Saturday, Jul 19, 2008
Overruled
BY DAVE CULLEN
(10/28/99)
The so-called gay panic defense has no place in any civilized society. Its premise is that an otherwise secure man is so outraged by a "homosexual advance" that his only recourse is violence, or even murder. On its own merits it is so feeble an excuse that no reasonable person could grant it any credulity. A "man" who must resort to murder rather than offer a simple "no thanks" is no man, but a beast who deserves the full condemnation of the law.
-- David Simpson
I keep waiting to see someone write about the obvious conclusion that could be drawn from an acceptance of the "gay panic defense": that anyone could have a similar reaction to an unwanted sexual advance. Many more women than men have far worse episodes in their past than the described "homosexual experiences" in this article. Is it then OK for a woman to kill a man who makes unwanted advances toward her in a bar? Thelma and Louise might not be the only ones who would like to use the "heterosexual panic defense."
-- Victoria Watts
The "abuse excuse" defense is controversial when it is used in any criminal matter, but it is regularly successful and rarely overturned. The myriad reasons usually boil down to a single salient point: The true and total effect of severe emotional trauma can be clinically shown to manifest itself long after the traumatic events have ceased. What a "gay panic" defense will consist of, then, is a simple statement that the accused was prevented from dealing with his own homosexuality by an overriding social consequence: the demonization of homosexuals and homosexuality in Laramie, and, by extension, America at large. Who can doubt that this is a true condition? Who can deny the accused the right to this defense, or even question his right to present it?
At the conclusion of this trial, should the accused avoid the ultimate penalty, it will signal two things: 1) that our system worked again, and 2) that we will continue to pay for our cultural ignorance and hatred unless and until we make Laramie a safe place to be gay.
-- Gregory Dale
Battle of the Amazons
BY KATHARINE MIESZKOWSKI
(10/28/99)
It would be nice to believe that as a new century fast approaches we could get past the idea that a person's sexual orientation can be the source of shame, intimidation and control. It would be even nicer to ask the Amazon.com managers why my sexual orientation (I'm as queer as can be) was never an issue when they were taking my money. Guess what, folks? It is now -- and I'll be shopping elsewhere.
-- Tim Sosbe
Chicago
That's an interesting, if dubious, tactic that Amazon.com is using to try to take the trademark name original to the feminist book store in Minneapolis. However, the final line in your article regarding this legal tactic surprised me: "sexual McCarthyism isn't very flattering."
I lived in Minneapolis for a few years and lived a few blocks away from the Amazon bookstore there. The one time I tried to shop there was an unnerving experience. The moment I walked in, the clerks (all women) turned to me and scowled. I had barely walked up to the first shelf when one of them hurried over and asked if she could "help me." I told her I just wanted to look around, which seemed to make her even madder.
As I browsed the shelves, it became clear this was a lesbian and feminist bookstore. One of the clerks was still trailing about 10 steps behind me, and the rest were still scowling in my direction. Finally, I asked the clerk behind me if she wanted me to leave. She said that if I didn't intend to buy anything, I should leave. They considered the store a "safe place" from men, and unless I was buying a gift (her word -- it was assumed I wouldn't be buying anything for myself), I should respect their boundaries. Needless to say I never darkened their door again.
If you are a man, you haven't experienced sexual McCarthyism until you've tried to shop at the Amazon bookstore in Minneapolis. Not that that should have any bearing on a case regarding trademark and business name, but the folks at Amazon.com weren't the originators of the sexual McCarthyism stain in this case, I suspect.
-- Tim Hanson
It came as no surprise to me that Amazon.com would use a despicable gay-baiting tactic in it's attempt to win the trademark infringement suit brought against them by the Amazon Book Store in Minnesota. A few months ago, Amazon.com started advertising on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. I wrote to Amazon.com to complain because they were advertising on the radio program of one of the most rabid and vicious bigots on the air.
Amazon.com responded by accusing me of censorship. (Perhaps someone could explain the logic of that one?) They also stated that the sole determinant of where they will advertise is whether they can cost-effectively reach people who read books. Perhaps they would feel completely comfortable advertising in a white supremacist magazine or on Fred Phelps' Web site if they could acquire customers on the cheap.
-- Geoff Staples
Dallas
Get Salon in your mailbox!