Great article, yes.

The No on 8 campaign, though hardworking, apparently didn't realize the extend of the bigotry against gay and lesbians, and so became too muted in its approach. The yes on 8 campaign spread distortions as moderate positions, so that people would not realize they were voting for bigotry; indeed, the word bigotry was disallowed. It is a time not to educate those who voted for bigotry but to point out the hypocrisy and meanness of their votes. Shame is the word to apply to them. I suggest that all future exhortations on behalf of gay marriage adopt the slogan, "Yes, We Can, Too." It is a time to remind how gay people have stood with black people, through all the major civil rights campaigns; it is a time to make them see their monstrous betrayal, to see the similarity between their being forbidden to marry not long ago, and their condoning the constitutional ammendemt now that robs us of the same rights.(Double Shame, inserting into the Cosntitution their hateful victory.) It may be time to expose the corruptions in the Mormon churge, the hypocrasies of the Catholic church (evoking the vicious molestation of children). I do not believe it is time for kind words to those who violated our rights, but for strong, firm words (not violence, no) that assert our growing determination for equality. "Yes, we Can!"

When people, including scientists, begin asking, "What makes a heterosexual?" only then will the question about what makes a homosexual become relevant.

John Rechy

Although I have not yet read this book--but do intend to--the review by Ms. Miller is, as usual, astute, and so indicative of what the book contains that I am assuming a major omission--also in Ms. Miller's review. Surely the emergence of gay writers exploring not only the gay experience but an array of other topics should be a subject to be explored. That exploration might, indeed, include the here-relevant subject of a "a gay literary ghetto" that, paradoxically, emerged when writers were no longer hesitant to identify themselves as gay, their works easily pushed onto "alternative lifestyle" bookshelves, denied "mainstream reviews." If such a discussion is in fact left out of this book--as it is in Ms. Miller's essay--then another strong push back into the closet is effected. Thus, some works of undeniable literary excellence continue to be relegated only to the "gay literary ghetto". That relegation depletes all literature of essential voices, unique talent.