Washington Times prints GLAA response on pedophilia, with changes
Related Links

Rosendall: "Homosexuals pooh-pooh pedophilia" (The Washington Times) 01/08/03

Reed Irvine: "Dissing the 'Dish' about pedophilia" (The Washington Times) 12/28/02

Regent University Law Review, Spring 2002

Family Research Council paper: "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse"

"NAMBLA: Out of the Movement's Bounds" 02/94

International Lesbian and Gay Association

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

GLAA on youth issues

Washington Times prints GLAA response on pedophilia, with changes

January 8, 2003

Dear GLAA members and friends,

Today's (1/8/03) Washington Times prints my letter to the editor on behalf of GLAA, responding to a homophobic letter on Dec. 28 from Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media, which responded to an Andrew Sullivan column in which Andrew had pointed out that gay organizations have overwhelmingly rejected pedophilia.

My letter is online at:

Reed Irvine's letter, to which I was responding, is online at:

I appreciate the Times' willingness to print contrary viewpoints, but I object to their editor's action in changing "gay" to "homosexual" throughout my letter, about which he said nothing when he confirmed yesterday that they would print my letter. (Talk about accuracy in media!) I am almost surprised that he did not go ahead and change GLAA's name at the bottom of it. It is one thing to have a particular style sheet (however biased) for their own articles, and another thing to put words in the mouths of the readers whose letters they publish. I have sent their letters editor, Matthew Rarey, the message below. (I should have addressed him "Aunt Sally.") Oh, well, it's an occupational hazard.

Rick Rosendall, "homosexual activist"
GLAA Vice President for Political Affairs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Rosendall"
To: "letters to the editor"
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Dissing the 'Dish' about pedophilia


I strongly object to your changing "gay" to "homosexual" throughout my letter as printed in today's letters page.

Regardless of your own style sheet, this sort of editorial policy makes no sense, as it is my name below the letter and not yours, and that is not what I wrote. Virtually no one talks that way any more, including Times readers. This is such a relic, I cannot believe you would insist on doing this. Why can't you let people speak in their own voices, short of obscenity? In fact, why don't you insist on it?

Rick Rosendall

----- Original Message -----
From: "letters to the editor"
To: "'Rick Rosendall'"
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: Dissing the 'Dish' about pedophilia

Thanks for writing, Mr. Rosendell. Your letter will run tomorrow.

Matthew Rarey

Matthew A. Rarey
Letters Editor

From: Rick Rosendall
Reply To: Rick Rosendall
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 10:31 AM
To: letters@washingtontimes.com
Subject: Re: Dissing the 'Dish' about pedophilia
Message Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Editor:

Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media ("Dissing the 'Dish' about pedophilia," Letters, Dec. 28) defends the work on pedophilia done by Dr. Timothy Dailey of the Family Research Council, and questions the motives of International Lesbian and Gay Association delegates who voted in 1994 to expel NAMBLA and other pedophile groups.

I was there as a delegate at the ILGA World Conference in New York City in 1994, as Mr. Irvine was not, when we voted to expel the pedophile groups. There was a small minority defending the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), but they were defeated by an 89 percent majority after a debate that featured impassioned calls for the protection of children and youth from exploitation. That decision may have been long in coming, but it happened over eight years ago. As part of the lead-up to the vote, I wrote an op-ed column condemning pedophilia that ran in several gay newspapers around the country.

If gay people are going to be condemned regardless of whether we do the right thing or not, and our actions are going to be discounted based on groundless aspersions about our motives, then the problem is not with gays but with those who are passing such biased judgments.

Any study done under the auspices of the Family Research Council (FRC) is suspect, given that organization's history of vicious, venomous attacks against gay people conducted without the slightest moral or intellectual scruple. FRC's claims are not supported by the scientific community. Last spring, the homophobes had to resort to publishing their smears in the Regent University Law Review (yes, that's Pat Robertson's right wing diploma mill) because they couldn't get published in a credible, peer-reviewed professional journal.

Mr. Irvine and his allies appear more interested in attacking gay people than in protecting children. In fact, gay and lesbian youth also deserve understanding and protection. Denying the existence of such youth does not protect them any more than teens in general are protected by denying and rendering taboo any discussion of their sexuality.

Gay communities around the country have established service organizations to help and protect the very at-risk youth who have been thrown out of their houses by parents who were swayed by the likes of Mr. Irvine's friends at the Family Research Council. It is the intolerant religious right that is exploiting youth, in furtherance of their hateful political agenda. Fortunately, fewer and fewer Americans are buying it.


Richard J. Rosendall
Vice President for Political Affairs
Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC

Page not found – GLAA

Nothing Found

Sorry, the page you tried to access does not exist or has changed address