'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause

'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause 12/4/2002 By Allyson Smith

"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her." – "Iris," in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.

"Quite frankly, if anyone in this case was being ‘persecuted’ it was Mr. Gutierrez. Unfortunately for the victim this was a lesson that she learned too hard and too late. Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to ‘help’ homosexuals." — "Silence Dogood," on ACLU Online Forum.

In the three weeks since Mary Stachowicz was murdered by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez in Chicago, some pro-homosexualists have reacted with much more sympathy for the ‘gay’ killer than for his Christian victim. In fact, several even have gone as far as saying that Mrs. Stachowicz deserved to die for questioning the man’s lifestyle.

Predictably, the mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz’s murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising’s torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it. As of December 4, no formal condemnations of Mrs. Stachowicz’s murder have been issued by leading groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Soulforce, a group that works in churches to oppose the traditional Christian view of homosexuality, issued no press statement, but a spokeswoman did give a quote to The Washington Times:

"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, spokeswoman for Soulforce. "A hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people. If in this case, it was directed at this person and intended to intimidate Christians, that would be a hate crime in my mind."

A devout Catholic, Mary Stachowicz met her martyrdom while working at the Sikorski Funeral Home on Chicago’s northwest side, where she got to know Gutierrez, 19, who lived in a second-floor apartment above the funeral home. On the afternoon of November 13, Stachowicz attended Mass at St. Hyacinth parish across the street, then returned to the funeral home and went to visit Gutierrez in his apartment.

According to Chicago police, an argument broke out when Mrs. Stachowicz lectured Gutierrez about his lifestyle and his lack of direction in life. Gutierrez later told police that he had issues with his mother and that the way Stachowicz was talking to him gave him flashbacks of his mother that angered him.

When Stachowicz asked him, "Why do you [have sex with] boys instead of girls?" Gutierrez snapped. In a fit of rage, he punched, kicked, stabbed and strangled the 51-year-old wife and mother of four. Gutierrez then stuffed her body into a crawl space under the floor of his apartment, where it remained for two days until he confessed to police.

Family members were baffled by Stachowicz’s disappearance. They posted fliers in neighborhoods, and her daughter made a public plea for her safe return.

"My sister is very healthy. She's very stable. She has the closest family you can imagine," Stachowicz’s younger sister, Alice Kosinski, told NBC5.com. "Her faith would not allow for anything out of the ordinary."

After learning of Gutierrez’s confession, Stachowicz’s loved ones agreed that the circumstances of her murder were in keeping with her character. Kosinski told The Chicago Tribune, "Because she's so Catholic, there's no room for being gay in the Catholic Church."

Friend Mary Coleman said, "Those of us who knew her immediately hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."

Rev. Francis Rog of St. Hyacinth Church told ABC 7 Chicago news, "She was a very intense person, concerned about the good of the parish, always seeking things for the poor as well as spiritual welfare for people."

Police recovered Stachowicz’s body on November 15 and charged Gutierrez two days later with first-degree murder, concealing a homicidal death, and burglary for attempting to steal money from Stachowicz’s purse.

Chicago local media reported these events, choosing headlines devoid of the words "gay" or "homosexual." In contrast, several homosexual publications – including Gay.com/PlanetOut.com, Gay People’s Chronicle, and the Washington Blade -- did use "gay" in their headlines.

Gay.com began running the story on November 19, a full week before the first mainstream news story appeared in The Washington Times.

The same day, National Review Online columnist Rod Dreher published a commentary titled These Victims Are People, Too" wherein he lamented "the deafening media silence around the savage murder of Mary Stachowicz" and speculated on its cause:

"One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of gay blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling:

The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.

Dreher added, "I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves."

That assumption appears to be shared by pro-homosexual cyber citizens. A search for "Mary Stachowicz" on message boards, e-mail lists, and Web logs (blogs) turned up several people who reacted viciously toward Stachowicz and Christianity.

For example, James Wagner’s boyfriend, Barry, expressed the hope on his blog that "maybe [Stachowicz’s murder] will strike fear in the hearts of a few fundamentalists" and then asked, "Where do I send a check for his (Gutierrez’s) defense fund?"

James and Barry’s statements drew the following response from fellow homosexual Michael Benedetto:

"I think that if gays are going to continue to have any credibility in politics, our sympathies in cases like this are going to have to lie first and foremost with the victims. And that's one upsetting thing about Barry's and James' posts: Until the criticism started to roll in, the only sympathy they expressed was for the wrong person."

Elsewhere, Benedetto wrote, "[Y]es, the woman (Stachowicz) was clearly a meddlesome b---- who didn't understand that the lives of her co-workers were none of her business. That does not make her any less the victim, or absolve her killer of any of his guilt."

Several posts implied that Stachowicz had brought on her own death. One man wrote to a Yahoo discussion forum, "It's Sad Someone Was Murdered, BUT... ...I do wish the Religious Wrong would learn to mind their own business."

"Iris" wrote to the ACLU Online Forum: "I am in no way condoning this man's behavior. Murder is murder. He should receive life or the death penalty for his actions. But one fact remains ... if she would have been minding her own [expletive] business instead of attempting to ram her religion where it didn't belong, none of this would have ever happened. I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her."

"Silence Dogood" agreed: "I won't go so far as to say that she deserved what she got, no one deserves to die, but I won't exactly be shedding any tears for her. Quite frankly, if anyone in this case was being 'persecuted' it was Mr. Gutierrez. Unfortunately for the victim this was a lesson that she learned too hard and too late. Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to ‘help’ homosexuals."

Other discussions centered on the characteristics of hate crimes. "Real" hate crimes, explained ACLU Online Forum member "morningstar," must be like Matthew Shepard’s murder; they must be premeditated and target a group.

"KingFred" wrote to the MacAddict Forum: "Since (Gutierrez has) already admitted he did the crime, there's no question he should do the time. But ‘hate crime’? Don't see it here. He didn't go out to get himself a Christian. He did in a person who may have been berating him, using her Christian beliefs as ‘weapons'. That doesn't justify what he did by any means, but it may explain it."

Catholic League President William Donohue summed up the problems with hate crimes statutes as illustrated by Mary Stachowicz’s murder in a November 26 press release:

"A few thoughts on this matter: a) this (Mary’s murder) will not be listed as a hate crime, thus showing how useless this category of crime is; b) the killer is going to be charged with a capital offense, thus showing once again how useless this category of crime is; c) Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is. The fact is she was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."

Others blamed the Roman Catholic Church for Stachowicz’s murder. On the Naked Writing blog, "JodyW" commented, "Gutierrez is responsible for what he did. So the RCC [Roman Catholic Church] is responsible for continuing to put forth a silly, stupid and factually wrong doctrine of ‘objective disorders’ and ‘intrinsic moral evil’ regarding homosexuality. For all that that evil that that doctrine has done and continues to do, they have a lot to be held accountable for."

Perhaps the cruelest comment of all was this from a San Francisco man on Yahoo: "The b---- had it coming to her. I'm glad he killed her. Too bad he'll probably spend the rest of his life in prison getting his little butt pounded, but still, I'm glad he killed her. The b---- deserved to die."

Mary Stachowicz, nee Frank, devoted wife of Jerry; beloved mother of Peter, Christopher, Angela (Louie) Ruffolo and Daniel; loving daughter of Agnes and the late Rudolf Frank; dear sister of Irene (John) Rog and Alice (Mark) Kosinski. Funeral Tuesday, 9:30 a.m., from Cumberland Chapels, 8300 W. Lawrence Ave., Norridge, to St. Hyacinth Church, Mass 11 a.m. Interment St. Adalbert Cemetery.

Four pages of condolences accompanied the obituary, where former classmates, co-workers and other family friends left messages of sympathy for Mary’s tragic demise.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that, after Mary’s death, Alderwoman Vilma Colom (35th) introduced a city council resolution in her memory. "She lost her life in an unselfish attempt to help a very disturbed young man, and for that she should be remembered," said Colom, who goes to the same church Stachowicz did.

Mary’s sister, Alice Kosinski, told the Chicago Tribune that her sister's death is difficult for everyone in her family to fathom.

"We're not doing that well," she said. "It just doesn't make any sense, and somehow we're going to have to make our peace with it."

Sincere Christian rebuke is a powerful thing.

Should it strike us as odd that the rebuked would lash out in their shame? or that those who might be similarly rebuked would wish to make excuses for their comrades who do lash out?

The reason I ask is that while I find the extreme anit-gay opinions often expressed on this forum as counter-productive it seems to me that Christian witnessing seems to fall under your opinion of something morally repulsive. Am I wrong?

1. CWA never suggested that it is the duty of those organizations to respond to every crime committed by a gay person. However, since CWA is an organization that is distinctly Christian, perhaps it's reasonable to assume that they might question the silence of those organizations, in light of this woman's faith.

2. No one expects organizations of those who choose homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexualism, etc. to openly advocate the murder of Christians. At least not any more than one would expect Hollywood types to suggest the public stoning of Republican elected officials and their family members.

Speak of the devil... I see a couple of the homo activists have already showed up on this thread that I was referring to from the previous one. Predictable.

I see them too but from a thread from an earlier thread. It will only be a matter of time before they smear me by saying I'm with Fred Phelps or some sort of nonsense again.

"Sometime O'reilly is right and other times he is a moron. "

You're right. He comes across a lot like many righteous liberals on most issues involving morality. He keeps his "faith" in a neat little box on the shelf, because that is "personal" and we shouldn't offend anyone else with our beliefs. He was ranting along those lines last night regarding a hospital technician who was fired because he tried to counsel a woman about to have an abortion on the Biblical view of the matter. "He should have been fired...that is highly personal and I wouldn't want that." He's a total ignoramous about such things, but that sure doesn't keep him quiet.

I have to agree with many of the comments I read on this forum last night about his becoming tiresome.

I'm glad you share my misgivings about that word, "pro-homosexualist." I hate it when conservatives participate in the debasement of our language and coin neologisms at the drop of a hat.

I believe the term homosexualist was coined by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams and it sounds pretty good to me; however, the term pro homosexualist seems redundant.

I'm don't like 'pro-homosexualist', but 'homosexualist' is no neologism. Auberon Waugh was using it over 20 years ago to describe what we might otherwise call homosexual activists or people who were pro-homosexuality. And even if it were a true neologism, it's reasonable to coin a new word to describe a new phenomenon.

"That's the sort of dishonest analysis that promotes closed-minded extremism and prevents honest discussion. No credible person asserts that hate crimes apply only to gay people, not even us 'pro-homosexualists'"

Well that is certainly the kind of response I would expect from a person like yourself. The analysis is in essence correct and it seems to me that you are the extremist here. Honest discussion must start with the truth and the truth is that homosexual behavior is detrimental to society as well as being fundamentally immoral. You are not interested in honest discussion only in promulgating your warped sense of right and wrong. Whenever someone accuses me of being closed-minded it automatically sends up a red flag that that person is less than honest and has an agenda.

By the way, you aren't credible to me either so take your invective elsewhere because it is wasted on me. I could care less what someone who openly promotes behavior that is damaging to society, not to mention wrong, thinks. Have a lousy day, Jack.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.