Re “Paspalis Scored for Groups She Supports”
We were distressed and dismayed to see that you had given space to a homophobic diatribe from Dee Seehusen in your Oct. 27 issue.
While we understand that editors like to give both sides of an issue a voice, bigotry is not worthy of promotion for any reason.
Since Mrs. Seehusen felt it was necessary to write a second homophobic diatribe recently to the editor of another local publication, we felt a response to her comments in both publications was necessary.
When Ms. Seehusen attacked School Board candidate Kathy Paspalis during the campaign in your Oct. 27 issue for Ms. Paspalis’s support of Acorn and LAMBDA Legal, she claimed that when she spoke at the School Board meeting on Oct. 8, and made her homophobic remarks in a public forum, she did not realize she was being politically incorrect.
We can only hope that she has realized it at this point.
She struck a chord with us when she wrote “somehow we have to instill self pride and behavior in our school children.”
We agree with Ms. Seehusen’s assertion.
But what she fails to consider is that all children deserve and are entitled to self-pride, not just straight children. And behavior is modeled at home.
If Mrs. Seehusen is modeling homophobia and intolerance for her children, we can only imagine that her children may grow up to be part of the bullying problem we are trying to eliminate in our schools.
With regard to her Nov. 19 letter to the Culver City News, we don’t feel that anyone who votes for their School Board candidates based on lawn signs really has the right to pass judgment on who is or is not qualified to sit on the School Board.
That being said, we’ve never known it to be a prerequisite of running for public office that a candidate disclose his or her sexual preferences.
While Ms. Seehusen may have liked to have known this information in advance, it was not her right or due.
We are sorry to hear that she believes that her bigotry places her in the clear majority of Culver City voters by stating that she does not believe the two candidates she mentions in her letter would have been elected had the public known.
But we wholeheartedly disagree.
These two highly qualified candidates would have been elected in either case because the majority of Culver City residents are not mired in prejudice, as Ms. Seehusen appears to be.
Ms. Seehusen, your tag line, “and that is what I think,” is not a cover or excuse for homophobia or any other prejudice you may harbor.
Quite honestly, with all due respect, we don’t care what you think.
Sincerely,
Debbie Hamme
Harry Hamme
Brendan Hamme
Vanessa Hurtado
Jennifer Whitmore
Ms. Hamme may be contacted at antiquer01@aol.com
Ari Noonan comments: Ms. Hamme, I agree with most but not all of your points.
It is crucial to remember, and easy to overlook, that the Constitutional right of free speech cuts for and against its most vociferous advocates.
No matter how much you disagree with her, Ms. Seehusen has fully as many rights as you to have her opinions published. Her opinions are as valid as yours.
I disagree with certain of her views, regarding sexual preference but not the military. Ms. Seehusen undoubtedly would disagree with your criticism of her.
If I am the referee, as editor of the newspaper, whose views merit publication? Only those that align with mine?
I have passionately held political views. However, most essayists for the newspaper are on the other side.
These disparate perspectives are intended to better serve and inform our readers.
