Few indeed are the occasions when an op-ed that fills the pages of The Dartmouth proceeds to inculcate its readers with truly shortsighted logic, inaccurate facts and unfounded politicized shots. Sarah Sticker '07 did just that Monday("Come Out and Vote," The Dartmouth, October 11 ), in high fashion, with her celebration of "National Coming Out Day" and students' consequent voting responsibilities (essentially, to vote for Kerry).
Frankly, I don't care about Monday being National Coming Out Day. My more immediate concern is that it was also a federal holiday (Columbus Day), which meant I couldn't deposit my Bush-tax-cut augmented paycheck at the local bank. But, I digress.
Bush earned one million votes from homosexuals in 2000, and one-third of homosexuals support Republicans in elections throughout the country. Bush is more likely to receive a vote from a homosexual than from a Dartmouth student. So why paint such a binary picture of voting and sexuality in America? Perhaps as a sophomoric attempt to garner more votes for Kerry?
Homosexuals, like most demographic groups, weigh among a variety of issues and cast their vote for candidates that best support that view. Yes, that can imply a topsy-turvy world in which homosexuals support President Bush and heterosexuals back Governor Jim McGreevey (or perhaps not). I'm as straight as an arrow, sure, but I'd venture to guess that homosexuals still appreciate strong national security, a healthy economy and keeping more of their hard-earned wages. Homosexuals, like all Americans, are complex and multi-dimensional individuals, and probably resent labeling or categorization for the purposes of cheap political pandering.
Yet Sticker falls into this ensnaring trap of narrow-mindedness and dooms her argument from the beginning. In addition to her myopic logic, Sticker conveniently omitted a few key facts from her diatribe. She maintains that Bush appointed "anti-gay" member Jerry Thacker to his personal advisory HIV/AIDS council. Thacker's wife had contracted HIV in 1984 through a blood transfusion -- the virus subsequently spread to Thacker and his infant daughter. Unfortunately, that was only the start of Thacker's tragedy.
Before he could assume the position at PACHA, Thacker was demonized as a homophobe by the Washington Post and other media outlets because of his calling AIDS a "gay plague." Yet, the term "gay plague" was coined by the media itself in the early 1980s, and AIDS was originally known as the gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome (GRIDS) because of its high incidence rate among homosexual males -- a rate 30 times that of the population. The media obscured Thacker's comments as they were taken entirely out of context. Hardly overwhelming evidence to convict a man as "anti-gay."
So then why is Sticker so upset that President Bush appointed Thacker to PACHA? She might be thrilled to know that the media barrage on the soft-spoken Thacker put such stress on his family that he withdrew from the panel before even being confirmed. Moreover, Sticker fails to mention, Bush also appointed four openly gay men to the panel. Perhaps Sticker would call these gays "second-class citizens," as they work for a president whom she implies views homosexuals as sub-human. But I bet the four gay panelists plan on voting for the President. Will homosexuals at Dartmouth join these four?
Likely not, if Sticker's implications are any indication. She envisions a Kerry-led utopia in which "gay and lesbian couples will have the full protection of the laws" (they already do) and in which Senator Kerry "respects gays and lesbians for who they are." Both Sen. Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, have publicly maintained their opposition to legislation allowing same-sex marriage. Why would two good liberal Democrats hold such a position? Maybe Sticker would like to blame it on the pressures of the reactionary-religious wing of the Democratic Party that is unwaveringly opposed to all things homosexual? Wait -- the Democrats don't have that. Or perhaps it is because the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages, making now a politically inexpedient time to support gay marriage.
It sounds like Senator Kerry is once again demonstrating his harrowing flip-flopping. One minute Kerry is for gays, one minute he's not; what to make of it? I suppose only bisexuals can find solace in knowing that either way, they win.
Perhaps an even greater concern is that a member of the Dartmouth community actually holds such obtuse views. Sticker should understand Dartmouth students enough to know that a persuasive argument is more than trying to instill fear into our hearts. I can only hope this narrow-minded outlook is not representative of Dartmouth's homosexual/transgendered community.
