This is an important discussion...

Regarding the SALON article Esquire’s astoundingly homophobic “Looking” review expects gay men to be “mincing”:

Sharing this review is good. It is important because future LGBT TV shows will—hopefully—come on board and the LGBT community needs to put shows and reviews in perspective. (Past such reviews would be like those of Boys in the Band.)  And even though the writer and Esquire do not want to have a discussion, we in the community need to.

Daniel D’Adarrio does a great job of pointing out the nonsense of the reviewer, Mick Stingley, who make only one or two good points in the midst of his “protesting too much” his heterosexuality. His bias shows if he finds TV shows about heterosexuals trying to hook up entertaining. And many movies seem to need a future car chases to keep us interested.

It would be interesting to see what the LGBT media says about the show. That would make a good article for Esquire or The New York Times.

I have said I did not find the show entertaining or representative, even of San Francisco members of the community. But then I find most shows equally boring, especially if they depend on short “cute” jokes. But it could be that viewers will get more interested if the characters grow in future episodes.

I suggest that, for punishment, Stingley be forced to watch LOGO channel for a week.

Let me tell you the truth about liberals: RE: How the L-Word Was Won

Regarding Ed Driscoll’s review of Fred Siegel’s book, The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism has Undermined the Middle Class:

The article/book is way too long, and nonsense, picking and choosing, BUT

As I have told everyone—and was mostly ignored of course—if anyone can tell you and the world about the hypocrisy of liberals, we can. As a liberal Democrat, whose co-workers were mostly conservative Republicans, I was constantly frustrated with the total failure of liberals to support our work and in fact they oppose it, STARTING with the ACLU, until after we were on the road to success, which was in the early 1960s, despite the lazy historian and journalist theory that we didn’t exist until Stonewall (1969).

Our files contain rejections for our ads and “news” by all liberal publications. And who gave us publicity and let our voice be heard? Conservatives like Joe Pyne, the Rush Limbaugh of his day.  Where were all those liberal, closeted gay, writers who refused to write for us or even mention us?  Then and now most academics are not gay-friendly. The most vicious reviews of early gay books, etc. came from liberal, mostly closeted reviewers.  

And the most complaints, giving excuses for NOT supporting the first national homosexual publication came from—bingo!—LIBERALS. I suggest that lgbt journalists go read letters we got and see the foolish thinking of self-righteous liberals.

And we were opposed by every government agency, every religious group. We were called sick,  criminal and sinful. And when we told members of the community, mostly in the closet, that we were none of those things, they didn’t believe us. We were at the same time accused by fake liberals of being ashamed of being homosexual.That is why Hal Call justified using “experts/heterosexuals” to speak in the Mattachine Review. If “they” said it, liberals believed it, if we said it in ONE, they accused us of being biased!!!

It goes without saying that no liberal attorney, physician, publisher, landlord, etc, would help us.

But history, hard to escape today as not a day goes by without some LGBT person or issue being discussed in the media, proves, the few, starting in secret with Mattachine, becoming public with ONE, grew, each decade, until now millions of LGBT people will no longer waste time trying to tell the truth to liberals.

We used the system and have won: only a few ignorant bigots refuse to see the facts. We are truly the perfect example true conservatives should use to prove their case.

And it is a shame that many good Americans do not understand just how great the nation is and that our civil rights work and success, in courts in legislatures, and eventually it will be in the churches and colleges but they are a little slow—and that they should be proud that when given the truth, they have been able to make the right choices on sexuality, etc., and  each generation has brought us closer to the dreams of the founders: a more perfect nation.

I gather the writer of this article is in reality a typical liberal in conservative clothing.  Like too many academics, lost in the trees and missing the forest.

A question from M Cherry: What was Don Slater and Jim Kepner's relationship like?

The relationship among Dorr Legg, Don Slater, and Jim Kepner was beneficial to the movement but, mainly due to Dorr, constantly caused frustration. He of course got Jim upset when he told him to say ONE was tax-exempt when it was not, and that is the final straw—at the time-that made Jim quit because he felt personally vulnerable if the IRS accused him of false claims. I don't recall—as I was not there—the relationship on the magazine, but think it was ok.  

The main issue Don had with Jim was that he was trying to be in ALL groups, which I don't think was a bad thing, but then Jim made what I think was his worst mistake when the separation came in 1965.

Jim was leading the ONE European tour, and Rudi Steinert was on it as was the man behind the tours, Chet Sampson. Dorr had promised Rudi Don could use his proxy in voting at the annual business meeting/Winter event. As Chair, he then refused to allow it.  I am not sure if Sampson was a voting member or if someone had his proxy.

But Kepner was called about our moving the office, and told told Chet, Rudi, et al. to support Dorr, as Don would not be successful. I always felt that this was nuts since he had had more problems with Dorr’s imperious attitude than anyone.

History shows that legally Don won, but both factions kept going, and both continued to contribute to the cause.

Jim eventually, as in fact Dorr did, worked with Don, doing book reviews, etc. (Jim and Dorr refused to work on the NACHO military protest in 1966. We did the Motorcade—but for different reasons, and of course Morris Kight didn’t participate either.

We think Jim removed some books when he visited our Tangents office, but he had contributed many books to ONE, and since we had acquired most of the library, I doubt that made much difference—we think most of the material Dorr had when he died was really Jim’s, as the two libraries joined—thus ONE/IGLA and, for a brief time, ONE/IGLA/HIC.

I don’t seem t have much of Jim’s material—he published a newsletter in the 1990s, Jim Kepner’s Song & Dance, and of course he went broke and lost his home publishing Pursuit & Symposium magazine. I think his politics differed—but so did mine. He added to our work and was interested in aspects Don & Dorr were not.  He of course worked on ONE Institute Quarterly, which had the same problems I think the few current LGBT academic publications have—they are unreadable and on obscure topics on no general concern.

RE: Putin says gays at Olympics must 'leave children alone'

Regarding the article from France 24, “Putin says gays at Olympics must 'leave children alone”:

There are several things we need to say to Putin, the anti-abortionists, the religious sexual hypocrites/bigots:

Hopefully, most people would agree with you that adults should not use children sexually.  Saying that is an easy way for politicians to get support, like saying they support mom and apple pie.

BUT, locally, in one small area of the world, there is a report of a parent who has killed their child, starved their child, let a friend abuse the child—not sexually—every month, so I want to know why you do not say to visitors, don't harm or KILL children?

It is easy to say leave children alone.  But that is not what children need—they need support.  Many parents, not just single parents, work to support the child, and need family and neighbors supporting them. That is why the Boy Scouts, church camps, day care and other such resources  are good for society as well as the parent.  

So, what are you doing to give these parents support, as a person, a citizen, the head of a nation, as a “religious” person?

Trying to get MORE Gay Pride in West Hollywood

Regarding the article in WEHOville, West Hollywood to Consider Creating More of Its Own LA Pride Programming:

As someone who has worked in the effort to gain equal rights for homosexual American since 1959, I want those involved in CSW and those in West Hollywood wanting to do more, to know that the pioneers would be very gay to hear you seeking to do more, yet be practical in doing it, to entertain and educate the LGBT community.

Congratulations.  You are in a great American tradition of trying to improve on even what is a success.  But no one should miss the point: this is what was once a hidden, closeted part of society that is now pushing themselves to celebrate their lives. 

It might be good to have a booth for the local LGBT libraries/archives, which are preserving the history of the movement/cause.  I think of at least three, June Mazer (in West Hollywood), ONE Archives (at the USC library) and the Homosexual Information Archives (at the Cal State Northridge library).

Update from Utah by guest blogger D. Michael Quinn

On my last vacation night in Utah on January 11th, the chair of the Democratic Party of Utah (Jim Dabakis—second from the left and recently married to his husband Steve Justesen) invited me to a huge celebration (complete with 12-tier wedding cake) of the 1,300 same-sex marriages LEGALLY performed in Utah during December 2013.

Steve was stranded by a snow-storm on the East Coast, and couldn’t make it to the party.  I’m on the far-right, which is the opposite of my position on the political spectrum.

Jim quipped that a judge had given an invitation to Utah's Republican governor Gary Herbert to attend, but Jim (on his own authority) questioned its legality and issued a stay of that invite.

Duck Dynasty: it is religion (and get some perspective)

The (Shreveport) Times has devoted much space to the issue of the views on race and homosexuality of a member of the TV show Duck Dynasty. Most of the articles/views are thoughtful and contribute to the discussion. But it seems to me that there are two main aspects that make the views less complete.  One is ironically shown by the accompanying article by Prentiss Smith in the same issue (12-29-13) and its Conversations space devoted to Free Speech v. Business. He gives the history of being black in America from slavery to today, with his family as the example.

It is usual that someone that is anti-gay is also a racist. While Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty may not think of themselves as racist—the fact that they can not understand how much progress has happened and how much better life is for black Americans SINCE the end of Jim Crow proves they are out of contact with the real world. And to those who are scared by hearing the (religious) views of Robertson and Duck Dynasty, I say, get a life—where have they been if they have no clue to how things have changed, for the better, for LGBT Americans since the movement to gain civil rights for homosexual Americans began in 1950.

What is not being honestly discussed is that it is religion that has made some citizens second-class—and despite the work of Dr. King, et al., the main enemy of getting equal rights for black and homosexual Americans was and is the church and its misuse of the Bible. And religious leaders of most churches from the time of slavery to today have pushed their views not only in the pulpit but into laws making all Americans “believe” as they do.  In a sense religion takes away freedom  of speech and choice from citizens, and businesses, not only by intimidation but by putting their ideas into laws.

The question is, and the new Pope is part of the discussion, what will happen to churches/religion when once again their main agenda is lost and our nation is a more perfect union because the majority of good Americans ignore the lies of the church/religion?  How sad, for Jesus, that those claiming to be His followers are the obstacles that work against a great nation fulfilling the dreams of its founders.