Let's agree with the right-winges! about what we may do when we win marriage, etc.

After the loss in Maine I hear once again how the rightwingers put fear of homosexuals taking over the schools and ruining marrige if they/we win marriage, etc. And somehow we didn’t refute those false claims.

Well, as some, mainly lesbians, have said already—YES we ARE after your kids. The obvious meaning is clearer when it is women saying that, as it doesn't have the child-molester sound to it. And what we mean is, well, why shouldn't children be taught that homosexuals/glbt people exist, that some of their friends will have same sex parents, and we deserve equal rights, no matter what term is used.

The same objectors to our cause used the same objections when civil rights for black Americans were being taught in schools. And when it was taught that women should have the right to vote.

We must not run from the truth. An LGBT child in school should be protected from bigotry and from teachers and textbooks that deny us our very existence. And while we have no problem with a religious organization, such As Scientologists or Mormons or Catholics believing their version of “marriage” is right and ours wrong, the time has come to stop them from making religious rules info laws—legal rules for all citizens.

What the homosexual community/movement really needs is not a “leader”

Once again we hear voices saying, after the recent March on Washington, that the glbt community/movement needs a leader. This seems to me to indicate a total lack of understanding of how this movement has been so successful in going from a single closeted organization in 1950, and a single LGBT publication in 1952 to the thousands of organizations and hundreds of publications and resources that we have today. The only question we should be asking ourselves is why there are so many glbt people who are unaware of just what this community and movement does have. There is lack of communication among the various elements.

It must be said that anti-gay bigots seem to know more about what is going on in this movement than we do. It is doubtful that many of us have actually thought about all the resources we have. I urge everyone to take a look at Gayellow Pages, the print verison or online version. Each group or publication is so busy trying to do the job it chose to do that they do not know what others are doing. It may be good that today we can have specialized resources, much as medicine now has “specialties,” but we then face the same problem medicine is facing, a lack of general physicians, since everyone wants to specialize and have more influence.

But the reason we have been so wildly successful is that mostly we have all worked for the main purpose of gaining our civil/equal rights. Only in the lat decade have we started specializing in having organizations for each of the areas, thus we have Lambda Legal and National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAAD, et al. (as well as the ACLU) to work on legal issues. We have organizations for religious work, such as Dignity, Affirmation (Methodist and Mormon), Kinship (Sevent Day Adventist), etc. We have an organization working for youth, GLSEN, and there are groups for each profession; medicine, anthropology, law, journlism, etc.

And while most of our LGBT newspapers and magazines try to give coverage to all of our areas and groups, they don’t always seem to do a good job. It seems that many editors and journalists think that we want to know more about the latest celebrity to “come out” than we do about what activities are going on in our community. How often do papers cover our libraries/archives? Do we know fo the glbt book clubs? and the travel articles seem to think we would not want to kow where the local gay center is in major cities, but only wan to know where the closest bar and bathhouse or cafe is. We don’t need a LGBT guide to tell us where a local museum is—general guides do that.

And too often when an issue is in discussion, a “specialized” group says they are not interested in it but only in their little domain—as if a religious organization has no interest in gay bars being attacked by police, or a legal organization has no interest in films that are pro or con.

There are a few efforts to get us informed on coverage of glbt issues. Daily Queer News tries to give us links to what is in the news that we should be aware of. For entertainment news there is Coming Out Support Weekly. And there are others. But if we don't know about these resources they can not help build communication and cooperation within our movement. And thus the hundreds of good leaders working in various organizations, local and national, will not be able to support each other.

Celebrate our diversity. There is no competition among us except to se what we can all do to educate ourselves and the public on the truth about homosexuality. There is no reason to oppose a march or say we must only work on a federal/national level or that we must attack on organization that has chosen to work on only one aspect.

We must practice what we preach. We have to acknowledge that there are really gay Republicans as well as Democrats. That some of us are members of PLAGAL and are pro-life, while many of us are pro-choice. There are those who are allies and work with PFLAG, many of whom have lgbt children. And there is COLAGE, for children who have LGBT parents. There is no reason those who fear the lies of the religions can not work with those who choose to stay in the religious community and try to bring about better understanding and change.

We can be proud, of each generation that has added to our work, from the founders of Mattachine, ONE/HIC and DOB in the 1950s to those at Stonewall, and those who did the various marches and those who join us each day. THOSE WHO MARCHED Sunday will someday be pioneers. We are all pioneers, and we must have done something right, we are slowly but surely changing the world.

Some thoughts on the March, Sunday, seen on C-SPAN and CNN

I should say that I thought the March was good. The Marchers being the best part. Most speakers were good-Julian Bond of course, Cleve Jones, but a few were repetitous and the political ones were out of place (Socialists have done nothing for our community/movement) and the most embarrasing moment was that woman—who chose her?—who couldn't remember the words to the song she was “leading” (America the Beautiful).

I also am constantly amazed that idiots can keep harping on Obama, the first president to try to speak to us, and where were these “experts” on homosexuality all the previous presidential terms. I acknowledge the Clintons, but even they did not go as far as Obama has—perhaps for their time they couldn’t. But I have the right to make the obvious point that our community/movement has made constant progress since 1950, under all presidents. And many court decisions have been made by Republican appointed judges.

We may need reminding that few homosexuals even know their history, and Obama made references that many have never heard—such as the P-FLAG history, and even “leaders” may think they know it all but forget that most people don’t. Few have read a book and most know ony what they’ve seen on TV shows. And even our LGBT media has ignored books on hour history, such as Todd White’s book, Pre-Gay L. A., the last of the three books to cover the first three organizations (ONE/HIC), the others covering Mattachine (Behind the Mask of the Mattachines) and Daughters of Bilitis (Different Daughters), and when will the media book publications get aroudn to us, such as The New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of Books, and even Lambda Literary Book Report?

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

A question to "gays" who keep asking for some other celebrities to “come out” so they can be proud of their sexuality

I just watched on Logo a show on Freddie Mercury and once again I hear the idea that “if he had come out” it would have been an inspiration to young people struggling with their homosexuality. Nonsense. What this means is that someone would only be happy to be “gay” if other cute, famous people are too. What about all the pioneers who risked their lives to change the world so that today it is possible for us to be happy and gay? Why are they not an inspiration?

Since 1953 there has been at least one (ONE) publication available in all major cities discussing the subject. Since 1950 there have been a dozen or more pioneers who were speaking out, including in courtrooms/cases. Since 1958 there has been a victory in the U S Supreme Court won by ONE, Incorporated, to gain our community/movement the right to even discuss homosexuality in publications.

Every major city has a glbt newspaper. There has been a national magazines covering our subject/lives given major publicity (Advocate and OUT) which have given coverage to dozens of cute and famous peple who have “come out.” There have been dozens of movies with gay-friendly themes, major tv shows with serious discussions on issues we face.

For years there have been organizations giving help in the legal, religious and political fields. There are lgbt centers in every major city. Thre have been marches on Wshington, and one is planned for next month.

How many people coming out does it take for all these young people to be comfortable with themselves? Perhaps the reason our cause has still got a long way to go for equal/civil rights is because too many “gays” are unhappy being gay. That is what we have been trying to educate them about since 1950. If they haven't heard us, that is their problem.

Most homosexual Americans will understand what Judge Sotomayor means

Sadly, most homosexual Americans will understand what Judge Sotomayor means when she says she hopes that someone like a Latina, growing up in a single parent family in a poor environment (not much money, hard jobs, etc.) will be more realistic about how laws work in reality than a middle class or upper class white male, at least until recent years.

What most homosexuals would say is that a black American who has suffered from discrimination in America should have more empathy for other minorities, including homosexuals, against whom laws, like the Bible, have been used to make unequal to the majority white males who have dominated America for centuries.

What others may see in the book: RE: Todd’s book and the generic issue of getting books read.

As I would understand it, Todd marshalled all the facts on what happened at ONE, and gave readers a background, starting with early Mattachine. It could be that he gave too much for average readers, but I assume serious researchers will want to see all the notes and minutes, etc. I didn’t then, nor now.

The irony as I said to everyone then is that I am one person who has always been in a position to do what I wanted to. I have made some mistakes, as I confessed to Prof. Rodney Grunes Political Science students Friday, as I think, now, that the issue of me and the Army was more my fault than theirs, although it is probably that sooner or later I would have been kicked out for homosexuality. But I was, from a logical Army view, not a very good soldier if I fell a part when they had to change the goal of sending me to Germany—unless I reenlisted and had more time. I liked the Army and was not mistreated, even when living the last few weeks on a cot in the Headquarters Company of the First Infantry Division. But I would never have stopped having sex. I also once did not showup for KP duty when I had been ordered to do so as I thought they were wrong. I went, naturally, to the library and read magazines. Nothing ever came of it.

But few people had income from a family so that they could choose what they wanted to do, as I could take a the job at ONE, which paid nothing, really, and paid really nothing at HIC. In fact, more than once I had to put money into HIC, one time $2,000 my folks gave me to help get an issue of the magazine out.

This is being said to make it clear that Dorr should have understood, and Don, that it made no difference to me personally if I were a voting member.

I said then, and poor Todd understands that now as even Don did a few times, that I would not do anything I did not want to do. So it would give me no more “power” to be a voting member. If the board instructed me to do something I didn't want to do, I simply would refuse and if necessary, leave.

Which is what I think some editor said when she had to quite ONE as she had to do work at a job that paid her salary. It is hard to tell volunteers what to do if they don't want to. that of course was Dorr's fear. Most of ours were not too smart about the workings of ONE and didn’t care, and I didn't until Dorr stupidly started fearing what I might or might not do. It was one thing for me to not show up for work a day after I had found a good Marine, but when I actually started understanding the workings, that was threating to Dorr.

Thoughts on a book lead to a good discussion of masculinity, etc. (Editorially Speaking, May issue of Liberty Press)

In talking about a book she read, Sheryl LeSage in the Editorially Speking column in the May issue of Liberty News brings up several issues homosexuals deal with—and gives evidence that more and more of our community/movement publications are going to deal with aspects of sexuality that must be faced.

The book, Androphilia: Rejecting Male Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity, by Jack Malebranche (what a name) apparently says that men have been “indoctrinated” by gay culture to be less masculine. Strange, it was my thinking that the opposite is true.

As LeSage points out, this is the opposite of the “feminist” movement which told women to have to fit a “pattern” and not be butch or femme, and as she asks, “how’d that work out for those pinch-faced ladies?”

Speaking of books, she (LeSage) also finds books about male homosexuals written by women. Sweet love stories of sweet young men. Again, the opposite of what the usual books are, lesbian sex written for men. Only sexy women will do.

What we are in reality usually doesn’t fit the molds or stereotypes. As she says, the cover of the book has Spartan helments, and they are empty and hollow and imposing and hard. Is that a good view on life?

The question is obvious? Why do homosexuals have to fit a pattern? And why are WE trying to force our idea of a good pro-gay on the community almost as much as the bigots do? And why are we so worried about which is the best term to call ourselves? Why must there be only one acceptible term? Why must we have a hetero type marriage? And how is that working for the heteros? (See current articles on growing number of single moms, growing number of heterosexuals who are living together and NOT marrying.)