Dan Quayle

Letter Twenty Four, December 28, 1995

Another Aunt Tries to Be Impartial...But Can't See the Obvious Homophobia (1/4)

December 28, 1995

Dear Wes & Susan,

As I told you, I knew it would take me a while to get this letter finished to mail to you. It has taken me a lot of time and effort and when you read through it you will see why. I struggled to be as objective as I could even though I have very strong feelings about this situation. Please read the whole letter and give yourself time to think about it. You can either answer or ignore it. It is up to you. If you decide to answer, please try to be objective and keep emotions to a minimum.

I am writing, not because I think I have any profound information or the right to judge individual behaviors but to attempt to bring some unity back to our family. In doing this, I am hoping each person is willing to do self-examination of their motives and behaviors and understand what role they played and the responsibility they have had in creating the problem and what role they should have in rectifying it.

If there is to be any accountability for the events that occurred, I think you need to know that accountability is not a matter of fixing blame. It is taking responsibility for one's own actions. One thing my kids heard over and over again growing up is that if you have to justify an action you are considering, you need to examine that action because most likely it is something you should not do.

Since I am writing this I letter, the analysis will be from my point of view which I understand may not be the same as yours. This is not intended to start more letter writing or arguing, but to illustrate where things went amiss and how much of what happened could have been avoided. I firmly believe that what we have now is the result of emotions out of control, anger etc. So, here goes: where this will end, nobody knows.

Since all of us claim to be Christians, Christ is our example in our evaluation. We need to remember that at the foot of the cross the ground is level. There are no degrees of sin, one being no worse than another, sin is sin, black is black, white is white. We are admonished to love one another and esteem others better than ourselves willing to lay down our lives for each other. That was Christs example for us. We should be able to see if what we contributed to the problem was done in love for Christ, each other or because of Christian values. According to the scripture love suffers long, is kind, envies not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave unseemly, seeks not its own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil, rejoices not in iniquity, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Sometime in the summer of 1990, we had an Uncles Party where the tradition was passed to the next generation. Since it took many of us to plan and carry off a party of this magnitude, not to mention the money it cost, the planning and work was shared by all members of the older generation. Swede and Charlene probably did not get in on a lot of the planning but they certainly got to help pay.

In June 1993 and February 1994 Priscilla responded to Wes' Christmas newsletters expressing her concerns about homosexuality. Exactly what those letters said, I have no way to know but Wes (I will refer to Little Wes as Wes and my brother as Swede) felt he addressed her concerns with his letter of December 18, 1994. I have a copy. He touched on NAMBLA by saying "but it is representative of only a tiny percentage of gay people."

I heard some talk last spring about having an Uncles' Party and thought the kids (next generation) would be discussing and planning. In planning money is always a consideration and needs to be discussed with everyone who will be expected to contribute. From what I understand, plans were not discussed with anyone. For this lack of communication with others of the younger generation, Susan needs to be accountable.

At some point in time, prior to leaving on vacation on June 3, Priscilla realized that Wes and Tom planned to be at the Uncles party. She called Marge, Joy, William and me with her concern. At that time we all agreed that it would not be appropriate. No one suggested that we should contact our children to see if their opinions agreed with ours. As I remember my conversation with Priscilla, we were concerned about the relationship in front of the younger kids. At that time, we all authorized Priscilla to speak for us. We all knew of her strong convictions about homosexuality. None of us offered to do the calling or writing ourselves or even asked to read or preview what she might say. The only stipulation I remember is that we must be very careful of Swede' feelings in handling this. I must conclude that all of us, Marge, Joy, Priscilla, William and I should be held accountable for the results.

Priscilla then called Swede. She asked for Charlene to get on the line with them. I understand that Charlene did and things seemed to be okay when they hung up. She called Wes about it and things seemed okay when they hung up.

Next we have a letter dated June 5, 1995, from Wes to all aunts and uncles in which he very clearly spells out Priscilla's objection. Following is his quote of what Priscilla said. "He does not belong at a family gathering. It would be okay for him to visit Susan and Dan and others. But we don't want to expose our children to that lifestyle. If we let him come to the party, we would be giving our tacit approval. Everyone has agreed: We have children; no we wouldn't want it. We want you to come. We don't want Tom to come." It is obvious that she is talking about them being together at the Uncles Party since she previously stated that there was no problem with Tom visiting Susan, Dan and others. This leads me to believe he understood the objection. He then goes into a very different theme from what she expressed. Quote: "I feel Aunt Priscilla's concerns about Tom's presence are twofold: First, she is concerned that young children at the party will see something inappropriate. Second, she does not consider Tom part of my family--and therefore not part of our family." Wes, then, addresses these concerns -- their proper behavior and his feeling that he and Tom have a life partnership. He acknowledges in the letter that Priscilla has deep concerns about homosexuality. He then writes about his physical condition and asks for reconsideration. Wes needs to be accountable for going off in a different direction when it seems apparent that he understood Priscilla's position. In addressing his physical condition, one could interpret it to be a play on emotions and, if this is so, he needs to be accountable. Another interpretation might be that he was illustrating his need for personal support.

Priscilla and I returned from vacation on June 24 and learned that Wes, Charlene and Susan had been to Astoria. There was a conversation between Priscilla and Marge where Marge says that Bob said there is no reason to believe that AIDS could spread without blood, needles or sexual fluids. No where in Priscilla's communication do I see AIDS as the issue. I have a very different view from Bob's opinion and those of you who agree with him. I have talked with "First Responders" in our community as well as serving as the safety officer for the school district. (As an aside, October 28, 1995, Channel 12 News reported that an older man became HIV positive after being bitten by a prostitute who at the time was attempting to roll him.) Due to Bob's opinion, Marge was changing her position. I do not know if William changed his mind at this time or when that took place. If the changing of positions is what caused all the problems, then Marge and William should be accountable. I don't believe that was the problem because on July 15, Priscilla was at my home and she called Marge and William to come and visit, which they did. While she was not happy about their change, it certainly did not cause a break in the relationships.

I am not positive, but I think what came next was a couple of calls from me to Susan passing on my thoughts about having Tom and Wes together at an Uncles Party. I asked her to go ahead and have a gathering, invite everyone so whoever chose to attend could, dont call it an Uncles' Party, offered to help her with the food and told her I would encourage my girls not to bring their kids because I did not feel it was appropriate for young people. We discussed this at length since she could not see any difference in a homosexual relationship and many of the others that had been allowed i.e. live-ins etc. I said I would baby-sit for them so they could attend and, if possible, would stop by to see Wes. If making this request to Susan caused the problem, then I am responsible. I asked her if she thought I should call or write to Wes and she said she could explain my position to him. For not writing to Wes to explain, I am accountable. If Susan not accurately state my position, Susan should be accountable. I regret committing my position to writing since it would have prevented a different interpretation of it later.

Next is the June 29 letter from Priscilla to Wes. Copies were sent to all aunts and uncles. In this letter she states, "apparently at that time some of the family changed their position which, of course, is their right". From this statement, one would believe that the changing of minds is not the problem. Priscilla becomes assertive in her stating her opinion. She says that others should have been informed of the plans to include Tom in a family gathering. I believe since the "next generation" was to take on the "Uncles Party" at least the cousins should have been notified at the origin of the plans to include Tom. She talks about the planning Susan and Dan are doing and makes a statement that terribly offended Susan. For this, Priscilla should be accountable. Quote: " I believe I now understand why." She reiterates her belief that homosexual relationships are unhealthy and that she does not wish to expose her grandchildren, other young children or even herself to one. She goes an to suggest that Susan and Dan do a party at their house and invite the adults without putting children in any compromising situation. I assume from this that she means all adults because she states, "then the adults would have the choice".

From there she talks about NAMBLA saying, "So I believe my concern over what the children would be exposed to has great and realistic foundation. In one of my previous letters to you I asked about your feelings about NAMBLA and you did not respond in your letter." I don't think in asking about it she is inferring that Wes is a member of NAMBLA. It is apparent that saying that just a tiny percentage of gays are involved in NAMBLA did not answer her earlier concern. Some of the family felt it was inappropriate for her to bring up NAMBLA but we know that Wes was involved in a gay political group and the Washington DC parade. She states that her opinions are not based on "Fear and misunderstandings" but are the result of many long hours of research and reading materials from both the heterosexual and homosexual points of view.

Then she begins the discussion of HIV/AIDS and other diseases bringing fecal matter into the discussion. I understand that the statements about fecal matter were offensive to some. I think in context she is speaking of homosexual communities having disease problems because of contact with fecal matter. In bringing her grandchildren into it, I think she was attempting to point out that because of the homosexual lifestyle they could carry something, such as parasites etc., and not know anyone was being put at risk. She does not accuse them of anything but believes the risk is there due to their lifestyle. We all understand that this is not the only place where risk is involved.

Next is the belief that perhaps the virus they have can be spread more easily than first thought and her conversation with the Oregon Health Department. She appeals to Was to reconsider out of care for our children. The other point to consider is that if AIDS were her first concern, she would have suggested that Wes not come into contact with any of these people. She ends the letter in a strong statement of her beliefs and an unwillingness to compromise them although she continues to love, care and pray for him. If Priscilla's statements about NAMBLA and fecal matter are offensive, the accountability for them belong to her.

Priscilla then received a letter from Patricia. It was worded in the same fashion as I remember Patricia behaving when things did not go her way. If she thought Priscilla's letter was unkind wonder what she would have thought had one of her children received a letter like the one she wrote. Obviously, since Patricia wrote she had heard from some one. Since Patricia is a family member to only Genevieve, Susan and Wes, her thoughts should have been addressed only to them. If Patricia were a part of our entire family, accountability for the letter would go to Patricia. Since she is not, perhaps whoever was talking to her should be willing to assume the accountability for her statements and for interjecting herself into a family discussion.

From here on, you decide who should be accountable and what should be done about it. If I continue stating where I see the accountability, there will be those who will think I am fixing blame or making accusations.

About this time, either before or after Patricia's letter, Susan called Priscilla regarding the statement she found offensive in Priscilla's letter. This was a good move and could have settled many of the problems. Their descriptions of the call are very different from one another. It ended with Susan hanging up the phone. Since the letter was not written to Susan, apparently it had been shared by one of the recipients of it.

Next, I believe Priscilla called Swede. According to Priscilla, she knew that Susan was upset over her statement in the June 29 letter and did not want it to create further problems between Swede and her. We all know this has been a very strained relationship. According to Priscilla, Wes made some comments about Jethro so she asked for Charlene to get on the line with them. He said Charlene was not home. Their opinions differ on how that was requested and apparently from there things went badly and ended with Wes hanging up on Priscilla. This ended all communication between them as well as their relationship. I know from talking to Swede Labor Day weekend that he felt Priscilla was making a political statement and he said there was no way he would let her get away with that. I did not pursue it with him so am uncertain how to address it here. I do know that as Christians we have an obligation to forgive as we have been forgiven. Harboring bitterness eats at the heart and soul making one sick physically, mentally, emotionally.

The next letter is written on Mama's birthday, July 12. It is from Wes to family members including all blood line nieces and nephews as well as Harry and Merv and DeeAnne. Why the discussion was opened to everyone escapes me even though he states it is because of Priscilla's concern about AIDS particularly being directed toward our younger family members. In reading her letter I dont see how he arrived at that when she referred to "any of my grandchildren, the other children, other people, and those of us who are already having health problems and low immune systems of our own." Whatever his reason, he widened the audience.

He says, since she did not write back following his December 18 letter he assumed he had addressed all of her concerns about homosexuality and resolved most misrepresentations about homosexuals. It does not seem reasonable to me that his letter could do that since the statement about NAMBLA only referred to the "tiny percentage". That statement does not answer any question other than how many people Wes thinks are involved. He mentions they had not discussed AIDS earlier other than research funding. Due to lack of previously stated concerns I think it is clear that AIDS really was not Priscilla's concern.

In reading Wes' letter I believe one could interpret him to be saying that if he and Tom as a couple would not both be welcome, regardless of where it is, he would not attend because he thinks it would be insulting to their relationship. In addressing my concern about an "Uncles' Party" he says that would be fine with him, leaving them with a family gathering at Susan and Dan's. At that point, he says he and Priscilla are in almost full agreement about the party. She is maintaining that it would not be appropriate to have children present and he is saying they pose absolutely no threat to children. He says they will both have to leave it up to each individual parent to decide for him/herself whether or not to bring the kids. He sees the issue as family members feeling comfortable with Tom being there.

He says that Priscilla is lying about them because she has lumped them with child molesters by implying that they could infect children, I don't believe she was concerned about children being molested but quoting her letter it was stated as "tacit approval".

He refers to inflammatory rhetoric and says that he and Priscilla differ on "the truth." He says his opinion is based on being gay and having hundreds of gay friends and her information comes from people opposed to homosexuality -- the OCA, the Christian Coalition, etc. and some research she has done. He is insulted that Priscilla lumps him with "the homosexual agenda" and states that he has nothing to do with any of the things she hears about. (I find this very difficult to sort out when Wes has belonged to a political action group and taken part in parading. Those are political positions.) He states that she cannot see him as an individual only as a homosexual. Then he talks about the OCA and other groups providing a constant barrage of wrong information. If Priscilla were a member of the OCA or Christian Coalition, which she is not, this would be no different than her opinion about Queer Nation. His final statement of that particular paragraph is accurate: "As a result, all we can do is agree to disagree". It does not answer any concerns. He goes on to say that he and Tom are not NAMBLA members and the discussion is irrelevant to this party. While it never crossed my mind to think he would be a member, I am glad he made this statement. He goes on to discuss sexually abused children. By doing so, I don't take offense and believe he is thinking that any of us heterosexuals would be doing this. Of course, we all agree that he cannot defend every homosexual any more than we can defend every heterosexual.

Fecal matter is then discussed by Wes stating that unrelated things get tied together. I have to agree with him that neither his nor Tom's presence would necessarily expose kids to fecal matter only that they could have some health problem related to their contact with fecal matter. I believe Dr. Koop's data is outdated. There are documented cases of AIDS being transmitted without needles, blood or sex. Nevertheless if fecal matter contact were the problem, the use of separate facilities as suggested by Susan, would have addressed it. It would have been more accurate to say there is limited risk in casual contact. That would have been a supportable position.

Wes says "we all know that the real issue here isn't about transmission of AIDS, it is about homosexuality." That is true. He says that Priscilla was not concerned about him being near Mama and kids. However, I have to say, my Mom was not a child, she made her own choices in life and heaven help you if you tried to make them for her.

In this particular letter, I am not going to go into the het vs. homo AIDS percentages -- it has no relevance. We all know that the first cases (GRIDS) were in the homosexual community. Because of this I would have to say that the lifestyle has been destructive to our society. He quotes Priscilla as saying "I feel that it would imply that we accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and I am not willing to say or imply that to any of my children...I would rather be wrong on the side of the children..."

Under the category judgment we are back to saying Priscilla feared the kids might see something inappropriate. I don't believe she ever expressed that -- she talked of a relationship/lifestyle.

Judgment does belong to God. However, each person will answer based on the knowledge available to them. Discernment and choice are of the free will God has given each of us. Each person has to be able to judge right and wrong or because of our human nature, we will naturally make wrong choices. I happen to believe that we will be held accountable for the light we were given and that we have a responsibility to warn others. Why else would we preach Christ crucified? How else can we be held accountable for the knowledge God gives us? Why would there be such a thing as church discipline? Why, why, why???? So many whys???? If you want more examples we can talk about them later. I cannot see quoting Matthew 5:11 as appropriate to the discussion.

Wes states a misunderstood belief about Betty and her kids. This does not need to be addressed since it is irrelevant in this except that it should be the parents who choose when sexual information is conveyed to children.

Wes writes that he is not trying to force an issue nor ask for approval just wants Tom's attendance at family functions. He goes on with John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." He then, I am afraid, tosses some stones. I believe these were intended to be inflammatory (personal opinion -- judgmental? If so, I will be held accountable.) My belief is that being judgmental is thinking oneself to better than we ought because we believe some one else to be more sinful or worse than US. In the scripture that he quotes, Christ ends with "where are your accusers? Go your way and sin no more..."

Wes' next paragraph says it is up to you individually and as a group to decide if this kind of judgmentalism is Christian and has any place in our family. What would you suggest???? That we oust people from the family who do not agree with my/our/Wes' interpretation of what is judgmental??? Wes' next statement is fine but how we demonstrate Christian love has to do with personal application of the scriptures. I was taught that God's holiness can never be compromised for His mercy otherwise Christ would not have had to die. His mercy is given to us only because we are in Christ -- covered with His blood. Others, having a more liberal attitude, see Him as only a merciful and loving God. If you read her statements, Priscilla's personal point throughout remains the relationship in front of the kids. I don't think this is judgmental of Wes and Tom -- I see it as protecting children.

Susan, in her letter of August 3, says Priscilla has accused her of betrayal, manipulation and lying. I might be willing to say that Priscilla inferred manipulation on Susan's part. She, then, accuses Priscilla of attacking people for changing their minds. I did not witness any attack at my home on July 15. Using the statement of "people" feeling disloyal is hard to address in this letter-- which people? I have to agree with Susan that it is a terrible shame that something so positive disintegrated into the conditions we have now. I don't see Priscilla's statement "now I believe I know why" being strong enough that it would cause me to defend myself. I think Susan's emotional reaction is out of proportion to the statement.

In the next paragraph, Susan comments on the family discriminating. She needs to understand that because she views this as discrimination does not necessarily make it so. Protecting children from what one believes to be a harmful environment has nothing to do with discrimination. Since neither Susan nor Wes have any children they may not be able to relate to this. The only difference I see in Wes and Tom and other live-in situations is that they are both of the male gender. I believe this would cause children to see a difference. I think the answer to Susan's question about who nominated Priscilla the spokesperson is answered earlier in this letter -- Marge, Joy, William and Barbie. There is a need to understand that "my family" can mean different things -- there is immediate family meaning parents and children, there is family meaning siblings and parents, and there is the whole family including all of us.


Previous letter | Next part of letter
Letter index | Cast of characters | Family tree
Wes & Tom's Cool Site
Guestbook!


© 1996-2023 by Wes