Get a life, Jennifer Vanasco
OMG Jennifer Vanasco! Get a life! I just read your article about Adam Lambert ("Lambert’s antics at the AMAs hurt us all," Dallas Voice, Nov. 27) and wondered, "What the hell is she writing about?" You are dumping a lot of mindless responsibility on an individual who never professed to lead the march toward our civil rights.
Unlike you Jennifer, some of us consider our lives private. Whether we’re celebrities or not, we have the right to our privacy. You may argue that a person who is in the public eye jeopardizes their right to privacy, but it doesn’t mean that we lose that right.
Adam Lambert did not reveal his sexual orientation while a contestant on "American Idol" because he happens to be an intelligent individual. Adam realized that by exposing his sexual orientation, he might have lost the contest even before he had a chance to perform.
He had the sense to know that the majority of America is still homophobic. Why should he admit to anything if the contest was all about the ability to sing?
Yes Jennifer, that’s what it was all about: singing not politics. The way you write, you would have me to believe that Adam should have done this from the get-go: "Hello, my name is Adam Lambert, I’m from (wherever he’s from) and I’m gay."
Geesh, Louise! Wake up and smell the coffee! That would have been a death wish.
You also wrote that, "We are in a dangerous moment. Our political allies are quickly backing away from us, thanks to losses on gay marriage in California and Maine and the Democratic loss of the governorship in New Jersey."
OMG, again. Somehow you attach this to Adam Lambert!
Then, you write about the marriage issue and the hate crime in Puerto Rico, and you connect this to Lambert’s refusal to discuss his sexual orientation as "part of our partnership and service to our country, our working lives, our families?" That, Jennifer, is a lot to swallow.
Discrimination is a human issue. It’s not just a gay issue. The responsibility doesn’t fall on one person — certainly not on Adam Lambert.
Finally you write, "Because of people like you, who use sexuality thoughtlessly in order to advance your own agenda, instead of thinking about the very real consequences your actions will have on others’ civil rights."
Look around you Jennifer. Whose life was actually affected by Adam’s refusal to admit his sexual preference? Not mine. Not my neighbor’s. Not my family. And I certainly don’t think this was a disservice, or as you said, "dishonor" to those who have actually sacrificed for the sake of our civil rights movement.
Vanasco’s arguments old and dusty
I have just finished reading Jennifer Vanasco’s article ("Lambert’s antics at the AMAs hurt us all," Dallas Voice, Nov. 27) and feel like I need to get out a broom to dust the cobwebs off it.
It is tedious, self-righteous and dated. I heard these arguments back in the 1970s and early ’80s. Are we really going to go back to this?
I’ve got a newsflash for the author: Bigots in "mainstream America" are already aware of gay "people who have families, jobs, bills and weddings." They don’t care.
Perhaps the problem with our setbacks this year is that for all our talk of diversity within our community, there usually is none when we present our case for equality.
We have taken all sexuality out of the discussion. We insist that middle-class, usually white, neutered couples are the only ones America should consider in debating this issue. Wrong!
Let me remind Ms. Vanasco that drag queens were at the front of the Stonewall riots. AIDS activists in ACT-UP blocked traffic in New York City to get the point across. Civil rights are not pretty when you push back against bigotry. It’s a tough business.
I don’t think Adam Lambert’s show was anything other than entertainment. For Ms. Vanasco to single him out as a role model and scold him for his actions reminds me of a fussy old aunt.
I applaud the younger generation of GLBT people who don’t have to be perfect to demand equality. They just are themselves. Is there really any better argument?
TO SEND A LETTER | We welcome letters from readers. Shorter letters and those addressing a single issue are more likely to be printed. Letters are subject to editing for length and clarity, but we attempt to maintain the writer’s substance and tone. Include your home address and a daytime telephone number for verification. Send letters to the senior editor, preferably by e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org). Letters also may be faxed (214-969-7271) or sent via the U.S. Postal Service (Dallas Voice, 4145 Travis St., Third Floor, Dallas TX 75204). All letters become the property of Dallas Voice.
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition December 4, 2009.