excerpt of Mayor Kelly's letter to Benanav:
["Who ever said that Republicans don't like dikes?!" [StPaul] A playful prediction for RK's State of the City Speech - Jane Prince
Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:55:50 -0700
Men and women who have sexual orientation that is different from yours and mine should not have to expect derogatory and demeaning references such as this from their public officials, or staff. Republicans, or Democrats, or Independents, should not simply be labeled as hateful simply because we may disagree with their point of view. To suggest that any person, regardless of their political persuasion is automatically inappropriate in their depiction of others is unfortunate, and further evidence to the public that we must do more to not cross the line of public debate and civility. ]
Now, I am all for standing up for the rights of gay people, but I can also understand that when Jane said the word 'dike', she was not using it as a term of exclusion or as a demeaning reference. I know several lesbians who use the word 'dike/dyke' as a self descriptor, much like the words 'gay' and 'queer'. I think that for the Mayor to make this claim is the height of campaign-time posture, but would like to hear the opinion of someone who is GLBT.
In terms of calling Republicans hateful, he again seems to have read something into Jane's letter. As you can see above, she said they "didn't like dikes", not that they were hateful. I would posit that thay may be in fact true in some cases, but that isn't what she said. She also didn't say "every" or "all". She may have been referring to the official positions of the Republican party as demonstrated in this part of the Republican State Platform of MN:
"Minnesota should not recognize same sex marriages or the establishment of homosexuals as a protected class."
"Making it easier and less costly for heterosexual parents to adopt children of any race."
Since I have never heard of gay people wanting special rights, or wanting to be a protected class of citizens, my assumption is that this is code for something like no equal rights for gay people, or no partner benefits for people in committed relationships. And of course the part about heterosexual parents is an open and obvious slap in the face to gay couples who want to adopt. Call me crazy if you like, but that does appear to be at least in opposition to most of the gay movements I know about (with the exception of the Log Cabin Republicans), if not outright dislike. I would even venture to say that if you look outside official platform doctrine, you would find quite a bit of information backing up Jane's statement.
Why didn't the Mayor address the more pointed critiques of his cozy relationship with our Republican leadership? Could it be that he was looking for a nice straw man to knock down?
Jacob Dorer Quizzical in Dayton's Bluff
--On Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:50 PM -0500 Jeanne Weigum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would appear that more than our leader Tim failed to appreciate Jane Prince's humor. Actually, it seems that she got under Hizonor's skin. I encourage you to check out the blog below for a pretty darn good read. I could not get in on Netscape but had no problem with Internet Explore. Blog on.
http://stpaulcityhall.blogspot.com/
Jeanne Weigum
-------------------------------------------------
JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY:
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/
-------------------------------------------------
POST MESSAGES HERE: stpaul@mnforum.orgTo subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
