Thursday, November 27, 2008


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.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

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.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

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.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

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.

Monday, November 17, 2008

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.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

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.)

Sunday, November 9, 2008

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.