Democrats and Obama should be thankful they lost in 2000 and 2004

What would rightwing politicians and religious people would have said and done if either Al Gore or Sen. Kerry had been running the "show" for the last 8 years? Karl Rove would have been a piker compared to the vicious attacks and accusations made against Democrats, and probably the result would be that no Democrat could get elected for at least 50 years.

So the question is, how many "real" Republicans are aware of why Democrats are saying that "W" has done a bad job? The present administration has turned the ideas of what is "conservative" and "liberal" completely upside down.

And the arrogant "religious" people who have attacked Democrats for being "liberal" on sex are queerly silent when their vice presidential candidate has a daughter who is pregnant outside of marriage. It seems that is ok since she (Palin) did not abort a child that would be handicapped. Would they be that lenient with Democrats trying to use such "justification" and thinking? Not to go into the fact, as I understand it, that everyone one of the Palin children is a high school dropout. How can any objective person not see that family, a "conservative" family and compare it to a "liberal" family like the Obama family and see the hypocrisy?

So it could be that Obama, with all of his qualifications, might not have won if Gore and Kerry had not lost. As the saying goes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways."

Gays Shut Out of Obama's Cabinet - An Advocate Exclusive

I am showing my age and my background under ONE, Inc. people, who as the record shows did not get involved in politics (we could have as, until ISHR we were not tax-exempt) because we knew that no matter who was elected, they would only be there for a few years and when they left we would have to start educating the next people to get elected. Some of the communityneed to work in this field. Others work in the legal field, winning lawsuits and trying to change the laws, which are permanent.

Now, who are these "gays" we wanted to be apponted, as token gays? Who that has been appointed is less qualified than what gay? Do we need affirmative action? The courts are stopping such laws. I don't know who all these poeple are and while I recognize that I can't know everyone or every website or read every book, etc, I know of NO ONE in our community that I would want to have in the cabinet. Do we want Obama to appoint the leaders who lost on Prop 8? I sure want Barney Frank and the other few elected people from our community wherethey are-not many people are more powerful than he is.

Today Americans, a slight majority, have shown that they will vote for a woman, a inter-racial person—even make him president, and in a few cases a openly homosexual person. I see no reason to tell anyone else they can't be appointed because the cabinet or whatever has to have a token gay.

And what poll says he was elected by a gay vote, or even a black vote. Obama won because he got a few more votes than McCain from every ethnic and age and poliical group. He owes no one group any control over his decisions. AND, we don't want any special favors. We want him to make our nation better, for everyone. And that would mean appointing the best qualified people he knows of. And i sure didn't appoint HRC or the Task Force or any "gay" group or person tospeak for me. We can't even get our community to work together on issues, since some oppose others-rodeo fans against PETA fans, atheists against religious people, old against young, female against male, transvestites against transsexuals, etc.

I go against Don Slater's warning and close with a seemingly unrelated thought. I doubt Dr.King would have been any more influential if he had been elected to some office. And I propose that each day Al Gore and Kerry and all Democrats thank their god that they lost. Can you honstly deny that had they been the ones who created this total mess, war, economy, civil liberties problems, etc, that Democrats would have been attacked so viciously by the right-wingers, we would have been out of power for 50 years. The question of their integrity is why they have not attacked the Bush/Republicans.

Some negative thoughts on George Chauncey's book: Gay New York

In a sense I am asking what others thought about the book Chauncey did on Gay New York, and with only a small thought on Gay L.A. and anticipating criticism of Todd White's coming book, Pre-Gay L.A.

It seems strange to be reading it and thinking about it in this season, but I came across it and glanced at it and wanted to share my thoughts and wonderwhat others thought.

In the first place, like too many critics, I am upset that he didn't write the book I expected. After rereadng the phrase on the cover, sayhing that it is in part about urban culture I guess that excuses him for writing a book on historical New York and using gay men as a catalyst, rather than vice versa.

So what I got is a history of New york mainly on prohibition, black cultureand Harlem, and how drag queens were mixed in all of this, such as at gay ballas, but also in straight nigh clubs, etc.

And it sure seems to me that what he says in the intro is the opposite of what we get in the text. Which is good since I disagree with his ascertion that ays werfe out in those days. His text proves otherwise, except for drag queens of course.

It is a good guide to the businesses of New York, the cafes, cafeterias, night clubs, housing, and drag queens hung around these places, with and without acceptance.

What he says and shows is what we have said all of our existence as a resource on homosexual issues at ONE/HIC. It was nonsense for some closet types to come into our offices and say, oh life was (usually only on a holiday or living unlike the locals) wonderful in Mexico, Holland, or some other place. What we got from visitors who LIVED in those places was, of course, oh, life is so good here in America.

And as to the terms, such as closet, he is not very accurate. The list of who he talked to includes Dorr Legg and Harry Hay—I always question the "professionalism" of a researcher who comes to the main source of early gay history—Southern California, and only talks to a few people who MADE that history andignores what might have been a diffeent view from others, such as obviously Don Slater. But we sure did use the term closet in the early ’60s.

And it is strange that he uses up the first 25 or so pages talking about the terms gay, etc, and yet ignores the history from the founders of early Mattachine and ONE Inc. Of course these were not in New York. And what he has to say about drag queens in New York is probably exactly the same "history" as in Los Angeles.

And after reading all these pages about bar raids, organizations urging the law to attack places homosexuals-meaning drag queens hang out at- how can he say that there was a gay world in New York in these years?

Why are we then, or now, to accept drag queens as THE gay world? What per cent of homosexuals in New York, or L.A., were "out" in those years? Where are their institutions? Drag Balls, which seem to have been well known and attended by non-gays?

It is interesting that he does in a sense point out that the reason why it was the lower class whites who "accepted" queers—which term was first used, then opposed and today is back in use—was because they were not worried about their "standing" or masculinity when the ones they were dealing with were pseudo women.

What is more troubling, then and now, is what I see as the black community NOT liking homosexuals, who were the only whites who would interact with blacks. Blacks wanted "normal" whites to interact, that would have made them feel equal. They had no need to feel equal to drag queens who were certainly not liked by 'average" white.

It confirms what a Jew said in the civil rights era. I think it was in a small publication called a Minority of One (Mississippi) when the editor said Jews did not feel very helped by having having such minorities as Unitarians come to a meeting. They would have actual progress only when good ole Southern Baptists showed up, That would indicate that real society was accepting them and wanted to work with them. Drag queens were not an are not "real" society, even real gay society.

The book I wanted could have been doen well in about a thired he length of this book. There are too many "examples" given to make a point, over and over. How many names of bars do I need to get the point? I do find speculation that prohibition caused gay bars to come interesting—but I had that from many books talking about how prohibition was a total failure and caused more harm than good-again, unintended consequences of the rightwing religious people-no matter how good their intentions. But that is not a gay world.

And I don't accept the "research" on how different ethnic groups(?)— how many Italians or Irish dealt with drag queens— accepted or didn't accept drag queens—again they did not deal with the normal homosexuals then.

I have no dog in this fight. I just have been in an office (and publication) open daily for anyone seeking information on homosexuality, from the ’60s to the ’90s, and find any book or claim that goes against our 30 or 40 years of experience must meet a high standard to be believed. This book does not come close. Did he have an agenda to start with?

The future of religion in America may depend on the future of homosexuals in America

I think for me at least, the few words of Wayne Besen in his article in the Seattle Gay News of December 12th say all that we need to think about what homosexual Americans must believe and understand about our future civil rights and the affect on them by religious people and groups.

In the middle of the good article he says, "We must still work to enlighten the flock where we can, but fundamentalist leaders will only transform their anit-gayviews when popular opinion decidedly turns against them-as it did with race relations in the 1960s and 1970s."

That is how we must understand our work. And as a obscure thought on the views of the religious right on the sanctity of marriagve, I would refer them to two mentions on the subject of how marriage was used in the early days by one church group against another. The mentions are in an old book, published in 1940, which not only discussed the important issues such as how the Baptists were such strong supporters of the separation of church and state, but how the southern churches so easily left the main church to use the Bible to promote slavery, etc, and the authors were from (and the book is was published by) the University of Chicago.

In the book A Short History of Christianity, in discussing the early church in France, on page 179, it says, about the attempt to overcome Catholic opposition to Protestant churches, with the "church in the Desert," "Its services were celebrated in secret, and its members were without civil rights. Because marriages at which its ministers officiated were deemed void, Protestants were all legally illegitimate." And on page 234, talking abot religion in England, it says,"...but all other protestant bodies were shut out and their ministers were not permitted to perform marriage ceremonies."

I wonder how the religious right fundamentalists answers such clear evidence of how the church has abused the words of the Bible and theology in the past and is doing so today. Is it too much to say that it is not the homosexuals who are on trial, and it may be that the ones who have to change to survive are the religious right.

What Obama could say to young Christians and/or homosexuals: We live in the real world

There seems to be a loss of reality on the part of many Americans, no matter what their religious, political or sexual beliefs are. There seems to be no intellectual understandng of the connection between the passage of Proposition 8 in the bluest state in the nation and the hollering about a preacher who is going to give a prayer at the Inauguration of Obama.

There needs to be a reminder of the words used against Obama during the election. Specifically these words are STILL hurting his attempt to change America. The evidence can be found, among other places in the real world, on the front page of The (Shreveport LA) Times of yesterday, reporting on the conflict in Claiborne Parish over not only the mistreatment of a black student who was overly eager after Obama's election, but more important, the fact that during the election a teacher circulated literature claiming Obama was the anti-Christ.

Now think about how to combat this continuing attack on Obama from the radical nutty-usually "religious"-right that will undercut his ability to make any good changes, and then add an attack on his coming administration from those on the left and some homosexuals over his invitation of a preacher (Warren) to lead a prayer at the inauguration.

Hopefully the youth of America will know enough history to understand how much better America is today for all minorities than it was even a decade ago, much less how life for blacks and homosexuals was in the civil rights days of the 1950s and 60s when their parents were marching for the right to even vote, and get an education in schols not divided by race.

That is what Obama needs to remind us, and ask for a little help from all of us, no matter who we voted for or how much hope we have for his administration.

"Winter reading" articles/books in Dec/Jan 08 issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review

It is good to have good reading and lists of resources during the cold weather. It seems we didn't get a time of "rest" from the 24 hour news "talkers" since the moment the election was settled we had the coverage of the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

Both events got many people to seriously thinking about what the future holds and who gets credit and blame for what happens. I would hope the "leaders' of the community/movement would take time to think about our issues, some of which are covered by the articles-mostly based on books, plus book reviews, in this issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review.

Sometimes we can be so busy being busy and just marching in the streets that we don't have time to read a book or sit down and have a discussion of the issues and how best to deal with them. A good resource would be some of the articles, such as the two on sodomy laws—"Sodomy in the land of the Magna Carta" and "The fate of sodomy laws in the U. S." Homosexual pioneer and my former co-worker Don Slater would sure like the phrase in the latter article..."Another factor was a libertarian conviction that the private sphere be protected from state intrusion."

But as to beng active, the article on the work against Dr. Laura is good.

I do wonder about the statistics on how many books are published each year-2,000 and G&LR gets 400 for review, since I keep hearing that books aren't selling, and newspapers are folding.But perhaps they should be putting pictures of cowboys on the covers-as in your article "Cowboys on the cover of a magazine." (Think even earlier than Brokeback Mountain.)

Some of the books in ads sound interesting-but most of us will never be able to see them as few libraries will know of them, even those from university presses. Two examples are Gay Rights and Moral Panic, by Fred Fejes (Palgrave Macmillan), and Respectably Queer, by Jane Ward (Vanderbilt University Press).

I think it is good to have a sort of bulletin board telling of research being done on aspects of homosexuality, as G&LR has in the back pages.

News from Houston in the December issue of OutSmart Magazine

The December issue of OutSmart is good, starting with the good cover, all the good people at a protest against the passage of CA's Prop 8, and then the good article inside. I feel the bigots actually lost, as it got people involved in the cause that would not have been active if it had been defeated, in which case most people would have just thought things were so good they could relax and get apathetic.

I do hope Lt. Mark Timnmers (on November's cover) finds a good new job. And good to "hear" Ray Hill and his suggestion about the grand marshall.

I especially liked Nancy Ford's "letter to Harvey Milk." I also have wanted to let the pioneers of our civil right smovement know what has happned in the short time since they left us-most in the 90s. Ss she says, honestly, oh, the things you have missed.

I personally would not have given much publicity to the book by Thomas Beatie, who is a lousy pr person for homosexual and transgender issues. He/she is exactly guilty of what our enemies say about us. He wants it both ways. I know there is disagreement in our community/movement over what objectives we are seeking-Don Slater and the people at ONE Magazine sought civil rights, but also the right to privacy, a basic right. This person violates that goal by seeking publicity. It is wrong to be ashamed of being gay. we should not care what others think of us. It is another to either seek "approval" of our sexuality, or exploiting it, as is done in this case.

Guest Blogger: David Thorstad

In Appreciation of Eleanor Cooper

December 10, 2008


During the mid-1970s, when I was president of Gay Activists Alliance, GAA and Lesbian Feminist Liberation frequently collaborated in joint speaking appearances before college and high-school classes, and in fleeting gay and lesbian coalitions, mostly in support of a gay rights bill in the New York City Council. But in 1977, in the wake of Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children (from homosexuality) campaign, my collaboration with Eleanor went into high gear and continued for several years. It is a period I look back on with fond memories and thankfulness at the spirit of cooperation and common struggle that she so much helped to facilitate.

This was a time when many lesbians had left gay groups to form their own organizations. Some found it odd that lesbian separatists, as LFLers considered themselves to be, would so soon agree again to work together with gay men. Anita Bryant can be thanked for that, because many lesbians retained a suspicion, and in some cases a hostility, about joining with men in common causes, even where they retained their independence and separate identity. I often talked with Eleanor about this, and her approach was pragmatic (it was in both our interests to join in some common endeavors), even though occasionally tensions between male and female groups would surface.

This was the atmosphere in which I got to know Eleanor well. She, Father Leo Joseph of the Church of the Beloved Disciple, and I became the spokespeople for a new, broad coalition of dozens of gay and lesbian groups, political and religious, radical and liberal, leftist and Democrat, called the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights. For a couple of years, CLGR became the main vehicle for New York-area groups to come together in struggle. We organized protest marches, pickets, TV appearances, public forums, meetings with politicians to press our cause, and, in February 1979, played an important role in the conference in Philadelphia that called the first march on Washington in October that year.

Although Eleanor and I didn’t associate much outside of our joint political activities, those were so intense that we were in almost daily touch with each other. There was never any tension or unpleasant feelings between us. She was honest, openly voicing her opinions, warm, always ready to chuckle or, sometimes, to put her foot down at what seemed to her to be misguided or foolish attitudes. Thinking back on those years, it is striking how much fun they were, how much laughter and hilarity existed side by side with our serious efforts to mobilize gay visibility and militancy. A sense of humor was always close to the surface.

I can’t forget the mirth when, at one CLGR steering committee meeting, we discussed the widely believed rumor that a city councilman from Staten Island who had voted against a gay rights bill was gay. We tossed around ideas about how we could expose him. One of us proposed a leaflet showing City Hall with the Staten Island ferry sitting atop it, and the caption: “What is the State Island fairy doing on the City Council?” The laughter went on for several minutes. To this day I regret that we didn’t distribute such a leaflet (could we be sued? would it be legal? would it be counterproductive?). But the fun we had considering it made it worthwhile.

We also organized the first big protest at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, during which one of our demands was “Separate Church and State!” I believe that was the first time that demand had been raised at a gay and lesbian demonstration. Flo Kennedy was one of the speakers. “It’s time to stop sucking and start biting!” she told the crowd in her inimitable style.

Another protest involving the New York State Coalition of Gay Organizations (NYSCO) was held in 1976 at Madison Square Garden during the Democrat convention. I had proposed we stage a love-in as part of it, with naked couples having sex in the street. That was not taken seriously, as it would have resulted in too many arrests. Still, the leaflet to publicize the protest took at its fun slogan one from the Gay Liberation Front: “Do you think homosexuals are revolting? You bet your sweet ass we are!”

Once some leftists, including the Workers World Party and the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (a group of straight white radicals who came out of the Weather Underground and who viewed their role as merely supporting the Black Panthers and anything third world peoples wanted, and whose style was to guilt-trip anyone else who thought their own issues were also important), proposed that CLGR organize child care at every meeting. I opposed it on the grounds that no one had yet demonstrated that they wouldn’t be able to come to meetings because they had kids to take care of. Eleanor too thought it was merely a disruptive proposal. But we all agreed to try it and see how it would work. As a joke, and to irritate those who brought the motion, I proposed that pederasts be in charge of organizing the child care (as had been done by a Trotskyist group in Belgium at their national conference). No one ever brought a child to a meeting.

In the late seventies, I had a boyfriend for a while who was in his early teens, and I shared this news with Eleanor. She never condemned it. Quite the contrary. She would occasionally ask, “How’s your friend?”

CLGR held a large conference at Columbia University to plan a march on the United Nations. Prairie Fire tried to disrupt the meeting by accusing us of racism for organizing a protest on the same weekend—though not even on the same day!—as one they claimed was planned by the American Indian Movement. Like most of us, Eleanor was furious at them. (To my knowledge, the AIM event never happened.)

I mention this because a new issue at this time was what was called “lesbian motherhood.” (Gay fathers didn’t have the same cachet or urgency, and perhaps there weren’t so many of them.) The issue surfaced at the Philadelphia conference in February 1979 that called the march on Washington when it was proposed that a demand to “support lesbian mothers” be added to the list of official demands. I spoke against the motion, arguing that motherhood was not always seen by gay men as a positive institution, but rather was often experienced as part of our oppression. The motion was defeated, and afterwards Eleanor told me that she too had opposed it. She found the issue an irritant: “Some of us have managed all these years not to get pregnant,” she said, dismissing the whole thing. At the time, I found that sensible, coming from a militant lesbian. How quaint such debates seem these days, when so many same-sexers can’t wait to get the marriage ball and chain and to have kids. In the 1970s, same-sexers were not yet in a rush to imitate heterosexuals the way they are today.

The only time I can recall when I felt she let me down was when a few men and women went to a bar after a meeting, and I mentioned that I considered circumcision to be mutilation and child abuse of baby boys. All the lesbians dismissed my concern as not to be taken seriously. Of course, hardly anyone was even talking about circumcision back then, so ignorance about the issue generally prevailed.

Ours was a collaboration of genuine affection and mutual respect. “You have integrity,” she told me once, by way of explaining how it was that we worked together so well. The same was true of her, and also of Betty Santoro, the other main activist from LFL working in coalition at the time.

In those days, every once in a while some innocent guy at a meeting would use the word “lady.” He would regret it when the lesbians present would hoot at him and give him an unforgettable consciousness raising on proper language. But Eleanor had an extermination business that she called “Lady Killers.” She guaranteed six months of no cockroaches after her thorough treatment. She didn’t use poisons, but boric acid, plus a “secret ingredient,” which I deduced was probably sugar. She charged about fifty dollars and her work was far more effective than the exterminator who squirted sticky and smelly goo once a month.

I lost touch with Eleanor years ago, but often thought of her, and always fondly. Like everyone who knew her, her passing is a huge loss.

See Eleanor's obituary in the Gay City News

Milk ... it does a body good.

Guest Blogger: Aristide Laurent

I saw Milk today. I left the theater sobbing (well, more like sniffling … I’m much too macho to sob openly). It was like I was transported back 30 years in time and I was young and active and life was good again — and fun, fun, fun — thanks to the burgeoning sexual liberation!!! Over half of the audience in the Vista Theater were either not born then or very small children during that decade of revolution. I would like to have asked them what the movie was like to them, people who had not lived through the severe prejudice, brutality and struggles of the 1970s — the bar raids, the beatings, the murders. Those of us who lived through “The Castro Era” bear a special affinity with what was unfolding on the screen. I would guess that it would be a totally personal experience to each of us according to how active and/or involved each of us was during that historical period of resistance. Not everyone lived in Buena Vista Park or Jaguar books as “some” of us did ... wink! wink!

I hope my tenants go see it and let me know what the movie felt like or meant to them as free agents in a world entirely different from the world many of us knew in the 1970s. They, like so many other younger gays, have had their first experience with activism with the passage of Prop 8. So let me say: Welcome to “our” world, guys. I am happy to know that a new generation of gays and straights are not willing to settle for second class citizenry. Thank you. Obviously the struggle is not over.

I cannot “rate” or review the movie as a film because I was too much a part of it to be critically objective.

Scotty (played by Franco) was, in the lingo of the ’70s ”TO DIE FOR”!!! His nude swimming scene — Ohhhh daddy…

Two things to complain about (aha! You knew it — there he goes!!) … 1) the guy who played David Goodstein was entirely TOO butch. Goodstein was a piss-elegant pig (just my opinion, of course); and 2) the movie needed more Sylvester to set the mood of what was a really fun time in spite of all the prejudice and fear which we had to constantly be aware of every minute of the day. For such a really heavy movie there should have been more comic or musical relief (again, my opinion). It was pretty much a downer from start to finish. But a good downer.

Sean Penn & Josh Brolin were absolutely perfect in their roles!! The art of a really good actor is that the viewer sees only the character they are playing and not the famous star who is portraying them.

That's my opinion and I’m sticking with it. I welcome rebuttals.

Some unpleasant thoughts on putting gay marriage in perspective and black Ameicans and marriage/family

Most people try to be fair and to not hurt the feelings of others. Then there are bigots who are clear about their views and bigots who are secretly bigots. It might be better for us to know our enemies, both types.

First, though, let's put gay marriage in perspective, not only in the movement to gain equal/civil rights for homosexual Americans, and then how non-homosexuals, in the past and present, view us. That is easy to answer. Just ask yourself how many people would have voted to give and keep marriage to homosexuals in 1950, or 1960 even.

The fact is that no one would have. Why has that changed? Start with the fact that (not ignoring a short try in Chicago in the 20s-Henry Gerber et al) in 1950 a group of people met—in secret—in Los Angeles and formed an organization to educate homosexuals about themselves. Then from that (Mattachne) organization came the magazine to educate everyone, homosexal and non-homosexual about homosexuality. And the organization behind ONE Magazine started the first public effort to serve the needs of the community/movement-education, social service, legal, psychological, religious, etc.

Then came the new" Mattachine and the Daughters of Bilitis, with chapters in several cities and their publications, Mattachine Review, and The Ladder. And then each year there grew up organizations and publications in major cities all over the nation, and groups started specializing-some covered legal issues, some religious, some political, some social service, etc.

And finally the media started giving our work publicity, and today the situation is reversed- now it is we who are marching in the streets against the bigots, where in the former times we were in the closet and the bigots were in control. Now it is they who are considered bad, not us.

So now that we have major gay/lesbian newspapers in major cities, with lots of ads from major businesses, and we get on tv shows and have major politicial offices, and notice of the President of the United States, and no sodomy laws, with major corporations giving us domestic partner benefits and most Americans saying they believe in us having equal rights, including the "rights" of marriage, we can face the major issue that has been before us from the start.

Our enemy is religion-all religions. All the different faiths and different churches in Christianity agree we are bad. Their books says so. They ignore most of what else their "books" say, but on this they are sure. If homosexuals are acceptable, then the world is destroyed. And the one thing they have been able to keep control of so far is marriage. They have lost on most of their misreading of the books-since the books approve of slavery, women being quiet, the divine right of kings, and the books even tell us that we are wearing the wrong clothing, eating the wrong foods, etc.

Now who among these "religious" groups are the most against homosexual marriage? Black Americans. They, who have suffered from the misuse of the Bible. Why is it that they also are the minority of citizens who, despite all the preaching of their (heterosexual) preachers have over 70% of their "families" led by unmarried women? They who seem NOT to need marriage are the ones trying to keep homosexuals from having the right to marriage? Is it jealousy? Or what? But even though they obviously are not following the teachngs of Jesus, they rush to quote-not Jesus, who never mentioned homosexuals-a book to "explain" their behavior and beliefs. One wonders if they are trying to convince themselves or the homosexuals.

To complain, as those fine Mormons do-who until very recently rejected black men as priests and with whom blacks seem to have formed an anti-gay alliance-that homosexuals are "using" the civil rights movement of others to gain their rights is hard to understand. A little bit of history should remind us all of similar issues at the time blacks and women were seeking the right to vote-denied them in the Constitution, each group asking that they be first. Never mind the issue of polygamy in the Mormon history, past and present.

No matter how unpleasant this sounds, it is factual and we must sooner or later deal with this issue, as America must finally deal with racism, and many people are hopeful that during an Obama administration this will happen. It is certainly not an issue pleasant to think about, especially for black homosexual Americans, who suffer doubly, or black female homosexuals who suffer even more-even though women are not a minority.

America must take a stand on racism, homophobia, equal rights for all, even as we face financial problems and attacks from terrorists-mostly radical Islamists. This is all the more reason for intelligent Americans to see the need for separation of church and state, which is NOT what the Islamists seek, nor some radical Christians. Homosexuals just are the first to see the danger from religion, and it must sooner or later be understood by black Americans that while they deserately seek to be more Christian than white Americans, they will not do it on moral issues where they are wrong. And a small point that may solve the problem and not to their satisfaction-very soon black Americans AND white Americans will be a minority and they will have less political power. It may be such minorities need to work together-not aganst each other, as Hispanics and Asians become the majority in America, as they are in most of the world.

Internet Communication

As I got up early this morning, I decided to send email and reflected over how computers/the internet has changed all of our lives.

I remember how slow I was to use the fax, and how much money Don Slater et al. spent on phone bills and stamps, and how much times writing letters takes. And paper, a typewriter perhaps.

I've said it before, but it is frustrating to have this great tool and Don didn't have it. Think of how much better, his work would have been-easier, etc, if he could have just sent his good thinking out, and kept it in his email file.

Count the number of emails I sent this morning, I think 5, but I sent each of them to dozens of people. Now perhaps they didn't want them, but that is irrelevant: it cost me nothing, and at least they can't say that they never heard the views expressed, often not mine but those of someone I think are worth sharing. I will send copies of this to Jim Schneider and others, as the point is valid for them too.

The internet gets me the news and I use the internet to then share it, pass it along, often with my thoughts, just as Jim Kepner did in the Tangents column in ONE Magazine. I doubt most of us would communicate as we do if we had to phone or write letters—this is so fast, and easy, even if we write shallow things, it is easy to glance a an email and delete it. And in rare cases, as in looking back at some of Jim's articles, and thoughts, we can learn from what was said in the 50s and 60s and remember how it was and perhaps use the information today.

Maybe even now there would not be the interest, but think about what Dorr could do with his lectures, he could do them onlikne-I stilldon't undersgtand it, but there are apparently several universities ONLY online, one sponsored by Western State Governors.

Even though our enemies can also use this resource, it is “sinful” for us and our community/movement not to use this resource (you could say God-given?).

Column in The (Shreveport) Times (12-2-08): Obama (family)sets new example

Your thoughts in a column in the local Gannett paper (The Times) this Tuesday, with the heading "Obama sets new example" is very timely.

You point out to people complaining that there is little "change" seen so far in the coming Obama administration, the change is Obama himself.

But it is your point that the Obama family is also a change. This young, black, happy family should not only be a good example for young black citizens who now see over 70% of black women having babies with being married, but it tells young black men who have been raised in a single parent family, without a father around, that another black child raised in such an environment is now the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person in the world. And he got there by being intelligent, not ignoring educational opportunities.

I would like to direct your attention to how this also could be relevant to the issue of same sex marriage. It is clear that many black male heterosexual preachers have failed with their preaching to get their community to honor marriage. Yet these same men put their energy in opposing homosexual men and women whodo want marriage.

Is it possible that these men are on the defensive because they have failed and are jealous that members of another minority community do want to practice what they preach? What a thought-black Christians who seek a special right-to marry, that was denied them under Christian slave owners, and want to deny this right to homosexuals.

Open Letter to Patricia Nell Warren about her article on Mormons,gays and marriage

Regarding Blog Post by Patricia Nell Warren on Marriage, Polygamy, and Gays

Only by accident, thanks to the link I found on Daily Queer News, did I know of the information in your article (on Bilerico) on the plans of the Mormon church, Muslims and radical "Christians" to seek, to (essentially) eliminate DOMA so that they can have polygamy.

I hate to complain about the messenger, but this is extremely important information and obviously I would think every part of our media would be talking about it-certainly since it is these groupsthat seek to keep marriage from homosexuals. So why is this not covered elsewhere and before? Did the people supposedly working on the No on 8 campaign know of this aspect? I don't understand why this would not have been a good talking point.

I don't know how to deal with the facts reported without making our community/movement appear anti-religious, BUT it is clear that religion is anti-us.

But why have I not heard, for instance, that Texas already allows special rights for one religious group, Muslims, while it attacks another religious group, Mormons, over the same issue-marriage and children's and womens' rights?

With the risk of sounding racist, I do want to hear how the black, heterosexual, male preachers, who worked with the Mormons to keep homosexuals from equal marital rights, using the Bible, explain (knowing that Mormons didn't allow blacks equal rights in their church for many years) what they nowthink about the Mormon's integrity. And do they agree that Muslims should be allowed to have more than one wife and, in some cases, put their extra wives on welfare?

Where do we place this problem in America's list of problems, the war against Radical Islamist terrorists, the financial failures, etc?

Thank you for letting us know of this deceit of the Mormons-as if we were not already aware of their lies, etc. But please hlep us know your thoughts on what we can do to stop this threat to our American way of life, by religious fanatics of all types, all of whom, of course, hate homosexuals.

Sincerely,
Billy Glover
Co-founder of the Homosexual Information Center

Thanksgiving

Here's something to think about. The bigots were right when they supported slavery, then when that failed, segregation of the races (by force, not by personal force). They were right when they said mixing of the "races" would lead to marriage, etc. Well, now they have proof. See: the next president of the United States, an interracial man, the result of allowing interracial marriage. Or Tiger Wood, et al. They were right even though "liberals then- and now- denied such "results" of working to bring our nation into conformity with the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (except the slavery part) and Bill of Rights. Their fears were justified.

The were right, when they said allowing homosexuals rights would lead to acceptance and even marriage—see Scalia’s thought in the Lawrence v Texas Supreme Court decision. See Barney Frank, possibly the most powerful person in the nation, during these bad economic times. And all the homosexuals on tv, etc. They were right.

They were right when they said giving women the right to vote would lead to women wanting to gain power and not obeying their husband—assuming of course that all women would be married and that—as the laws provided—the women and children would no longer be the property of the man. And now? Look at the head of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. Look at Hillary Clinton, look at Sarah Palin, et al. They were right.

Perhaps in the effort to change things, we should consider that the bigots may see thing clearer than we do—many homosexuals have pointed out that other people, usually bullies and bigots, spotted that they were homosexual before they even knew or thought about it.

It may not lead to a change in tactics. But the battle over Proposition 8 in California may be the catalyst that finally forces the nation to think about sexuality. We are swamped by all the good discussion on all aspects of homosexuality brought up by the passage of the Proposition—perhaps forcing thinking that would not have been done if the Proposition had failed by a small vote. That would have made people think the war had been won when it has not been.

Perhaps we should be thankful that we lost.

Killings in Mumbai—why? And who—victim and killers

I am only going to say this as I, like most humans, keep trying to find a “reason” and understand why some humans can do such things, and wonder if these are the same types who were telling lies to get Prop 8 passed.

But the interesting thing is that it is the rich and famous who are the targets in many of these attacks now, no matter what the reasons.. In our movement/community history, and probably that of all minorities and all of us, period, it has been the poor, powerless who were victims, as, say in gay bar raids. The rich either held their gay events at expensive places that the cops were afraid to raid, or they could buy their way out—that was always my explanation for why a very gay city, New Orleans, was so slow to get a movement for homosexual rights.

Now it will be interesting if these rich travelers, enjoying the good life in some fancy hotel in India, or elsewhere, finally have to face reality as our military people are—to protect them—and the prop 8 might force the celebrities to realize that they also are going to be hurt by anti-gay bigots, in church and out. And theones woo were always in power, no matterwhich political party,are now going to have to suffer or join the rest of us in making changes.


No more will the rich be able to travel all over the world and not face danger as the rest of us have all of our lives. I wonder how the average person in India—and I think today also in Thailand thinks about the rich now having to worry about the things they do.

And again, if this is the work of religious extremists, of which India has more than its share, then it is time that the rich and powerful start doing something to stop religion from being more harm than good, as the rest of us have known and experienced for years.

I reject any lies from the rightwingers that this sounds socialist—since it is the average person's taxes that are being given to the rich bankers, etc, so they are the ones practicing and benefitting from socialism. We are paying for their “business” trips to exotic lands in expensive planes, hotels, and as they eat expensive food that they are not paying for.

Columnists Mike Reagan and Michelle Malkin in The Times (Shreveport), 11-22-08

We should wonder, in this time of so many blogs, do any of the people blogging and writing opinion columns ever read/hear what others are saying?

I would hope Michelle Malkin, would come out of her closet and hear what Mike Reagan is saying—in his column just above her column in today’s paper (11-22-08).

It should amaze her, asit does me, as he is saying things I don't think he has said when it mattered, during the recent presidential campaign. He says the problem with the Republican Party is that it is balkanized, which has been what elitist talk show “experts” have said when talking about the Democratic Party—or “Democrat” party as they say, pimping for the Republicans.

And each faction flasely claims to be followers of his father, President Reagan. Sounds like most religious leaders to me, which is one of the factions destroying the party. They vote on only one issue.

And a major thought from him—sounding like Obama’s words about us being one nation and not a red or blue nation—he says instead of being a faction based on one person, “…we need to be just plain Republicans.”

Instead, Malkin is dong her usual whining, playing victim to all those mean “gays“ who protest when their civil rights are taken away by a small majority of voters who have believed the lies of the Mormon and Catholic church and a few black heterosexual preachers who quote from the Bible that kept their ancestors in slavery for hundreds of years. Not very smart—Malkin or the preachers—as history will soon prove.

Gay marriage is not the “final answer” to getting equality for homosexual Americans

There is a TV quiz show in which the contestant is asked, “Is that your final answer?” It seems that for many newcomers to the homosexual community—most of whom have no idea about the movement—gay marriage is the only answer, and question.

And apparently these shallow citizens, most of whom have never been activists, nor given much thought to the issues of being homosexual unless they have been harmed by their family or other students, have thought about running away to Canada or some “paradise” for “gays” after hearing of the anti-gay vote in California, Arizona, etc.

Like all Americans, these citizens would not enjoy what this nation has to offer—nor would there BE a nation—if our founders had thought and acted as these young citizens are. It took brave people to even start this nation and the civil rights movements of America, for blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. Thinking Americans, and certainly black Americans, are saying, as we prepare to have the first black American president, that it took Rosa Parks on a bus, and Dr.King and others walking and sitting, to get Obama to the White House (which black slaves built). Where are the homosexuals saying that we have gotten to almost having marriage and not having sodomy laws because homosexuals in the 1950s and every decade since, met in secret, and then published a magazine in public, and fought legal cases and picketed newspapers and talked on TV shows to get gay marriage today?

And every step of the way there were those, in, and out, of the movement, who complained that we didn’t do it the right way, or we were using the wrong term, or we chose one aspect to work on rather their “their” issue, or that by pushing one issue, such as homosexuals serving openly in the military, we harmed some other problems. We were told to never deal with young people as it would make us get accused of molesting children. We were told to not attack churches or religion as that would make us enemies. We were told to try to “get along” with the “helping” professions as they would cause trouble if we attacked them—as if pychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, attorneys, etc, were not already harming us—sending us to mental hosptials or making molney from counselng us to change us, etc.

So here we are in the 21st century, with no sodomy laws, major corporations giving us equal treatment, gay-friendly media for themost part, with community/movement organizatiolnsand publications serving every aspect of our lives; young people (GLSEN), The Point Foundation, g/l groups at most colleges; the military (SLDN, Palm Center); legal issues (Lambda Legal, GLAD, NCLR); religion (Dignity, Integrity, Affirmation, Kinship); community service (gay/lesbian centers in every major city, and now resources preserving the history of how we got here: Quatrefoil (Minneapolis/St Paul), Gerber Hart (Chicago), Stonewall (Fort Lauderdale),Lavender (Sacramento) ONE/HIC and Mazer (Los Angeles) etc.); and professional groups for medical doctors, anthropologists, police officers, journalists, politicians, etc.

What all of these “resources” have to do is know themselves. Sadly, we get little more on our subect from gay and lesbian journalists than we do from general journalists. What good has LOGO done for our knowledge of homosexual issues? And the same incompetent “news” we get from the 24/7 news shows, is what we get from most g/l news sources-only the “current” celebrity and issue coverage. We have no long term thinking. WE get 24 hour coverage on gay marriage while we hear little about other issues.

Our cause has made constant progress since 1950, no matter who was president, or how friendly the media was and with unpaid workers. Why have all the highly paid “professional gays” at HRC, The Task Force-once honestly known as the “Gay & Lesbian,” made less progress than we did—most major changes had started even before Stonewall. And it seems a few unpaid bloggers can reach more homosexuals and organize a major event in less than a week than well-paid staff can in years.

So onto the Internet, and unpaid but concrned people who care about being equal. Back to basics, such as knowing what homosexuality is. Knowing where each issue in our community/movement is on the totem pole. And knowledge that we don’t quit and run if we lose a battle in the war for civil rights.

Now is the time to really discuss the important issues of homosexuality

The election of Obama and the wide protests against the failure of the gay marriage rights in California tell us that this is the time to really discuss homosexuality. And no pioneer of our communiity/movement is more important in "thinking" about the basic issues of being homosexual. His writings from when he and others came out of early Mattachine to found and publish ONE Magazine and later the Homosexual Information Center are important in any discussion of issues.

Any historian and educator will need to read his thoughts in the magazine and the later issues of HIC's newsletter, which also contain views of Dorr Legg, Dale Jennings, Jim Kepner, Joseph and Jane Hansen, et al who formed he early movement.

This material is available on the website and in back issues soon to be on the website as well as in a few available copies available to those who donate to support the work of HIC.

Some of us support the protests, but don't personally seek the goal of marriage

I am not sure how to express my concerns with the wonderful protests against Prop 8, but several people have said the same thing-we older people should consider what the young ones seem to want. That is valid. BUT, how much thought has gone into concentratng on marriage as the "solving" of our civil rights problems as homosexuals, AND, how getting equal rights for homosexuals in marriage is affecting those citizens who do not want marriage but under our Constitition and Bill of Rights deserve equal rights-which come to us as individuals, not as a group, class, race, etc.

I of course am following the thoughts of one of our movement pioneers, Don Slater (co-founder of ONE, Inc in 1952 and The Homosexual Information Center in 1968 (and also ONE's funding arm, ISHR), whose thinking and activism seems so far to be on target. The one item he seemed to disagree with the CA court decision on is the idea of homosexuals being a "suspect class." He said and I agree, even though he, like most of the 2d group of our pioneers (as opposed to the founders, who were Communists) was a conservative Republican while I am a liberal Democrat, that if we appear to be asking for special rights, it will delay our victory. And he was consistent, as he oposed hate crime laws and affirmative actions.

Nancy Gibbs' article, on Obama's election, in the November 17th issue of Time Magazine

I don't want to fail to say how good Nancy Gibbs' writing and coverage of the election of Obama is. Even among lots of good coverage her words stand out.

Such words as, "you could almost walk from Maine to Minnesota without getting your feet wet in a red state" tells us clearly the results of the election and the "change." And it is good to point out that "More than a thousand people shouted "yes we can' outside the White House, where a century ago it was considered scandalous for a president to invite a black hero to lunch. "I like hearing her words, "the election of Obama has not just turned a page in our politics but also tossed out the whole book so we can start over." And the marvelous contrast in the words: Obama is saying (about people like his grandmother) 'They're not famous. Their names are not in the newspapers, but each and every day, the work hard." One day later, Madelyn Dunham's grandson would be he most famous man in the world." (Some politician should have her as a speech writer.)

Editorial in November issue of The Guide-Giving Gay Thanks (for being gay)

I have often wondered how most of your readers "deal" with the extremes of your articles—from serious, such as the editorials, to the reviews of sex videos, and the basic coverage of travel resources in different cities. Or does each reader just read the sections that interest him? I have often felt I was reading back issues of ONE/Tangents Magazine as the views of French Wall are like those of Don Slater and the editors of ONE.

The editorial in the current issue of The Guide on giving thanks for being gay is a perfect example. Most "gays" do not agree with your thinking, as they did not like the views when Don expressed them for two decades (52 to 72). Too many newbies to our community/movement have not spent the time to understand the consequences of terms they want to use to make them feel good and get "accepted." The problem, you point out, with saying "accept poor us, as we can't help being gay" is lousy pr even if "gays" think it is good pc thinking that will get us accepted and laws changed. It didn't seem to help on the marriage issue, and it is pathetic, victimology, that is not very "gay."

You are so right when you say it misses the whole point of "gay liberation," which is that it is society that is sick, not homosexuals.

One point on the "issue" of your coverage of cities around America and the world for gay consumers/travelers. I wonder how many gay travelers are interested not only in where to find gay bars and hotels, but also in learning about the situation in the city they are visiting. You do give (most of the time) the name of the local gay/lesbian newspaper, and the gay center, if there is one, but you seldom list a gay church, or gay library or archive or gay Front Runners club, or gay theater-as there are in L.A. Having lived most of my adult life in L.A., I thought your coverage was good (Yukon is closed), but since most of my life's work was (is) with ONE, Inc and the Homosexual Information center, both of which came out of early Mattacine, and thus are the first g/l organization still going, mainly as archives/libraries, I think they deserved mention-ONE being at USC (in a separate building) and HIC being at Cal State Northridge (in the library as a special collection), plus the Mazer Archives in West Hollywood. And since the Metropolitan Community Church started in L.A. it is a logical thing to mention, as several of its churches are in the area. But the point is that any "guide" will list the non-gay places, but a gay guide should list available resources.

I always like reading letters to the editor of publications as I like to see what other readers think about an article, etc, and in this case, if most people agreed or disagreed with your editorial, if they read it and what other people living in L.A. thought of your coverage. I hope they appreciate that your travel coverage is more uptodate than most guides, and that you stimulate thinking on issues of homosexuality.

Article on new home at KU of glbt archives (The Berdache Archives) in October issue of Liberty Press

I hope your readers appreciate the good news in the article by Matt Hanne that has the news that the material Bruce McKinney has collected and saved over the years, The Berdache Archives, is now at KU, Special Collections and that the University of Kansas person who helped place it there, Tami Albin, the Women's Gender and Sexuality studies special collections librarian understands the value of the material.

I had not heard of this collection, which for some years was located in the glbt center until it closed. (McKinney had started the collection when he started the Student Homophile Alliance at WSU, the name came from an article in Blue Boy magazine, about Native Americans,something Mattachine/movement founder Harry Hay would appreciate.

This once again points to the need for the community/movement to at least support the few such archives, much less trying to get others started. Let's hope that publications, such as The Advocate, will find space among its articles on celebrities, who want to thank their gay consumers, to report this good new resource that will be available not only to students, faculty and researchers in the MidWest, but perhaps online someday to everyone seeking knowledge of this historic part of the civil rights movement in America.

There needs to be a listing of our archives/libraries,that include this one and the few others, some held privately, such as Lesbian Herstory in New York, Lavender Library in Sacramento, Stonewall Library in Fort Lauderdale, Lambda Archives in San Diego, ONE Archives at USC (Los Angeles) and Mazer Archives in West Hollywood and some in educational institutions, such as Frank Kameny's at the Library of Congress, the Homosexual Information Center's archives at Cal State, Northridge-the Don Slater Collection, with Vern and Bonnie Bullough's Human Sexuality Collection.

We need to be proud of our history, celebrate it, add to it and save it for future generations.

Can we talk—about waiting for perfection and getting what we can each day for our civil rights?

The founders of our nation were willkng to risk their all to make us free and to set a goal of equal rights for all who would become Americans. The leaders were intelligent, and did not all agree on issues but put aside their disagremetns for the good of the cause.

The same thing can be said about the founders of the civil rights rights movement for homosexuals. They wisely understood that the then radical idea that homosexual Americans had equal civil rights was going to take a while to get across to even intelligent, thinking Americans, sadly including most homosexuals.

The main problem of any cause is that some people insist on perfection in order for them to support it. And it seems to me that the companion problem is, for instance, that many people, in ignorance, support and believe in some one or some idea that has a perfect answer, a simple answer, that doesn't take any thinking or study, or explanation, and doesn't leave room for doubt. They want instant certainty. That is why, for instance, the fundamentalist churches are successful more than the main stream ones that don't tell the believers that religion has the perfect answer for every issue, including ones never thought about by early Christians, etc.

A politician who promises instant solution to any problem may win, and even after years of his or her failure to actually solve the problem, many voters still keep trusting them, election after election. A church that promises that by just doing one thing, getting the right type baptism, or giving the right portion of income to the church will get you to heaven will get suport even when common sense tells us that that is not true.

Unfortunately, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals, and in our cause/movement/community we keep getting people who push their way to the front, get control of newspapers, organizations, and, like the bigots who want to force us all to follow their beliefs, thus taking away our right to choose, these sudden experts on all things homosexual—while they fervently tell us only to use the “right” terms—usually the word gay—spend their time, energy and space in publications attacking those who disagree with their beliefs, rather than attacking the real enemy: those bigots who want to, at the least, make us second-class citizens, and at worst (think radical Islamists) kill us.

So their prerception keeps them from the big picture, and they spend their time seeking for the small things. That is why, when a big, historic event happens, they miss the important point and focus on the small irrelevant word or idea included in the event. A perfect example again is the columnist in the Washington Blade, who hears Gov. Palin, and then Senator McCain actually say they have gay friends, and seek our vote which is a notable first for Republicans. What the columist "hears" is that Palin uses the word “choice.” Horrors!

Well, friends, no one hs the final anser as to much about sexuality, and certainly about homosexuality. And so no one can say that no one can use the word choice. No one has the authority to speak for our community/movement.

But I question the “gayness” of anyone who feels the need to force their beliefs on everyone else. It seems as though they are not comfortable being gay. And the most important point is that it is irrelevant, since our civil rights—and the civil rights of all Americans—do not depend on if we chose a lifestyle, or who we choose to have sex with, or our skin color, or gender. They are guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now if only certain U. S. Supreme Court Justices could learn of these documents, especially the Ninth Amendment. But those who want to speak for our community/movement have a duty to learn about homosexuality first, and our history. They don't have all the answers. Unless they are as fearful of democracy as the bigots who want to kill us.


Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now

Good and bad in current Washington Blade

The historic news that the Republican party's candidates for president and vice president have said they are gay-friendly is good, and I have suggested that people view the McCain interview in your publication, online.

You also did a good coverage of our community/movement loss of Del Martin. I have not seen coverage of the loss of John Burnside. But this is the time in our movement’s history, which essentially started in Los Angeles in 1950 with Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al. and early Mattachine, from which came the first public organization and publication, ONE Inc and ONE Magazine (Jan. 1953), and then a different Mattachine under Hal Call, and then Del and Phyllis and the Daughters of Bilitis, SIR, etc., when those who got us started are leaving us.

So it is good that Equality Forum and others are aware of just who did start this movement. The question is why they have not been able to cite the words of Don Slater, Jim Kepner, Stella Rush, or mention the history as recorded in the book Vern Bullough edited, Before Stonewall, or in Paul Cain's Leading the Parade, etc.

And my worry is that in your pages some of us see the major event of McCain's interview, but what your columnist seems to only see is that Palin, equally historic, says that terribly un-pc word: choice. In what world is that the most important word she said? How does an intelligent, objective person ignore the other words? And who gave your columnist the authority to decide technical issues such as what makes us homosexual or heterosexual, etc? That sure sounds just like the bigots, who come from the most ignorant part of society but, seem to personally know when life begins and want the authority to force the rest of us to let them make our choice-in other words we have no choice.

Perhaps serious homosexuals or gays should go back and read a few of the great articles in ONE Magazine and Tangents where the founders put forth their ideas, and then tell us why such ideas are wrong. That might be difficult of course, since those are the ideas that have got us to where we are today—which is a great place to most of us.

The Gay & Lesbian Review’s election issue (9-10/08) is good

I find the coverage of homosexual issues in The Gay & Lesbian Review usually good-discussions that are more in depth than our weekly g/l newspapers can cover. So while we almost daily,on some websites, get political news—and even Barney Frank every hour now due to the financial crisis without any mention of him being homosexual, it is good to hear his thoughts in this issue of GLR along with what others are thinking about the election.

But we also hear views on homosexuality from several people that are interesting (the people and views)—some of which fit my thoughts and experiences.

And I see that GLR will have an issue thinking about how the internet is going to affect our community/movement. But it was almost completely covered on the inside cover of this issue by William Percy's ad for his website (williamapercy.com). It said it all.

We can now share our ideas and news online. Free. Fast—perhaps too fast. While it took a month to get out ONE Magazine, and almost as much trouble writing and making copies of a newsletter, and it cost lots of money to have a phone and call long distance, today we can do it instantly, and if needed get a reply instantly.

That changes everything about communication. I can now “talk” to people in a few minutes that I had to write a letter to, or spend money calling (and often not reaching) and waiting for a response. And I can talk to several people at the same time, we can share our ideas and news. That should make our community/movement work better—even if it also can do the same for our enemies.

But there is much of importance in this issue, on politics and lives of homosexuals. And the article by Michael Hattersley got it started well. He thinks that there is much about our movement’s issues in this campaign that is like all civil rights issues—from 1948s campaign on and especially like that of the black civil rights movement. And he points out something that is seldom discussed in the black movement’s history but is relevant to us—it is possible that purists—in our case leftwingers—may lose the election for Obama by demanding perfection where they do not ask that of McCain/Republicans. That happened in some cases in the black struggle for equal rights, and what politicians to support. (Duberman, covered later, might speak to this.) The advantage of Obama is that he is not a child of that past era and its internal conflicts.

A humorous note is found in the BTW when it is “reported” that an ”untended consequence” of the Bush attempt to “Stimulate” the economy was that some people used the money to buy pornography.

The article by Barney Frank of how we as a community should view this election is important. We can not forget the question of who will make the next appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court. And we as a community need to tell the world, and politicians that we are a large voting block, and we have family and friends who will vote to help get us our equal/civil rights, and the irony is that the nation is further along on this path than many politicians.

In thinking of the question of Obama being the “real deal” Timothy Patrick McCarthy mentions an interesting “connection” between Lincoln and Obama—since the hope is that Obama will slowly come to our view of homosexuality and our rights, as Lincoln slowly came to believe in the rights of black Americans, some of whom were slaves. And that we, like blacks then, deserve our rights as a family and our dreams are as important as those of the majority.

Christopher Burnett (CSULB) is right when he, as others, says that how the vote goes on same sex marriage in California will be important to all of America, and is a vital election to win.

The article on Martin Duberman’s “return” to Harvard (for an award) makes two points that I personally have thought about much. First, young people (at Harvard today for instance) can have no idea how miserable it was to be homosexual in the ’50s. And how much harm the “professions” then were to us, especially mental health people, in his case a psychotherapist—who DID harm.

And the article by Chris Freeman (USC) on Isherwood and Bachardy is good, as is the documentary—Chris & Don: a Love Story—and among the good information I found most interesting, because it fits my personal thoughts as well as many others, is Bachardy’s thought that it was almost fate that he and Isherwood get together.

And another example, as if we needed it, of how our reluctance to be open is a waste, is found of all places in a book, The Ground Under My Feet, by Evan Kollisch, (reviewed by Lillan Faderman) mainly about a woman who escpaed as a child from Nazi germany but is also a lesbian and didn't feel free to say this at a meeting of others who had the same life changing experience. Finally she did speak of it and found total acceptance.

It is always interesing to see the list of research going on, mentioned in the Bulletin Board section. But it was funny to see the ad for Larry Townsend’s book, TimeMasters, having lost him, as well as so many people of his generation (mine too) such as Del Martin and John Burnside, to mention a few.

But they and GLR give us reason to continue to work for our cause.

Recent Publications

I glanced at movement publications at the book store (B&N) and two had articles of interest.

OUT has an article, if I understand it, on a visit now to a bar where Mattachine New York had a sit-in about 1967 that changed the legal rules for bars, before Stonewall. As part of the article there is a picture of the original group, and some of them were talked to about this event, and pictures of the cover of Mattachine Review and Mattachine Midwest. (Ironic that none from a New York publication.) A positive coverage of our history.

A false coverage is in the large, glossy English publication, Refresh Magazine, and is a travel article on Philadelphia and PA. (such as New Hope). The problem is that no part ofthe community/movement is covered except Equality Forum-not the Philadelphia Gay News, the local g/l center, etc. But what is unforgivable is that either EQ claimed, or the writer is incompetent in his "research" as he reports, that the gay civil rights movement started in Philadelphia in 1965. How can anyone believe this? Unless they also believe Gov. Palin when she says she said no thanks to that bridge to nowhere, when on tape she is shown asking for it, as she asked for earmarks galore as she makes Alaska a welfare state for American taxpayers.

To NBC News for their lousy coverage of Olympic Gay Diver Matthew Mitcham

NBC should be ashamed of itself for doing what too many politicians have done: doing something they know is wrong and then lie about it. The day is near when they will pay for such deceits. They will have fewer viewers and will be in the league with Fox News.

NBC should apologize to the swimmer and the homosexual community/movement. Our shame as a community/movement is that so-called gay and lesbian journalists (ncluding GLAAD) have done nothing to protest your incompetent and unethical behavior—certainly to expose their unprofessional work.

Why people love and leave West Hollywood

To the Editor of WeHo News (http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/):

I think I understand the feelings of Geroge Reese on trying to understand the people who come to WeHo, usually with some reason in mind, stay a while, can’t seem to feel they belong, then leave, and to explain their “failure” blame the people who have lived there for years.

How many of these people are "gay?" Although it isn't mentioned, is money a problem? I’m sure living costs in So Cal are high. And if it is hard to find friends, that is hard too. But if they left somewhere else, that should give them a clue to look at themselves.

I lived in L. A. for over 30 years, love it, and still find it worthwhile to read WeHo News, Los Angeles Magazine (have you seen the current issue—a very anti-establishment issue even with the lead article on finding the best school for kids) and the Los Angeles Times.

The obvious answer to feelng a part of somewhere or some group is to JOIN and work. You do some good and meet people. If you have come to a gay-friendly city and can't find some organization to join, you have a problem being "gay." I wonder, for instance, how many women, and men, have visited the Mazer Archives there?

But what is wrong with young people moving around while they have the chance and enjoying lots of cities? Readng gay/lesbian publications, such as Lesbian Connection—women seem to be good at talking among themselves about how they feel about where they live-and publications aimed at people with special interest, such as RFD and Maize, aimed at people living in smaller towns, rural areas and in communes. I think it would be fun to experience living in Santa Fe, then Palm Springs, then Fort Lauderdale, etc.

The only issue is if you feel when you leave that you have to explain why you were not staying.

LGBT History and Journalism

I have been looking at journalists and the media since about 1960. And I have yet to find the journalists as a group or individually doing even a minimally good job of covering most aspects of homosexuality. As they have done about Britney, or gay marriage and now seem to be doing on trans issues, as to compensate for failure to attack HRC etc because of shouting by a small segment of the population, they mostly have ignored the major issues we have faced. They ignored Don Slater, continue to never mention ONE, Incorporated, which was the largest organization, and for some time created the only national homosexual publication, because of two things—ONE Magazine did not fit the popular stereotype of “gay,” and we were not young and cute and they didn’t agree with our positions.

Hal Call was attacked for going into porn, but we got no support for NOT gong into porn. We picketed the Los Angeles times and were ignored-except that the paper then changed its policy which is what we wanted. Our Motorcade, even though for once the New York Times actually did a good article-written by Peter Bart, now in Hollywood at Variety I think-but no one else did, not even the gay media.

Don Slater was doing the military issue long before anyone else, he was in court, won cases, even though the policy didn’t change, but his work was ignored, except for a brief mention, mostly in error in Randy Shilts book. I was on Regis Philbin’s TV talk show on the issue, and he was rude and there was no coverage of this in the media, as there was no coverage of Harry Hay and John Burnside’s appearance on other TV shows.

There has been silence on the few books that actually try to cover our history, such as the book Vern Bullough editged, of short bios of pioneers, Before Stonewall, and Paul Cain’s interviews in Leading The Parade. Most other books are East Coast oriented.

Show me one article in any g/l publication, by any g/l journalist on the g/l libraries/archives.

As I understand it, one of the two men whose legal case got rid of the sodomy laws (Lawrence vs Texas) died in Houston, ignored and unhonored. Now I want g/l publications to sell. But how many covers and long articles can we have on non-gay celebrities while we ignore the people who have DONE the work that changed this nation for homosexual citizens?

Do young homosexual men and women ever hear of actual homosexuals who have worked for change? Instead they are given as “inspirationals” young, cute, girls and boys who know nothing on the subject, do nothing for the cause, but look good.

Who is working to try to get academia to use homosexual educators who KNOW the subject and should be teaching classes instead of some hacks who just are handed the course to fill a pc duty to say they have “done” the gay thing? Why are universities allowed to give their students less than the best education on this subject?

I gather there is a convention of g/l journalists meeting as I write. Who are they hearing from? Is Frank Kameny being heard? Who is speaking for our cause? What we will hear are attacks on HRC by trans people who came out of the closet, if they have, a year or so ago and have done nothing on their own but want to become leaders and take over existing g/l organizations instead of taking time to learn about life.

Or we will hear from Ellen and Elton. As if they can give much insight as to how to live as an average homosexual. And as if they actually did much work to change laws and attitudes.

I wait to hear some coverage of people and groups in our community/movement that are daily working yet are never heard from yet are the ones who actually are making the changes.

Article by Donecia Pea (8-5-08 issue) on Robert Darrow's receiving the G. Scott Griffin award

Donecia Pea did a good job of giving the readers of The (Shreveport) Times understand why Bobby Darrow deserved the honor of receiving the first G. Scott Griffin award, for his contributions to the local community.

His work with local theater groups contriubted our the culture of tfhe Ark-La-Tex, and his support of the Philadelphia Center helps keep it as a valuable part of the fight against AIDS.

It is good to have coverage of people who contribute positively to our community.

Seatle Gay History article an example of how an activist is made

The serie of articles over the years on Seattle's gay history have been good. The one in the July 25th issue is interesting as it tells us how one person went from being an "innocent" to being an activist and working to educate people on homosexuality and the need for civil/equal rights.

Don Paulson does a great job of letting us feel how young Patrick Haggerty journeyed from being a Peace Corps person who didn't understand his feelings (and in a sense is happy he was forced to face them after being kicked out of the corps, even though at the time he missed the co-worker he loved, and the job they were doing), he went on to serve mankind as an open homosexual.

He had a supportive mother, that helped, and while he got no real help from the hospital he went into, a nurse there did the best thing possible, she said, “Listen up. One, you're gay. Two, you don't belong here. No one in this hospital has anything for you...you should leave this hospital and figure it out on your own.” He faked a cure and got out.

Beautiful irony, he went immediately from being a patient to being a psychiatric case worker. And we, the community/movement got a gay libber, artist, musician, songwriter for the earliest openly gay LP, Lavender Country, recently archived in the Nashville Country Music Hall of Fame. (Music historian Chris Dickinson describes Patrick as the "lost pioneer of gay country music.)

Truly inspirational. And then we have the humor of Leslie Robinson who talks about the United Methodist Church (my traditon) and its struggle with homosexuality and how some ministers in California are doing same-sex marriage despite the "rules" of the church and to quote her,"In other words, Methodist ministers are making matrimonial mischiel. Miscreants are misbehaving by marrying members, making a mockery of Methodist mandates. Mercy." I love it! (General Gayety, indeed.)

And the letter (thanks for using mine) of Buzz Flowers Callawy saysmuch too, when he was asked by someon about being gay-"Does it really matter?" Amen.

Two women’s articles in 8-6-08 issue of Windy City Times

There are two very different articles involving women in this issue of the paper and both are important, one historically and one currently.

First, the column Chicago Gay History, by John D'Emilio, talks about writer Valerie Taylor and has information not many of us knew. She had to struggle to support her family after leaving her husband, and was able to do this with writing later on.

She, like many in her time, (born Velma Nacella Young in 1913 in Aurora IL) had a hard time finding friends. The Ladder helped but it was local Mattachine Midwest that helped too, as she helped it, in the ’60s. And she grew and did not stagnate and did not hide in the closet. She deserves our respect.

Then we have a different take on the gun-owning issue, from (Rev) Irene Monroe, who asks the question, would homosexuals be safer is we had our own guns to fight back when attacked by terrorists/anti-gay people. This is interesting coming from a woman and also using the information from the Pink Pistols, a group founded by (Libertarian activist) Douglas Krick, in Boston. It now has 48 chapters. Self defense is an issue we need to discuss.

August Issue of OutSmart Magazine

I wonder if others were as impressed as I am with your August issue’s cover and the way it depicts the two young Christian singers, as well as the article by Steven Foster. Being Christian and homosexual and being singers makes life interesting.

But I must comment on a few other items that I think are very important. Most places have had some troubles with their pride parades, as is shown by the letter to the editor dealing with people—fortunately I assume that are gay or gay-friendly which makes it a lot less bad—who run into the parade and push for beads, etc and even try to touch cute young people. Even in family oriented Mardi Gras parades this happens, especially with drunk adults.

I always like the two political columns, LeftOut and Outright.

And it is important to warn people not to donate money to fake groups-such as the one claiming to do AIDS work which itdoes NOT do. There are several groups doing good AIDS work, but sometimes it is the fakes that seem to get the atention.

Nancy Ford’s article on the four lesbian bars is very interesting. Many cities have few if any lesbian bars.

I am wondering about the listing in the Calendar section of the listing for the meeting each third Thurday of the month meeting on glbt books at the Houston Library. Have you ever had someone cover a meeting? I wonder if many people know of it and what books are covered and how well the library “covers” glbt books. The subject of how many people read, and buy books is interesting—I think many things are interesting,I know—since book stores are closing, sales are down, yet more books are being published and C-SPAN and other places, such as blogs discuss books even as such publications as the Los Angeles Times are ending their book sections.

What really went on at the 1959 Denver Convention of Mattachine???

My memory is that I met Jim Kepner at ONE when I was at loose ends, and we talked over a coke (after meeting at ONE’s offices on Hill St. (I think that old elevator was on the Broadway side) in the Thrifty Drug across from Pershing Square. He said he was going to the convention. I decided to go—I must have had a car, but I went anyway. I wonder if there are any records of who signed up, any brochures if any? I know it got lots of publicity in the 2 papers-The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News. I don't know if Jim wrote it up in his journals. I don't remember any of the meetings or even the speakers.

But they all are relatively unimportant-also what did Hal write up about it later? I'm not sure if Don Lucas was there. BECAUSE people there were so excited at how well things were going, publicity etc, that they paid little attention to a sneaky proposal to honor the mayor of San Francisco for being so helpful and in a sense gay-friendly. Now as I recall San Francisco was NOT all that good in those days. But no one thought much about it and it passed along with some other things and the convention ended and everyone went home—except the members who had done such a great job and lived in Denver. All hell broke loose—they lost jobs, etc.

AND suddenly Wolper or whatever the politician’s name was that was running against Christopher started publicizing the queer, I forget what term he used, organization honoring Christopher and how terrible that was for San Francisco’s image, etc. and of course the voters should NOT vote for Christopher.

Talk about unintended consequences—the papers, etc., which were NOT gay-friendly, took out after the man, calling HIM a troublemaker and supporting Christopher. Hal, et al., loved it of course—it got Mattachine great publicity. I'm not sure how many new members it got, but in those days neither Mattachine nor ONE got much help from all the publicity they got—which wasn't that much anyway.

I am not sure of the dates, but I must have gone to San Francisco then and that is when I first (of two times) stayed with Hal and worked a week or so in the PanGraphic office, and the only record is the book review I did of Advise and Consent, which appeared later.

I had actually lived a few months in San Francisco earlier and did not contact Mattachine at the time—I was working the last “regular” job, as “caller to check on credit” at Retailers Commercial Agency-Retail Credit, now called something else, in Atlanta GA. Ironically my first job after getting kicked out of the Army at Ft Riley, dropping off my car in Bossier city, taking the train to L. A., and following Don Slater’s idea, even before I knew him, I lied and neither firm ever checked on my military service (and thus Undesirable Discharge) but did send for my lousy transcript at LSU—was a southern company that should have checked as that was their business—the first company was southern also, Anderson, Clayton Cotton co, of Houston, and some parts still in business, on 6th St. at Lafayette Park. Retailers in L. A. had been on Wilshire near downtown, across from the hospital. I was not doing well, so they transferred me to try San Francisco, and finally we just mutually called it quits.

I took a bus trip around the country, Boston, N. Y., etc. Left car parked on hill in S. F. and it was in good shape when I returned. Then returned to L. A. and went to work for ONE, and rest is history.

But it seems important to think that what we or they thought was the main thing at the convention turned out to be nothing and yet the convention put Mattachine on the map andin a sense started San Francisco toward being what it is today and that was NOT what the agent provocateur had wanted.

A lesson rightwingers might want to consider.

A newsletter that should be read by the people at the LGBT Journalists Association

I have been looking around at material and found a copy of our newsletter #55, of Fall/Winter, 1996.

If we don't let the world know any more about our work, they should know the information and views expressed in the reviews of the books and the books themselves, mainly the two relevant to NLGJA: Straight News: Gays, Lesbians and the News Media, by Edward Alwood (Columbia University Press, 1996) and Unspeakable, the Rise of the Gay and Lesbian Press in America, by Rodger Streitmatter (Faber & Faber, 1995).

The reviews say that for the most part the books give information and history that journalists, and everyone, needs to understand how this movement got to where it is today.

But the reviewers also point out the misinformation, and that is important since for the most part later historians will just quote from the books without checking to see if there are any errors.

Straight News is reviewed by Joseph Hansen, famous not for being an editor and writer for ONE/Tangents Magazine, but as a gay writer of gay mysteries. But he knows the facts. And he points out important things relevant even to the discussion I have had with NLGJA people and the editor of Bay Windows.

Gay/lesbian journalists of today may not even know how bad the situation was in the ’50s and ’60s and how awful the media covered us, in the few times they did cover homosexuality.

Later journalists still did not check their facts. As Joe points out, sometimes he, Morris Kight, Troy Perry or others may have been at the same event and the newspaper coverage only gave one view-usually Morris’s. One strange point is that AIDS got us attention.

You will understand the feeling I have even now, reading Joe’s closing remarks: The efforts told to us in story after story in Edward Alwood’s fine book, efforts by numberless heroic men and women down the decades to educate and awaken to our common humanity the people among whom we lived should lift your hearts.

"Not that the war is won as this grisly century dies. Many battles lie ahead, not the least to wipe antihomosexual laws off the books of ALL states. But reading this account of the equal-rights battles already won should give all of us courage to fight on with the certainty that if we do, in the end our victory will be complete." Joe and Don would rejoice to see how much has been done so far.

Unspeakable is reviewed by Jim Kepner. He of course points out the conflict among g/l journalists,which in the early days seemed to be that “professional” college trained journalists looked down on the first g/l journalists who trained on the job. He says rightly that Streitmatter seems to not have really read his material and makes statements that are simply not true, such as that ONE was not forceful on seeking rights, or that we were not as good as the Mattachine Review and The Ladder, which is by any objective view simply nonsense. Hal Call merely used “professionals” and copied items and ONE did original work, and we never allowed “professionals” to tell us about us: we told them.

He points out that there were publications before Vice Versa, and that even Henry Gerber is ignored. And Jim's work is completely misunderstood by Streitmatter—Jim didn't merely quote the news, he commented on it—the very title of the Tangents section was news and views. But ONE has to be given credit as the first public and continuing-for two decades homosexual publication. And the NLGJA honored Don Slater as its editor and his struggle to make the magazine professional and something our community could be proud of.

Jim also points out the constantly repeated error that ONE was an all-male publication/organization. Obviously he never looked at the credits as for years the main editor was a woman and Stella Rush, still alive and kicking was a writer as was Betty Perdue (as Geraldine Jackson).

GQ and New Republic article on homosexual issues

Being a retiree, and having time, if not money, I spent several hours in my local library yesterday, just to see what was in the magazines. I had liked the current issue of Time, which I get for $15 a year as a senior citizen (a term Don Slater hated) but can't see every publication, and Jim Kepner would be nuts by now with all the good coverage on our issues in lots of publications, much less tv soap operas.

The July issue of GQ magazine has a great long article on Bishop Gene Robinson.

The June 11th issue of The New Republic has a 2 view article on the CA marriage decision. One view is that it, and this is the Don Slater view, is wrong to say we are a suspect class and it could hurt the cause. It could be a victory in the battle but could prolong the war for a decade due to backlash. I think that was the Jeffrey Rosen view.

The other view is that we would have had to face the issue sooner or later, just enjoy it and don't worry the amendment may not pass—the view of Richard Just.

I see no email address for the publication, but someone should thank them for the discussion and make the obvious point that—for us this is a win-win situation—we will not have lost something we never had and, as it says, this is an education process that has to take place anyway. It may be costly for us, but think how much time, energy and money the bigots are having to waste—including the Catholic and Mormon churches. That alone would make it something Don would have to be a part of.

Names are not exclusive, and so what two names jumped out at me in different publications: Dale Jennings, in San Diego—and the letter (I think it was in American History) was talking about an article that told about J Edgar Hoover’s desire to end habeas corpus and arrest all the dissidents he disliked—the claim is that arrangement for jails has—been made already.

And in a religious magazine, Charisma or Christianity Today, there is mention of a Paul Cain, in regard to a religious event in Lakeland FL, and I gather he has been accused of sexual violations (hetero).

And in the same type of book on black civil rights history like the one I reviewed on Bayard Rustin, herein The Nation is a review of a book that should mention him, but in the review does NOT and yet has coverage of the same issues—use of communistic issues to attack the movement yet that may have been a source that helped it. AND here is coverage of a black, cross-dressing lesbian feminist, named Pauli Murray, and this is in the 1940s I think, but she was involved in some type of March on Washington that I think was before Rustin's.

The book is Defying Dixie, radical roots of civil rights, by Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, published by Norton, $39.95. I think she either went to Howard later and may have taught law.

And finally, the question in New Orleans Magazine about an early bar-and it is the My-O-My, which I knew about but never went to, a female impersonation bar on the lakefront in New Orleans.

And this is only a few publications. Poor Jim Kepner. He would not have been able to do the news section even if he spent 24 hours a day. What a wonderful problem though: almost every article is favorable. Even a mention of the marriage in either Charisma or Christianity Today (or maybe Christian Century, but I don't think so as it is a liberal publication anyway) which refers to the logical way to handle it saying: things can be immoral but not illegal.

I think we miss a lot by not going to our library once in a while and just seeing what we have missed. Again, I know of no LGBT publication that covers such things. I glance at things like Queer News and it is limited in what it covers.

ONE homosexual liberal Democrathas a message for Obama

Senator Obama, it could be that you have a conflict within your supporters over what may be the most important issue, national security.

And it could be that you are only hearing, for instance, the “gay” view from a small, elitist, professional “gays” crowd that do not represent the vast majority of homosexual voters.

I am a homosexual, liberal, Democrat, and I have common sense—I may only know what I read in the newspapers, but what I know is that where Islam controls, they are killing homosexuals.

Therefore, it is clear to me that I must support any war that keeps Sharia law from taking over, any place. I think too many “gays” only read the slick gay publications that ignore our issues and try to sell us expensive cars, clothing and cover only “gay entertainment,” most of which is by non-gays. I see little on the “gay” network (LOGO) that helps our community/movement-what I see are old movies.

I'm not saying you should not use these resources, but don't think you have reached the vast majority of homosexual voters, or our friends,neighbors, families, allies by reading the Advocate.

It is good to get same-sex marriage, but that will be of no value if we allow Muslims to take over our government and impose Sharia law. (Obviously that is true of extremist “Christians” too, including the “religious” preacher person from New Orleans that just lost a lawsuit in Wisconsin where he suggested, in some way, that listeners should shoot homosexuals.) But homosexuals, I say again, are being killed in Islamic countries.

To quibble over whether or not Iraq is worse off now than before is nonsense when we should not be bringing the troops home- the “heterosexual” troops (since our nation still fears homosexuals as much as Islamists so we are, in theory, not allowed to fight for our country even when we would suffer more under Islamic control than heterosexuals, although women would also)-but sending them to Afghanistan to actually fight the people who attacked us and are still in control makes discussion of when to withdraw, etc., irrelevant.

How to stop sending our money to enemies like Saudi Arabia (for oil) I can't help you with. But I tell you security may hurt you if you only listen to those who want you to be an idealist and ignore
reality.

Something these young “gays,” making lots of money running gay organizations don't know is that our community/movement has succeeded beyond our wildest imagination, because our pioneers did NOT work for money or power but for their beliefs in change within the system and from one secret organization we grew each decade. What these young people—as young people in all civil rights struggles—need to remember is they started from where we brought them, taking risks they don't have to. Which, come to think of it, is true of all Americans, who benefit from what the founders of this nation, and subsequent citizens have done to bring us to where we are today as we celebrate another 4th of July.