Dear Mr. Reinhard:

I have been following with interest the comments you have made in your column on the subject of Measure 9. I am persuaded that you are a man of principle and deep conviction, and I applaud you for that.

You gave me some advice in your column this morning, Thursday, November 12, and I find myself moved to show you the same consideration.

I am a lesbian, the daughter of working class parents, a third generation native Oregonian and a mother. In your column this morning you explicated your views of the difference between "toleration" and "acceptance," and of what is in the best interest of gay people, and what is peripheral to our best interest.

I must say that ACT-UP and Queer Nation are not my personal style. I'm long beyond the point where I can produce that kind of youthful exuberance, if nothing else. However, I think those young "radical" activists you spoke of understand something that is important, even if many of them cannot articulate it.

You have probably heard gay people say, "But who I have sex with is only a small part of what it means to me to be gay." I know many people -- I suspect you are one -- who find that statement inexplicable. Leave behind for a moment that focus on "homosexual acts" and think about the fact that gay people are whole human beings -- OCA propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. You define "tolerance" of homosexuals strictly in terms of staying out of people's bedrooms and officially discouraging housing and employment discrimination. You define "acceptance" in terms of the rest of day-to-day life, from friendly conversations to employment benefits to library books to marriage. As I understand your position, you believe you stand on a reasonable and rational middle ground when you choose "tolerance" on those terms over "acceptance." While we might find points worthy of debate with respect to some of the specific items you have listed, I ask you to look at the broader picture for a moment. In general, I think that the majority of homosexuals, not just radical activists, would agree that that particular middle ground is more illusory than real.

While "tolerance" sounds good in theory, look at the practical application of what you are saying. There is a clear message there: "You can have sex, if you must, but you can't have families."

You would not be happy if I said that to you, I am sure. I find it no less horrific when you say it to me. Homosexuals do build relationships and families; we are no more able nor inclined to stop doing that than heterosexuals are. Negative pressures from society don't prevent us from falling in love; they just make us suffer for it when we do. My partner and my child and I are in fact a family. The question is whether or not society tries to undermine the functioning of my family at every opportunity. You are entitled to choose to participate in that undermining, of course, but you should not be surprised to be labeled a homophobe if you do. It is more than sex that is the issue for most homosexuals; it is our lives and our families.

I submit to you that "acceptance" is the appropriate middle ground for you to stand on. Not acceptance of "homosexual acts" but acceptance of homosexual people and our families. I am a productive member of society. My child is being taught to value honesty, integrity, hard work and concern for others in a nurturing environment provided by people who love her. My family suffers from pressures imposed by heterosexual society that your family does not. It is certainly not in the best interest of my family that it be handicapped by society in the ways that it is. I don't believe it is in society's best interest either. All the objective data available indicate that homosexuals are about as likely to be good citizens or child molesters as heterosexuals. Children of homosexual parents are about as likely to be homosexual as children of heterosexuals. There is no truth to the ideas that homosexuals recruit children, exhibit sociopathic behavior or any of the other lies we got to hear so often in support of Measure 9 -- but I don't need to repeat the facts for you. It's clear that you know them. You know that to compare homosexuals to thieves, rapists and murderers is neither fair nor accurate. No homosexual activist with whom I am familiar advocates "moral neutrality." On the contrary, their position is based on powerful moral arguments.

You are entitled to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You are entitled to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong. You are entitled to argue in public that homosexuality is wrong. I would not for a minute want to deny you those personal rights. Indeed, for us to be a free society I believe that it is imperative that I defend them should anyone else try to deny them. I may believe that Buddhism is wrong and that all Buddhists will inevitably burn in hell. I may believe that black people are inferior to white people. I may hold those beliefs quite strongly. I may believe that any other position is absolutely immoral and a majority of the populace may well agree with me. But the extent to which we succeed in encoding those beliefs into our legal and social structure is the extent to which we are not a free society. The morality advocated by those you call "gay liberation's true believers" is indeed a radical one. It is rooted in such tenets as "all men are created equal" and that everyone is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is based on a strong belief in freedom of association, freedom of religion, the free exercise of individual rights and responsibilities, freedom of speech. All very radical ideas -- still.

You, along with other heterosexuals, clearly have the power to ensure that my child be taught by her teachers that homosexuality is wrong or to pretend that we don't exist. You, collectively, have the power to deny her the protection of her stepmother's health insurance should I become unable to work. You have the power to make sure that my pension benefits are unavailable to my partner. You have the power to ensure that in order to protect my family I must pretend in public that my partner and I do not have the deeply committed relationship that we do in fact share. You have the power to send my child the message that her family is not real and her parents are bad people. I do not believe that it is in your best interest to do these things. More importantly, I will never, ever, acquiesce in them. I cannot.

Your "tolerance" threatens the things I hold most dear: my integrity, my partner, and my child.

My family and I have lived under the cloud of Measure 9. We have known the fear that comes with being singled out as "legitimate targets" for harassment, theft, and whatever-might-come-next. I understand that many people are very uncomfortable hearing anything that even hints at the existence of homosexuals. I understand that it may well not take much more to cause that backlash whereby a majority of Oregonians try to vote homosexuals out of existence. It is also clear to me that my only hope of someday living out from under that cloud is to tell the truth about my life, whatever difficulties and dangers that might entail.

Your "reasonable middle ground" offers me the right to freedom from arrest for "homosexual acts" and the right to sue employers or landlords who discriminate against me. In exchange, I must deny the truth and meekly help in the pretense that all the stable, healthy families in Oregon are heterosexual. I must give up the hope that, ultimately, truth does prevail.

Is there such a thing as "half a loaf of liberty?" I think not.

Sincerely,

Doretta R. Schrock