urban, rednecks with hate in their eyes titled "11 states vote to ban gay marriage!" I can guarantee you that if you asked any of these people why they voted for the proposition, they would have no reason that is not vague or religious in nature.

I love America. However, when I saw the election results on Nov. 3, I could not help but be sad. I wanted to marry someone I love one day. I wanted to have children one day. I just want what everyone else wants. I mean, I can understand rural rednecks that don't know any better voting to take our rights away, but to think that educated people actually decided for me that I can't get married because they think it's distasteful ... That's too much. So for that, I call out to those who gave me reason to be afraid of my own government: I hope that one day you, Republicans, homophobes, know what it's like to be gay, black, Mexican, disabled, an immigrant, an intellectual, or just somebody different than straight and white. Maybe then you'll see why we fight so hard so that we can be treated equally.

Cameron Moore
junior majoring in Italian

Tyranny of majority evident in election

This is in response to Jennifer Germain's letter on Nov. 5, and others who have written about the gay marriage ballot initiatives. I am disturbed that such individuals assume that they should have the ability to vote to deny other citizen's rights and also that the best way to "solve" complex social questions is by simplistic ballot initiatives. Just because your opinion is the majority opinion, it does not give you the right to tyrannize minority rights. As we've seen time and time again, the courts will adjudicate these matters anyway, no matter how many people vote for or against them, and rightly so. The idea that it's okay for the general public to be able to vote away some citizens' rights sets a dangerous precedent. Others might get together to vote away some of your rights.

In 1954, the Supreme Court voted to ban segregation in public schools. In 1967, they struck down laws barring those of different races from marrying. Most of us would agree that these decisions were the right thing to do, even though they were not popular at the time and created much protest. If it weren't for what would now be labeled "activist judges," we would probably still have segregation. The statement that gays should wait for another 20 years and then maybe you'll be ready is an arrogant one. Since when should your readiness or the lack thereof be the determining factor in whether certain citizens have rights or not? If gays have to wait for you to be ready for their marriage rights, you will never be ready because there will always some convenient excuse not to be. If the courts rule for gay marriage rights, they should be allowed to do so without the interference of misguided and even vindictive ballot propositions. Some of these ballot propositions were vindictive, designed to eradicate what few rights do already exist in some of these states for gay couples.

If the sight of protesters disturbs you so much, perhaps you should leave the country. It's not completely fascist, yet, and more protest is assured.

Jeff Prock
graduate student