Dear Editor,
As an Ole Miss alumna, I receive The Daily Mississippian by e-mail. I found Allan Innman's Oct. 3 cartoon disturbing (substitute desegregation for homosexuality and you'll have a viewpoint that might have been acceptable at Ole Miss in the late '50s) and indicative of a type of intolerance that is also displayed in Jim Haskins' letter to the editor. Mr. Haskins writes that he was "disgusted" by Chris Kelly's Oct. 2 column simply because Mr. Kelly included a two sentence mention of his adolescent attraction to a television actor. Here are the conclusions I'm left to draw after seeing Innman's cartoon and reading Haskins' letter: if homosexuals ask for equal rights under the law, if they even casually mention their attractions in the same way that heterosexuals routinely do, then they're thought of as "forcing" their views on heterosexuals or shoving those views down their throats.
As a homosexual in a committed, monogamous relationship, I merely expect the same civil rights, the same kind of civil marriage (and the protections of my relationship that would result), the same freedom to express my sexual orientation and the same legal protections to which Mr. Haskins is entitled as he pursues his "way of life." If by saying that, I disgust him or he feels threatened by it, so be it. He can, however, relax on one count: I don't demand that he approve of my relationship. His opinion of my sexual orientation is irrelevant to me. And no, I don't have to respect his opinion, only his right to express it, no matter how intolerant. His reaction to Mr. Kelly's column only emphasizes the truth of what Kelly had to say.
Cheryl Devon Coleman
Lynchburg, Va.
