My wife says I should apologize to the gay community for those remarks. Many of the emailers have demanded an apology also. Some of them said they will no longer read my column, or CityBeat in general.

I pondered this long and hard. Have I wronged the gay community? Should I apologize? I have always likened myself as a friend of the gays and felt depressed, like I lost a close pal, when I received those emails. This whole debacle has made me very sad and I wish I could fix it, but, I'm sorry to say, I will not be apologizing.

Sorry, I'm just of the belief that one should apologize only when he feels he owes an apology and any apology uttered as a matter of damage control isn't worth the spit you say it with.

Oh sure, a lot of the letter writers presented some totally valid points, and some even made me doubt my own positions, making me feel, you know, sorta sorry, or almost sorry – but not actually sorry. It's my job to provoke debate and by golly that's what I did.

Something I noticed over the years of writing controversial columns is this thing that happens when some people read certain key words or encounter taboo subjects. They get so riled just by encountering these words and phrases that they can no longer read the article objectively. It's a reactionary thing. Seeing the keyword sends them into an emotional lurch, making them unable to comprehend the words they are reading and when finished, they don’t really understand what was said.

I know this happens for a fact because of some of the outrageous comments I receive. For instance, one woman said I was seeking to eradicate gays. How anyone could have read into that column that I was seeking to eradicate anyone is just unbelievable. Raymond Portillo said that I was "giving Hardaway props," which blows my mind since in that column I called Hardaway a Neanderthal or something similar no less than 6 times.

And then there was this comment by Samuel Rumes Tabor who wrote, "Great article Mr. Decker - keep it up and hopefully one day we'll see your son walk on by [as] some fag gets his ass kicked in the streets," as if somehow I was pro-violence against gays, or at least oblivious to it, clearly skipping over all the times in the article where I expressed a loathing of that sort of oppression.
Yes it was the usual suspects that filled up my email inbox in the days following the column's publication: the threats to organize a boycott, the threats to sue, the threats to out me as a closeted homosexual, but of all the letters I received none so disappointing as the following from Amanda Strouse, an aspiring journalist at SDSU and opinion editor for the Daily Aztec who wrote, "You should be punished for your intolerant and insensitive views."

Et tu Opinion Editor? I should be punished for my opinion! Who's the intolerant one here? Wow, we are in big trouble if this woman represents the future of journalism. I wonder what punishment Ms. Grouse would deem appropriate: A fine? Exile perhaps? Maybe a good old fashioned public lashing or some jail time would suffice? I can see her headline now:
"Man Convicted for Insensitive Article: Activist judge gives minimum sentence."

Yeah, there was plenty of nonsense in my mailbox, but, there were also many, many smart, well-written, passionate emails that posed reasonable arguments. These are the ones that made me pause. These are the ones that made me think, "Well yes, I can see your point." Such as this letter from the person who, because of his public position, asked that I withhold his name.

"Dear [Editor], If Ed is such a principled, high-minded, equal opportunity kind of guy, let’s turn the tables around and see him write another patronizing, condescending, smart-ass column telling Tim Hardaway [not to be offended by racist comments such as], 'I don’t like black people. I let it be known…I don’t like dark skin. It shouldn’t be in the world, or in the United States'. . .To run across such idiocy. . . indicates that gays are apparently the only minority group left that it’s still OK to defame, discriminate against, physically abuse, and deny civil rights to. . . Looks like we have ended up the niggers of the 21st century. . ."

And here is the letter I wrote in response:
"Well said Mr. X, but I guess, yes, in the end, it is my belief that anybody should be able to say out loud whatever it his he truly feels in public, even if what he says is inflammatory toward blacks or gays or whomever. I will never condemn a person for speaking his own truth. I will gladly debate him though, point out what I perceive to be an error in his thinking – such as your opinion that gays are the only people it's ok to discriminate against – which is obviously false judging by the reaction to Hardaway and also to my column.
From where I'm standing, the only people it's still ok to discriminate against are those who say things in public that are contrary to the public mindset. Just try it and see what happens. Oh wait, you can't. You withheld your name because of your semi-public position. Hmm, I guess you must be worried about losing your job for stating your beliefs the way Tim Hardaway lost his job for stating his? And this is the kind of world in which you want to live?"

EJD
03/14/07