Just please remember that one letter does not an entire organization make. There are a lot of good folks in RWA, a lot who are appalled by this letter, a lot who are bombarding the magazine with their own rebuttal letters. It's also highly unlikely, given the overall antagonism last time, that the "one man, one woman" thing is going anywhere official. The group as a whole does not support any such definition.
And, just as an aside, please don't be too quick to assume that the magazine or anyone official in the organization is supportive of this letter-writer's position. The organization has to be careful, for legal reasons, not to censor its members when they write letters, especially on touchy socio-political issues, and as long as the letter is not libelous, the editor may have felt obligated to run the letter.
I don't have any inside information on this, and I'm not giving a legal opinion, but I'm just suggesting that we need to keep an open mind to the possibility that there may be legal reasons for a non-profit organization (which has to be careful not to be advocating a political or religious stance that censors the opposing view, or possibly risk losing its non-profit status) to run most letters, as long as they're not libelous.
JD, who is NOT endorsing anything in the letter, whatsoever, and who finds it offensive herself, but who also acknowledges the right of the person to say it, no matter how offensive and stupid it is.
