18 GAY PEOPLE'S CHRONICLE OCTOBER 15, 1993

COMMUNITY FORUM

Continued from Page 15

Play House staff would not happen were not a tone being set at the very top of this organization. On many gay issues, and the AIDS crisis in particular, Play House artistic director Josephine Abady has been an untiring advocate for the entire Cleveland community. She has used her leadership position in the community to try to bring people's time and attention (and dollars) to the fact that the AIDS crisis is not over. She has not merely lent her name, but also her time and talents, as both a member of the Citizens Commission for AIDS (appointed by Mayor White and the County Commissioners) and as a member of the Western Reserve AIDS Foundation Advisory Board. She has also been very visible in the gay community as a Keynote Speaker at the Gay and Lesbian Center Luncheon, and at the Gay and Lesbian Center Garden Party, where she and the Play House have been supporting sponsors donating tickets and subscriptions.

All of us who work in the American theater know the cruel swath that AIDS has cut through our artistic community, and for us at the Play House it has become very personal lately. In the last five months, we have lost two beloved members of our artistic family. In addition, we have employed a number of HIV-positive actors and directors, working closely with them and their caregivers to help them maintain their careers and the dignity of holding down a job. We would like to believe such devotion and commitment is commonplace among other theaters around the country, but having talked to colleagues elsewhere, we know it is not. Our concerns, however, are not what other theaters are doing-it's what we can and must do. Working together, all our staff have done much, but there is much more to do.

We know this has been an extremely long letter, but it is our hope that you will publish it in its entirety. We believe such a full airing of this issue demands it. Our purpose in writing it is not to pat ourselves on the back for what we've done, but hopefully to get others to realize how much there is to do. Personally, we have never had a problem with preaching to the converted because there is still so much to work to do.

Before we close, allow us to mention one other past production. In 1990, we opened the Play House's 75th anniversary season with Heart's Desire, a world premiere of four related one-act musicals. Act Two opened with a work by one of America's pre-eminent gay authors, Armistead Maupin of Tales of the City fame, who came to the Play House to create his first work for the theater. We invited him here because we believed in the project and in his potential as a playwright; we offered him a nurturing and supportive environment where he could explore and take a risk. The resulting work, Suddenly Home, was a wonderful new work for the musical theater (featuring two of the most exciting gay and lesbian dance duets seen anywhere). New audiences can judge for themselves when Suddenly Home is presented again next spring at "Take a Stand III" at the Play House. We hope to see a large portion of your readership there; perhaps even Mr. Daniels, putting his money where his mouth is. Maybe then something good will come out of this unfortunate namecalling episode after all.

Roger T. Danforth, Literary Manager Linda Harris, Stage Manager Brint Learned, Company Manager Don Roe, Artistic General Manager Richard Termine, Season Photographer The Cleveland Play House

Barry Daniels responds:

The "out" authors of the letter to me from the Cleveland Play House do not seem to understand the politics of where I am positioning myself. It is precisely what image is presented to the "middle-of-the-road subscriber base" that concerns me. This is reflected both in choice of repertoire and in

the way the season is marketed to subscribers and to the general public. Although I believe that in the general context of what I have written for the Gay People's Chronicle since February, what I meant by “discreet homophobia" and "gay friendly" is clear, I welcome the opportunity to explain in more detail what I mean by these terms as applied to the Cleveland Play House.

I hope that my readers and the authors of the letter understand that in all my writing for the Chronicle I have been exploring my own self and values in relation to theater, community and homosexuality. Since1 consider life an ongoing process and dialogue, these opinions and thoughts are always subject to reevaluation and change. The season preview article in question is a good example of my method as its structure involved a personal position as a writer about theater and as a gay writer that embodied a paradox and an apparent contradiction.

"Discreet homophobia" may well not be the best choice of words. "Genteel" might have been a better qualifying adjective; "antiquated closetedness" might have been a less angry way to phrase it. What I do mean is the way gay and lesbian material is represented in the Cleveland Play House season and in the marketing of that season which is an important part of the Play House's public image. Thus, and my supposition seems affirmed by the letter, if the protagonist in Cheryl West's Holiday Heart is a gay man and a transvestite, I think it important to be "out" about this in press releases. Although the Play House attitude is more aptly described as "closeted," the closeted nature of the Cleveland gay community (see the editorial in the October 1 issue) makes any public action that tries to conceal gay content a negative position that reinforces outdated and unfortunate attitudes: I prefer to call such action "discreet homophobia." Similarly, the fact that no mention was made of Misanthrope translator Neil Bartlett's importance as a gay writer, performer and activist in the Play House's

ly" activity simply reinforces my points.

Much more important to the politics I have been advocating is the issue of employment of HIV-positive actors and directors. This is truly an issue that merits national attention. Certainly a discussion of this issue might be included in the Play House newsletter. It is fine to display the AIDS quilt panels in the lobby Art Gallery, but might we not have an exhibition of work by gay artists in the community that deals with gay concerns openly? That would be gay friendly, as would have been an article in the newsletter discussing Neil Bartlett's work as a gay artist. Why do I not find copies of the Gay People's Chronicle in the Play House lobby as I do at Dobama Theatre and the Cleveland Public Theatre? Why does one of our richest public institutions not support our community paper with regular advertising of its productions? Is being gay friendly too much of a risk in light of the "middle-of-the-road subscriber base?" Given the current coverage of the gay community in the media, I think the Play House truly underestimates the sophistication and potential for tolerance in the Cleveland audience. In terms of current attitudes, a gay and lesbian season in the Brooks Theatre might simply prove to be good business.

I hope it is clear that I am speaking to the real positive social impact an institution as powerful and prestigious as the Play House might have in the Cleveland community. In terms of the gay community I'm talking about attitudes and choices that go beyond "taking a step in the right direction" and move towards "taking the next step." To appropriate through reversal an unfounded slur in the letter, I'd ask the Play House to consider putting its mouth where the money doesn't seem to be. Only then might it truly become the distinguished regional theater the Cleveland community needs and de-

serves.

Barry Daniels

press material or public statements by artPlease respect my

ists involved in the production can be read as a kind of homophobia.

If one looks at the paragraph citing examples from the Play House repertoire—and, please note I have only been in residence in Cleveland since Fall 1991-the majority of the plays with truly significant gay content have been marginalized in the DiscoveRead series or in the Lab productions. Why isn't a play as nationally successful as The Baltimore Waltz not in the Main Stage season? Why are we constantly offered "tame" choices (to use Marianne Evett's adjective) such as As Is and Breaking the Code rather than such important and equally successful plays as Emily Mann's Execution of Justice, Christopher Hampton's Total Eclipse, Terrence McNally's The Lisbon Traviata, or Larry Kramer's The Normal Heart? Why were we offered the "safe" Jar the Floor-albeit in a production that was better staged and acted than most recent Play House productions and not Cheryl West's Before it Hits Home which deals with important issues of homosexuality and homophobia in the African-American community? Why is a play like The Heidi Chronicles listed as a play with gay concerns when, in fact, the gay character has been criticized for being the kind of stereotype that offends many members of the gay community, as indeed he was in the mediocre Cleveland Play House production of the play? It is 1993, "the Year of the Queer," and the Play House's choices do not adequately represent the gay and lesbian community, rather they reinforce the ideology that created the closet. All of this is what I mean by "discreet homophobia."

What I mean by "gay friendly" in the context of my article is not the institutional environment, but rather the public environment that institution creates. The Play House staff cites eight extremely important activities sponsored by the Play House in recent years. I don't mean to denigrate this work, but I do want to remind readers that AIDS is not a gay disease. Citing this work as the Play House's most important "gay friend-

religious beliefs

To the Editors:

Over 300 years ago, the Puritans fled Europe to escape religious persecution. They were tired of being told what to believe and how to worship their God. They came to North America, established colonies, and ultimately fought a war in order to practice their religion without interference from the state. When our forefathers designed a constitution for this new country, they intentionally included a separation of church and state. Having been ruled according to someone else's religious beliefs, our forefathers understood the need to guarantee religious freedom. In other words, people in this country are guaranteed the right to practice whatever religion they see fit as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Now here is the part that a lot of people don't want to hear: Simply because your religion says homosexuality is wrong does not make it wrong for everybody. My religion says homosexuality is good, natural and right. My religion says anytime two people get together and care for one another and love each other and build each other up, then that's wonderful. I know it's hard for some people to understand, but as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's rights, love is good, no matter what its form.

Lately, I've noticed laws being passed and decisions about rights being reversed on the basis of sexuality. A group of people get together and pressure lawmakers and decision makers to do things because a bible or a religious doctrine says it should be done that way. At the same time a petition for a legal marriage between two adults of the same gender is being denied, and at the same time a mother is being denied custody of her child because she is a lesbian involved in a homosexual relationship, people are screaming that homosexuals are disrupting "family values." Laws prevent homosexuals from forming families, and

religious zeal condemns homosexuals for not being family-like.

I want to know when my country is going to stand up for my constitutional rights. When is my country going to say "I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but your particular beliefs will not govern everybody. As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, you live as you believe and let others live as they believe." That was why this country was formed.

Imagine for a moment, if you will, that Catholicism in particular, instead of JudeoChristian beliefs in general, are what drives the lawmaking body ofthis country. What is considered "moral," and therefore what is allowed to happen in this country, is dictated by the beliefs of the Catholic church. Abortion would be abolished, including pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. A medical test determines a baby will develop a painful disease that will result in death within the first year. Tough. Deliver it. It's God's will.

Strict Catholicism mandates that sex is to be used only to procreate. A couple with six kids will not be allowed to use birth control because every time someone has sex, it must be with the intent to conceive a child. You will not be allowed to make love to your spouse simply because you want to share yourself, to become one with someone you love. Read carefully and think: Every time you have sex, it is with the intent of creating a child.

"You can't tell me what to do with my body," you cry. "My religion says sex with my spouse is OK, beautiful even. My religion says two married people should enjoy sex with each other even when they aren't trying to get pregnant."

And according to the laws of this country, you would be absolutely correct. You have a right to follow the religious beliefs of your choice. You will not be discriminated against because of what you believe. You will not be fired because you're a Baptist. You will not be denied housing because you're Jewish. You will be able to teach in a public school even though you're Hindu.

Some people will be upset because they believe that I'm calling homosexuality a religion, but I'm not. All I'm saying is that I'm entitled to follow whatever religion I choose, according to the constitution. My religion says there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Your religion says that it is a sin. But we cannot pass laws for everyone to follow based on your religion only. I respect your beliefs. If your religion calls it wrong, do not have sex with someone of the same gender. Within my religious beliefs, homosexuality is permitted. Please respect my beliefs. You don't have to agree with my religious beliefs, you have to tolerate me as I tolerate you.

Homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else. Two consenting adults who do not infringe the rights of others have the right to live however they want. Religious belief is not the basis for any law, according to the constitution. We do have laws right now that make homosexuality a crime, and we have had other unconstitutional laws on the books in the past. Through time and insight, we have seen that these bad laws need to be struck down because they rob people of constitutional rights. In order to protect our own rights, we have to protect the rights of others, even if we don't agree with their beliefs.

Stephen A. Roberts

The Chronicle encourages everyone to write and express your opinion about the community or the paper. Please be brief. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We will print your name unless you specifically ask us not to.

Address letters to the Chronicle, P.O. Box 5426, Cleveland, Ohio, 44101, or fax to 216-621-5282 (24 hours). Include your address and phone number so we may contact you to verify the letter.