Tuesday, May 25, 2010

What would we want to tell students about our community/movement

I talked to students today in a class (political science but a "module" on homosexuality) at Centenary College (Prof. Grunes). Every year I think I'm going to get the important points down and across, and every year I get off course. But I keep wondering what we really need to have society understand about our movement, considering that they will not remember names, dates, or intricate details.

Here is what I intended to say—and didn't.

First, I had the first issue of ONE Magazine, and the first book, Homosexuals Today, and Pre-Gay L. A., which documents the history.

I think it is a great story to say that from a few Communists, meeting in secret, has come the fastest civil rights movement in America, which continues today. (I think our movement parallels the history/story of our nation, since both started with secret meetings, and had intelligent thinkers to set the course of history that we still follow today.)

It is important to in fact see how complicated things can be, considering that we/it started with communists and immediately was taken over by conservatives. It is probably worth knowing that it started in Los Angeles.

Some closet queens worried that we would stir up people by talking about "it," and cause some people to not have a sex act from fear, which they wouldn't have if it was not discussed. Only those who "looked" it would be a problem, the others could hide and still have fun. At the other extreme was the fact that few anti-people and bigots actually thought there was any chance that homosexuals would actually be worth worrying about-want marriage, in the military, equal rights, etc.

Along the way from those Mattachine sponsored meetings in secret in 1950 came the public voice ONE Magazine and Inc., and each year after came new organizations and publications. ONE did everything, including winning the right to publish, and today each of those job areas has groups and publications serving them, legal, religious, political, etc.

We seem to only want to hear about celebrities, and ignore the people who really changed our lives, such as those founders, Harry Hay, Dale Jennings (who also wrote The Cowboys, the John Wayne Movie), Rudi Gernreich (who then became famous for women's clothing, or lack of clothing), etc. Don Slater deserves credit as one of the founding editors of ONE, and Dorr Legg for starting the education of the subject with classes and a book, and Jim Kepner who pushed the library and saving our history, etc.

Today few people, except ignorant bigots, talk about a cure or cause, and we are no longer criminals, or sick or sinful. And lots of celebrities are in the community—you have to try hard to not see Ellen, or Elton, or Melissa, or Rachel, etc, on TV and in the news. And we're all over the news and in courts, with marriage, the military, young homosexuals coming out in high school, etc.

It takes hundreds of pages to list the resources available to our community: churches, businesses, publications, professional groups, centers, movement libraries/archives, groups at universities, political workers, groups to help young people, places for older people, etc.
And we need to put all of our history online so that no child, parent, scholar can say they could not find help when they needed it. That is our work now. We have and will change harmful laws but we must educate ourselves and others to the facts, and live in the real world of this century. But our community/movement and nation should be proud that, under our system, we have been able to change things and make life more equal for all Americans.

I think Dorr Legg would say, people, considering how well we have done, perhaps we should be called on to do work for other causes in America. That is what Harry Hay said from the beginning, since we have a slightly different view of the world, we can help give ideas others might not see as soon-we are the "canaries" in the world, seeing problems and solutions before others because we were forced to in working for our rights.

Billy Glover

Anti-black, anti-homosexual, anti-rooster=unAmerican

To the Shreveport News:

Rand Paul's views on the Civil Rights Bill, discussed in his seeking of the senate seat in Kentucky are interesting, in the "liberation" aspects. But in practical terms it means he is now being accused of being what Barry Obama is accused of, being more of a professor/teacher than a person who wants to practice what they preach. But too many politicians do not practice what they preach. The fact is that if America followed his beliefs we would still have slavery. After changes were made each generation since the founding of this nation, the "conservatives, in each era, tried to stop any further progress in civil rights, but accepted the changes made in previous generations, and that will be what happens in this generation. And a question for the Pauls (Ron and Rand) is what they believe about same sex marriage, in regards to the government staying out of our private lives-as the Supreme Court said in the Loving case when they said the state of Virginia had no Constitutional authority to tell citizens what the race of their spouse should be.

The Times had an interesting, thoughtful article by Joe Cordill on the Hate Crimes Law, saying what Rand Paul says about the Civil Rights Bill. The law can go too far. But the very people who keep saying they want less government and fewer laws and less bureaucrats and less waste of taxpayers' money seem to still seek to control the most intimate parts of the lives of citizens and that includes being protected from bigots, often inspired by what their preachers and imams have told them. Again, do Cordill and Paul practice what they preach?

And heres' a good test question to see what they answer. The Animal Control people in Bossier City have time to enforce a law against citizens having chickens in the city limits. Now there may be some common sense reasons why politicians passed such a law, but there should also be some common sense in enforcing such a law. For instance, a family fleeing Katrina had chickens in Bossier City, then left them as they moved on. Those few chickens have managed to live independently since that time, without government help in a vacant lot. Recently, apparently, some new humans moved into the area and soon called on the government to get rid of those chickens as they didn't like hearing roosters crowing. How the noise from a rooster is heard over all the other noise in a city is a good question to ask the complainers, who complain in secrecy, a very queer tactic.

So, how do these men think the complaint should be handled? Should the chickens be captured and killed? Or should they be left alone? And how do they feel about citizens who turn to the welfare state to protect them from crowing roosters?

The Founders of this nation would have no problem deciding the issue—they would immediately save the chickens who seek no government help and pose no threat to society or taxpayers and tell the poor humans who need government help in such minor aspects of their lives to move if they don't like the area they just moved to.

Our nation will be strogng only as long as we are like the rooster and chickens and not like the welfare needers, who seek government protection in minor aspects of their lives.

And the teabaggers might want to look into such government bureaucrats who have so little to do they can spend days chasing chickens around a vacant lot. Here is a place to start saving taxpayers' money-obviously there are too many people with too little serious work in Bossier City. And elsewhere.

Billy Glover

Friday, May 21, 2010

Definition of Homosexual: The Family Research Council is right on one point, wrong on the other, but so are many gays

In a link on today's Daily Queer News I recall mention of the FRC saying that homosexual is only an adjective, not a noun. You have a homosexual act, you are not homosexual. That happens to be what ONE and HIC have always said and believed. It is based on the work of Dr. Hooker and Dr. Kinsey.
My personal definition of a homosexual person is one who has over 50% of his sex acts, by choice, with someone of the same sex. That also covers those who have no act, or dream about having the act, and does not thus include someone who has a homosexual act but would rather have the act with someone of the opposite sex. If the chosen partner could be either male or female (at 50%), then the person is bisexual.
The fact is that all of us have some of the same acts, anal and/or oral, so the person we have those acts with defines whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.
I have also said that if someone is blind, and doesn't feel the other person, they would not know if the person performing the oral act is male or female.
When those who seem to not be comfortable being homosexually oriented seek some excuse, they start talking about love. But it does not matter why we choose the partner. Our civil rights don't depend on making the 'right" choice, just as our civl rights don't depend on being a certain race or choosing a certain religion.
Two people of the same sex could love each other but not be sexually attracted to each other. And two people could want to marry even though they are of the opposite sex OR of the same sex and have no sexual attraction, but have an economic or other reason. That is why all marriage laws give special rights that are denied to single people amd are unjust. And true conservatives should be the first to get the state and federal government out of making private decisions for citizens-which the Loving case did when it said the state could not decide the race of a marital partner.
The FRC is wrong when it tries to thus say that homosexual Americans can and should "change." That also invades our right to privacy—why hasn't anyone spoken out to support the Ninth Amendment, which this nation's founders wisely gave us? Anti-homosexuals, including, sadly, many closet queens, say we can and should "change" but we should proudly say, well, maybe we can change, but we don't want to and in America WE decide who (Adults) we have sex with and love, not the religious fanatics or ignorant "experts" who said we were sick and sinful and criminal for all years past.

This is 2010, All Americans are closer to total equal/civil rights. Deal with it. (You will never "get back our country." "That" country was anti-black, anti-homosexual, anti-women, etc. It was "good" if you were wasp males.)

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Visit to the Midwest

To Ryan Gierach, editor of WeHo News:

I think it is a generic thing to live in a big city, mostly for economic reasons in the past, if not cultural, etc, and later in life wonder how things are, and remember how they were, in the usually small town you grew up in.

I have often said that at almost 79 years of age, I know how "things turned out" since I have "lived" the future I wondered about when I walked the campus at LSU for the last time in February of 1955 to go directly into the Army (volunteer draftee for those who don't know how men were drafted in those times). (From which I then went directly to L. A. where I had decided I wanted to live. And to show my "politics,at LSU, 1952, I had worked for Adlai (Stevenson) for president, and in L. A. , 1956) I handed out brochures for him in the middle of Vermont at 3d in front of Ralph's Grocery, and I'm still a liberal democrat today.)

Most of us seem to have the same pattern-I read of people who have passed away, died, and most had the same thoughts I did as they grew old-as we look back, we see a pattern which we did not see at the time, and most would not change a thing. That is interesting since I see several movies in which an adult suddenly finds him or herself back in their youth with the possiblity of changing their lives. In the current movie "17 Again," the adult goes back to his high school days where he gave up a possible carrer as a basketball player to leave to support his pregnant girlfriend. And later mistakenly blamed her for his unhappy life. Yet, when given this second chance, he makes the same decision, now understanding that she was not the problem and he loves her and his kids (he does change jobs which was part of the unhappiness), and I suspect that would be true of most of us.

As to how people "are" in the Midwest Hass visited (Indiana) I see no difference in any of the places I go, and I now live back in LA where I grew up and find the same types of people I did in over 30 good years in L. A. and in sidetrips to the Four Corners area.

It seems today, with the internet, cell phones, and fast planes we can live almost anywhere and travel often to visit with friends and cultural events in other areas.

But I doubt drivers are any better in most places-try fighting traffic in Dallas or Houston where people are just as rude as L. A.-and check out people, those places we actually walk in these days-and you will find overweight people everywhere. While I don't drive in L. A. much the last decades, I know that most people were courteous, allowed you to enter the freeway, etc, which is NOT true of people in Dallas or Houston. The point is that we learn that if we don't let others enter and change lanes, then they won't let us and the whole system will come to a halt.

It is my idea that politicians should learn how our nation can run by seeing how we all travel on the highways, and don't know who is in the other cars, what their politics or religion are and in small towns we don't fuss because the "nut" in the other car probably is a relative on neighbor who we like, so we just ignore their bad driving.

There obvious advantages of living in a big city, where no one knows you, but there are other advantages of living in a smaller town where they do.

And it is interesting when you meet other people to ask them where they would live if they could live anywhere, and no one city or state is chosen by most of them/us.

Me, I just want to get there often to eat at Phillipes—I still don't know how to spell it, but love the poboys—of Paty's in Toluca Lake or just get a Tommy's cheeseburger,and go to "apple country" near Yucaipa, or walk in Yosemite and visit with friends.

That is what the tourist bureaus need to find out, what people do want and what you offer that is different from what other cities or states offer. That is why LA has New Orleans—hopefully—and Cajuns and Creoles, and no other state offers this entertainment and education.