tv, you castigated me for saying that gays have a more difficult life than straights. You say you take such joy in the week leading up to the Gay Pride Parade.

Maybe it's my age. I remember when the word "gay" was not used to describe homosexuals. And I remember the days of the Stonewall Riots. It wasn't until after that that the first Gay Pride Parade took place. I also remember when that hypocritical queen, J. Edgar Hoover, was leading the FBI to arrest "queers."

Or maybe it's not just my age. A couple of nights ago, I saw a show on PBS about some gay young men and a couple of lesbians "coming out" (a term that was never used when virtually all homosexuals were "in the closet") to their parents. All the parents eventually came to accept the sexual orientation of their children, but they all had a hard time of it. Some of them were kicked out of their families. And virtually all of the young gays had a difficult time accepting their own sexuality.

So if you never had any difficulty with your sexual orientation, you are blessed.

I also saw a film on PBS about Emile Norman, a phenomenal artist who also happens to be gay. http://www.emilenorman.com/ He and his partner started the arts colony at Big Sur, their home for most of their 30 years together. The film is mostly about his art, but it also mentions the trials and tribulations of homosexual men back in the day of Hoover's persecution, and then the Stonewall Riots.

I still don't think the article was funny.

Uh, Minnesotan, aren’t you getting a bit carried away? I mean, really, has anyone in these letters done any worse than complain that the essay was mediocre, worry that it’s based on stereotypes in a way which was mostly wink-wink but occasionally offered too strong a whiff of REAL stereotyping, and, you know, basically hyper-over-analyze every electronic 1 or 0 that Salon devoted to the thing? In these letters I’m not finding much by way of comments which truly “abandon civility,” or could actually be said to “lash out,” or “spew invectives.” (I find the whole set-up of Salon - where we’re given instant access to a forum where we can discuss and debate and even rip to shreds - to be very civilized!) Much less have I caught anyone “shitting on Sarah Bird,” or truly succumbing to their “baser impulses.” I mean, hell, when I’m in the mood to succumb to my baser impulses, you sure as hell don’t find me chastely typing indignant letters to Salon! (heh heh)

And sure, the “authors of these articles are people with feelings and inherent dignity” which I guess in MINNESOTA means their work cannot be extravagantly and enthusiastically criticized? Er, thin-skinned authors who agree with you would do well to resist publishing here, that’s for sure - where the Complaints Department is one mouse-click away. And anyway, as far as whether we “acknowledge her humanity” or not – last time I checked, every single essay or article that was ever published in Salon was, in point of fact and with no exceptions, written by a full-fledged, card-carrying member of “humanity.” To stop and acknowledge that fact would be, I dunno, spectacularly unnecessary? Though I guess you mean that her humanity should act as another shield against criticism. Ech – spare me.

Look, free yourself of Minnesotan shackles, come here to New York City for a couple of years and get your skin thickened. Nobody wishes Sarah Bird ill, or Salon for that matter, but many of us found THIS article to be lamelamelame, both in the writing and in the publishing. Sarah – straight woman with a straight son – chose to write an article which riffed on gay stereotyping, and hence entered a minefield where - sure enough! – once or twice she blew herself to smithereens. We’re pointing this out to her, and to Salon, in written letters. I mean, honestly, how bad can it be? Thicken that skin, Minnesotan, thicken that skin! A couple of years here in New York is my prescription.

Lighten up, it was tongue in cheek!!!

However, I must admit that the satirical mom/gay son relationship Sarah Bird dreams about is a reality for me and my mom.

My mom raised 3 kids: boy-boy-girl, I'm the middle one. And on more than one occasion my mother has confessed to me that I'm her best friend. Mind you that she loves my brother and sister, but when she needs help picking out a dress for a special occasion, she calls me and we make a day of it. We shop at her local suburban mall followed by lunch at some new place she wants to try. She knows that my Dad and siblings would never be up for such a date.

Same goes with when my mom wants to go the movies, or working on a decorating project, planning a dinner etc, I get the call. And i love it, it keeps me close to her. My dad (nice guy) but we have nothing in common to talk about. So as far as parental dynamics, this is what I've got and I've made the best of it. And am a better man for it, gay or otherwise.

I don't believe you really want your son to tell you that a bias cut gown emphasizes your saddlebags.

Really, come on.

I could read no further in Just Jake's letter than the bit that goes:

"What I took away from the article other than laughter was this: Even if tongue-in-cheek, it reflects that there is a generally growing acceptance of gay people."

Because, let's face it: the "acceptance" that the "article" (for lack of a better word) shows it the same acceptance Blacks used to enjoy years ago - as long as they kept to themselves, stereotypes, soul food and quaint expressions. The same acceptance Latinos enjoyed as long as they entertained us with their cute, big hats, margaritas and colorful family antics. The same acceptance majorities everywhere bestow minorities as long as they keep to the script. The acceptance given to king's fools.

If that's the acceptance the author is capable of, and Just Jake is happy with, I'll more than happily take their rejection and fight for something more meaningful and worthwhile instead.