Dear George:

People have berated you for not knowing the names of foreign leaders and also mispronouncing their names, as well as a handful of other words. I’m not going to do that. To be honest, they don’t roll off my tongue that well either. For the life of me, I can’t understand why you wouldn’t practice them before a speech, but that’s your business.

There are a few words I’d like to help you practice, though: gays, lesbians, homosexuals. Say them with me: gays, lesbians, homosexuals. Wasn’t that easy? Don’t they just roll off your tongue, even without the word “damn” in front of them. I’ll send you some flash cards.

I noticed that in your regular radio address and speech to Pennsylvanians last week, you did not address gays and lesbians directly. You focused on saving traditional marriage for heterosexuals, but neglected to offer up any real comment to gay and lesbian citizens.

I know that it’s difficult for you to realize that we live here as long as we stay indoors. How did you put it?: “…if a state, if people decide to, what they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do…But it doesn’t mean we have to redefine traditional marriage.”

I can see that you have put a great deal of thought into this debate, George. I’m not sure exactly who you mean by “people”, but I’m pretty sure I know who you mean when you say “they.” Say it with me, George: gays, lesbians, homosexuals.

I especially appreciate your use of the phrase “consenting adults” that is typically used in discussions of sex. I have been waiting a long time for a Presidential blessing to make out with men. Can’t wait to try it.

My giddiness aside, I don’t really see what that has to do with our marriage rights. All this talk about traditional marriage and not one mention of defining marriage, or any other legal coupling, for—say it with me, George—gays, lesbians, homosexuals.

Even when you assign blame for undermining traditional marriage, you blame “activist judges,” rendering us invisible by cowardly shying away from referencing the gay and lesbian activists that have worked for equality. I’m betting that’s because what you call undermining tradition can also be referred to as bettering the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness for—you guessed it—gays, lesbians, homosexuals.

Aren’t different points of view an interesting concept? Wouldn’t it be nifty if compassionate, uniter-not-divider-type leaders considered multiple ones? Unlike many social conservatives, I do not believe that the two viewpoints above can be equated. You, of course, disagree with me.

You say, “Tuh-may-toe”; I say, “Tuh-maw-toe.”

But no matter how the two of us choose to say it, you should acknowledge that it’s gays and lesbians that have grown these killer tomatoes—not activist judges. Give us our due. We deserve it. In case you haven’t noticed, we’ve been at it for some time.

And all that time, you, your party and conservative social commentators that celebrate moral leadership like yours have been a hindrance to our lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

We deserve a lot more moral leadership from you than you are giving. You are the President of millions of—say it with me, George—gays, lesbians, homosexuals. Your neglect to discuss this issue as it effects us directly is, at least, irresponsible and lazy—and, if deliberate, morally questionable.

While your speech writers and handlers were growing their own killer tomatoes—gearing up to politically position you away from banning same-sex marriage by turning it into a crusade for traditional marriage—Virginia grew a whopper of its own, known as the Affirmation of Marriage Act, stating:

“A civil union, partnership contract or other agreement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited.”

This not only outwardly disinvites gay and lesbian citizens of the country you “lead” from obtaining marriage rights, but rewinds strides they’ve legitimately made within the government and private spheres, leaving them more vulnerable than ever to any entity who would challenge their relationship decisions for property and family, even if it is not called marriage. What are you going to do about it?

You offer them nothing. According to you, this minority should not even enter the courts to challenge inequities pressed onto them by a majority. As you publicly undermine the United States judicial system, you warn (read: irresponsibly ignite fear) that if “activist judges” are willing to redefine marriage, they would have no problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

And I say to you that if Virginians are willing to unreasonably discriminate against a group of US citizens, certainly others will as well. Take those that have written the language of your beloved Federal Marriage Amendment, for instance. What are you going to do about it?

It’s easier to discriminate against a group of people by not addressing them directly. Eventually their identity is lost in the midst of political positioning jargon and their humanity with it.

The best part about it is that you don’t have to claim responsibility for what you’re doing to them…what you’re doing to —say it with me, George — gays, lesbians, homosexuals.

You may choose to play a starring role in American history as a moral leader, George. But as citizens throw tomatoes at your performance, now and in years to come, you’ll know which group is in the front row.

It’s the homosexuals, Stupid.

Season ticket holder,
Nick