Queerness & Disability

want to thank Euan & Samuel Lurie for writing

the article [“Body of Pride”] in the August edi-
tion of OITM. 1 am a physically disabled gay man
living in Bennington and am very glad to see an
awareness taking place around the needs of dis-
abled homosexuals.

For me, my disability was an important
part of my coming to terms with my sexual orien-
tation. People with disabilities, whether physical,
emotional, or mental involve individualized life
needs that are unique to non-disabled homosexu-
als. My hope is that this article will help to edu-
cate others about these needs and be more sensi-
tive to them. I will be watching for the next QD
Conference with anticipation.

Eric Webster

Bennington, VT

Surveying the Survey

he Vennont Unity Project so far has received

nearly 150 completed LGBT Community
Needs Assessment surveys that were included in
the August issue of OITM. Thank you for filling
out the questionnaires!

If you have not yet filled out the survey,
we encourage you to do so. Before filling it out,
please correct the unfortunate typo on the
Adequacy scale on page one: #4 on the Adequacy
scale should read “completely adequate.”
Amazingly, almost every one who already filled
out the questionnaire figured out what should have
been printed, and made the correction on their
own. Thank you!

Additional corrected copies of the
Vermont Unity Project LGBT Community Needs
Assessment questionnaire are available by calling
802-860-6236. Please fill out a questionnaire and
help shape our community’s fixture.

Ted Looby
Vemtont Unity Project

“Press"ing Complaint

Nam writing in response to a portion of an article
[“Kaufman Tapped as New R.U.12? Director”]
in last month’s issue titled, “Second Queer
Summit Slated for Aug. 24: Will Press Have
Access?” I disagree with your assertions that press
access was denied, that only one participant
objected to direct quoting, and that facilitator Stan
Baker “allowed the objection to block media cov-
erage.”

First, it is important to note that more
than one participant spoke in support of limiting
direct media coverage of the meeting. While the
issue was raised by one participant, several others,
myself included, concurred. The concerns about
the possibility of seeing one’s words in print in the
following month’s issue of OITM would have
been an obstacle to an honest and forthright con-
versation. .. ‘
To my knowledge, the summit was
intended as a forum to provide organization /
agency updates as well as frank conversation
about both organizational and community chal-
lenges. In the course of such conversations it is
crucial that participants feel they are able to speak
openly and freely. It was the belief of several, not
one, of the participants that direct media coverage
would inhibit that conversation. ,

We have all seen media coverage that
isolates direct quotes, removes them from context
and makes them susceptible to manipulation and
misrepresentation. People's concerns were valid
and Stan Baker, as any skilled facilitator would,
heard and respected the views of the participants.
The truth is, Stan Baker should not have had to
facilitate this particular conversation to begin with.
To my recollection, neither the previous nor the
current invitations to the meetings, issued by the
R.U.l.2? Community Center, included any indica-
tion or notice of potential press coverage. This
issue should have been addressed in advance and
notice to attendees communicated. It was certainly
not my understanding that this was a “public”
meeting.

In fact, invitations were sent to relative-
ly few agencies/organizations and requested that
each send a maximum of two representatives;
Mountain Pride Media had three representatives
present and one additional board member repre-
senting another group.

The press was allowed complete access
to the last summit. No one was asked to leave the
room or cover their ears. All three Mountain Pride
Media -representatives, were present for the entire-
ty of the meeting. 0lTM's reporting about the
“denial of press access” is exactly the type of mis-
representation several of us worried about at
May’s summit.

While I am unable to attend the upcom-

ing summit, I a.m certainly hopeful that OITM and
RUIZ? will have had the necessary conversations,
prior to the meeting date, in order to inform partic-
ipants in advance of the meeting as to whether
they should anticipate press coverage or not.

B.J. Rogers
Burlington, VT

Let me first address your confusion regarding
Mountain Pride Media and Out in the Mountains
and our participation in the Queer Summit. Each
organization was separately invited. By my calcu-
lation, that would have entitled each organization
to two representatives. Two board members, the
president and vice president, attended to represent
Mountain Pride Media. I was the sole representa-
tive of Out in the Mountains. The other person to
whom you refer was not representing either OITM
or Mountain Pride Media; to suggest otherwise
misrepresents her role.

And as to whether the meeting was open
to our community's press or not, you are correct in
saying that no one was notified that press would
be there. However; neither was there any notice or
suggestion that OITM’s representative should not
be attending in a professional capacity. lt is only
because I was forthright in announcing my inten-
tion to report on the meeting that it even become
an issue — which puts OITM in a different light
than is cast by your generalization regarding press
misdeeds.

In so far as l was not asked to leave the
room, yes, I had “access. " However, although
every other person in the room was free to take
notes, I was not. Every other person in the room
was free to speak or write about the proceedings
and l was not — because I chose to abide by the
concern initiated by one person to prevent any
direct quoting from the proceedings. In essence I
was handcuffed pressured to be satisfied on
behalf of the wider community with an official
statement. Such a situation is far from being
allowed "complete access. " If LGBTQ community
nonprofit organizations have nothing to hide, they
shouldn’t be worried about how they will be
reported on in the LGBTQ press.

With the clarification that the concern
regarding a potential inhibition of discussion was
initiated by one person and supported by a majori-
ty of the delegates (referenced in the story in a
quote from Mountain Pride Media s then-Board
President Carrie Rampp), OITM stands by its
story. — EB

 

 letters

Samara’: Thank You Party

amara Foundation of Vemiont will celebrate

the 2002 grant and scholarship recipients, and
the fifth anniversary of Samara grantmaking, at
the second annual Thank You! Celebration in the
Cedar Creek Room at the Vermont Statehouse on
Friday, September 13, 6 to 8 pm. The Samara
Foundation Board of Directors invites members
and allies of Vermont’s LGBT community to join
us at the statehouse as Samara recognizes its 2002
grant and scholarship recipients and the many
donors who make Samara’s grants and scholar-
ships possible. In 2002, 12 Vermont organizations
and four Samara Scholars shared $40,000 in
Samara awards.

RSVP’s are appreciated by September
10. Contact us at 860-6236 or ted@samarafounda-
tion,org. (lfyou forget to RSVP,just come join us
at the statehouse!)

Sarnara’s annual Thank You!
Celebration creates a special opportunity for
Samara donors and grant and scholarship recipi-
ents to meet and celebrate each other, as well as to
publicly celebrate Samara Foundation's contribu-
tions to the well-being of Vennont’s LGBT com-
munities. Last year over 75 people shared light
hors d’oeuvres and punch in the statehouse. while
hearing moving personal stories from grant and
scholarship recipients.

Samara Foundation of Vermont incorpo-
rated in 1992 as Vermont’s lesbian and gay com-
munity foundation. In 1998, inaugural grants total-
ing $10,500 were awarded to five organizations.
During the past five years, Samara Foundation has
awarded over $130,000 to 35 different Vennont
organizations and individuals, through 51 grants
and 11 scholarships. V

Samara Scholarships were established
in 2000,'as “an investment in the future of
Vermont high school students who oppose dis-
crimination and prejudice, and who stand for the
elimination of homophobia in our society." Four
Vermont high school students were named as
Samara Scholars in 2002, each receiving $1,100 to
support their higher education.

Please join us September 13, and allow
us to thank you for helping us to help our commu-
mty.

Bill Lippert, Executive Director
Samara Foundation of Vermont

 

Hearing From The
Opposition

For each of the last two issues, I
have received a letter to the editor
from a man in southwestern
Vermont. I have declined to publish
them — a choice always at the dis-
cretion of the editor. The reason is
that I considered the first — a
screed Iarded with religious dogma
on “saving lives" from a gruesome
death by AIDS by persuading gay
men to stop having sex with each
other — anti-gay. The man who
wrote called twice to find out
whether his letter would be pub-
lished, and when I emailed him to
say it wouldn't, he requested an
explanation for my decision. He

editor's notebook

insisted that his letter wasn't anti-
gay, that he had worked with AIDS
patients, that all he really wanted
was to save gay men's lives.

Of course, suggesting
that "abstinence only” for gay men
— the Bush administration's sole
favored approach to AIDS preven-
tion — would end the AIDS epidemic
is fatuous, simplistic in the extreme,
and ignores all other transmission
vectors.

The second letter
announced the same man’s candi-
dacy for a seat in the Vermont
House with the primary legislative
goal of repealing "the wicked civil
union Iaw." Once again, the letter
was full of selective quotes from
the Christian Bible and made some

leap of (il)logic to suggest that by
recognizing civil unions between
gay men the State was then con-
doning the spread of AIDS.

He strongly urged that we
print his letter because it would be
of interest to OITM readers to know
where he stood on these issues. I
don't know what his real agenda is,
other than to get in our faces, or
perhaps to use whatever reaction
he would get to fuel his right-wing
conservative campaign, but other
than this summary, I'm not going to
play.

The bottom line for me is
that people from outside our
LGBTQ communities opposed to
gay and lesbian rights have many
more receptive print outlets for their
opinions than we in our community
have. And those outlets collectively
— and in most cases, individually —
have many more resources — in
pages, advertising, funding — than
OITM does.

Farewell, Elizabeth!

With this issue, we say goodbye to
one of our most stalwart and
involved volunteers: Elizabeth
Hane. She is moving — has moved
by the time you read this — to New
York state's apple country to follow
her beloved, Stina Bridgeman. Both
women earned doctorates in their
respective fields and are in the aca-
demic life; Stina has been and con-
tinues to be gainfully employed,
while Elizabeth's grant—iunded work
at the University of Vermont's
Proctor Maple Research Center
has come to an end.

Elizabeth has been a reg-
ular at stuffing night, made major
contributions as a community mem-
ber of the Technology" Committee of
the MPM Board of Directors, and
took on the leadership of the online
archive project — the effort to make
all 16 years of O/TM accessible
electronically. Under her direction,

and with the help of many volun-
teers, the online archive project has
made a huge step toward comple-
tion. -

And she writes well, too.
Elizabeth has contributed several
articles — on working in the sugar-
bush, updates on the archive proj-
ect, travel in Scandinavia, to name
a few — to these pages. I hope that
she will continue to send us the
occasional article — especially
before she gets caught up in the
travails of teaching and/or
research.

Elizabeth, while we're
sure this move to join Stina — after
over a year of conducting a long
distance relationship — is ultimately
a happy one for you, we will miss
you, and we wish you well. V