Billy’s Musings

Mary Alice's visit/I've said most of what I want to say

2011-03-17T06:09:00.001-05:00

It is a beautiful day and I have had a great visit with Mary Alice. Tell Lynn she is visiting here, and now it is his time. I just realized I didn't hug her as we ate and then drove to see Buddy and they were talking and I left to come on to the library.

I'm thinking, partly to save gas, that I will start going less to the library, and in a sense I have said all I feel the urge to say about my/our history. As Don said, it is on record, and his part is in the magazine and newsletters, etc, so let history decide on its own.

But it is strange to find a book at the library on the discard rack that is about Don & Tony's area, called The Madonnas of Echo Park. It is of course interesting to see mention of all the areas we have walked in, and it would be nice to share this with Tony, but he doesn't do computer and in a sense seems not to care to remember those long years they lived there.

It is doubly interesting as the author is Mexican American and shows a side of L. A. I would not have experienced, and doubt Tony did. But mention of Pioneer Market-for some reason he changes the name to Pilgrim- and other local places and streets brings back memories I have forgotten. Above the lake is where the picture of Melvin and me was taken that is on the cover of ONE. I don't know if the area has changed much-the book is 2000. The houses on Carroll St are still on a tour route I think. But who lives in that house across the street where the author of the book/movie Love Story lived-next to Rudi, and a few other famous people. I think the houses are still expensive. And he talks about it being Angelino Heights, remember Don insisted on calling it that even though everyone else calls it all Echo Park.

AND he of course echos one of the many "concerns" of Don that made him so special. That is that he, and the book, never forgave L. A. for stealing Chavez Ravine from the owners to give it to the Brooklyn Dodgers. That is the Don that others can't seem to know or that would help them understand him.

Why Don Slater, and thus the Homosexual Infomation Center, is either ignored or misunderstood

2011-03-14T06:15:00.003-05:00

The first point to make is that no one else talking about the subject knew Don Slater or ONE in the days before the division in 1965. Some came after and ONLY talked to Dorr Legg and his co-workers or Jim Kepner, who took Dorr's side/view even though he had quit ONE twice over Dorr's deceitfulness, which is why Don Slater acted as he did. (I became a staff member to replace Jim when he quit the second time.) As far as I know, there are only three people still living that were at ONE at the time of the separation. Tony and Melvin are no longer active. And that leaves me. I have no ego to protect, but have a moral duty to see that the facts are on the record. Apparently either most people did not read Todd White's book on the subject (Pre-Gay L. A.) or refuse to accept facts that don't support their agenda.

Historians and journalists who have written or spoken on this subject have been incompetent and unethical since they never heard our side of the history. That includes an editor of a West Hollywood newspaper who calls our archives a "rump" part of ONE. And it includes those who only listen to the lies of those who now have what remains of Dorr's (and Jim Kepner's) part of ONE, especially John O'Brien, who keeps sayng we stole Dorr's library and he "saved' it later when Don died. You have to wonder about the person who will ignore legal documents and listen to the version of history by someone who was not there and has a personal agenda to promote.

The most outrageous claim is that Don Slater, and even Dorr and others at ONE were not "gay" enough, and were not "out" enough. That is hard to say of course when you consider the facts-THEY were the first public voice of this movement. Not many people had their picture in a major magazine, LIFE, in 1964 as editor of a homosexual publication, As Don and Hal Call did. Usually this nonsense is said by those who have a different view of the movement than ONE/HIC has. While in a sense the great work of ONE is now mainly two libraries/archives a few of us continue to speak on issues based on the work started in 1950. And serious people will find good information and history in the issues of ONE Magazine. Reference is made to Don's views in articles published in general newspapers as well as a week of tv discussion in 1966 by Don as co-host on a L. A. tv station, with Maria Cole.

I have thought of some of Don's words/views as him being the devil's advocate and others say Don never said anything he didn't mean. That is too easy a black and white assertion.. For instance it is not easy to deal with what were and are the two most difficult aspects of pr for this movement-children and politics-usually communism. Bigots gleefully connect homosexuality and communism, and they are helped by the fact that this continuing movement ws started by communists-or more correctly ex-communists, as they were kicked out of the party because of their sexuality and the correct fear that the political effort would be attacked because of homosexuality. So how then do we think of Don's words about the (CSW) Pride parade? He accused the founders of being hypocrites since they were going to exclude two groups, NAMBLA and the "gay nazis.," while bragging of their diversity and unity of the cause. Now we had no connection to youth issues and we always thought that the "gay' nazis were FBI or some undercover people. We also thought that two nice young men who showed up to help with the Motorcade, and were never heard from again, were FBI. It didn't matter, they helped and we were happy to have them there. I don't think Don wanted them in the parade, but he wanted to point out the false claims of the parade people. I think Joe Hansen worked on the parade.

But now I am going to show you, in case even you have not read some of Don's thinking, what scares these current "gays." The quote is from Homosexual Information Center Newsletter #47, of December, 1992. Devoted to book reviews, the newsletter shocks the reader first with the negative review of a play/book, Queer Edward II , screenplay and commentary by Derek Jarman, British Film Institute, distributed in the U. S. by Indiana University. For those closet cases who fear the honesty of Don Slater, they will really be ungay with the words of Mattachine and ONE co-founder (and author of The Cowboys), Dale Jennings. But what is apparently still shocking to most glbt people today are the following words of Don Slater (while reviewing Eric Marcus' book, Making History: the struggle for gay ad lesbian equal rights, 1945-1990, an oral history ):

"This tiny, California-based magazine (Lisa Ben's Vice Versa) was a beginning. But like the early Mattachine Society (ed. note, it seems it should be Foundation) that followed, neither was the start of the homosexual movement in this country. They were forerunners. The late Chuck Rowland tells us that from 1950 and into 1953, the Mattachine Society held numerous discussion groups in Southern California. Topics dealt with how to come out and how to deal with the law and one's family and job. No printed advice was available; there was no one qualified to write as an authority on a subject hitherto unexplored by unbiased scholars. Just as Vice Versa was published for a chosen few, the Mattachine also aimed at a special band of followers. The meetings were often large but closed to the public. Those who gathered talked to one another in private.

The idea of educating the public began with the publication of ONE Magazine in January, 1953. ONE was the start of the homosexual movement and the start of the gay press as well. The Magazine aimed at a readership that included the general public. It was sold on newsstands beside the leading periodicals of the day. Professionally printed and having two-dozen pages of a 6x7 format, ONE sold for 25 cents. Boldly on the cover were the unequivocal words: ONE, The Homosexual Viewpoint, a matter of much contention among editors and readers. Its much criticized lack of subtlety and taste was ONE's chief selling point. It said: "We are! There is movement." Homosexuals were no longer whispering among themselves under obnoxious euphemisms such as "homophile," "lambda," and the insanely misleading term "gay."

The secrecy and fear of those times runs through many of the stories in the Marcus collection. There was the personal anguish over "coming out." The concern of these sexual emancipators with what society will think about their homosexuality borders on the paranoiac. They were hung up over homosexual urges most farm boys take for granted. One young man in New York City named Morty Manford was so mortified about his homosexuality during the Stonewall riots that he ran to his mother for comfort and support. At the city's christopher St. Liberation Day Parade in June 1972, Mrs. Manford carried a sign that read: "Parents of Gays: United in Support of Our Children." This is how the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays groups got started. And the parents in PFLAG still console their young today.

With the opening of politics in the early 1970s the movement became ripe for exploitation, and the usual army of profiteers moved in. Bruce Voeller, Howard Brown, Jean O'Leary, Virginia Apuzzo, Charles Brydon, Troy Perry, David Mixner, Torie Osborn began to steer the elected bureaucracy and the "gay community" into the right, "safe and correct" causes that could be endorsed by politically savvy politicians. Brydon describes how he took a job at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force that paid $17,000 a year in 1979. It was "a totally impossible salary" according to him. Since that time lesbians and gay advocacy has become the fastest growing industry in the nation. Executives of the larger organizations now command $75,000 to $100,000 a year. And they would all go back into their closets tomorrow if the salaries wsere cut off.

Through Marcus's histories we come to see that the level of commitment today is dramatically different from that of the pioneering activists of the 1940s and 1950s. The pioneers saw themselves as ordinary individuals, homosexual activity as something personal. They wanted equal protection, assimilation, privacy. The politicized gays see homosexuality as the sum total of what they are. They want position, rank, and public recognition on the basis of this one most intimate aspect of their lives. As such, they are part of a failed revolution which seems to be plunging back into prejudice and opprobrium, making it necessary to start all over from the beginning as human beings, not as clowns and sexual performers."

(Charles Lucas did give a favorable review of The Dreyfus Affair, a love story by Peter Lefcourt.)

The average person may not agree with much of Don's thinking, and know that he and others got salaries of perhaps $50 a week which may help explain his thinking on someone complaining about a salary of $17,000. And a few people who disagreed with personality issues ignored that because of the great work Don (and Dorr, et al.) did. They were conservative, I am a liberal Democrat. And Troy and others did work with Don (such as picketing the Los Angeles Times) and ignore his irascible nature-or perhaps they would use other adjectives. It was not money or politics that separated Don and Dorr, it was what effort deserved the higher priority. But I think it is politics that separates others then and now-such as John O'Brien. As in generic politics, I don't understand why John, et al, can't disagree with Don (and thus Dorr) without telling lies and making false claims.

From Madeline Davis

2011-03-12T08:58:00.000-06:00

Hi Billy,

Your list may be interested in a recent film: Swimming With Lesbians, filmed & directed by David Marshall. It gives the history of the Buffalo, NY gay community going back into the 30s but predominantly dealing with the social history from 1970 on. I had the privilege of narrating the film which has been shown at numerous gay film festivals, including the Frameline FF at the Castro Theater in SF. It is available from Frameline distributors. It deals a lot with the drag and trans communities in Bflo as well as the history of gay politics, essential kicked off by a speech here by Frank Kameny. It’s really a look at how the communities that were not on the coasts evolved into centers for gay activism.

Best, Madeline

book review of interest

2011-03-10T08:53:00.000-06:00

From Allen Young:

BOOKS / Doug Ireland : Martin Duberman's Dual Bio of Deming and McReynolds by Doug Ireland / The Rag Blog. Doug reviews Duberman's recently released A Saving Remnant: The Radical Lives of Barbara Deming and David McReynolds. Historian Duberman is known as the father of gay studies, and Deming and McReynolds are "two openly queer Americans who devoted their lives to the struggles for peace and social justice." Ireland tells us that A Saving Remant is "radiant with an emboldening and unquenchable humanity."

Stinson Carter article in current issue of The Forum News (Shreveport/Bossier)

2011-03-09T08:47:00.000-06:00

It was a pleasant surprise to be glancing through the free local "alternative' newspaper, Forum News, and see an article, with picture, of Stinson on his book, False River.

And, talk about a small world, it points out that one of the writers he likes is Walker Percy, and of course my friend in Boston is history prof William (Bill) Percy, Walker's relative, and another Percy wrote a famous book, I think it is Lanterns on the Levee, and Bill has a paper/disertation on him done by a former student at UTX. I found it very interesting not only about Wm Percy but about the times, race relations, and he knew famous people, etc. Life in Greenville MS and also in Europe.

A Vintage Montage Of Guys Together

2011-03-09T08:42:00.000-06:00

Thanks for this group of pictures of early homosexual men-the men look great but what is interesting is the question of -who took the pictures!

_ _ _ _

RE: Subject: "Secretly" - A Vintage Montage Of Guys Together on Vimeo

We have been around forever, many folks just didn't seem to see us (for whatever reason). This is nice. Turn on your sound for the music.

Discussion in Letters Section of new issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review- March/April 2011

2011-03-05T08:11:00.000-06:00

The new issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review has a letter from me with a reply from the editor concerning articles on closeted gay authors from earlier eras. I wonder if other people are frustrated when authors of the 1950s and 60s, who were out, such as Joseph Hansen, have been ignored, while many literary publications keep having "tributes" to closeted English authors, who did nothing to change things but merely hid and enjoyed life as hidden homosexuals-thus making lots of money, and giving none of it to our cause.?

The other issue is that the "artistic" community keeps pushing movies and articles on a few hippy era people who were homosexual and out but were "special" since they were weird and did outrageous things, personally and artistically. I find it hard to believe that Allen Ginsberg and such people did more to make life better from our community than did those who worked in movement publications, such as Don Slater, Barbara Gittings, Barbara Grier, et al, who managed to affect the world without writing pornography or needing drugs to be creative.

And it is time to tell the world that the lgbt community is not limited to drag queens, which is apparently what sells, since LOGO, the supposed glbt network can't seem to find anything else of value in our community. I suggest they look up resources listed in Gayellow Pages and give some balance to their coverage, or else we should tell the advertisers they are wasting their money as no one watches 24 hours of repeat RuPaul.

How the media handled the government's marriage issue this week.

2011-02-25T08:01:00.000-06:00

Jon Stewart, last night, and will be repeated 2 more times today on Comedy Central, did a great fast job of attacking MSNBC, and indirectly much of the media, on how it covered what may be a very important change in the legal battle over DOMA/marriage. The woman anchor is listening to a reporter breaking the news of how the Attorney General of the US is no longer going to defend the Constitutionality of the act. And suddenly she cuts off the reporter to switch to another reporter who has "breaking news" that Lindsey Lohan is in court.

Now at first you see what stupid journalists they are, if they claim to be journalists. Who thinks it is news that Lohan is in court and may go to jail? BUT, the change of legal attitude toward DOMA is new. And so it should be the prime news.

BUT, is it possible that our cause is better off if the "news" is handled as not that important? History may show that some "progress" is made easier if it is not well publicized.

Awarning to young homosexual Americans: 2 current events show that religions are the source of most of our problems, no matter what issue you are con

2011-02-19T07:53:00.000-06:00

The catalyst for covering this subject is the two events discussed on this week's edition of the HBO tv series hosted by a modern day "Mattachine": Real Time with Bill Maher.

He first covered the fact that while the world celebrates the events in Egypt in which citizens kicked out a corrupt dictator of 30 years, Fox New may in fact have a point-the fact is that Muslim men raped a foreign journalist supposedly because she wore clothing that did not follow their religious dictates and a large majority of citizens have said they approve of such religious control of the nation. It is not just a small group of extremists who want to force everyone to follow Islamic dictates. Maher said correctly, there will still be no true democracy there until there is sexual equality. That is true of the Islamic attitude toward homosexuals-they want us dead.

The second event he covered are current celebrations in southern states of the anniversary of the Civil War-which they lost. That war was to keep slavery. And it was supported by most citizens, including those who did not own slaves, and worse it was endorsed by churches. A hundred years later those churches, Methodists and Southern Baptists, etc, have apologized to black Americans for their violation of human rights. They have repented-but to make the point relative still, members of the local Methodist Church enter the building under the proof that they approved of slavery, written in stone over the entrance-Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The church divided and both parts used the same book, the Bible, to prove that their god did or did not approve of slavery. Today they use that some resource to attack homosexual Americans. They changed racially-they must be forced-educated-to change on sexuality.

Is it possible that young glbt people think the battle/movement to gain equal/civil rights for homosexual Americans has been won or progress will continue automatically, with them having to do nothing? We live in a world that others worked to make better. It could be reversed if future generations don't continue the work we have done.

Local versus national, and the media may be to blame-/RE: Not so much personal issues as different priorities

2011-02-16T07:49:00.000-06:00

I wonder if, again, the media might have a part. Even though I think our work did not get coverage, from the start it did in a way locally. The first notice was the Mattachine letter to school board people-who in their right minds would start a movement and aim at the children first, instead of laws, etc.? But, as we know and forget when dealing with the bigots, just the attack by Paul Coates, et al, against Mattachine-and they sure learned of the communist part right away-got the organization known, by people who had not heard of it by word of mouth yet. So his attack actually got new people involved. Dale Jenning's arrest/entrapment and the effort to fight the cops got notice in the community but not the media. And ONE"s magazine victory got very little notice. But by the 60s we were picketing the Los Angeles Times, having a Motorcade through L. A., on 5 or 6 tv talk shows, and radio talk shows, so it would have been hard for closet queens to NOT know of our work.

If no media coverage was head in Houston until later, then maybe there was no new groups started, etc. And the publicity in L. A. got new people started- many we didn't like too much, as they exploited the movement, got paid jobs with politicians, etc. And of course MCC started, and got lots of publicity when Troy Perry got interviewed by John Dart, the religion person at the Los Angeles Times when we were picketing-and the article was carried in many newspapers around the country-a gay church!!!

There was no competition between Mattachine and its offspring ONE since Mattachine in L. A. died and Hal Call restarted it in San Francisco. And the "proof" that the magazine was the essential part of the early effort was the fact that he and then the DOB immediately started a magazine too. It was national, not just local, and for a while they were the only way to get movement news. And the only news of books, etc.

Even though I had never heard of any book or the idea, apparently most people think the Kinsey book and Cory's book prepared the nation for a discussion on homosexuality. And so the timing was right. World War II sure moved people away from their old homes and small communities-and apparently even today people are still leaving the rural/small town areas.

As to conflict, it seems not so much internal as external-we now have 2 glbt Republican groups, 2 or 3 military groups, and I see no conflict among the several lgbt legal service organizations. I do wonder if the media covering DADT ever heard of Randy Shilts' book, Conduct Unbecoming. Even glbt journalists don't seem to know history and the path this and other parts of the movement have taken.

Mattachine was a great 'brand.' No doubt about it—ONE is strange, not exotic. And as to our history—only 3 people I know of still exist who were ONE: co-founder Tony Reyes, who is not active in the movement, Jim Schneider who was on the board of both ONE Inc before the division and on ONE Institute after the division. I am the only actual paid staff member living that I know of. And now ONE is lives on as 2 archives/libraries, preserving our history, which is now a small part leading up to Stonewall, Lawrence vs Texas, DADT, marriage, and all the great groups working today.

Why are glbt history books ignored by the media, including the lgbt media? Yet celebrity dog books get covered.

2011-02-16T07:44:00.000-06:00

ONE example- here is a view by an historian:

From one of Walter William’s finest students, C. Todd White’s Pre-Gay L.A.probably ranks as the best work on homosexuality yet published (by the University of Illinois Press). An anthropologist by training, White meticulously integrates individual biographies with institutional and social history in a charming and gripping narrative. The book is hard to put the book down because the splits and various movements in L. A. and beyond were so dramatic that one would not think it was published by a university press. It describes facts and personalities that scholars and young glbt people should want to find out about. It adheres to the finest traditions of objective scholarship; White excitingly describes how all of the major issues confronting the movement since Stonewall were discussed in depth and intelligently before that riot.

White focused more institutional history rather than broad ranging sensationalized Gay L.A: A History of Sexual Outlaws, Power Politics and Lipstick Lesbians (2006). It began with the Indian village on which the Spanish built, emphasizing movie stars and celebrities. White also downsized the exaggerated role assigned to Harry Hay in Gay L.A and corrected its misuse of the term gay for the 30’s and 40’s.

(WEG NOTE: The book is a serious book, which may explain why it isn't sexy enough.)

How to deal with sperm donor and the child/and how to write a good book about Molly Ivins (Windy City Times, 2-9-11)

2011-02-15T07:42:00.000-06:00

I only accidentally read the very good article by Mary Bowers because the heading was not "interesting." (And Baby Makes More) But I dont think I've read any better discussion on how to deal with the sperm donor who-despite signing away rights to the child-becomes involved in the child's life-often at the urging of the child. It seems to me that it is anothe rexample, as the writer says very well, that the real world is not the same as the theories. No matter what the man or woman thinks, it often doesn't work out that way, and the only real issue is what is best for the child. The article is done with a great sense of humor, which helps us get through life.

It is an issue not dealt with in most discussions of marriage, but ironically is in the issue of adoption. In this case the donor is known, but it could become an issue even if the donor is not known, in theory. In the case here the worry is that the man will want visitation rights. The writer says that if the women worry about the man getting time with the child-and the women don't want that- send the man to her as she has kids she would love to let someone handle for a weekend. That is reality. And even more is the fact that many kids later seek to know the donor/father.

So I hope a better heading will let readers know the subject of future articles.

And another issue I think of as being in the real world is two fold. It does seem to me that most people no longer actually read books, and that there is a need for a modern-day Readers Digest. Too many books seem to be "over-written." And that seems to be what Tracy Baim is saying in her review of the new book on Molly Ivins. (Molly Ivins: A Rebel Life; by Bill Minutaglio and W. Michael Smith, published by Public Affairs) Solid research, put into print can often be a bad thing if it drags the book down, making it slow reading. Too much information is worse than too little. And good editors should eliminate any duplication. As good an "entertainer" as Molly was, in writing and speeches, it is lousy that the authors don't get this across. Maybe this book will at least get people who want to know of her life to read her books. Your readers deserve an honest review of books-it is not fair to promote a book just because it is about some good person or cause, if the book is of no real value. For those who do buy books, many don't have that much money to spend, so need to know what books actually are worth reading.

First GLBT History Museum in the United States Announces Grand Opening for January 13

2011-01-14T12:47:00.000-06:00

SAN FRANCISCO—Internationally renowned as a center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender culture, San Francisco soon will welcome yet another groundbreaking queer institution: The GLBT History Museum. A project of the GLBT Historical Society, an archives and research center established in 1985, the new museum will be the first of its kind in the United States. The formal grand opening is set for Jan. 13, 2011.

“A quarter century after the founding of the GLBT Historical Society, we’re proud to open a museum to showcase our community’s history,” said Paul Boneberg, executive director of the Historical Society. “The GLBT History Museum is in the heart of the Castro, a neighborhood visited not only by locals, but also by tens of thousands of tourists every year who come in search of queer culture. At our museum, they’ll discover treasures from our archives that reflect fascinating stories spanning nearly a century of GLBT life. We have gone all out to create a museum as rich, diverse and surprising as the GLBT community itself. Whether they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or straight, visitors are sure to be moved, enlightened and entertained.”

Located at 4127 18th St., the museum includes 1,600 square feet of gallery and program space built to the specifications of the Historical Society, with custom fixtures, lighting and multimedia installations reflecting professional standards. Funding has come from Levi’s, the City of San Francisco, Castro district merchants, and numerous other spon sors and individual donors.

The museum will feature two debut exhibitions: In the main gallery, “Our Vast Queer Past: Celebrating GLBT History,” curated by historians Gerard Koskovich, Don Romesburg and Amy Sueyoshi; and in the front gallery, “Great Collections of the GLBT Historical Society Archives.”

The grand opening on Jan. 13, 2011, will include a preview for sponsors, donors and special guests, followed by a ribbon-cutting and reception open to the public from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Regular hours for The GLBT History Museum will be Wednesday through Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Sundays, noon to 5:00 p.m. Admission: $5.00; free for members. For more information, call 415-621-1107 or visit www.glbthistory.org.

Frank Kameny

2011-01-03T16:07:00.000-06:00

Someone wrote an article asking why Frank Kameny is not treated as a rock star for homosexuality. He has been an activist since th 1960s. Then someone else, who says they were at Stonewall, said he does not deserve any credit, especially for Stonewall as the Mattachine types did not support Stonewall.

Actually I should be happy, or gay, to hear this second opinion as it says the same thing I have been saying, not because I like it, but because it is the real world. It says that it was NOT the Mattachine types who did Stonewall,. They had in fact had to rush back from Fire Island. It was young outsiders from New Jersey, etc, who were not welcome at the other bars. They were no part of a movement, and I would say they had not only never read any book on the subject but had never even discussed the subject of homosexuality.

I'm not sure either version/view has to say that those who did or did not support Stonewall were seeking assimilation, since that is a separate issue. The issue was having a bar that they could go to, and they probably didn't care if heteros went there too as long as everyone got along.

Where the second view falls apart is the nonsense that the people at Stonewall were more "brave' than Kameny and the other Mattachines. Part of this is my opinion, but the kids at 1969 have no way of knowing how brave it was for Frank, Barbara, Jack, et al, to picket at Liberty Hall and induction centers in 1965. What did the kids have to lose? Jobs?

I still think I am right. What both Frank, et al, did and what the kids at Stonewall did was good. While Frank got a little publicity when he took legal action aganst the federal government and argued with and taunted Congress, the reason the kids got lots of media coverage is because they were sexier and the media had-partly because of the movement-finally discovered the homophile movement/issues and they covered it much like Fox News discovers or invents an issue and pushes it night and day for ratings and to excite the right wing base.

The most important element in any cause may be timing. But as the old saying goes, when the time comes, you have to be ready to take advantage of it. We still need to push the lazy media to cover more than the back and forth on marriage. And we are long past the time when any coverage of homosexuality is thought to need a comment from the bigots. You don't need an alternative opinion from someone to discuss the proposal/heory that 2 plus 2 equals 4, or an ignorant religious leader's opinion on if the earth is really round or oval and not square.

So welcome to the new year. Now let's get to work.

Putting in words how someone has felt working for a cause/25th celebration of the Windy City Times

2010-10-04T16:14:00.000-05:00

I have often tried to put in words how it has fet working for a cause and with people who had the same vision. I think one of the best efforts I have seen is by Jorjet Harper in this week's issue of Windy City Times. While Tracy Baim covers well the history of the paper and the movement in the Chicago area, Harper tells how she feels, looking back at the life she led. She like many of us has material from the old days and looking through it brings back memories, of faces and names and events often forgotten but which make up your history.

As is said, it is difficult to convey how exciting it was to be in the movement a quarter of a century ago, to be in the midst of the gay and lesbian renaissance, or as is said, naissance, since nothing like it had ever happened. Memories include working on a publication, the buildings they were in, strangely similar for the Windy City Times and ONE Magazine, rundown, etc. And who today can experience the fun of clunky typesetting machines, and even the early computers. No email.

But meeting the other people working for the cause was always fun. And sometimes it was frustrating, such as the coverage of the ongoing struggle of people such as, in Harper's case, Karen Thompson's efforts on behalf of her lover, Sharon Kowalski, whose parents kept them apart after the car crash that disabled her. You wonder where all these people are today.

"Most of us who worked at WCT and Outlines lived and breathed gay and lesbian community; gay activism; and gay and lesbian culture. When we weren't actually working on specific newspaper tasks, we'd sit around the office and discuss the waves and waves of controversies that were always swirling around in the community and, in one way or another, making news."

And a point well made, this history month, "The Wikipedia article on LGBT history dismisses the 1980s as "a dismal period for homosexuals." 'Dismal' is not how I'd describe it at all." Even with AIDS the 80s were a time of enormous expansion, as had been each decade since the movement's founding in 1950. And again, something we've all felt but historians still don't get in trying to learn how this movement has worked-"But the mainstream press was still loathe to report anything about gays and lesbians except AIDS-related news." An example is the failure to cover the 1987 March on Washington. Another example given is the failure to cover the Olivia Records 15th anniversary concert at Carnegie Hall in 1988. And the pleasure of writing about the importance on James Baldwin, the most important black gay author of the 1950s and 1960s. Sitting alone in the office reviewing his history for the article, trying to tell his importance to people who might not know or be too young to remember how groundbreaking his books had been in the 960s.

"I look back almost in awe on the hope and exquisite moments of those times amid the poignancy of our great losses. It was a rare opportunity to combine activism and culture, and feel like I was contributing something tangible to the movement for LGBT rights. We felt, and we knew, that we were fighting for something that really mattered, and that we were going to win, because we had to. I feel privileged to have been not only a part of that, but one of the people to document those times as they unfolded."

Amen.

Religion, personal and the basis of the founding of our nation

2010-10-02T16:13:00.000-05:00

In yesterday's issue of The Shreveport Times there are two columns saying that it is religion that created America and our problems are that there are people and organizations trying to take away religion, which is the basis of our success. Both columns are nonsense.

How many times do people, who seem to need to support their religious beliefs, try to find quotes, from the founders or their Bible, to 'prove" what is not true. This nation was founded by Christians, but not based on religion. For every quote someone can give us on the 'religious" beliefs of the founders, common sense can tell you two things-first that there as many quots that prove they were NOT pushing religion as the basis of the constitution, etc, AND why would someone think the politicians then were "more better, honest, etc" than politicians today. They said then, as now, what they thought the voters wanted to hear. And, like parents, they told kids to be good "or Santa Claus" wouldn't come." (Actually in some parts, they passes laws AGAINST Christmas obsevance, as being pagan oriented, but that is another story.) Religion, they were saying, is good for the masses, but they knew what it took to make a nation that would last, and the very first thing was to be sure that what they left in the old country, religious conflict and domination, did NOT happen here.

But it might be interesting to think about what Jesus would think, say and do if He were here today. For instance, would he join the Tea Party? He sure fought the establishment, he was attacking the religious leaders of his day, even using violence against the money changers in the temple. So he would probably not be happy with the bureaucrats in any political party or the leaders of religious churches. He would not be trying to save the world, he did not fight Rome or slavery only the "church." He offered salvation to individuals, hoping thus that they would inturn be better citizens and this would make a better nation. So there is no basis for wsaying Christians should force their beliefs on others. But that means that Muslims can not force Islamic laws on us either. That is why sparation of church and state is the greatest gift the founders gave us.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Suicide

2010-10-01T16:09:00.000-05:00

by Kevin Caruso

"I always knew that I was gay. I also remember seeing heterosexual couples and knowing that I wasn't like them. I would get very depressed about not being like other kids. Many times I would take a kitchen knife and press it against my chest, wondering if I should push it all the way in," said Alex, a 14-year-old gay youth.

And innumerable lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trangender (LGBT) youths have similar feelings.
Many do not feel safe to "come out" with their orientation because countless LGBT youths have been rejected by their families or friends, verbally abused, phsysically abused, or bullied as a result.
This intolerance against the LGBT community is rooted in ignorance.
Ignorant people cannot accept others that are not like them. And they do not understand that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trangender people do not "choose" their orientation -- they are born lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, just like some people are born with white skin and others are born with black skin.

Adolescence is a very difficult stage for anyone to go through. But lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders have the added difficulty of coping with this ignorance -- and the intolerance, discrimination, hate and rejection that often accompanies it.

It is difficult difficult to fully research LGBT youth suicide because many young lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders have not "come out." But studies indicate that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. And those who are rejected by their family are up to nine times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.

And the discrimination, ignorance, and intolerance that members of the LGBT community experience when they are young continue into adulthood.

If you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, and need help, please reach out. There are many resources available.

And please remember that the people who are ignorant and insensitive are the ones with the problems -- not you! Stay away from them, and surround yourself with caring and supportive people. But take steps to protect yourself, your rights, your feelings, and your physical and mental health.

If you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, and are suffering from depression or are suicidal, please go to the Home Page of this website and get help immediately.
Or call The Trevor Hotline, which is a 24-hour toll-free suicide prevention line aimed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youths:

1-866-4-U-TREVOR
------------------------------
And please read the following articles for more infromation on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered suicide:
Suicide Note of a Gay Teen
Joshua Melo Memorial -- Joshua, 15, Died by Suicide After Being Incessantly Bullied Because Some Cowards Believed That He Was Gay
Hate Against Gays and Lesbians can Lead to Murder and Suicide -- Remembering Matthew Sheppard and John French
I Want to Kill Myself: A Suicide Survivor Shares Her Suicidal Feelings and Suicide Attempt

Take care of yourself,
Kevin Caruso

Some LSU football supporters are like some Obama supporters

2010-09-29T16:02:00.000-05:00

Sometimes our friends can do us more harm than our enemies-as some LSU footbal players learned when their own fans were more unhappy with them than the West Virginia supporters-who are supposed to oppose them. That is what is reported by Glenn Guilbeau in The Times Monday (LSU bites back at ferocious fans). And the way Coach Miles thought about those booing fans, when the team is winning, could apply to some Obama supporters: "Those are the type people who go to work and complain abut the coffee when they didn't make it."

And Guilbeau goes even further into what could be said about "supporters" in a separate column (Good passing games don't always add up to victories) when he talks about how even a maybe Heisman Trophy quarterback (Arkansas' Ryan Mallett) may not be passing right. And this also relates not only to LSU's Patrick Peterson's playing, but to how everyone thinks they know better how to get Obama more liked and successful.

Maybe fans of football and politics should talk, sociologically and psychologically.

Articles in current issue of Montrose Gem

2010-09-27T16:01:00.000-05:00

To the Editor of the Montrose Gem:

I glanced online at your current issue of Montrose Gem and thought I'd say I found your donation of books to the (glbt) Resource Center at the University of Houston a good idea even if you miss the books. Do I understand that there is also a Resource Center at Rice University too? That is good for students. I hope all new students learn of these and the lgbt groups there. Is the Gem distributed on campuses? I do wonder how many people read books today. Many say they don't have time, with required reading etc. I think there should be a short list of important books, such as for History month. Of course some will read fiction for pleasure. I must admit I did not read books on the subject of homosexuality until I was already "out."

I also found the article on meanings of Montrose (History at a Glance, by Craig Farrel) interesting. It is curious, sociologically, how some area of a city becomes more "gay-friendly" than others. My only contact with the area was years ago when a cousin, Lanny Brown, lived there—he died later—and worked for a florist there.

I think we need to make history sexy, apparently. With all the good current mention of homosexuality it may not be interesting for young homosexual men and women to get past watching Ellen, Real World, and gay/lesbian characters on many tv shows, to learn that life was not always so "gay." Just as someone had to work to make America as good as it is, someone had to actually work to make America more gay-friendly. And it started, in 1950, in the worst of times, the McCarthy era of making someone scapegoats—communists—and making homosexuals sound bad by accusing us of being communists. That was not so wild, since the founders of this movement were communists-but had been kicked out of the party because they were homosexual. And immediately the movement was taken over by conservatives. Today we all all types, politically, religiously, socially, etc. (The current issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review is devoted to showing such diversity, with articles, ironically, on the Radical Faeries, also founded by the movement's main-co-founder, Harry Hay, and then the male bears, and a certain type of lesbian-out of the mainstream.)

That is why another article is so important for young people to try to understand, and that is that, while it was Republicans that blocked the ending of DADT, there are two glbt Republican groups working to change the views in the party. An even harder problem to deal with is the religious bigotry about sexuality, ironically in the black churches of using the same Bible that approved of slavery to say homosexuality is wrong. And proof that the ones preaching this nonsense the most are closet queen black preachers-see Bishop Long of Georgia. It takes a little perspective to learn who our enemies are, and how to deal with them. But it is much easier today than in 1950—long before Stonewall—when the founders started to educate themselves and others about the truth about sexuality, especially homosexuality. We are still making progress. And it is good to have Montrose Gem keeping us informed, and entertained.

Why the Tea Party "cause" is and is not like the homosexual "cause"

2010-09-15T16:00:00.000-05:00

The media is obsessed with the Tea Party and members call it a "cause." But there is no one "party." The same is and was true of the homosexual cause.

The first and most important element in both causes is the enthusiasm of the people. TV talkers keep saying that there is vitality in the Republican Party, but don't say it is in fact the Tea Party people who have the momentum, not the 'professional" party members. And that members/voters have lost interest in the Democratic Party-probably for the same reason there is no excitement in the mainstream Republican Party. Year after year there seems to be no change, no matter which party is in power or who is leading the party. Some people seem to think our nation needs a third party-but the only effort is with those in the Tea Party events and candidates.

It seems the cause/purposes of the people supporting the Tea Party efforts, appeared about the time of the 2008 election-and it is doubtful that the media created the "party." Fox News does not deserve credit or criticism for covering what was already happening.

The homosexual cause did not start so suddenly, it was created slowly from secret meetings in 1950 and spread and new joiners had enthusiasm for what the effort was doing-gaining equal/civil rights, which had been denied in 3 areas, religious, legal and medical. It had to work with NO support from the media until about 1969 and Stonewall.

There is another difference between the two causes. It seems the tea party members merely seek to regain what special rights they had, often at the expense of people of color and other minorities. But they blame the present situation on professional, "experienced' politicians, and media "experts."

Such people don't have any doubts that they deserve their rights, and their cause is "just.' That was not true of homosexual Americans in 1950. Most of those members had believed the experts/professions who had said they were sick, sinful and criminal and did not deserve to be accepted as equal citizens, unless they changed their basic nature. So they too had to realize that the 'experts' and professionals were all wrong.

Can these two causes work together in areas where they both seek to make the government and society responsive to their needs and make politicians accountable for what they do?

One other news item of the day shows one possibility, and why the bureaucrats should worry about the members of both causes-and some people are members of both causes-and that is the report that once again voting machines broke down in several states-meaning that the bureaucrats have made no progress in protecting the integrity of one of the most important aspects of citizenship. And this lack of competence continues under all administrations, federal and state and local. Let us find some new citizens to put in office who can function.

My contact with/RE: Mattachine Society

2010-09-13T15:58:00.001-05:00

In response to a query by Greg Jeu, Publisher, OutSmart Magazine:

I was never a member of Mattachine, the first-early (Foundation), started in 1950 and essentially killed by 1952/3 when Hal Call and cohorts kicked the founders out at an annual meeting. I think this is not important to most people, but is sociologically and historically since as usual both sides were good people and had good reasons for how they acted and thought. I also was not a member of the Mattachine (Society) which Hal, and then Don Lucas, et al restarted in San Francisco. The early meetings of Mattachine were at secret, sort of like some communist groups and earlier secret societies. From one small group meeting, it slowly grew to dozens, and spread from Los Angeles over the south and then up north.

Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al were either Communists or leftwingers. They were then kicked out of the party for being homosexual-remember Harry had actually married to be a good party member, although I don't think his family background explains this. I think some material is good in Stuart Timmon's book, The Trouble with Harry Hay (Stuart has recovered from a stroke and is working with others to honor Harry this year I think, although I have had no contact and don't get response from what was harryhay.com, nor his email-stimmo@aol.com) . I think a friend, Lee Mentley of Stuart's, could get more info if you want (leementley@sbcglobal.net) . I don't have contact with James Sears whose book on Mattachine covered most of this, Behind the Mask of the Mattachines.

My connection to Mattachine was short. It started in September, 1959 when I finally decided to go to ONE's offices-having had the magazine from newsstand. I met Jim Kepner first, and we went down to a drugstore-Thrifty's across from Pershing Square at 6th St., a few blocks from ONE's offices at 232 S Hill/233 S. Broadway-upstairs from (I actually forget if it was Goodwill or Salvation Army) a used clothing store. But I remember it was a block from Grand Central Market, a great place and a block from a large Mexican-American movie theater and near the Bradbury Building, The Los Angeles Times and City Hall and across the street from a Cooper's Donut place, where we would go after evening meetings.

I had forgotten the reason Jim told me about the coming Mattachine convention in Denver and it was I think that he was going to speak. I did not go with him, and honestly can't remember if i drove or took a bus, but assume I drove, went to the meeting, my first active participation in a homosexual activity. It was "historic" for two reasons, actually getting large local media coverage, which backfired and the local people suffered. The second was getting "coverage" in San Francisco, because they had let some unknown person propose the group send a "thank you" to the San Francisco mayor for being 'gay-friendly"- not the right term but what it meant. The stooge was doing this for another man seeking the office-Wolper I think, and it was used in his ads against Christopher. Not for a really good reason, but the local press/media and public got unhappy with this-even though they were still not "friendly" and so the attempt backfired and Christopher won re-election. And Mattachine got some publicity-this was before SIR, etc.

After the convention I went to San Francisco-again I don't think I went with Hal, but when I got there I stayed a week or so with him and worked at the office on Mission St. They were also PanGraphic Press, which supported them, and so I helped put small books together and some on the Mattachine Review. I had read a book, Advise and Consent and said it was worth talking about so they told me to do a book review which I did but don't think it was used until a year or so later-61. Then I returned to Los Angeles and started volunteering at ONE. Jim Kepner got mad at dorr Legg for misleading them over the issue of tax-exemption etc, same type thing Don Slater finally got tired of a forced the separation in 1965. (Ironically it was only when we finally got a tax-exempt part -ISHR- that Dorr felt safe enough to really push his agenda (education) and tried to stop Don's part (the magazine mainly.)

When Jim quit, Dorr got them to offer me the job, paid, as a staff member-the pay was a joke of course; both Don and Dorr had partners supporting them-Tony Reyes danced at a night club on Olvera St. I had income from my family. (Most of this is covered in Todd White's book on all three early organizations, Mattachine, ONE and then the Homosexual Information Center-Pre-Gay L. A. I don't think you ever reviewed gthe book. You did print a chapter of an earlier book on Kepner-I forget which book.

We moved to the Venice Blvd address, at Western, in 1962 and then the separation came in April-Easter-1965. Ironically at that time Harry Hay had met John Burnside (I believe first at a ONE meeting) and John eventually left his wife and they started living together and he moved his business-making teleidoscopes- to a building around the corner from us at Washington Blvd at Western. Later, when Don & Tony bought a small house in the Four Corners area of Colorado, John and Harry spent a few years living in a cottage at San Juan Pueblo Indian Reservation in NW New Mexico.

Harry had dropped out as did Dale Jennings, for a while, but kept contact with the movement and also worked, while in NM with stopping a dam that would have harmed the Indians/Native Americans. Dale went on to write a little-including the movie, The Cowboys, which starred John Wayne, and a book The Ronin, both of which bring in a little money each year-HIC owns his estate. And harry did the Gay Faeries thing. Harry's views did not agree with those of ONE people but they always loved each other and worked together.

I should point out that the reason Hal Call et al kicked Harry et al out was that while their work had started a great movement, they would have killed it soon as they had the communist background during that era, McCarthy, etc. Harry even appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee-one of the few who made them look foolish. Hal, a veteran, as in a lesser way was Don Slater, was a conservative, as were by then most of the founders of ONE, Inc when it came out of early Mattachine to be the public voice, before early Mattachine essentially died.

Soon after Hal, et al started in San Francisco, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon, et al started DOB-Daughters of Bilitis, and then The Ladder. ONE published this history of the movement in the first book-Homosexuals Today, which also covered most European groups/publications.

I thought I'd put this in context, sorry it goes so long. Over the years we always had contact with Hal Call and he left money to ISHR-he sided with Dorr and helped him rebuild the information before the legal issue was settled-we gave him back a copy of the membership. I could not keep contact iwth Don Lucas. We also had good relations with SIR and Guy Strait, early San Francisco people and groups.

Hope your article goes well.

Examples of abuse of the Freedom of the Press by journalists

2010-09-11T15:57:00.000-05:00

Two current examples of how journalists, either because they are incompetent and/or unethical, have caused harm to the nation should worry any journalists who are (competent and ethical).

The popular one, that even a few tv talkers have tried to deal with, is wild coverage of a small-time preacher in Florida, who sought fame and fortune by announcing he was going to burn the Koran. While many journalists and media types excuse coverage of some person or "news" by saying it has been covered on the internet, on some website or blog, there is no excuse for giving further coverage and most people ask how the mention on some obscure website jumps to discussion on every major tv and news program. How did the public know what was on a website? Does someone spend all day searching every possible website for some sexy news?

It is queer that journalists/media persons can ignore lots of real news and yet constantly repeat every new word from this preacher. And never ask if the preacher, and their pimping/exploiting his claims, might be causing harm to the young men and women in the military, serving to protect our nation from harm. Is "freedom of the press" so sacred it must prevail even if it leads to harm of our nation?

The second questionable actions by a journalist is more specific and possibly made the difference in the success or failure of a proposed passage of a legal attempt to stop same sex marriage, the Proposition 8 in California. If I understand the claim, found in an article on The Bilerico Report explaining why one person did not attend the recent convention of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association in San Francisco.

The reason is that a host was a journalist who acted strangely in the handling of coverage of an event. The first question is why a glbt journalist with common sense did not find the problem with some nutty lesbian school teacher inviting her students to witness her wedding in a time when such a marriage was being voted on-Prop 8. Why support such a stupid, selfish person? But if you are going to cover the event, why would you deliberately make it more controversial, but make the story more sexy so that it would sell more papers, by contacting the people who opposed such a marriage?

The question for journalist ethics has been asked before. If you are going to cover an event by an atheist, for instance, why is it a journalist rule that you must then contact someone or some organization that hates atheists to give their view? Do you invite an atheist to give an opinion every time you report some religious event or discussion?

There is a possibility that this lgbt journalist helped Prop 8 pass, since the claim had been made by the Mormon church ads that if such marriages were allowed it would lead to support of homosexuality in the schools, indoctrinating children. And here was the glbt journalist providing the bigots with "proof."

Perhaps this report is wrong, that the journalist did not put himself into the news instead of reporting it. But the issue has to be dealt with in a generic discussion and the profession needs to tell the public if it approves of journalists, like the entertainers on Fox News, making news, rather than reporting it.

Some thoughts for and about Muslim Americans by ONE homosexual American

2010-09-07T15:51:00.000-05:00

If you were told a religion or "faith" tells its followers that you are evil and should be killed, it should be logical to fear and hate that religion.

I believe that Islam says that and therefore my common sense guides me to only one action-to demand that all religions in America follow the U.S. Constitution and to support separation of church and state, which was the intent of the founders.

Other religious groups have faced the same issues Muslims are now facing, currently forced on them by the proposed mosque in New York City. Catholics faced such issues, no matter what their nationality, when first coming to America. And the issue in a sense was settled when President Kennedy sought the office and explained how he viewed the issue of following the laws of the nation—not changing them—rather than the dictates of a foreign power (the Pope).

Intelligent Americans, no matter their views on religion, know that too often religion is a dividing force rather than a uniting one, and that fanatics in religions need to be controlled by the rest of followers when they misuse the religion and misinterpret the 'sacred" books to do harm to others. An example in America is how Protestants in the southern part, mainly, used the Bible to support white people owning black people/slaves, leading to a Civil War, and then again using their Bible to support harm to black Americans by joining the KKK. The sin was not only commission, but omission, since other Christians did not speak out against this evil.

America is not fighting a religious war in the Middle East-it is fighting a cultural war, in which fanatic Muslims have attacked us. the issue of the mosque in New York has led charlatans, in the name of Christianity, to exploit the issue of religion-and it is necessary for true Christians to speak out against such fanatics, who would, for instance, burn books, including the Koran.

In America, the majority does not decide civil/equal rights. But it has taken all these years to come close to living this ideal, and Muslims need to understand this as well as Mormons, who seek their rights but want to deny these rights to homosexual Americans. At the start, the nation's founders had to compromise, such as allowing slavery in the Constitution, but it was clear to them and everyone since-except those who personally benefitted from slavery—that it would have to go if we were to live up to the ideal of all men being created equal. And Christians have to admit that the Bible does allow for slavery but that does not make it right and the ideal promoted by the Bible leads to the end of slavery.

It is not asking too much of Americans today, living in the greatest nation on earth-and free to leave if they don't agree—to work to preserve and defend our values and to make this a more perfect nation-one that we have because millions of Americans since the founding have given their lives to defend.

Why the Homosexual Information Center, like ONE Magazine, is Don Slater's gift to the community/movement

2010-08-26T15:49:00.000-05:00

The main reason to get our material online is that it is the work and thinking of Don Slater. Anyone who doesn't care to hear what those who founded this civil rights movement thought and did in the early days -that actually set the course it has taken- can ignore us, but our job is to at least put the material there for the few who seek to understand something that changed the course of their lives and the nation. They will not get it anywhere else.

It may not seem relevant, since in a few of the Newsletters I am going to mention the people and events are not well known-then or now, but the issue and thinking was relevant then and now.

It is interesting to see what co-workers thought of some of the founders. Such as Dale Jennings' thoughts, on the Stuart Timmons' book on Harry Hay (The Trouble With harry Hay). Actually what Dale thought was bad, is good from my view and the view of history. He says Stuart missed the most important single element of Harry. "That is Harry's complete inability to bend, adapt, and change." Yet he then immediately answers his own charge. "It is a flaw that always marks the end of an evolutionary strain." That is not true, Harry kept going and affecting us till the day he died. Dale is thinking about Radical Faeries, and thinks they were/are silly. I don't think history has said that yet.

What Harry could say is that Dale, after leaving ONE, Inc and the magazine, after co-founding it as he did early Mattachine, dropped out of the movement for years. He did, as HIC now benefits from, write The Cowboys, the movie John Wayne acted in. But anyone studying Harry needs to read the Newsletter that has Dale's views of harry and the book.

Waht many young eager "gays" did not like in the hippie generation was don's rejection of the efforts of Gay lib. He thought they were too leftist politically and thus harmed the movement. then add his thoughts on the misuse of the word gay, "Although homosexual is not a dirty word gay was substituted in its place. this made those who didn't like the sex in homosexual a lot more comfortable with themselves. But using gay as a euphemism for homosexual deprives us not only of two honest words, but what they stand for too....In going from an adjective describing a merry mood enjoyed by everyone to a noun labeling a people separated sexually from the rest of the population the word gay produced a new social order."

This was relevant to Don's thinking of homosexuals in the military. He discussed the Perry Watkins case. He says what we say today, "What Watkins really needed to say is that none of this in anybody's business....But he was proud to be gay. It didn't occur to him that his right to privacy had been compromised. Like the army, he was convinced that his homosexuality was significant."...In the first place, sexual orientation has no constitutional status. It is anomalous, and, at bottom, impossible to protect people on the basis of something of which the legal and psychological relevance is yet to be determined. Sexual orientation is too amorphous, too flexible and diverse -if it has any meaning or bearing at all-to prescribe as a judicial cure. If the minority of persons who submit to the homosexual stereotype are given constitutional protection on this basis, what happens to the rights of the majority of persons who enjoy the exact same sexual outlets but do not recognize, identify with, or live by its limitations?" Who has heard such thinking?

But what did Don say about Stonewall? (Newsletter #21, 1/72) He refers t the movement as a movement of free minds, diverse and the sexaul revolution of which the homosexual movement was the catalyst and still is the vanguard has made astonishing progress in two decades.

"In June of 1969, there occurred the event of the Stonewall Uprising. It was a defensive reaction by a group of jaded, role-playing bar queens who had rejected society in favor of visions of their own private gay world. The struggle at the Stonewall was a momentary, unplanned confrontation between the emotionally immature, self-ashamed patrons of a gay club, on Christopher Street in New York City, and the police. for those homosexuals who live and act out a gay role, reason and logic have always been the devil's instruments, inhibiting their total, spontaneous, unstructured response to what is happening. The action of this bizarre element of New york's gay population was held up to glorification by latent liberationists as the first attempt of homosexuals to wage heroic struggle against police oppression. It was the signal for other guilt-ridden homosexuals to come out of their closets. They could finally relate. The incident came to symbolize gay power, gay militancy,and ironically, gay liberation. The anniversary of the Uprising has been twice celebrated when the followers of gay revivalism on both coasts gathered to conduct elaborate rites of self-deliverance.

"To the 'children of christopher Street' the actions of earlier homosexual groups looked like efforts at quiet accommodation with a fundamentally hostile society. They blamed the government and the law for their personal unhappiness. Their frame of mind was easily made a political tool. They were especially susceptible to the ideology of the New left. The main thing the New left has been saying is that the United States is intrinsically evil, and repressive in its treatment of Negroes and Mexicans and other minorities, and that the Indochina war is an immoral imperialistic aggression. The ideas And attitudes of the New left were absorbed into the mainstream of gay liberation thought. The Gay liberation Front became the left insurgency of the national homosexual movement."

"Homosexuals who had been in hiding and who for one reason or another despised themselves-like a stream of pentecostal witnesses-appeared to confess their guilt and affirm their salvation-and then to excoriate the 'pre-revolutionary' homosexual leaders who persisted in contending that homosexuals should not be organized into an anabaptist sect and that the 'concern of the movement' as the Mattachine founders had perceived, 'is the problems of sexual variation.'

There are plenty of sexual revolutionaries (maybe the majority) who firmly believe that the United States is one of the least repressive societies in human history, that the war in Indochina is not immoral and imperialistic, and that war related research is not necessarily wicked. Differing views on these questions need have no quarrel with each other as far as the homosexual movement is concerned. They are issues utterly irrelevant to sexual freedom. What is important is that the individual should be able to survive in the movement, and retain his own mind, manners and political beliefs and not be drawn off into the visionary gay world of the 'Children of Christopher Street.

(This last line explains my thinking about dealing with Wayne and russell, et al.)

I will not quote Number 26 (9/73) but thoughts on the fire in the gay bar in New Orleans was not that of the majority, to put it mildly.

How about his view of the Advocate (newsletter #29 (5/75) Steve Ginsberg (where is he) sold the remains of PRIDE to Dick Michaels for about $300, who ran it like a banker, covering Troy Perry and exploiting gay bar fires (Don says that most of the money raised for victims of the fire did NOT get to them but was spent by those raising the funds) and having lucrative personal ads. He carefully excluded those items he thought would not sell papers and also people he didn't like.

He then sold it to David Goldstein for a lot more money, who did not change much. Not a good thing.

Then Don takes on Dave Glascock, again, were is he. He questioned his qualifications to speak for the community as staff member for Supervisor Ed Edelman. "When Glascock first drifted into L A., like most ideological hustlers he started looking around for a little honest graft. The unstructured homosexual movement was like a sitting duck, and as an opportunity to enhance his personal fortunes it beat selling corn salve." He got coverage with his picture in the Advocate by marrying a Selma St hustler, performed by Troy.

(Is Obama making any wiser choices in deciding who can give info on our community/movement?)

We put out a newsletter explain why we didn't work with the county on vd issues-we didnt' trust them, but the new Gay & Lesbian Center did, got lots of money.

We reviewed books-Newsletter #31 said the book by Howard Brown (Familiar Faces, hidden Lives) was nonsense merely saying Dr. Brown thought he was the most famous queer in America because he was a professional and came out, finally. "After i came out publicly, I became the most prominent self-confessed homosexual in America, partly because i was a member of a profession regarded as a citadel of respectability."

Newsletter #41 (Spring 1990) was a symposium on outing, with Martin Block, John Burnside, Harry Hay, Morris Kight, Stuart Timmons and Don Slater.

And we put out an announcement when we hosted discussions after performances of the play The Geese, at the Coronet Theater. (This was the cause of picketing the Los Angeles Times (over refusal of an ad), where Troy Perry got lucky and his interview by John Dart went nationwide.) Co-hosts included Dr. Irene Kassorla, Joe Hansen (as James Colton), Gale Whittington (Committee for Homosexual Freedom, S. f.), Dr. Fred Goldstein, Morris Kight, Herb Selwyn, and Don Slater.

None of this would have happened without Don, and Los Angeles heard him, on tv, radio and in newspaper articles. It is hard to say how many people heard, saw and read him, but it would be foolish to deny that his views were heard and are alive today. The magazines need to be seen and read. The glbt journalists, historians, professionals today should know this person and what he said, even if they reject his thinking.

Link to Alternet article saying early Christians accepted same sex marriage in today's post

2010-08-23T15:48:00.000-05:00

I find the best argument for getting same sex marriage in the comments added to the linked-article saying that there are "pictures' of two maile saints getting married (in St. Catherine's Monastery, wherever it is).

A man says he told his son he didn't need to get a marriage license to live with the girl, it didn't prove love, etc (I had just seen a terrible film, Jude The Obscure, which said the same thing after an eternity of talk and tragedy.) The wise son said yes, BUT if I get the license, I get cheaper car and other insurance rates, etc.

Either we ALL (who drive safely) get those discounts or they are "special rights." and while it is a compromise, until we get the law changed, we deserve same sex marriage to at least get what heterosexuals get.

And that's another thing, some businesses give discounts to people who prove they went to church. As long as they are private businesses, fine, BUT if they are taking taxpayers money that too is "special rights" and should be against the law.

Troy Perry, Barry Obama—It IS "our time" and you/we minorities have the same problems

2010-08-22T15:45:00.000-05:00

This is a sermon to Rev. Perry and President Obama about the religious bigots who attack both men and their supporters over their religious beliefs: Both are viewed by "religious leaders of the dominant religions as "other."

Rightwingers are questioning the religion of Obama, as they have questioned the "religion" of homosexuals, especially those who form separate churches, mainly the Metropolitan Community Church, and founder Perry.

Obama can't win, even more so than Christian homosexual Americans. If he is a Christian, as he is, it is said to not be the "right" church, and what is his church, etc. If he is accused of secretly being a Muslim, which he is not, then he is surely considered to be a "different" American. The same people pushing this agenda say the same thing about homosexual/glbt Christians. They find quotes, out of context, thus misusing their Bible or Koran, to condemn those whose sexuality or religion differs from theirs—just as those falsely "accused" of being homosexual or Muslim, are in a position of being wrong no matter how they answer—since even if they 'deny" being either, they then seem to be agreeing that being either is "bad."

The "issue" of the proposed mosque at "ground zero" in New York has confused the issue even more. But it is important to say that those who have compared the objection to building where the mosque/center would be to how "Christians" handled the KKK are right. The point is that those objecting (including this writer, but for obviously other reasons—I am homosexual and the Islamic people want to kill me). But we must never forget that, if we want "moderate" Muslims to speak out against the radical ones who want to destroy our nation and civilization, then we need to have "moderate' Christians speak out against extremists who want to take away the civil rights of minorities, including homosexual Americans. And the issue of the KKK is the best proof that in most of history "Christians did NOT do "What Jesus would do." The vast majority of "Christians" did not only NOT speak out against the KKK and White Citizens Councils, most of the members were "Christian" including preachers, cops, and politicians-some were all three. And moderate religious people have not spoken against the violence—verbal and physical—against homosexual Americans.

And the issue of same-sex marriage is the same as the issue of inter-racial marriage-which has to be admitted by Obama. The lies bigots used to oppose inter-racial marriage (protecting children of such marriages being a major point) are the same lies used to oppose same-sex marriage. It goes without saying that President Obama is proof that children of such marriages can do ok.

And the same arguments against homosexjuals serving openly in the Armed Forces were used to try to stop the racial integration of the military.

So I urge the two men to get together and answer the lies of bigots and show the vast majority of good American citizens that facts of the matter—truthiness—despite Stephen Colbert's fun with it—is NOT something a great nation can use as a guide.

Windy City Times article on the history of gay marriage

2010-08-17T15:44:00.000-05:00

Windy City Times has done a great service to its readers by being, as far as I know, the first of the lgbt media to actually try to give a short history of the community/movement attitudes on same sex marriage.

It has been ignored by most of the general press and the glbt press that there has been controversy about how to view marriage from the very start of the movement to gain equal rights for homosexuals-in 1950 with early/first Mattachine.

And when members of Mattachine realized that, despite the tremendous expansion of the organization from one to dozens of meetings each week, they were only reaching local people, some members moved to become public and publish a magazine to educate everyone,-homosexual and non-homosexual- on the issues. Thus, despite the wording in the article, ONE was THE first public publication, not "among" the first. And although the magazine was the reason/impetus, from the start it was realized that if successful, there would be a need for educational efforts and social service efforts and work to push research on the subject, so in each of these fields ONE was first.

And, from the start, founders being human, there was tension over which of the parts was the more important, and that led to a separation of the organization in 1965. Windy City Times published a review of the only book/record (Pre-Gay L. A., by C. Todd White) of the history of this organization, which published these articles on marriage, and held discussions about it. So it is misleading for the unknown author of this article to fail to mention that although ONE archives deserves all the credit given in the article, it is only a part of the original ONE Inc archives/library. There is no way an article about ONE Archives can be covered without covering the other part of the collection, that of the Homosexual Information Center.

If the article merely limited itself to the issue of marriage and referred to the ONE Magazine articles, perhaps it would not be valid or relevant to point this historic fact out. But you and the people at ONE Archives open the issue when they claim to be founded in 1952—which they were NOT. ONE Inc was and they are not and have never been ONE, Inc. They were given the collection that the Dorr Legg faction of ONE had and they were in a sense taken over by the third part of the collection, that of major ONE person Jim Kepner who left ONE and formed his own archives, which after Dorr's death was joined by the ONE part-that is why at first it was called the ONE/IGLA Collection and for a short time the ONE/ILGA/HIC collection, reuniting all parts of the ONE Inc collection.

ONE Archives was not incorporated in 1952, ONE, Inc was and in about 1965 ONE Inc formed a tax-exempt part, ISHR-the Institute for the Study of Human Resources, which eventually took over ONE, Inc. Today neither exist, except for probable errors in the state of California records. But those records show when ONE Archives was incorporated and that was not in 1952. It was after the Homosexual Information Center was incorporated and after ILGA (International Gay & Lesbian Archives) was.

It is strange that there is no mention of the editor of ONE Magazine, Don Slater, ONE co-founder and main co-founder of the Homosexual Information Center along with Jim Schneider, who was kicked out as board member of ONE Inc for his efforts to keep the organization whole, and then became a board member of the ONE Archives and probably is the main reason ONE Archives was able to actually get the building housing ONE Archives available for occupation before he was kicked out again, and this writer.

In a sense, both parts of the archives can claim to be founded in 1952, as that is when the collection began. Not the organizations controlling them today, but the material-material which all three men get credit or, yet are not mentioned in the article, yet it is they who got these articles published.

Review of Stonewall Uprising in Windy City times (8-4-10)

2010-08-16T15:42:00.000-05:00

To Tracy Baim:

I must once again register my complaint about people and publications giving false information about the history of the movement to gain equal/civil rights for homosexual Americans. Your article by Richard Knight, Jr. (Knight at the Movies does this in the reviews of Stonewall Uprising. No excuse/reason will not allow the words "The Stonewall riots, the beginning of the gayrights movement in this country..." This is not just semantics. This is faking history—sort of lie Fox News and bigots do.

It is not "similar to other singular moments in history in that many of the details of what exactly happened-when and how it happened, as well as who was involved-have become buried within the momentousness of the incident itself." Nonsense. The history of the total movement is well documented, since the start in 1950, and in Windy City Times, for instance. There have been many instances in this movement's history, and it is not a proven fact that this one incident is more important in the struggle than many other incidents. Who makes such decisions? Are court cases not important / the educatinal work much earlier, such as Frank Kameny's efforts and the picketing of historic places, suchas in phiadelphia? Is something more important because lazy media people report it more than other incidents?
What type of "overview" of the 1950s and 60s ignores all the work done by men and women since 1950? And to quote Eric Marcus again, after he has already apologized for being misquoted is lazy journalism.

It is pleasant to hear views of films/fiction, but it is not acceptible in a lgbt pulication to repeat lies and false history in a documentary that claims to be presenting the truth that others have ignored.

2010-08-16T15:40:00.000-05:00

Regarding Ron Tate:

Obama handed the Republicans a wonderful gift by supporting the building of the mosque near Ground Zero. 70 per cent of Americans oppose it. This will ensure a landslide Republican victory come November although that was almost a guarantee. Obama has eroded much of his liberal base including gays, where he has stalled in fulfilling major promises. He also ran on a platform to end the middle East wars. He continues to spend us into an insurmountable debt. November is not going to be pretty!

I'm reading about 'Republicans attack Obama over Muslim center comments' on Fluent News. Here is the link:http://fluentnews.com/s/25739896

_______

Maybe I am "playing games," and becoming a Karl Rove, but I have been thinking about this issue-he had so many Americans excited, and now they are either no longer excited or are questioning his work/administration.

He, with a majority of Americans, proved that a man named Barak could be elected to the highest office of this nation, and probably the world. But its not just Michele's trip to Spain, or his slow reaction to the Gulf spill, or that he has failed to do what every other president has failed to do, solve minor problems that build up enough anger in various people to make a majority-such as not paying Black farmers (farming income they are owed that was paid to white farmers), or Native Americans (oil royalties owed for a decade or more and kept in courts and congress for lousy reasons, unethical and incompetent) or that we still have kids' names on travel ban lists, etc.

But it is time that he stop trying to prove what he already has, as a black Barak. It is time he is Barry, a bi-racial human, man, white AND black, and mainly raised by the white part of his family. He has to lead, even if it means he is a one-term president. His specific words, for instance, about the issue of the msoque in new York are accurate-but tone-deaf. This is not an issue of religious freedo-the First Amendment. Most Americans, even those of us who afre not "religious" knwo full well the vils that are done to noln-Muslims in Muslim controlloed nations. Why should we be asked to give special rights to Muslims here when they kill non-Muslism, and they kill homosexsuals?

I can personally give proof that not all American hate Muslims. Two blocks from my home is a mosque. As far as I know, no one has made any complaints in the years it has been there. It took over a closed Presbyterian church. It violated no local laws, and has cAused no parking complaints/problems. The same can not be said of the largest Baptist (southern) church in Shreveport, when it tried to take over nearby land and expand. It got stopped by neighbors and politicians and changed its plans.

Another, older book aimed at teenage homosexual boys: Independence Day

2010-08-14T15:39:00.001-05:00

I again wonder what happened to the book and author of Independence Day, written by B. A. Eker, in 1983 (published by Avon/flare). At the time she lived in Venice, CA.

The book is about a teenage boy who realized he was homosexual, and to learn about it and also to find someone to talk to about it. His main problem, a generic one, was that he loved his best friend, heterosexual. The title refers to the decision, after almost a year of distress about what to do, who to tell, etc, to tell his buddy on the 4th of July.

The book, like several published about the same time, handles the issue well, almost too well, since everyone turns out to be comfortable with the "coming out."

I wonder how many boys read this book and were helped by it, as well as parents, etc. And where is the author today-the book said she was working on another novel.

Lt Choi and the jealous people who destroy a movement by contstanly trying to find fault with those actually doing the work

2010-08-07T20:35:00.002-05:00

Box Turtle Bulletin has a discussion about Lt Choi and his work and finances:

As someone who has worked in the movement to gain civil rights for homosexuals in America since 1959, I wonder how many younger people have yet had to deal in the constant attacks from people who do nothing, but spend their time looking for excuses to NOT do anything and to question the competence and ethics of others, the few, who have actually tried to change things?

As has been said, for other reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true, a cause has more problems with its "friends" than with its enemies. And Lt. Choi is finding this out.

Who has the right or "need' to question what he is doing, if he is being paid? Do the "questioners' also question the same thing about rightwingers? And what have THEY done for the cause?

I could. I have done what he is doing, without pay. But where are the thousands of others, who like us, were kicked out of the military? What have they done since? Or the dozens in Los Angeles alone who were kept out of the military, even though they were drafted, because, of the work, without pay, of Don Slater and the Homosexual Information Center, based on our work in early Mattachine and ONE, Inc, with help from free attorneys like Herb Selwyn, and experts like Dr. Evelyn Hooker, and the support of movement founders Harry Hay, et al.

The people to ask questions of, their motive, competence and ethics, are the media, back then and now. Who has heard of the national effort of NACHO in May, 1966 to force the Armed Forces to deal honestly with this issue of homosexuals in the military? To be fair while the Los Angeles Times ignored, deliberately, our Motorcade though Los Angeles, saying they would cover it only if some harm came, the New York Times,did cover it, with an article by Peter Bart. But the vast majority of media ignored it, as they did until they found a cute guy and thus thought it sexy enough to cover. And that is sadly true of the vast majority of glbt people, who also ignored the issue until it was covered as entertainment by the media.

Where is the coverage of not only our Committee to Fight Exclusion of Homosexuals From the Armed Forces in 1966, but of the Servicemembers Legal defense Network today? Or the Palm Center at the University of California Santa Barbara? Have you seen those names in even the lgbt media?

But what discussion has there been, in 1966 and now? A little from, guess where, those who disapprove of the current war-then it was Vietnam and now Iraq or Afghanistan. Are glbt people are so stupid they can't deal with one issue without confusing it by adding another issue? There is a difference between opposing a war and whether or not homosexuals who choose to should be allowed to serve openly and honorably in the military.

The same nonsense is heard about same sex marriage. Do you oppose same sex marriage just because you oppose marriage? That is a different issue. Until we change the legal nature of marriage and get rid of the special rights, there is legitimate reason to get those rights for everyone-including same sex people, even those who are not homosexual.

It is time for us to enjoy the entertainment we get now, in movies and on Comedy Central-that is great and educational. But it is not education we must have to know what the real issues are. And an example is why we of all people are not speaking out against Islamists who kill us. It is not acceptable to just say we need to respect all religions-we are stupid if we don't see that some religions-even though all harm us-are worse than others.

The people spending their time worrying about Lt Choi, should be spending their time, energy and money on the important issues-but of course that means they have to do something besides sitting on the sidelines and finding something to complain about. Those people were writing letters to us at ONE Magazine years ago. And were the ones saying Mattachine would never work-while the founders were dreaming of marching down Hollywood Blvd someday. I ask those negative losers, how has that worked for you? Or did you grow up and join the march when it happened in 1970?

Note to Jon Stewart: Re: Your question of where the media went to get reaction to the California Court's marriage decision

2010-08-06T20:46:00.000-05:00

Thanks for the good coverage of the CA marriage decision.

At first I laughed at your "question" of the media (was it CNN) going to a gay bar in West Hollywood to get a "gay" reaction-since obviously someone at a gay place would think it was a good decision. I thought, ah ha! Another example of the lazy media people. But I also thought it was a waste of time to have gone to any glbt center, or publication, as the people there would also obviously know of the decision and like it.

Sadly, as in any group or minority, a lot of people really do nothing for a cause, and often don't even know what is happening-many don't read newspapers or watch tv news.

So, in a sense, the best place to go to see if glbt people really know and care about the court's decision wouid be where they go for entertainment and pleasure, and not a place where serious thinking and work for a cause takes place-such as at a lgbt newspaper or gay/lesbian center of a PFLAG meeting.

If the movement for civil /equal rights for homosexuals is to continue and make progress, a lot of young people must get involved. If they want to continue to have the pleasure of a safe gay bar, they must work to keep it safe, and that means giving time, energy and money to their cause.

Sometimes the government is good and sometimes bad.

2010-08-06T20:45:00.000-05:00

That was Always what we at Mattachine/ONE/HIC have thought. We of all people had no reason to trust any part of the government-we were treated (and entrapped) as criminals (laws probably based on relgion), shuned as sinners (by all religions), and of course probably following the religious thinking, labeled as mentally ill by the psychologists and psychiatrists-who testified against us in court and made money off of "curing" us (and apparently are still putting young people into "care centers" to change them).

Working with the system we, the community/movement, from 1950 on have essentially changed all of this, so now the bigots are accusing the courts, which one were anti-us and were making decisions THEY liked, of being activist, because the decisions are going against the them. Most of the media that once attacked us, is now neutral or gay-friendly.

Same with racial issues. Only someone who lived when the preachers, politicians and newspapers were saying terrible things about black Americans and any white Americans who supported their efforts to gain civil/equal rights, would know how much better the world is today. That is now more true for women and homosexuals.

Now in a sense the government and other institutions (except religious ones) are on our side. But, as Harry Hay warned till the end of his life-look at what happened in Germany. We must be constantly alert to people and groups that would reverse our gains. The founders of this movement did their job, and each generation since has, so now it is up to the young homosexual men and women of today to hold what we have given them and build on it an even better nation, for us and all Americans.

Wehonews article on DADT by Carleton Cronin-Straight Poop on DADT.

2010-08-04T20:43:00.000-05:00

Thanks for that moving report by Carleton Cronin on a real example of why Don't Ask, don't tell is so terrible-for all servicemembers. He visited a former military buddy who was dying, in South Dakota and who had trusted him enough to tell him he was gay. And Cronin is the example of why more and more Americans are aware of the real consequences of the rule and why it separates men and women who need to work and trust each other.

Bay Area Report of July has short list of some glbt archives/libraies

2010-08-02T20:39:00.000-05:00

The Bay Area Reporter answered a question from a reader by giving a sample of lgbt libraries/archives. Many papers during the year mention some, such as Liberty Press in Kansas reports on the new archives at the library at the University of Kansas, but it is good to have a larger listing in all our community/movement publications, and they are of course listed in Gayellow Pages.

Counter Play, a book about two teenage boys-one homosexual, one heterosexual, and their friends and relatives/ for young homosexual/glbt men and women

2010-07-28T20:32:00.000-05:00

I am told that The Huffington Report has published a short list of books dealing with and aimed at young homosexual men and women. So i glanced at the few I have in this part of the HIC library. And I was surprised to see one that is by two people who were connected to the university where our Homosexual Information Center/Don Slater Collection is-California State University Northridge.

Counter Play, by Anne Snyder (and Louis Pelletier) was published by New American Library/Signet in 1981. A teenage boy, whose military family moved often, finally gets to a high school he is able to adjust to and likes football and finds one close friend, with whom he has a working football relationship and goes camping with.

Later in the school year the friend tells the boy he is homosexual. The boy deals with it, but the friend is later falsely accused of trying to have sex with a trucker-and is exposed and this creates problems for both boys.

The story is well told and is handled well. It shows how just having a homosexual friend can harm a non-homosexual. There is a happy ending.

The fact that the two authors were connected with CAl State Northridge is interesting, since that means they were already thinking of the issues, and might even now deal with them and perhaps help CSUN students learn about the issues and the resources available.

And I don't understand why the authors have not been able to turn this good book into a tv special movie. (Pelletier has been connected wwith Disney)

There may be a need for a discussion of good books, for those who still read, that are helpful for young people dealing with sexuality.

My thoughts on harry Hay and John Burnside/RE: How do we view homosexuality? Harry Hay/Mattachine v. ONE/HIC

2010-07-28T20:29:00.000-05:00

I met Harry and John at ONE in the early 1960s as they came to work and visit-worked on a Friday night committee as I recall. I still think that is how they met, although I/ve seen other versions. I think Harry had not been active for a few years after being kicked out of his Mattachine by Hal Call et al in about 1955 or 6. The publications section had already come out to publish ONE Magazine, and incorporated to do that and then the other needed things, such as have lectures, classes (the Institute) and help in social services and legal work. (Inbetween as I recall is when the Dale Jennings legal case, over his entrapment arrest, happened, as reported by him in I think the first issue of ONE. As a co-founder of Mattchine and ONE he was one of the main people at the time.)

Jim Kepner had just left ONE for the second time-over Dorr's not being honest about our tax-exemption-which he had not completed, which is why ONE never was tax-exempt, and had a license as we had the Bookservice. That is why in 1965 ISHR was formed, with Reed Erickson giving the funding for a tax-exempt part of ONE. Don and i switched to it, but then Dorr tried to force everyone out who disagreed with his priorities and Don led the separation that Easter Sunday. The Annual Meeting had been a disaster and right after John and Harry had become voting members, they quit over this as had Morgan Farley. They had all warned Don that Dorr was causing trouble and didn't think Don cared as he liked Dorr so much, and till then they had run different parts of ONE, Don the magazine and library.

In the early 1970s as I recall Don and Tony (Reyes) bought the house in Colorado and about the same time John and Harry moved to the cottage at San Juan Pueblo. In earlier years they had lived in Laguna Beach and other places. And they lived in Hollwood after moving back and then to San Francisco. I am not sure when they did the Faerie bit. They in I think the late 80s visited with me here in Louisiana while coming back from a speaking trip. I think they were in a Volkwagon or some such small car.

I/we of course went to their place on Washington Blvd at Western right around the corner from our office on Venice at Western (Around 1962-4). There they made the Teleidoscopes that John had invented, but later I think his wife took control. He had lived with her on Outpost in Hollywood, where we went once. But their material burned up in a fire that destroyed the Trading Post in New Mexico and tthen they were poor. (There Harry contuned his interest in American Indians/Native Americans, and did the work to stop the builidng of a dam that woud hurt the tribe there.)

We had a great time around May, 1966 when they and we worked on the Committee to Fight Exclusion of Homosexuals From the Armed Forces. They rode in a car (we did a Motorcade of a dozen or so cars thought L. A) .and were interviewed on some tv shows. Dale talked about Harry as dominating, such as choosing the name Mattachine, and yet his experiences in the early days, and communist work may have helped get it started, even if later it was a hindrance- which is a generic thing for lots of causes. But I never saw a downside of either of them. In theory Harry was the dominant one, but they both talked a lot.

I don't remember much of the conversations we had over the years, as I don't even remember much of the time with Don and Dorr. Fortunately Don's work is in print in the magazine and newsletters and a few columns in general newspapers. And Harry is in several books, stuch as Stuart Timmon's (The Troube with...) and the short biographical material in Vern Bulloughs' edited book, Before Stonewall, and C. Todd White's history of early Mattachine/ONE/HIC (Pe-Gay L. A).

Can we assume the history will be dealt with in what I understand is a 2012 celebration of Harry?

Going from Did Ask but don't tell, to DADT to hopefully Don't Ask/ (Windy City Times, 7-21-2010 article by Jeff Fulton)

2010-07-27T20:21:00.000-05:00

I wonder if even the people active in the effort to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell know the long history of our community/movement attempt to get justice in the Armed Forces. The article/viewpoint of Jeff Fulton in the current issue of Windy City Times is a small contribution to getting this history on the record (DADT: A historical perspective).

Since May of 1966 we have been dealing with the military over the issue of homosexuals in the Armed Forces. At that time the inductees (men) were asked about their sexuality-which we obviously opposed, as is the basis of the effort today. But as Fulton points out even though the men were asked, the hope was that they would not answer, as the military needed bodies to serve in Vietnam. AND as we in Los Angeles had to deal with, the Army actually tried to ignore the "checked box" and drafted some men anyway. So Don Slater led the legal battle, taking the issue to court, with the aide of Dr. Evelyn Hooker, friendly attorneys and as far as I remember not one of the dozen or so men whose case was handled were actually drafted. Others were. And, as the military, and I'm sure the courts as well as we, knew that some of the men who said their were homosexual were not.

And as far as we know the men we helped had no problems in their future, although only a few ever contacted us later in their life or did any work for the "cause." We have the records of these men in Homosexual Information Center Archives at Cal state Northridge. I wonder where they are today, these man years later and if they have any thoughts of helping the young men and women today still fighting that battle.

RE: Daily Queer News July 26, 2010

2010-07-26T20:20:00.000-05:00

Once again I have to thank Daily Queer News for information I had not seen elsewhere-since I can't view every website or blog.

First the link/article in Huffington Post discusses the issue of churches and the bible issues of slavery and homosexuality. The article si good but in fact misleading, as twice it says they re not the same when in fact they are exactly the same. The attempt to find ways to say they aren't is prejudice.

Second, the link from 365.com is important since I had not known the the military had in fact surveyed the men in the military in 1947 concerning integrating the military, plus a strange question about Jews. The results were not surprising, no matter what then or now you think of the intellgience of people serving inour Armed Forces. I found the views similar to the rest of society. But the vast majority opposed racial integration, and for some reason had a bad view of Jews.

President Truman ignored the results and integrated the military in 1948. We see the results gradually from then to today.

As the terrible treatment by the White house administration of the lady from Georgia shows, we need a leadership that goes by facts and is not diverted by ignorance, from the extreme left or right. And from the churches, and leaders of the NAACP we need leaders with the ability to be competent and ethical inspite of the Fox news idiots. What indeed would Jesus do?

Summer 2010 issue of (Evangelicals Concerned's) Review's-Book by University student on Liberty University

2010-07-23T20:17:00.001-05:00

I think your reviewing the book by the Brown University student who went to Liberty University to see how it felt to be in such an environment is very interesting.

(And it is good that you some of your own educational background to show how you viewed the book)

The book is certainly a great contrast oto the current terrible tv news instant views of politics-such as the total mishanlding of the Sherrod speech.

So I hope we hear more from the author, Kevin Roose. And the title, The unlikely Disciple (A sinner's semester at America's holiest university) is what these lousy TV talk people should think about.

This young man saw that there was a difference among most students at some secular universities and others at religious universities, and thought it was his educational duty to learn about students who chose a religious school before he judged them. So he took time from Brown University to attend Liberty university. He found that he liked the students (I assume at Browdn too) at Liberty and that they were not that radical.

I wonder if we should not go to Tea Party meetings to see how they think before we think we "know" them. And that applies to conservatives and liberals, as there are 'conservatives' who don't like what we are hearing about the politics at these meetings. We assume liberals would not like them-the ideas, or people.

It is relevant, from my experience at ONE/HIC that if you are hosting an event YOU must be in control. Thus no posters should be there that are not relevant and any people trying to "use" your event to promote "their agenda' should be kicked out. So if Tea Party leaders are not racists, and i don't think they are, or even anti-gy, they need to get rid of the few bigots with posters giving a different voice.

I think this is what Roose is saying. We need to hear what people at Liberty University are saying and doing, so if we speak against them we are doing so accurately. and once you/I know someone I might not have as negative a view. (But I gather their racial views are still as hard to understand as those of the Tea party people, since both are interracial yet appear to have trouble with interracial couples, etc.)

One thought on the "News" section, I had not thought of Ed Koch that way, but if he defends the Pope he is being a hypocrite.

Timeline of ONE and its various parts

2010-07-23T08:47:00.000-05:00

I think it is difficult to follow our history, even when there is no added agenda or who was right or wrong. And if we were/are homophile, homosexual or gay.

For instance, I am not sure I would say ONE (Institute) started in 1942, yet I see the idea that part of the library started then, as the private library of Jim Kepner. And it may be irrelevant that he first lent it to ONE and then took it back, as he then became an archive, changed the name to IGLA and then his part and Dorr's part joined, so it is confusing and should not be an issue of who was first but how it came to be.

Certainly ONE Institute and HIC have material no one else can have as we were first. But others now have material, such as Tretter at the University of Minnesota, and certainly the material in San Francisco at the GLHS. I assume Lambda Archives in San Diego has material from the time that city became active in the cause. And Stonewall in Fort Lauderdale has much good material, probably from Jack nichols, et al. Lesbian Herstory in New Yorkhas good lesbian material (is it natiolnal or East Coast) , as do ONE and Mazer. Gerber Hart in Chicago says it collects mainly material from the Midwest.

And the discussion about Gulf Coast Archives and Museum in Houston shows the difficulty that some of us have. First, it is still not really available and protected-from vandals and from nature. And apparently, surprise, it has personality problems, with leaders who did good work but hurt their own cause by being diffuclt and over-protective, etc.

I am sure you can talk about the issues of whether or not we should retain full control, or risk losing some to gain the protection of a university library, even though there is the political danger, especially in difficult economical times, that the bureaucrats might try to hide or censor the material when budgets are threatened by bigots' complaints.

I think we are the first generation dealing with this issue, so we are traveling a path no one else has-but then the issue may be generic, with black history facing th same thing.

But time forces us to start asking for funding to preserve materil before they are lost forever.

And while we have "primary sources," such as living pioneers, such as Frank Kameny.

Articles in the August issue of OUT Magazine/Christopher Hitchens, etc

2010-07-17T08:39:00.000-05:00

I am glad I was at the bookstore and glanced at the glbt publications, as I saws two items in the August issue of OUT Magazine that I think are worth people thinking about.

First, why has no one else, at least that I have heard, discussed Christopher Hitchen’s new book? He discusses, as you mention, his sexuality, including the already known sex among young men in England's/UK schools. Why is no one interested-is it because, (he won't like this but says so himself) he is not young and cute?

If ever there was a need for an excuse for discussing bisexuality, he has added one, and it is time to try to learn about humans. The irony is that he gives a different version, and one that many women use for becoming lesbians. He says he may be heterosexual today because he, as he grew older, became less sexually attractive to men, and women did find him attractive.

Second, and in a sense the same issue, being young and sexual, is a mention of an older and pioneer book on young homosexual males. I don't even remember reading the book, although ONE/HIC has it, and it was an important beginning on dealing with boys and homosexuality—so I wonder how many men then and young men today have read such a book as I'll get There? (Hope it's worth the price)

I think OUT is either getting better, or I am seeing things better—a challenge at 79.

Hate Crime victims blamed—Op/Ed in July issue of Liberty Press/and glbt archives in KU

2010-07-10T08:34:00.000-05:00

Sadly we have to remember what is discussed in the opinion article (Kristi Parker) about the comments blaming the man who was viciously attacked by 4 men in Lawrence. Some of us think of Lawrence as beign, like most large cities, a more enlightened space for glbt people. But what happened to the man there happened the same month in several large cities still.

And yet our efforts to educate are not always liked, as is discussed in Edtorially Speaking (Sheryl LeSage) when some parents oppose telling children about the real world, including homosexuality. as if talking about it it will make kids homosexual. In this case being lesbian in a sense kept someone from getting pregnant as happens, accidentaly, to too many young girls.

And it is good to read of the progress on the McKinney Collection of glbt material at the Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas. It is luck that someone like Susan Thomas got the job of preparing the material for use. And had help from Tami Albin, and support from the library. There is now discussion in the community/movement for saving our history while we can-as is pointed out, that material came close to being thrown in the garbage.

ONE homosexual American thinks about the movement to found America and the movement to gain civil rights for glbt citizens

2010-07-09T08:29:00.000-05:00

There is talk about getting mentor/elder programs going in the glbt community/movement because in a sense this is the first time there have been lgbt people who have been in a movement to gain civil/equal rights for homosexual/glbt citizens and have lived/experienced life as "out" citizens. (Don Kilhefner and others in L. A. is an example.)

What do young people need to hear from elders/mentors to help them understand how America came to be as it is for lgbt citizens?

I think there is a parallel between how our nation started and is today and how the glbt movement started and how it is today. It is not necessary to give a list of dates, names and events to say that in 1776 some people got together, in secret in a sense, to form a nation and to get rid of the domination of England, or any other country. It was not a great time to do this and there seemed little hope of defeating the military of England. And each generation since has had to work, fight and (many had to) die, to keep what those founders started and left for us.

In 1950 a group of homosexual citizens met in secret in Los Angeles and started an effort to educate themselves and then the rest of society on understanding homosexuality and trying to change society and the views of medicine, religion and legal professionals. It also was not a great time for such an undertaking- this was the McCarthy era. And just as there was a question of loyalty of some early Americans and if they supported England or the new efforts to become a separate nation among the people in 1776, there was a question of the loyalty of homosexual public officials in the 1950s. And yet the founders of this movement were successful, from the start, winning a historic, some say a "Rosa Parks" moment in this civil rights movement (Dale Jenning's victory in court, the first time someone had challenged the entrapment arrests of police) and then the U. S. Supreme Court victory in the ONE Magazine case. And each generation since has found more and more citizens, glbt and allies, who stepped forward to join the work.

The black civil rights movement has such legal victories as Brown v Board, and the homosexual civil rights movement has Lawrence v Texas.

The question is how much young people want to know about the ideals in the Declaration of Independence and those of early those Mattachine and later ONE meetings and found in ONE Magazine, and later the Mattchine Review, The Ladder, etc.

There are three issues that cause our troubles and even though they are connected, they can be easily be confronted. The start is the belief that our Constitution and the Bible are perfect. Neither are perfect. Both accepted slavery. That alone makes them imperfect. The founders recognized the moral problem, but compromised to get a nation started. It is less easy to explain how preachers, especially in the American South for generations quoted the Bible to affirm that black Americans were not equal to white Americans, or why at one time there were separate branches of major Christian churches, only because those branches supported slavery-the Methodist Church South and Southern Baptist Convention are two examples.

They have apologized now and admit their error-which means they misused the Bible and made laws based solely on a religious teaching that was wrong.

The day will come when the current religious “leaders” and politicians will apologize for their views on glbt citizens.

Connected to the religious issue is the part about child molestation. Recently on NBCs Meet the Press, a guest was discussing why America has difficulty in dealing with Afghan citizens and said that even though most of them didn't like the Taliban, and its extreme religious—and thus government rules, they can't like the current “government” people who come to their area and rape their boys. There had already been a documentary on this issue, dealing with warlords, which contradicts this theory. There is boylove in that and other Islamic nations. And there is worldwide confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church over priests who have molested children and those who protected them. Yet it is our community that is the one constantly falsely accused on being child molesters. As usual, those who attack others for a “sin” are merely fighting the sin that is theirs-projecting on others their problem.

The last issue, “it is icky,” was also discussed on TV when Fox News, no surprise, allowed Governor Huckabee to “explain” his words talking about why homosexuality is icky. He defended himself by saying he was merely quoting something in Edge Magazine, apparently words by a University of Chicago Law School professor-perhaps Martha Nussbaum. She immediately said he was misquoting her. But the fact is that that is an issue. But again, one hard to understand, since the acts those bigots say they find “icky” are performed by heterosexuals. They also have anal and oral sex—so it is time to confront them with their hypocrisy.

While we need to get rid of DADT, DOMA, etc, it is the personal things that seem our major problem, and one that has all along been said the easiest to solve, since once we come “out” and our relatives, neighbors, friends, fellow workers know who we are, the lies go away and the vast majority of Americans will be comfortable dealing with us. That is what is happening with racial issues too.

It is hard for young people to know that at one time there were laws preventing interracial marriage, etc. And one of the main “arguments” against such marriages was “what it will do to the children.” That is the current argument in glbt discussions of marriage, adoption, etc. This argument has lost power in the racial arena since all you have to do is look not only at the White house, but around you. Soon most of us will be interracial. Problem solved-the fact is that now if there is a “problem” with being interracial, it is a problem everyone has.

So it seems to me that there is a good reason to celebrate, as an American and as a homosexual/lgbt American. And to hope that young people will join in the effort to make our nation even more perfect.

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy.

How ONE homosexual American feels about supporting/ celebrating the 4th of July and Pride events

2010-07-03T22:36:00.001-05:00

There is talk about getting mentor/elder programs going in the glbt community/movement because in a sense this is the first time there have been lgbt people who have been in a movement to gain civil/equal rights for homosexual/glbt citizens and have lived/experienced life as "out" citizens. (Don Kilhefner (and others) in L. A. is an example.)

What do we old people think is important to tell young peope to help them understand how America/the unitd States came to be what it is today, for all Americans and for glbt Americans, and in sense Americans of minorities, such as black, even women, etc.

I think there is a parallel. It is not necessary to give a list of dates, names and events to say that in 1776 some people got together, in secret in a sense, to form a nation and to get rid of the domination of England, or any other country. It was not a great time to do this and there seemed little hope of defeating the military of England. And each generation since has had to work, fight and (many had to) die, to keep what those founders started and left for us.

In 1950 a group of homosexual citizens met in secret in Los Angeles and started an effort to educate themselves and then the rest of society on understanding homosexuality and trying to change society and the views of medicine, religion and legal professionals. It also was not a great time for such an undertaking- this was the McCarthy era. And just as there was a question of loyalty of some early Americans and if they supported England or the new efforts to become a separate nation among the people in 1776, there was a question of the loyalty of homosexual public officials in the 1950s. And yet the founders of this movement were successful, from the start, winning a historic, some say a "Rosa parks" moment in this civil rights movement (Dale Jenning's victory in court, the first time someone had challenged the entrapment arrests of police) and then the U. S. Supreme Court victory in the ONE Magazine case. And each generation since has found more and more citizens, glbt and allies, who stepped forward to join the work.

Most of us believe that life in America today is much better for all citizens, including minorities. The question is how much young people want to know how we got here and how best to keep making progress toward the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the ideals discussed in those Mattachine and later ONE meetings and found in ONE Magazine, and later the Mattchine Review, The Ladder, etc. Or how much young people understand the need to know what is in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and why there still is racism, sexism, nd bigotry in this nation.

It seems that no matter how often we hear of the enemies and the why heir thinking is wrong, we each generation have to remind citizens of why bigots must be defeated.

There are three issues that cause our troubles and even though they are connected, they can be easily be confronted. The start is the belief that our Constitution and the Bible are perfect. Neither are perfect. Both accepted slavery. That alone makes them imperfect. No one can say they believe in slavery today, but they did then. The founders recognized the moral problem, but compromised to get a nation started. It is less easy to explain how preachers, especially in the American South for generations quoted the Bible to affirm that black Americans were not equal to white Americans, or why at one time there were separate branches of major Christian churches, only because those branches supported slavery-the Methodist Church South and Southern Baptist Convention are two examples. Does anyone think they were right? They have apologized now and admit their error-which means they misused the Bible and made laws based solely on a religious teaching that was wrong.

The day will come when the current religious "leaders' and politicians will apologize for their views on glbt citizens.

Connected to the religious issue is the part about child molestation. Last Sunday on NBC/s Meet the press, a guest was discussing why America has difficulty in dealing with Afghan citizens and said that even though most of them didn't like the Taliban, and its extreme religious-and thus government rules, they can't like the current "government" people who come to their area and rape their boys. There had already been a documentary on this issue, dealing with warlords,which in a sense contradicts this statement. There is boylove in that and other islamic nations. And there is worldwide confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church over priests who have molested children and those who protected them. Yet it is our community that is the one constantly falsely accused on being child molesters. As usual, those who attack others for a "sin" are merely fighting the sine that is theirs-projecting on others there problem.

The last issue, "it is icky," was also discussed on tv last Sunday, when Fox News, no surprise, allowed Governor Huckabee to "explain" his words talking about why homosexuality is icky. He defended himself by saying he was merely quoting something in Edge Magazine, apparently words by a University of Chicago Law School professor-perhaps Martha Nussbaum. She immediately said he was misquoting her. But the fact is that that is an issue. But again, one hard to understand, since the acts those bigots say they find "icky" are performed by heterosexuals. They also have anl and oral sex. So it is time to confront them with their hypocrisy.

While we need to get rid of DADT, DOMA, etc, it is the personal things that seem our major problem, and one that has all along been said the easiest to solve, since once we come "out" and our relatives, neighbors, friends, fellow workers know who we are, the lies go away and the vast majority of Americans will be comfortable dealing with us. That is what is happening with racial issues too.

It is hard for young people to know that at one time there were laws preventing people from interracial marriage, etc. And one of the main "arguments' against such marriages was "what it will do to the children." That is the current argument in glbt discussions of marriage, adoption, etc. This argument has lost power in the racial arena since all you have to do is look not only at the White house, but around you. Soon, openly most of us will be interracial. Problem solved-the fact is that now if there is a "problem" with being interracial, it is a problem everyone has.

So it seems to me that there is a good reason to celebrate, as an American and as a homosexual/lgbt American. And to hope that young people will join in the effort to make our nation even more perfect.

We need a lgbt think tank, talk about issues, goals, methods, etc.

2010-06-26T13:59:00.000-05:00

I was talking with someone today and it reminded me of how good it was in the early days to sit with people and talk about issues. And many of those "issues" are still issues today, even though in a different atmosphere.

I see shows on C-SPAN taped at various think tank events-mostly rightwing. So what is missing, as far as I know, except in our publications, is discussion and exchange of thoughts among us in the community/movement.

I can think of many news items that are not "gay" but are indirectly related to our cause and might be useful to us if we could view them for a lgbt view.

Also, since no one can read all blogs or pcations, it would be helpful to everyone if some of us could read certain publications and let the rest of us know if they have articles of interest. An example is found on today's links in Daily Queer News. There is an article in Village Voice on glbt publications and how they may be in trouble. Comments added show how interesting others found the article, most disagreeing with the idea of the writer. That is good journalism and a good education in itself.

Knowing the bgasic truths just don't seem to matter: Today someone said the civil rights movement "started' in 1945, and that the feminists have brou

2010-06-25T13:57:00.000-05:00

In a sense it is frustrating, but it just shows that even serious people don't always seem to know how to say facts without trying to put them in context. On a morning news show a reporter/commentator started a segment by giving what would be discussed and apparently for some reason it is a legal case from the 1945 era and he said, this was the beginning of the civil rights movement.

Then a good discussion was held on C-SPAN's morning show, based on the cover story of the current Atlantic Monthly, by Rosen-she was taking questions. And her article seems to be well documented. But it still left confusion in some people's minds about why men are becoming a minority-I didn't know, for instance, that apparently in Australia they have some sort of affirmative action for boys. But the question of did feminists and NOW cause this fact that men are losing jobs more than women, graduating from college less, etc.

Poor men.

It seems to me that in a few paragraphs you could tell anyone our history, including the slow growth of women's rights, civil rights in general, etc. How wars played a part, loss of jobs men do due to strength, etc.

But that would not include necessarily a list of names and dates. BUT to say the (black) civil rights movement started in 1945 (apparently with a trial, which would mean that the homosexual movement started with Dale Jenning's trial in L. A. in 1952)., or with Dr. King's march in Selma, or at Stonewall is just nonsense and it is time we demanded that the media stop being lazy and pushing for sexy leads, teasers-how many times can a reporter say, the world is coming to an end, more right after the commercials?

And a glance at the documentary Word is out, shown on TCM this week, puts in perspective that we have been "out" at least since 1978, all over the nation, in small towns, etc. So why even then did the media ignore this? Why do they ignore it now? Why will any writer claim no one was out before someone or some event happened-which that THEY didn't know anything about the issue till THEY discovered it, whenever.

Another point I continue to find important and maybe others don't is, last Sunday, on CBS' Sunday Show, they did a segment on men's underwear-something we would have been arrested for if ONE had done it. On Comedy Central's show, Tosh.O, they did a song whose lyrics talks about anal sex, again, think about what the closet queens would have thought if they got a magazine in the '60s with such a poem, etc. If you haven't seen such examples of discussing of sexuality recently, you have not been watching TV. That to me is progress. Beyond what Playboy, etc did on the subject in the late '50s and '60s.

Word is Out on TCM last night

2010-06-24T13:56:00.000-05:00

Anyone seeing Word is Out, made in 1978, can no longer say that the public didn't know "out" glbt people. The only reason young lgbt people didn't feel better is fi they wantd to have celebrities out to make them feel better, which is nonssense.

I would sure like to know where all these people are today, the ones still with us.

Is Rex Wockner the glbt media version of Fox News?

2010-06-22T13:55:00.000-05:00

The current issue of Windy City Times has the usual weekly column by Rex Wockner, Quotelines. Usually it is what some current celebrity has said suddenly becoming gay-friendly, and promoting a new movie or book, etc. Seldom is there a quote from those actually working for the homosexual civil rights movement. Ironically, in this issue there are two troubling quotes.

First there are the relative newcomers to the cause, Get Equal or some such name, who spend time fussing at other older lgbt groups. Attacking our co-workers is worse than not having a quote at all. Sort of the issue of sins of commission versus omission.

Then I am confused at what might be part of Wockner's agenda, or view of how to help the cause in the opposite direction. He has a quote from writer Eric Marcus. The problem is that the quote is a "good" quote as opposed to the quote most of the media has from Marcus, which is a "bad" one, if he actually said it, which he either didn't or didn't mean to say.

The quote used is merely what many other people have said since the homosexual civil rights movement started in 1950-some say to be accurate it was then the homophile movement. "There's the assumption among gay people that if only this famous person came out, things would be better, and that's never the case."

To expand on what has been said, by many, is that we don't need to be honoring or be proud of someone who was or is homosexual or glbt who has not done anything for the cause, much less who has worked against the cause. So why is anyone happy or gay to claim Liberace, for instance, who actually sued a publication that said he was homosexual?

The "other" quote of Marcus is that he seemed to say that there were no "out" people before Stonewall. Why did Wockner not say this and explain it rahter than seem to try to cover it by using the quote he did Now many people immediately pointed out such people as Frank Kameny, Barbara Gittings, etc, much less the people who founded the movement and first published a magazine on the subject of homosexuality? Which the media ignored even when it won a U. S. Supreme Court case (1958) in order to be able to mail a publication dealing with homosexuality. I mean ONE of course.

As young people seem to say a lot, "I'm just sayin."

Time Magazine's coverage of Stonewall Uprising in the Short List section, June 28, 2010

2010-06-21T13:54:00.000-05:00

I suggest you reread your words used in reporting on the documentary Stonewall Uprising, unless you really understood their true meaning. You say it evokes the "Rosa Parks moment of the gay rights movement." That is more accurate than most people know, including most "gays." The black civil rights movement had been going on for years, and the event with Rosa Parks was the result of long preparation for that moment. That is true of Stonewall, since there has been a homosexual civil rights movement, now called a glbt movement, continually since 1950, and the same type incidents had happened earlier in several cities, but the lazy media just had not "discovered" such an event until it happened in their area.

What we remember from having worked in the homosexual civil rights movement in the early days

2010-06-20T13:38:00.000-05:00

I think the best part of these exchanges is getting us to look at our lives and the history we lived through and the little bit we helped make.

I must admit now, although I guess I knew it all along, is how easy my life was compared to a lot of us. I had a good early life-was having sex but never thought about it as an "issue." And none of the boys were homosexual. Most are dead now. The only part abut sex I remember-other than when parents caught 4 or 5 of us under a small wooden bridge in the alley behind our house-when I was about 4, checking ourselves out-is that i was reading in a magazine a story of Flicka, the horse, and apparently it mentioned birth of a colt, and I asked my mother what that was about and she told me how babies were born. it was totally unimportant to me-I'm guessing I was about 11.

I first thought about the subject in a psychology class at LSU in 1954. I went into the Army in Feb 55, never thought about sex the first 8 weeks, and only later had sex. And then got kicked out late 56, went to L.A., got regular job-had not told anyone where I was going, went with about $200 (on tran). Found a place/bed in a rooming house on Mariposa at 3d, near Normandie, immediately, got a job, and for about 2 years only got in movement as far as reading ONE Magazine. Finally got in contact in late 59, then went to Mattachine's convention/conference in Denver, and I think I've said the rest.

My parents knew (about me being homosexual), after the Army. But I was alone and on my own for only less than a year-all other times I had their financial support and their support otherwise even though they never really understood the homosexual part. We got back together when I joined the Methodist Church in L.A. which told the Bossier church where I was. They gave money to Tangents/HIC when I asked for it. I had lots of sex with marines and sailors, one of each on a long term basis. When in LA I picked up airmen from Barksdale AFB. I settled down for the about 13 years Melvin and I were together, starting in 1963 the day JFK was killed, having met walking down 6th Street. And don't worry about sex now.

I'm retelling this to point out that I never had any problems with being homosexual. I never had a job to lose, or lost a family, etc. I did work temp jobs mainly to be able to get Social Security and thus Medicare. Otherwise I gave all money I had to Tangents/HIC. Never planned ahead. So I also lucked out that from the family I have the house and car, which makes me able to live on a small SS income.

So that affects in a sense how I look at the issues. It sure makes a difference from what you and others had to face. And I had to learn this. But it is sure what was in the mind, and was the intention, of the founders; to make life better for young people so that they would not only not have to face what you did, but if they did, to have resources to help them.

Billy Glover

What the FBI and media and world should have learned about this civil rights movement and why we have been so successful

2010-06-20T13:28:00.000-05:00

To Ron Tate, re: Boston Globe article "FBI gives a glimpse of its most secret layer (Bryan Bender, Globe Staff, March 29, 2010)

I could not find mention of Hal Call but did of Mattachine in 1958, which of course is a totally different Mattachine from the original one, which was started by communists, but in no way aimed at undermining the U. S. government. And in fact they were kicked out of the party for being homosexual—Harry, Dale, and later Jim (Kepner) I think.

If the FBI did its job, they would know that that was exactly why Hal took over Mattachine and moved it to San Francisco. It was tremendously successful in southern California and then less so in San Francisco, but that is generic—it was new and so it grew from one small gathering in a home to hundreds all over the state. But the people did not know of Harry's communist connection, and Hal feared if they did it would kill it. It was killed anyway, in order to save it.

That is why it is so historically important, despite the East Coast bias and wall to wall Stonewall exploitation by the lazy media, to know that the original Mattachine (Foundation) morphed into ONE, Inc., as the major people (only because they thought it was time to reach out publicly since it had been so successful in reaching people who were still in the closet) decided to go public and publish the magazine, and to do that they had to incorporate, get a public office, and later hold public meetings-to which most of the members would still be afraid to attend—etc.

And then ONE had to fight the legal battle (from 1954 to 1958) with the Post Office—over mailing the magazine. So, I'm not a happy camper if the FBI thought Mattachine San Francisco was more important than we were at ONE and HIC. I wonder if the reporter/journalist saw an mention of ONE, DOB, etc.?

But if they did investigate, they had to see immediately that Hal and ONE, Dorr and Don mainly, were "conservatives," and not a threat. I don't think there was any conscious plan, but it is clear that the movement started with left-wingers, some actually former communists-kicked out of the party, and IMMEDIATELY was taken over by extreme conservatives.

I think serious social scientists And political scientists will say that the reason this civil rights movement, which started in 1950 in the McCarthy era, has been so successful is because it took the best from the left and right and used them to work all angles. And another irony is that we did it better than the government does things, and the first converts were in fact big business.

Such a story may not be sexy, but it sure is historically important. And that is why the slogan is right-we started with that ripple in los Angeles in 1950, and have grown to a raging wave all over the nation—and the media just caught on about the time of Stonewall.

Billy

GLBT History Timeline in current issue of Frontiers in LA

2010-06-19T13:16:00.000-05:00

Response to Bill Kelley:

I guess. Reid R was, with his partner, who passed, heading ISHR after Dorr died. I think they were working with Dorr when they had to sue Reid Erickson (the donor/cofounder of ISHR, with Don & Dorr) to keep control of the building at Country Club Place. (We were not there obviously, having moved to Hollywood/Cahuenga Pass in 1965.) I assume Walter Williams had something to do with all these people working together and getting to USC.

The error is that the Don/HIC material was donated to ONE-we never gave it up, Reid Rasmussen, et al, never had control of our material- but we merely moved it into the building which in reality WE (meaning Jim Schneider) got ready for occupancy. John O'Brien and the ONE people screwed it up and USC stopped all communication until Jim talked them into funding the fixing of that fraternity house. (This obviously happened after Don died, but I think Dale Jennings was still around, and opposed the move as he didn't trust John O'Brien, et al.) Then we saw them, as Dorr had tried, stealing our material, and moved out and now are placing our material at Cal State, Northridge.

I think you know that Don & I were the first paid employees of ISHR, but that lasted a month or so until Dorr screwed us. As a typical scoundrel he used that fact to deceive the attorneys by saying Don was no longer a ONE person. We knew that Reed would not let us have the money, he was into education and that was Dorr's area. And that was his motive of course-not so much money or even power, but wanting to be a leader in the education part of the movement. We thought it would not work, and it didn't, but again mainly for the same reason we could not get along with Dorr.

Ironically it was the same reason Jim Kepner didn't most of the time and why he resigned the 2d time (I think in late 1960) when they then hired me to replace him. Why? The same reason ONE lost the right to grant degrees, after having it for a time. Dorr lied to everyone and in both cases refused, for some queer reason, to work with the state and give them necessary information. In Jim's case, he had been told, and thus told others, that ONE was tax-exempt, but in fact Dorr lied and never completed the work. This put Jim in a terrible situation. So he quit. Later obviously he came back on a volunteer basis to work with the Institute, and help on that darn ONE Institute Quarterly. And he was on the ONE European tour when the separation came in 1965, Easter.

There are good reasons to try to understand some of Harry Hay's thinking, since some times he undid the very thing he wanted. And the same is true of Dorr. Don alone, I think, was good all ways. I was terrible, had to learn everything and was not good as a writer/editor or speaker. I just believed in them and the purposes so kept going. The hope is that I did more good than harm. I think Todd's book mentions my disagreement with Joe and Jane Hansen, for instance. I thought they could have done more-mainly by mentioning us in his books, and speeches, etc.

And I had learned from Dorr the financial part a little, and so was not friendly with most of the other board members even though I liked them all. Rodney Riggall, for instance, who did give some money, as did David Kennedy and others, had ideas, not to raise money, but how we could better spend our money. He was wrong. (He died years ago of prostate cancer, and the irony is that, as his partner, Ben Coonfield, who still lives in the family home in Prairie Grove/Fayetteville AR says, his father was an md and attorney, who actually went in court against some md people for malpractice, so Rodney knew things, and he suspected the cancer but could not get the doctors to do anything until it was too late. Rodney had worked in his father's office at the hospital.) David thought changing the bank branch would help us-it hurt us, as we were (and now are) better at the Universal Studio/city branch of B of A as they knew how to deal with non-conforming people and groups. And after David died we moved back. Now it might not make a difference, but it did then.

But due to our purpose and the real world of that time, I doubt anyone or thing could have made a difference. But we did things, and the media ignored them. But Dorr did no better. He then had to fight Reed the way he fought us, but in that case he was right, and won half of the property and Reed's daughter got the other half.

That is a story in itself, as I understand it. Reed said, perhaps truthfully, that he could not put the property into ONE's name right away as the seller was a woman evangelist, new age, who was anti-gay and would block it if she knew who really was buying it. But then he got into drug problems, etc and never transferred it and then the daughter sought it all after he died I assume.

I don't know if there was a possibility that Dorr could have gotten more in the separation, legally I mean, but (I think Todd's book explains this) he screwed himself by lies and deceits and his attorney, Hillel Chodos, did by calling the judge's office and speaking rudely and it was the judge he unknowingly talked to. Murphy's law, what could go wrong did. So, as our attorney, Ed Raiden said- and Lequita, (his asst attorney-forget her name, but think it was McKay) we have no money to fight, but I'm not charging you much and Hillel is charging them a lot, and I know the facts and he doesn't and it turns out the two judges are wise, so I think we just have to sit tight, and he was right, we only really gave up the name, which as the 2d judge pointed out, we had said we didn't want.

ISHR was separate after Dorr's death in 1994 I think. I'm not sure but think it was then that the Kepner library joined with ONE. Don, and Jim Schneider had talked with ONE about rejoining before his death in 1997. We decided to try it, except for Dale, and then had to work to get the building ready, and shortly after had to retake our material as they broke all promises of a separate office, keys, etc.

ONE Institute was not ONE, Inc and didn't have legal title to anything except what Reid, et al, gave them. And us copies. Some board members didn't like it, John O'Brien being one I think, but ISHR did give Todd money. And for some reason decided to quit and give Williams Institute the money remaining.

I'm not sure what else I should mention to give the "fair and balanced' view of the 3 organizations.

Subject: Re: GLBT History Timeline in current issue of Frontiers in LA

Let's see:

One, Inc., founded, 1952.

ISHR established, 1964, and incorporated, 1965, "d/b/a One, Inc.," and being "the financial branch of ONE, INC."

One Institute established (presumably by One, Inc.), 1956, with educational and travel programs, speakers bureau, and quarterly publication.

One Institute ceased operations, 1994.

One Institute Archives initiated, 1994, consisting of Kepner materials, Slater materials, International Gay and Lesbian Archives materials, and One Institute materials. Housed at USC since.

One, Inc. (merging corporation), merged into ISHR (surviving corporation), 1996.

ISHR completes final transfer of One, Inc./ISHR materials and One Institute name to One Institute Archives, 2000.

Copies of One, Inc./ISHR materials also deposited by Reid Erickson with Cal State Northridge.

ISHR funds donated to The Williams Institute.

ISHR dissolved, October 2008.

Have I got this right?

Bill Kelley, Chicago

It is our time, the evidence is clear! But let's get our history right as that is how we learn what works.

2010-06-19T13:12:00.000-05:00

The homosexual civil rights movement started with a few people, and they were not all out, certainly not the hundreds attending the meetings of Mattachine in L.A., but the leaders were, and there were only a dozen at ONE out, but each year after that we grew. Those at the national organization, NACHO, were maybe 50 but they represented a few hundred more, many of whom were out. I think Bill Kelley has spoken to that for Mattacine Midwest. While small in number, I recall fussing then and later to a woman (Nancy maybe?) who was doing the recording for NACHO at Chicago in 1966 or 8, and at the time I opposed letting either of the new groups at Kansas City or Houston host the next meeting as they were too young and small. I was right. What happened to them? Phoenix was the one in K.C. And Houston did keep going and today Ray Hill is still active (his picture is in the current issue of OutSmart) and the Diana Foundation people are still going, but they were originally not out. (OutSmart Magazine just did a great job on them.)

So by 1969 I have no doubt there were at least a thousand out, but reaching ten times that number. And we were already working with allies, such as the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, (San Francisco and L.A., and we had Clay Colwell, a preacher on a cover of ONE.) etc. There were "retreats," a typical church thing, discussing the issues. The preachers in some cases were ahead of their congregations who were not quite ready to talk about homosexuality. Glide Memorial Methodist in San Francisco was a good example of educating the members. This was true when the church started working on race issues.

It took Vern Bullough to push the ACLU to join us, and I'm still not clear why the East Coast clams their ACLU did it first. Again, thousands of people saw us in person, when we talked to churches, high school and college classes, and when we were on the talk shows, radio and tv. And Don Slater co-hosted a week of talking with Maria Cole and Stan Bohrman on their KHJ TV show.

And Don Slater and Hal Call were pictured in Life Magazine, long before Stonewall. Perhaps they and all of the other people and events we did were not cute enough or outrageous enough to get closet queens to jump out, but Stonewall was? Now it is Ellen, and the cute guys on Real World. I'll take whatever gets to or for whatever reasons young people finally understand the reality of their sexual proclivities, orientation or whatever. And that they will not be full citizens until we change a few more laws and hearts and minds.

Our successs defies easy explanation, and two areas sure confuse even us. First, why did the terrible problem of AIDS not destroy us—it did take away thousands of us, but the public never seemed to use that to harm us. And the bigots must really feel frustrated that a film that was in a sense negative and should have helped their "cause," Brokeback Mountain, in fact brought an outpouring of glbt support from the general public.

Where in 1950 it seemed everything worked against us, luck was not on our side, now it seems it is the bigots who can't seem to get anything right and they are unlucky.

There were people "out" who we may know about if the media ignored them.

2010-06-18T13:40:00.000-05:00

To Bet Power:

Thanks for reminding me about Compton's-isn't there a documentary about it? And you are right about those people who are not listed in our history but were there, working, taking risks, long before Stonewall. And the issue, not just of Bayard Rustin, but of people like Eckstein, who worked for several causes, in this case race and sex. And that is an issue we need to deal with today, that Prop 8 showed us.

And thanks for putting it so well, there was a more conservative approach, and then a more militant phase.

RE: Movie Review: Stonewall Uprising NYT Critics' Pick

2010-06-18T13:20:00.000-05:00

There was general agreement, and we all got along, but then there was no way for any of us to exploit the movement then.

After the separation of ONE, we still all went to the NACHO meeting and got along. I think Bill Kelley would agree, and Frank Kameny. But obviously none of the people working in the movement today were there, and there are attempts to do this again—meetings among people and groups that work on the same issues (as I pointeout a meeting of glbt college heads will be in chicago next month). And there is a group for lgbt centers, and for elected officials, etc.

GLBT History Timeline in current issue of Frontiers in LA

2010-06-17T13:09:00.000-05:00

To Karen Ocamb:

I want to put on the record that once again frontiers seems to discriminate against some elements of our community/movement, even when strangely enough it misses by covering one source in one section but ignoring it in another.

Specifically, you cover only ONE L. A. library/archive and ignore others, including Mazer Archives (West Hollywood) and the Homosexual Information Center Archives (Cal State, Northridge). What is strange is that you then strangely ignore the second most important event in the Timeline you give, which was the morphing of early Mattachine (1950) into ONE, Inc and ONE Magazine in 1952. The first public organization and first national publication, which won a U. S. Supreme Court battle, running from 1954 to 1958 with the Post office about the ability to mail material discussing homosexuality-covered in the book Courting Justice, by Deb Price and Joyce Murdoch.

To make even a small effort to give your readers some sample of the history of the homosexual civil rights movement, which started in L. A. and spread nationwide, and ignore the founders of the movement, Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, and shortly thereafter Don Slater, Dorr Legg, Jim Kepner, is giving a inaccurate view of the history and denying these people their due.

How about a mention of resources that do give the history, such as books by Paul Cain (Leading the Parade), Jim Sears (Behind the Mask of the Mattachines) Todd White (Pre-Gay L. A.) and two books that Stuart Timmons worked on (Gay L. A. and the Trouble With Harry Hay).

Public libraries in other major cities have hosted discussions on such works, such as New York City and Chicago. I'm surprised that the librarians in Los Angeles have ignored this valuable history. And the same can be said about the librarians at the L. A. universities, since they have not, to my knowledge, done events like most major universities have done, such as the University of Chicago, CUNY, the University of Minnesota, etc.

What is that biblical saying, "a prophet is without honor in his own country?"

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

2010-05-25T13:06:00.001-05:00

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

2010-05-25T13:04:00.000-05:00

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

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

2010-05-21T13:02:00.000-05:00

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.)

Visit to the Midwest

2010-05-04T12:59:00.000-05:00

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.

GLBT interest in celebrities

2010-04-26T12:57:00.000-05:00

Thoughts I sent to Billy Masters on his column on celebrities, etc.

As I was watching the movie The Proposal on TV last night, and saw the scene where the two stars are naked, I of course thought of you and your column. I wonder what type male and female stars your readers are most interested in? While your coverage of the White Party is good, I wonder if even the guys who are there all are interested in the same types.

I asked some young women who they find interesting and they came up with people like Haley something, which I think is good. But do they find sexy women the most interesting or those with personality like Ellen, etc? And the same with men-I find, for instance I like men like Ashton Kutcher or Colin Farrel--isn't he the one in A Home at the End of the World?

But did you see The Proposal? I find (I think his name is Ryan Reynolds) has a great body, but he also has a great personality. I think you would want to be with him after sex. I wonder if women feel the same way about Sandra Bullock—I like her too. There are some movies I can watch more than once, such as Pretty Woman or The Notebook-again, Ryan Gosling is a great person more than a sexy person—but I'm not sure I will remember the interchangeable people in most TV shows such as 90210, Melrose, etc. But I immediately like the man in Life Unexpected. And find the men in police shows such as Castle and The Mentalist very interesting.

Just wondered what others think. I of course read you all the time in Windy City Times. Thanks for the news and views.

Response to Question on Motorcade

2010-04-24T12:53:00.000-05:00

Don Schneider filmed the Motorcade in Los Angeles in May, 1966, these are his thoughts:

Thanks for this inside information on how you took the film of the Motorcade. I was there, as the saying goes, and did not know the actions you describe. I don't remember if we showed the film in the office or not. I sure hope you can get a new copy made and you and we can get it on the record, as you deserve much credit for this and it is historic.

I doubt many people then or now even heard of the Committee To Fight Exclusion of Homosexuals From the Armed Forces-even though we drove through the city and had put notices on cars at gay bars all over the area, etc. And people like Jim Kepner refused to work on the project, which was nationwide, as a NACHO project-think it was because it might be thought as supporting the Vietnam war, which was Morris Kight's reason, but Dorr, nor any other local group supported us. That is why it was good then to have the interviews with Connie Chung and Tom Brokaw on Fairfax. The question is do those tv stations have this footage in their archives? The same would be good to know of the taped tv shows we were on, such as Louis Lomax, Regis Philbin, etc.

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:58:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Response to Question Motorcade

Hi, Billy - Motorcade was first shown in Hollywood Theater, southside of Hollywood Blvd, a bit west of Western Ave. I remember being there, and hearing audience comments without their knowing I was within easy ear-shot in the crown in lobby. We knew each other,but in the crunch of people didn't get to acknowledge that before the others disappeared out the door. There was another city it was sent to, would have to refer to journal notes for details. when, where, what theater, showing date(s).

We have the printing elements here in the museum, so a new print can be made from them. They are the A and B rolls of 16mm, and the 16mm track (sound).

Didn't we run it on Cahenga in the office of Tangents? It seems that would be the thing to do, easily possible, just bring in the projection table to put the projectoron, an extension cord if needed to get to an electric outlet, the projector, film, take-up reel and speaker and a Screen. For one of the montghly meetings.

What it needs is discussion of the issue at stake with the military, pos, cons, effects, whatever. Also, get a print of the tv interview with Don Slater talking.

When Don stopped to conduct the interviews on west side of a north-south main street, I and my driver were interviewed at our car, so I didn't get to film the interview. (silent filming).

That caught me by surprise, so I made the most of it. I learned a lesson, if I ever do such again, I'd prepare by having another person prepared to be interviewed, so I could stick like glue to the main event I waas supposed to be covering. Let someone else say what I said, so we'd accomplish both, especially not lose Don's major moment.

Separate detail: For safety from anyone who might attack Don or his car, we had our own people drive cars surrounding his car as if we were in traffic. They also surrounded my car on three sides, two sides and back. I was in car directly behind Don's car, filming unobtrusively, not to draw interruption from any protester. I was in my own plain, inconspicuous car, and Jack Pfirrman was my driver. I was set-up in the front passenger seat.. I'd have to see the film to say, but I must have been beside his car sometime. I wouldn't have wanted the whole thing to be from his back. We also planned at what point on the route I would change film. If I started with 100' feet, change to a 400' roll, or the reverse, which would be less smart planning, to do. Because I knew the route was laid-out as so-and-so with no special activity until the TV stop. So, I should have the longer length of film available to use, for that and whatever followed, because I didn't know how long, or whatwould happen from there to returning to the office. I couldn't be changing film during THAT period.

/ - Don Schneider

Why and how all religions will eventually have to change their attitude toward homosexuals

2010-04-06T11:10:00.001-05:00

The idea that religions do not change is nonsense. And the fact that, for instance, Mormons did change their idea on polygamy or black members is only one example.

The fact that black Americans and white Americans today in my home town, Bossier City LA, are not legally separated is proof that society can change-no matter the motive. I grew up in a racially segregated town, and heard vicious racial slurs by preachers and politicians, including my own kin, who said we would have segregation forever-all the time knowing that was a lie.

Today I hear these latter day preachers—quoting the same Bible the segregationists did—and politicians saying homosexual Americans will never have equality in marriage, military service, etc. They will change their sermons and votes soon.

The more the bigots talk about honoring the Constitution or the Bible, the more they show their ignorance of both. Both accepted slavery. I want them to say that we should go back in time and have slavery here. This nation’s founders were smart and brave but they also lived in the real world. They compromised on some issues. There is no longer a reason to compromise on the dream that all men are created equal.

The reason why the churches/religions will not find it hard to change and admit they were wrong is that, like slavery, homosexuality is not a basic teaching of religion. It is a tangential issue. And a few wise and good men in each religion will step forward and point this out. The Catholic Church and Islam, for instance, are suffering bad PR. While the religion may not die over such issues as pedophilia and hatred of Jews, they will be harmed until such issues go away they get back to the basics—why they exist.

Los Angeles Magazine does not cover all of L, A. and ignores serious history for camp, so I'm not renewing my subscription

2010-03-31T21:17:00.000-05:00

I want to put on the record why I am not going to continue my subscription to Los Angeles Magazine.

I lived and worked in Los Angeles most of my adult life and know a little about its history in the 60s to 90s. And so I can tell you that you have not covered my part of the history, then or now. I am a co-founder of the Homosexual Information Center, which came out of ONE Inc (publisher of the first public homosexual magazine, in 1953) which came out of the first continuing homosexual organization in America, Mattachine.

This history is in the entertainment news as a play in New York is about the founders of Mattachine, The Temperamentals. Yet you have ignored the recent book by C. Todd White, that covered this Los Angeles history, a serious history about a major sociological aspect of your city. While you covered the gossipy book Gay L. A., you did not cover Pre-Gay L.A.

The Gay & Lesbian Review/March-April 2010/content

2010-03-29T21:12:00.000-05:00

To Editor Richard Schneider:

Your issue (Gay Rights in the Age of Obama) is good. I liked the colorful cover picture of the flag being waled around D.C. at the Equality March 09. In answer to the question "Where are we now?" I would say much better off than ever before.

Whether or not this is reflected in interest in our community/movement organizations and publications, I don't know. But for sure there has never been more of these available, and more activity and coverage on TV and in print. Just the "news" seen on Comedy Central's shows, especially Jon Stewart's Daily Show and Stephen Colbert's show is amazing. And the coverage, since you published, on the Don't Ask Don't Tell changes is extremely good and mostly balanced-CBS's "Sunday" show did a good job this past Sunday. Better than any of the talk shows that compete with it on Sunday mornings. And Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, plus Ellen, etc, is certainly more than the wildest dreamer could have asked for when those early people gathered at Mattachine secret meetings in Los Angeles.

And I jotted down some reactions to thoughts in the issue. As to judging Obama, how do we judge previous presidents? My main argument with all these Republicans fussing about the new health care bill is obviously-then why didn't YOU do something in all the past 8 years you were in charge?

I thought it very interesting in Letters, for Larry Karmer to come up with the final thought, about words/terms-"homosexual sounds good." I am not sure now what I actually thought in reading Marshall Yaeger's letter (on Kramer's article in a previous issue) but I do know that Don Slater and ONE/HIC emphasized the "issue" that if everyone can be homosexual or have an act, that is really what scares the poor heterosexuals. They love that we are all drag queens, etc, as they don't have any desire to do be "like them." Of course that is not true of a few who are transvestites, but they aren't homosexual-they just dress like women.

As to the article earlier by Patricia Warren, I think it was, knowing others' views helps us to examine ours. I think Barbara Hoffman is right-follow the money. Bigots exist, but it is "religious" leaders who make money from pushing fear of homosexuals, as do right-wing politicians. And John Eilers reminds me of my thought that people who are given the basic needs of life don't always use there free time, energy or money for cultural things, but as i do now-watch TV and only a few get so bored they actually try being creative, much less getting out and mowing the yard or cleaning up their house.

But a few of us DID use the fact that we had the basic needs (thanks to our family or partners) and used our ability to work for change, instead of just buying larger houses, taking more cruises or buying expensive clothes, or spending money following the various "Party' events, where you don't even need clothing.

As to whether we need "gay writers," they do have to have an income, but how many of those in the past or present who did/do have income, contribute to "their" cause? The good publications, and now resources on the web/Internet do is shown by the short update letter from Ken Furtado who says he got an answer to his request for information (on Victor Garcia.)

In the BTW section, I am glad you (Martha Stone) cover our community/movement workers we lost in 2009. The diversity of their place and work shows that we are everywhere. But GOProud got noticed-in answer to if they are doing any good for the cause. Being ignored hurts us. And the comment on an "Irish 'Mrs. Robinson'" of the movie type is funny,except that the woman, a Member of Parliament, not only took a young male lover, but used public funds to help him, all the while attacking homosexuality as an abomination.

And the thought that some people might find the new airport "full body scanners sexy" is interesting-if those who oppose them would use this thought they might get the religious nuts to support them as a way of keeping a few people from getting a little "sexy" pleasure from the thought of the scanners. And you do make life interesting pointing out that some religious nuts are saying they will ignore laws they don't like, they sure didn't think Dr. King had that right. As you say, homosexuals have ignored the anti-gay laws for centuries.

I'm not sure how many GLBT people still are concerned with Oscar Wilde, and other literary figures from England. Or for fake celebrities like Andy Warhol, although there are 2 TV shows on him I saw this week. But I did find John Lauritsen's coverage of the book Manly Love: Romantic Friendship in American Fiction of interest because I had never heard of what is called the first gay American novel, Joseph and His Friend (1870) by Bayard Taylor, and I had not thought much about The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in our context.

And I do think few people still know much about the French magazine Arcadie, covered in the book Living in Arcadia: Homosexuality, Politics and Morality in France from the Liberation to AIDS. Probably the only reason I found My Red Blood: A Memoir of Growing Up Communist, Coming Onto the Greenwich Village Folk Scene and Coming Out in the Feminist Movement of interest is that I saw at the same time a documentary on Los Angeles' Boye Heights, which was a Jewish area in the 1920s and 30s and slowly died by the late 50s. The issue of Communism and support of labor unions was covered. What was not covered was homosexuality-and I think that should be looked into, as this book shows.

I have not seen life (homosexual in this case) in Turkey discussed anywhere else, so was glad to have the information. Although it is not good news, it could be worse, considering what we hear and see in the daily news. Does the GLBT organization mentioned, Lambda Istanbul, get any outside support? The problem for such groups is that if the government knows outsiders are helping they use that fact against them, although most governments get outside help from the U. S.

Subjects for future G&LR issues sound interesting. They may be discussed in some online blogs, etc, but i see few places that actually discuss current problems such as how to judge what LGBT groups are doing what, and in fact few publications even mention the hundreds of groups serving the community/movement. How about an article on where to find such resources, such as Gayellow Pages. The arrest of Lt. Choi after what was supposed to be a HRC discussion of DADT brings up a need to discuss the several good organizations serving each aspect of the movement, in this case homosexuals and the military, it would be Human Rights campaign, but mainly SLDN, Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, and The Palm Center (at UCSB), etc. For other legal issues there would be Lamda Legal, NCLR National center for Lesbian Rights, GLAD, etc. And there are the various groups in religion, such as Dignity, Affirmation (Methodist and Mormon), Integrity, Kinship, etc.

So you have a lot to keep you busy, and readers entertained an informed. Thanks in advance, as the saying goes.

Sex in church/political news, in Africa, etc, and do we hide sexual part of our community/movement

2010-03-25T21:21:00.000-05:00

There has been lots of “sex” in the news, especially about the Catholic Church, in several nations, including a prostitution ring in the Vatican. And Protestant bigots from the U. S. going to Africa to “teach” the blacks there about the evils of homosexuality-showing films of acts most of us never thought of. It is interesting how much these preachers know about homosexual sex. Some of us might say, well, if we are going to have the name, we might as well play the game. But most of our community/movement is talking about gaining our civil/equal rights, and holding meetings, writing emails, etc.

Several of the movement pioneers might want us to think about having some sex, or talking about it, reading about it or seeing it on videos, etc. After all that is the point of gaining our right to privacy. So I glanced at the latest catalog from one distributor of sex material—tlagay.com. I have heard that there is a possibility that such print and film might disappear as most people now use the Internet for their sexual interests. But I would tell the religious bigots that it seems that real homosexuals are interested in love as much as sex, judging by the many films offered, such as the wonderful Latter Days. There are several pages of such romance offerings. There are also, of course, films with a little sex in them,of various types and involving several ethnic groups, etc. And there are sex toys available. But it seems heterosexuals use them as much as homosexuals. And I imagine more heterosexuals use sex films than homosexuals.

One of the reasons ONE/HIC has spoken out in favor of legalizing prostitution is that a famous therapist pointed out the obvious,some of us are not cute, sexy and find it hard to find sexual partners. Life is not fair. And yet we need sex as much as the pretty and cute people. And those who are handicapped, or old, don't lose their sexual desires, and can get some satisfaction from books and films.

It is doubtful that books or films create a sexual desire, but in fact exist to satisfy that desire, and there have been examples of this throughout history.

So we make no apologizes to the true perverts, who use sex to gain money and power/control. The hope is that people who are happy will not be harming others, and the only sexual problems are preventing health risks and unwanted pregancies. Those are what true religious people should be working to prevent.

Pittsburgh's historic new glbt center and its Jim Fischerkeller Library

2010-03-24T21:25:00.000-05:00

Congratulations on your new Gay & Lesbian Community Center of Pittsburgh, and its library. This resource is not just for the local community/movement, but for all LGBT people and allies everywhere. Such events as your Grand Opening should be news in all LGBT publications,especially guides such as Gayellow Pages, so that anyone visiting Pittsburgh will know about your work and visit it as well as getting the local publications with news of events.

The Jim Fischerkeller Library at the Center, like other groups holding meetings there, such as GLSEN, GLENDA, etc. will serve to educate people and hopefully will be used by members, students, journalists, and others today and will be there for future generations.

Cal Thomas' column on the Phelps Family "free speech" legal case heard by the u. S. Supreme Court (The Times, 3-18-10)

2010-03-18T11:12:00.000-05:00

It would be helpful to readers to hear what local legal people think about the right of a “church” (really only one family) to picket public and private events on unrelated issues and where the public has no way to avoid the invasion of their rights to NOT hear the opinions of the people picketing. Cal Thomas' views in the column are good-no one has a right to force others to hear their views. But this, like most issues, is not simple.

Thomas rightly says the “church” is “preaching a false doctrine that basically claims American soldiers are dying in combat because of this country's increasngly tolerant attitude towards homosexuals” and relates this to how some “religious” people preached segregation and barred blacks from their “churches” at one time and both (preachings) have brought ridicule to be directed at believers in God.

One opinion offered is that speech that might be construed as leading a person to act “is a clear disturbance of the peace at a religious or any kind of event.” And this why some bigots fear a decision, as they claim it could say preachers can not preach homosexuality as a sin, thus violating their “freedom of speech.” But that might depend on the “intent” of the preacher, since if there is no intent to cause harm it might be ok. But at one time it was claimed by Southern bigoted politicians that any meetings in favor of desegregation, much less promoting homosexuality, would cause a disturbance, and thus would be illegal. And it took the U. S. Supreme Court to stop the Post Office from violating “freedom of speech” by refusing to mail a magazine discussing homosexuality.

Would common sense say that picketing on public property is ok, unless causing violence, but that there is no right to preach on private property? But loud speakers should not be allowed as it invades our right to NOT hear the views/noise.

Obviously homosexuality is not an issue in this case, and Phelps only uses it to gain attention, as do many religious bigots, who make money by putting fear of some minority in the minds of ignorant people. But intelligent citizens of all political persusions are aware of being distracted from real issues by such tactics. Cal Thomas is a good example that it is not just “liberal” to be against bigotry, but it helps when the “victims” are brave military people who lost their lives trying to keep our nation free.

America's oldest glbt organization is now Houston's Diana Foundation and Houston has the South's oldest LGBT political organization

2010-03-17T11:15:00.001-05:00

The March 2010 issue of OutSmart magazine shows how rich in GLBT resources Houston is, starting with the oldest organization still going in America, The Diana Foundation. It also shows how even electing a lesbian mayor of the city can cause internal problems in the community/movement’s political organization.

Brandon Wolf has done a great job of research in writing about The Diana Foundation, which started in 1954 as a social group mainly as a private gathering to watch the yearly Academy Awards, the catalyst for their own awards. As in all cities, the police in Houston were anti-gay and harassed patrons at gay bars, often calling employers after checking the license plates on cars near bars. So there were often private parties, and from this grew an organization that worked for the cause in the opposite way the first glbt organizations did. The Diana Foundation worked from a social organization to become a supporter of glbt services. In Los Angeles both Mattachine and then ONE worked as cause organizations and publications which then had social events to help raise money or to give a place for people to meet and discuss issues or to be entertained-such as the Homosexual Information Center's production of the play The Women, as a fund-raiser, and entertainment was a part of ONE's yearly Winter meeting.

Tribute is paid to the founders, who slowly built up a small gathering, to a large event which raised money for resource services. The first event, in 1954, was held at the home of David Moncrief. Each year more people came, and more entertainment was offered. Material of the organization history is saved at the Charles Botts Collection Archive. There are similar organizations in other cities, such as the Krewe of Apollo in cities like Shreveport/Bossier.

The article-(which will be continued in the April issue of the magazine) covers the organizations’ history by decades, which show not only its growing history, but gives a valuable history of the gay bars over the years in which some of the events were held after it grew too large for private homes.

The group incorporated in 1976, after getting aware of the changes in society and possibilities for service when Stonewall happened in 1969.

OutSmart covers another organization, which also seems to maybe have a similar internal problem that Mattachine and ONE had, disagreements on purpose and questioning the control of one individual who wants to promote his own agenda. This is covered in the article, “New Blood,” by Josef Molnar, about the internal disagreements in Houston's GLBT Political Caucus. Ray Hill, who has been active for years, takes a long view of the issues, but some members find the leadership of Kris Banks to be too dictatorial. But one of his main projects, which took away support for some other good candidates for other offices, was to concentrate on supporting what turned out to be the successful effort to elect now Mayor Parker.

And while not the Academy Awards, there is also a good article by Lawrence Ferber covering films at Sundance, including The Kids Are All Right.

So OutSmart offers a great variety of information and entertainment to the Houston area readers and shows how large the community/movement is, in its list of organization meetings, and services and events. One of several geat community/movement publications carrying on the journalism started by ONE Magazine in 1953.

Syndicated columnists Leonard Pitts and Kathleen Parker view minorities in the military: a generic issue

2010-02-21T21:34:00.000-06:00

It is interesting to read articles by two columnists about black Americans in the military—in light of President Truman's integrating the military in 1948—and having homosexuals serve openly, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Kathleen Parker does a good job of putting the issue of homosexuals serving openly in perspective when she says that it should only be discussed as an issue of military effectiveness. But, then I direct her to read Leonard Pitts’ thoughts on how it was for black Americans to serve in the military, drafted, when they were still denied their civil/equal rights. It may not be a civil rights issue, as the military is different from the general society, but it sure makes a difference, even when the military is now all voluntary, to have a segment of society denied the right to serve their country on the basis of a private matter.

The question is why homosexual military personnel, as was true of black personnel, should be treated differently, why someone should be refused the right to serve when their abilities are needed, as was true of the personnel who could speak Arabic. While the reason for kicking someone out because of an act is understandable, why do heterosexuals NOT get kicked out for a sex act that homosexuals are?

The record shows that some people who actually have had homosexual acts are not kicked out, and assumed to be still heterosexual, homosexuals have been kicked out even though there was no act. Yet there is actually no scientific way of deciding who is or is not homosexual. The act does not make someone homosexual, and someone can be homosexual without the act. As Dr. Evelyn Hooker found in research, and was used in court in the 1960s during the Vietnam war when the military tried to force young men to serve when they had said they were homosexual, it was silly for the army to actually ask a man to perform a sex act to prove he was homosexual. In fact heterosexual men said they would do so, and yet they were not homosexual and evaded the draft.

Since no one denies that homosexuals have served and are serving in the military, the issue is not a problem of military effectiveness. And as Pitts points out, it is truly an issue of human rights when during WWII black soldiers guards were refused service in restaurants while German enemies were served with white military guards. And there were questions about the ablity of black men to serve on an equal basis with white men and if they were brave enough. Not to mention the issue of Japanese Americans serving despite their familiies being put in concentration camps. Parker has to deal with this sociological issue and so does the military and Congress.

And it is a proven fact that when Truman integrated the military in 1948, the majority of citizens oppose his action. Just as they opposed interracal marriage in the 1960s when the U S Supreme Court finally gave all Americans the right to choose their marital partner-except homosexuals. And it is irrelevant how many people oppose homosexuals in the military. When our nation is at war and needs personnel who are willing to protect us, it is nonsense to ask if there is an issue of “military effectiveness.” As has been said often, including by another Barry, Goldwater, the question is only if homosexuals can fire a gun or do a job as well as heterosexuals, as it was a question in 1948 of whether black men could serve as well as white men. And later, how women can best serve in the military. Now is the time to act, there is no need for “research,” as it has been done since the nation's founding.

Youths and sex, trans exclusion at wedding and bisexual confusion/articles in newspaper on homosexual issues

2010-02-19T11:51:00.001-06:00

While many people don't read newspapers and rely on news from tv and blogs, etc, they are missing "news" and views that are relevant. It is not new, but in recent advise columns of a local newspaper (The (Shreveport) Times) there were question of trans and bi interest. In one the person wonders how to handle the wedding of a child when they are not inviting her (I think it was mtf) to the wedding, but she is paying for a share of it. Actually everyone knows of her sexuality, and have been friendly, so it is strange.

In another a bisexual man is trying to understand why everyone keeps trying to make him make a choice.

(The answer in the first is go with your feeling, as it is their wedding and you may not want to press the issue but can talk about it later and explain that the exclusion hurt her. In the second column the answer, obviously, is, you don't have to explain your sexual orientation nor do you need to defend yourself. It is an issue that is diffcult for many to understand, so just live your life and they will figure it out.)

An even more difficult issue for people to deal with, especially parents, is how age can victimize the young. In a column by Froma Harrop, the issue of young people having sex is covered in ways most people don't think about-since most people worry about children being molested, and intergenerational sex. But she points out that even a young man who had never had sex before, if he is, say, 20, can be arrested for having sex with a girl who has had many sex acts but is only 17. And many laws, even not about sexuality, punish young people, such as new laws on texting while driving etc that seem to only aim at young people. And many laws punish young people more than adults. (Older people often have just as many car wrecks as teenagers, for instance.) And the issue of liquor is hard to deal with since we send young people at 18 off to die in a war, yet deny them the right to drink. so the age for allowing sex should be based on common sense, not religious dogma s.

A visit to the hospital leads to such publications as The John Birch Society's, The New American (12-7-09)

2010-02-18T16:49:00.000-06:00

I have not heard of or thought of the John Birch Society in years. So it will not be a surprise that, like some off-beat religious publications that devotees place (secretly sometimes) in libraries, and physicians' offices, it was a back issue of The New American that I glanced at when waiting for the doctor.

I wonder how many other people, wasting time, if not hurting too much, glance at such publictions? But I want to mention why I think the issue was interesting and may be important, not to rightwingers but to leftwingers and the vast majority of Americans who are neither.

I found the article, the cover story, on Newt Gingrich strange, coming from "conservatives," as the article itself says. It points out that, shock, a politician does the opposite of what he or she claims when running for office. (Having just watched several hours on the History Channel, on Presidents' Day, of our early presidents, the same was true of them, with the best of reasons and often we are better off that they did NOT do what they intended.) But the list of his wrongs should be useful to those who for other reasons oppose him. And in a sense the Republican Party is equally to blame as it was they who also spent money "like Democrats" (even while Newt was in control).

Of interest also was an article by an unidentified writer -most other writers were identified-on "Obama's 'Safe Schools Czar." That being of course the current "devil' for the rightwing to use to attack Obama, as if there were not enough good reasons, Kevin Jennings of GLSEN connection Once again it is our community/movement's mention of young people that scares the nuts/bigots. Or does it, or is it merely the one thing they think they can use to scare the ignorant voters with-as if Catholic priests and Protestant preachers having extra or no marital sex isn't the right issue to talk about.

William F. Jasper seems to know an awful lot about our movewment and history. Of course most homosexuals/lgbt people don't even know of Harry Hay, or NAMBLA, much less ONE and the DOB. It is interesting that bigots know Harry, et al were communists, but never mention the real work Harry did, founding Mattachine, etc, from which came ONE and HIC. And like they will not 'get" the humor of Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, they will not get the real point about Harry, Dale (Jennings), et al, who were kicked out of the Communist Party which thus lost their talent, and this led them to found the most successful civil rights movement after those of black Americans and women. The stupid communists might have been more successful if they could recognize true talent and the truth. (As I understand it, early Christians tried it and knew that it didn't work.)

But the bigots sure find the person or organization to use to make homosexuals seem only to want to have "their children." As if we don't know that "their children" are often, about 10% like all of society, already homosexual and don't need "recruiting." And PFLAG, which bigots don't seem to want to acknowledge, is proof that this issue will no longer be of value, as parents now want to protect their children from such bullies, especially the adults who use the Bible or Koran to preach hatred, as they did promoting slavery. And COLAGE is the children of glbt parents who also no longer will believe the lies, as they know and love their parents in the same way all children do.

Jennings, like most humans, has been a little too rambuctious and made statements in the fervor of the moment, but I like his heart and mind more than those of the bigots who fear him. He should know that it is our enemies who listen and hear more, sadly, than our friends, so that to make wild claims only hurts us, as it gives the enemies words to show us as "wild." In trying to get members excited for a cause leaders often make statements that are not realistic-"we will win next month"- when in reality it might take years of eduction and work and money,etc.
\
But a larger article that I still can't decide about is one on the novel 1984. I think it is a good article, viewing the book from a different political perspective. I think it would be a good discussion issue for college classes, etc.

It seems to me that the error Fox News viewers make, and we all make, is to not hear the views of others. We can ignore the talking points/sound bites for instant news and lies, but when a sincere view is given, we need to hear it even if only to get the information that refutes it.

So I'm glad I glanced at the publication on the stand at the hospital, which I would never have known about or seen otherwise.

Monroe's column asking what Dr. King would say/do about lgbt issues (WCT 1-20-10)

2010-01-26T13:22:00.001-06:00

To Tracy Baim, editor of the Windy City Times:

It is very strange that for some reason there is so much discussion at once, or so it seems to me, about homosexual and racial civil rights issues, and two items seem to speak to each other and us about what we need to consider.

I watched, a rare thing for me on that channel, a documentary on Bayard Rustin on Dr. King’s holiday, on LOGO. A tangential issue, I wonder how (Rev. Irene) Monroe thought when the BET channel chose to have, on King Day, a film on Malcolm X. But I learned or was reminded of the issues Rustin faced, and King and the black civil rights movement deal with, in their work in the documentary. There have been several boks on Rustin, but i dobut young people who read them even really understand the many issues he had to deal with.

I think Monroe is right when she says/thinks that had King done much in support of the lgbt civil rights movement he would have lost much support from black citizens, and black preachers, as he started to do near the end of his life when he got into economic issues and the questioning of the Vietnam war.

And King and Rustin, like Obama, LBJ, etc all had to make choices on how best to get changes they sought without harming other changes they also wanted. Specifically, Rustin had started in the anti-war movement, a pacifist and working with the Fellowship of Redconcilation, as I recall. He then got into the black civl rights issue, and as the media finally got right, he got credit for the March on Washington. But he was under constant attack, as indirectly was King, from blacks who hated homosexuals. While some good came, for instance, from (Rev. Adam Clayton) Powell, he was vicious in accusing King of being homosexual because King chose to accept the help of a homosexual, Rustin, in his work for black civil rights. And Rustin, who had been arrested for public sex (homosexual) did little for the glbt cause as he had chosen to work for the race rather than sex issue.

And Rustin, needing LBJ’s help in the cause, did not speak out against the Vietnam war because he thought it would cause strain in getting help from President Johnson in changing laws, and he was right.

And the issue is with us today as we try to get changes in all areas of American life. Each of us can only do so much, and we must choose what group or part we will support. And hoope others will work in the areas we can not.

As we watch the issue of same sex marriage come up it is sad if not funny to hear young black people opposed to lgbt civil rights when they did nothing to gain their own rights.

It is another issue I wish we had a Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert to cover in case there is some way to deal with this issue with humor.

What may be missing in the era of the internet; sharing of thoughts and ideas that don't make sense without context of experiences

2010-01-15T21:26:00.000-06:00

I have complained often to, and about, Don Slater about not putting down his views on his life’s work. He urged others to do this, but like many of us, didn't practice what he preached. His reply was always that he HAS—in his many writings and the magazine he more than any one else gave to our community and movement, even when most people were still not ready to deal honestly with their sexuality or deal with it seriously, instead of being gay in a gay bar or by dressing in drag and using coded in-group words.

And I can not seem to find a way to tell others of my life experience with some, in fact most of, the pioneers in the movement to gain civil/equal rights for homosexual Americans. But in an incoherent way I am going here to try. How can you explain an experience to those who, sadly, may never have such an experience? For instance, I would probably not have understood other people talking about their great feeling for some person they loved if I had not known Melvin. I'm not saying I didn’t have lots of great sex, and like the people I had the short experience with. My deep love for my co-workers was not the same thing, but was just as important.

In obituaries, the parents and relatives are listed. But in a sense, how do we know if they had much affect on who the person became. If they did, was it by commission or omission. I honestly don't see how my parents affected my life. But I see in others that I was lucky my parents did not reject me. I see little influence on me from schooling, or LSU, and even the time in the Army. No teacher, or book got me to understand my sexuality. I had some input on religion from the Methodist Church, and it gave me the most important weapon to combat prejudice based on the Bible-they told me, in the late 40s, that they had been wrong to support slavery based on quotes from the Bible. That meant later that I paid no attention to the misuse of the Bible about homosexuality.

What I got from work with Mattachine, ONE and the Homosexual Information Center was the most important thing a person can get, sharing an experience of learning with others. I got from Dr. Evelyn Hooker the proof we needed that will eventually prove our case. But I met her only through having first volunteered at both Mattachine (with Hal Call, Don Lucas briefly in San Francisco in 1959) and ONE, where, no matter how later events and disagreement affected relationships, I daily worked with Dorr Legg and Don Slater, met and talked with Harry Hay, and John Burnside, and Jim Schneider and the editors of the magazine, including Joseph and Jane Hansen, he being a writer/author who was willing to work with a homosexual group.

And I learned that people and groups change. Obviously the main founders of (early) Mattachine were Communists, using their training in that secret organization to found a homosexual organization that in 1950 (see the movie The Way We Were) had to also be secret. and I saw co-founder Dale Jennings go from that left (political) extreme to the right extreme as Hal Call took over and led Mattachine to the right/conservative side, almost going too far to seek “respectability,” hiding behind experts instead of using them, as ONE did.

The most important part of this experience, getting me to where I am today, was just having conversations with these people, not always on sex issues. Long trips from Los Angeles to the house in Colorado gave Don and me lots of time to talk. And that may have been as important as the work on the magazine, or the Motorcade or lectures.

These thoughts came to me as two items are in the news. I was happily surprised to hear people saying that the terrible earthquake in Haiti points out that in life it is not enough to have a good national art, or culture, or special music. You have to have/do the basics, of people and government working to make life safe, in this case a country, but in my case a civil rights movement. Many people think the world will come to accept homosexuals because we are good interior decorators, can make good music, are good artists, go to operas. The fact is that it has taken people working seriously to change laws, to educate people on the issue of sexuality, that has made life so much better for young homosexual men and women. The same is true of the blacks’ and women’s civil rights movements. It is great to have good musicians, but it took marching and education to change the nation to the time we could elect an interracial person as president, and have women mayors, including homosexual women, and governors, etc, and black men in law enforcement when a few decade ago they were being lynched.

And that leads to the other “major” news item. Senator Harry Reid's remarks to and about (President) Obama's “negro-ness,” or lack hereof. A (black) columnist—Eugene Robinson—said all that needed to be said. It was a good sociological thought, but a stupid political thought.

But I think more should be understood in this case, and it is relevant to the issue of acceptance of homosexuals/LGBT citizens. Senator Reid, and even those wonderful “Mattachines,” Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, should go see a movie that would have told Reid why he was wrong, even though perhaps right in the world we lived in before the election—and hopefully will no longer be right on judging or urging change of homosexuals soon. I urge them to see the movie that at first seems irrelevant to this issue, although in others ways is a very important movie on our personal lives, “Disney’s The Kid.” It is great to think of seeing yourself as a person today, as you were as a child and as you will be later in life. I'm not sure we would change things, but it is great to be reminded of the past and see your future.

But the relevant scene, important in the film and important to Reid's “issue,” is where the man (Bruce Willis character, the man of the present) is in a plane, sitting next to a woman and they talk, and she learns that he is a person who advises people, such as politicians, on putting up a good front (my interpretation). So she asks him how he thinks she should change as she is about to get a job as a TV anchor person. He, as I recall says something perhaps about her hair and dress, but he specifically says for her NOT to change her voice—not to give up her (southern) accent just to be acceptable. The opposite of what Reid thought was Obama’s situation. Obama had not changed, except from Barry to Barack, and it is good to speculate what bigots would have said if he had tried to use Barry, and of course what bigots said when he honestly used Barack. With bigots there is no winning.

That is what Don Slater said in person and in ONE Magazine for two decades. And why he put a Trans person on the cover. He knew that if we tried to hide or disclaim drag queens, or some other segment of our community, that would still not make the “normal” queers “acceptable” as our enemies hate us all.

Maybe someday we will know, if we have competent and ethical historians, who and what got the world to change its views of homosexuality, but I don’t know for sure. Obviously I took the path led by ONE and think we have been right. I hear from good people who worked in other fields, trying to change the church/religion from inside, trying to change right or left wing political parties from within. Many people think the world likes us better because they like Ellen, or Elton, and they have seen the absurd thinking of bigots as pointed out on Comedy Central shows—more than on the supposedly educational channels or in college classes or they have not wanted to be on the side of nuts like the preacher family from Kansas.

But why is there only one answer? Why can it not be all of the above, or none of the above. Perhaps Elvis, or Playboy or World War II is/are the catalysts that led us to where we re today. The “religious” have always hated the “new” music, and the human body and those who are different. It may be that we live in the time when religious institutions that base their main efforts for existence on some tangential issue such as sexuality, as Jesus said, have built their house on shifting sand, and may not stand. It is for sure that homosexuals will be here, and if we/they and our allies continue to push, politicians, churches and the bigots will learn to do what we ask, leave us alone. We don't need special rights in a fair world. It seems that they have so little faith in what they claim to believe about homosexuality and the world, that they do need special rights.

Can we today have the emotional values we got working personally with others in a cause. We can send emails, and hopefully will. But it could be we need to spend time just being with each other, that way we will know how to "hear" what someone is saying. Those who “know” Reid know how to “hear” what he said. That makes a big difference, one that talkers on Fox “news” or elsewhere will not understand. If our nation is to keep going where the founders envisioned, the media is harming us by taking us off on tangential issues. It is up to good citizens to seek serious news and information, or we will, like Haiti, be on shifting sand.

Great articles in first Gay & Lesbian Review of 2010

2010-01-05T13:10:00.000-06:00

From the start to end, this issue is great. I agree that our being hidden iin the past is important in learning our history. Larry Kramer’s article in a previous issue, opposing queer theory, is a great example of how a “view” can bring on a counter view and a great discussion. Ironically I don’t agree with the queer theory people yet agree with the disagreement with Kramer.

It is good to have a person who served in the military again say that the majority of people serving don’t feel the need for don’t ask, don’t tell. And as we try to be “accepted” it is good to point out that laws with good purposes, such as the obscenity laws, can have bad enforcement and do more harm than good.

There are good letters to the editor, and again Kramer inspired response. I think the issue of how black Americans view homosexuality is not that confusing—they use the Bible that approved of slavery—not that only black people have been slaves, just as the Mormons preach oldfashioned marriage while they had polygamy at their founding and only “got rid of it” when forced to by the government.

And Bill Percy’s protest of using science as a replacement for religion as proof of something, when it in many cases has merely been pushing religious ideas under differnet terms is still needed, as many young people have no idea of how science, medicine, etc were used to harm our community in the past. A columnist, Thomas Sowell, has recently said we should not accept “science” when it tells us about climate control, but he accepts it when it says homosexuality is wrong, if it says homosexuals are sick.

As to the question of the Knights of the Clock,the early Los Angeles interracial group, I know of no more information, as Dorr Legg covered it in ONE's first book, Homosexuals Today, still available as I have a copy, and assume ONE Institute (Dorr Legg, Jim Kepner parts) and the Homosexual Information Center (Don Slater part) archives/collections do as well.

I am sorry that I see no place, especially in “queer studies” that the issues brought up in BTW are covered. I have said that is where even our HIC website fails, as do all books, in covering why ONE and HIC founders had such important views that are still valid today. You point out that in a court (in Australia) men were asked to “prove” they were homosexual. We answered that question, even if the world and even “gays” reject it, years ago, in court, with the person best able to support our belief, Dr. Evelyn Hooker. In fighting drafting of young men who had said they were homosexual, to avoid the draft, and some of them were not homosexual, Don Slater and attorneys went into court several times, winning all cases, and telling the court that the ONLY proof that someone is homosexual is their word. An act does not prove or make someone homosexual, and no “experts” could prove it when Hooker offered them the chance.

And then you say Kenya wants homosexuals there to identify themselves, so they will know how many there are in dealing with AIDS. Well, that is the same issue we faced in the 1960s when the Health authorities in Los Angeles asked ONE to work with them, take money, and deal with homosexuals with medical problems. We said no and reminded them that we would have to identify those people and by their admission they would be confessing to a crime, and the information would not be kept secret. They claimed we were wrong, until we showed them information given in secrecy to them had been given by them to health agencies in another state.

And the silly addition of letters to our “community” only shows how silly some of us are. Just as the continued insistence by a few people that only the word gay is acceptible—even some women don’t accept the word lesbian. No comment on how Texas should correct the mistake in its attempt to defend marriage from us. They now have a “gay” mayor in Houston. I think that tells us where the future lies.

But the most fun is in trying to understand what Jason Schneiderman is trying to say to and about Larry Kramer's anti-queer theory remarks.

How can I say it except that his “proof” is unacceptable to me, yet his arguments are right.
No one at ONE, as far as I can remember, ever accepted the arguments about Foucault. I never read him, and it seems to me that much of the article is an east coast view as we were busy working on the west coast and not being intellectual. It amazes to me that the world still seems to think homosexuality and our movement didn’t happen until the east coast thought to join us. And in book reviews it seems no one ever heard of many west coast authors, including Patrica Nell Warren, who is in this issue, or Joseph Hansen, etc.

Books in current (Fall 09) issue of Claremont Review of Books

2009-12-30T19:02:00.002-06:00

I was glancing at magazines in the book store and saw this, and even though from the past I know I don’t often agree with the Clarement Review’s views, I want to say that I found this coverage very interesting, as I assume was intended, since it covers American history, even indirectly (with such books as one of Islam).

Will Morrisey's review of The Crisis of Islam, by Ali A. Allawi, is very good. It points out why most Americans insist on separation of church and state, and, despite the attempt at apologizing for Islam, the fact remains that Islam says, "What is ours is ours, and what is yours is negotiable." It says clearly that while someone can convert to Islam, no one can "leave' Islam. I read such things from the view of a homosexual American, and that is why liberals have supported Bush, and now Obama in their defense of America from Islamic etremists, and insist that all Muslims must agree to accept America's laws and not try to impose their religious beliefs, which say that religion and the state are one.

And that is why I still doubt the Christian Right, as covered in the review by Jon A. Shields of The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, by Jean Bethke Elshtain. Both books try to explain what is unacceptable, and thus fail. Then there is the very good discussion of the book Lincoln at Peoria. I wonder when books will discuss Lincoln's sexuality. But I must say that I had not thought of the speech there as being that important, but it seems to have led to Gettsybug, and Lincoln's view on slavery—which should be read by Judge Bork, whose book is total nonsense as even the reviewer seems to understand. His idea of original inent is, of course, nonsense. But I was glad to see it said that the constitution does not guarantee the right to marry. And the comment that he should understand that if you can't add anything to the Constitution, you can't deny what is there!

But the Review remains consistent on the last two items, on Obama, and having Dick Cheney as speaker.

But keep going, editors! You keep my blood going.

Why do some homosexuals have more faith in America today than the right-wingers?Over the holiday i have listened to C-SPAN2 book rviews, and one final

2009-12-27T16:09:00.000-06:00

Over the holiday I have listened to C-SPAN2 book rviews, and one finally got to me. I heard the views of George Nash and his discussion of his book, Reappraising the Right. I could not believe my ears when what he seemed to say is that they should start doing what (he did not sway this but what he said is what we have done, poor man) the very things, tactics that the movement for homosexual equal/civil rights have done, starting in 1950, ironically when he thinks the conservative movement started, and that it has lost some of its original thinkers and needs to restart.

It is strange to hear him think that programs on NPR and what I consider liberal media should be copied by the rightwingers/conservatives. I of course never listen to these sources, don’t consider them as having helped our cause and think most Americans feel the same way.

This is part of the bigger issue, a generic one that has been around, probably since the nation’s founding. But if we are to believe the polls and the media, most Americans now not only don’t like how things are going and are doubting Obama but think things were better in the past, presumably even under the last administration. How queer that most homosexual Americans think that things keep getting better and our nation has never been more like what the founders envisioned. We have more faith in our system than the rightwingers.

We have reasons, as do most black Americans and most female Americans. And most Hispanic Americans. I hope soon that will be true of most Native Americans, who still have not gotten promises fulfilled even from the Clinton administration era. Each decade since 1959 our cause has made progress. Each generation our community/movement has had a better life. I wonder why other Americans can’t feel the same way. They lost no rights by slowly granting us ours. We got no special rights that made us happier, gayer than other Americans.

It is time that intelligent Americans stop whining and realize that our nation deserves credit for having gone further toward the America the founders sought—using the constitution and Bill of rights and other guides they gave us. The system works. In a time of economic trouble, the has been no backlash against any minority—as might have been expected. The vast majority of Americans are loyal, support their government, and want it to succeed, even those who might not have voted for Obama. Our two-party system is not bad. Progress has been made under all administrations. We have reasons to celebrate, no matter which politidcal party we support or our religious beliefs or race. Let’s welcome a new year in which to continue our work to make our nation even better.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are today’s Mattachines

2009-12-10T10:22:00.002-06:00

A most interesting sociological (and psychological) study would be learning who watches/listens to Comedy Central’s shows, especially The Daily Show (Jon Stewart) and The Colbert Report (Stephen Colbert). What only a few homosexuals may “see” is that these people are today’s version of Mattachines. It seems lost that not all “mattachines” were homosexual, including the supporters of America’s first successful organization seeking understanding of homosexuality.

This is relevant today as we see more and more print media, homosexual and non-homosexual, disappearing, and many people crying that our civilization will be the lesser for their loss. Nonsense. The sad fact is that journalism has never been the great contributor to our civilization that most people, especially academics and journalists, have told us. It is not just the faux “news” we get from Fox News that is recent and indicates a decline. It is the rare exception—Edward R Murrow—to the rule that makes us think journalism has been so good in the past or different from Fox's ignorant talkers.

That is why it is good that so many young Ameicans now get their news and views on important issues from Stewart and Colbert, et al. Like the early mattachines, who talked truth to the “leaders” of their time, which is why Harry Hay proposed that name for the first organization, it was a perfect name—sorry Dear departed Dale Jennings, although your version of the discussions held are also funny—and is a perfect name for Stewart and Colbert and their staff. But, sadly, there are no mattachines in our news rooms today. Serious Americans should ask the tv networks and local newspaper editors why a few staff members at The Daily Show and The Colbert Report can find information on people who are telling us lies and tell us about their deceit, with humor and satire, entertainingly, and NBC, Time, et al, can't with all their vaunted money and experience. And the evidence is there, even more today, on the internet.

I challenge anyone who thinks that they are getting news and good views in The New York Times, or Newsweek, or the local alternative publications such as L. A. Weekly, to watch these two shows a week and learn who is really giving you facts and the “news” and how really sad the state of journalism is. And I challenge the glbt journalists to even learn the history of their homosexual community/movement—as it seems few have even heard of Mattachine and ONE. And they may learn news from Stewart’s segment called “gay watch.” They will not learn anything from watching endless repeats of the L Word and Queer as Folk on LOGO. And they sure will not get any news—gay or non-gay—from the nightly network news shows, including PBS News Hour which seems to follow Karl Rove's idea of politics, don’t change things, just change names or the meaning of a word. And even less will they learn the truth from liberal media—which has been true from the start of the homosexual movement. We got less then and get less now from The Nation and The New Republic and The Village Voice than we got from the main street media. What a true journaolist, Don Slater, learned early was that we got more help from rightwingers of each era, such as Joe Pyne, than we got from the liberals who ignored us, including the ACLU. Our attorneys were conservatives, not liberals. Our printers were conservative, not liberal. We got more publicity from attacks from the right than we got from silence from the left. Playboy ignored us, but we got publicity when the lesser sex publications mentioned us. As any effort or cause learns, there is a serious question of whether you are better off being attacked or being ignored.

There may be a day when newspapers and magazines, major religious groups and even current political parties are no longer with us, and today's politicians are dead—some are already, except physically—but there hopefully will always be mattachines.

While it seems that the first public homosexual publication, ONE Magazine, founded in 1952, coming out of early (secret) Mattachine did do a good job, and had no competition for several years, the vast majority of later publications, like ONE, didn't have the resources to really give news and view on homosexuality, and once some got advertising and income, they seemed to go for entertainment only, ignoring the work of the movement. And most recent books seem to also ignore the serious discussion, so th3e clsoing of lgbt bookstores means little in fact as far as our community/movement is concerned.

Guest Blogger: Aristide Laurent and The Not-So-Sudden Death of The Advocate

2009-11-07T19:36:00.003-06:00

As a person known for having an article in the very first issue of The Advocate in 1967 (under the nom-de-plume “P.Nutz”), and having been there at its birth, I take this news with mixed emotions. I continued writing and working with the newspaper and into the 1970’s when it became a glossy under Mr. Goodstein. As Todd White reported in one of his earlier Legends columns in The Long Beach Blade, I was an “accidental activist” who kept winding up at history-making events because, well, “where the action was there was I” ... starting with The Black Cat protest in abt 1968 and marching against the passage of Prop 8 in 2008. I was a personal friend of Advocate owners Dick Mitch, Bill Rau, and Sam Allen. During the late ’60s and early ’70s, we were so proud of our work and how the Advocate grew in circulation with each new issue to hit the stands, eventually becoming a household world in most LGBT households. This was during the rag-tag beginning of the gay/sexual revolution—hippies, gay-ins, pride parades, protests by the unwashed masses of gays & lesbians. It was the right thing at the right time. It was an idea whose time had come.

Then David Goodstein came along and purchased all the Advocate stock (I think he paid $4 a share for what was originally sold for $1 a share). I was one of the “anointed” whom he moved to San Mateo to set up shop. There is much debate about what Goodstein changed the Advocate to, but I’m a believer in the theory that nothing can, or will, remain the same and must adapt to its time. In those 10 years from 1967-1977, much progress was made in the battle for gay rights and equality. Goodstein, rightly or wrongly, decided that it was time for the gay community to move into the main-stream and flex our purchasing power. Still, the gay community continued to fight and demand equality without the help of the all-new-glossy Advocate. I cannot say, nor will I attempt to, say, how much influence Goodstein and the new Advocate had on causing corporations to acknowledge us as a source of income to be courted and leading to Ellen daring to come out on national TV. To me his concept was just another militant division, or troop unit, in our march towards equality.

So it seems that “new” Advocate is about to go the route of the “old” Advocate and, like the dinosaurs, become an anachronism and victim of technology and progress. One can only assume (and hope) that the new technology (esp. the Internet) will now continue the battle for equality using today’s weapons. Being an optimistic cynic, I would not be surprised that the gay community (though, perhaps in a different form) will still be standing and progressing when the rest of the country collapses into the Haves and the Have Nots. Of course, by then, we probably will no longer be known as DINKS (double income/no kids) as in the past 40 years of my activism, we have gone from sexual liberation to the right to marry and have kids.

I attended the Advocate’s 40th Anniversary party in WeHo in 2007. I felt like a dinosaur among all those pretty young things and Hollywood celebs. Stuart Timmons tried to get the editor of the Advocate to introduce me to the gathered throng as the oldest living former Advocate employee still standing and speaking out, but ... well, I think the word “oldest” didn’t go over very well with a crowd whose parents had probably not been born when the rest of us were fighting against bar raids and lewd conduct arrests for just holding hands in a bar. I told Stuart to let the issue go because I was from a different world than this generation and that was OK. I had my many years of wonderful memories, felt very secure in myself and the fact that I had contributed a little something toward their freedom to party in public and dance man-to-man, woman-to-woman without fear of being raided by the LAPD. That was more than enough for me for me.

As one-of-our-own (Rod McKuen) said in song during that period: “People change. Life goes on. Every midnight brings a new dawn.” Here’s hoping each new dawn brings continuing advances in our struggle for equality. Gay marriage is an idea whose time has come and, in my humble opinion, nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. We saw that with the Hate Bill including the gay community. We will see it with our other reasonable demands, including marriage, adoption, DADT, and things we can only dream about for the future.

The older I get, the more things from my generation pass on ... my favorite bars, my friends, my health, newspapers, etc. Thank Zeus and Aphrodite I still have my memories to sustain me above ground.

Aristide Laurent

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

2009-11-06T13:12:00.001-06:00

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

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

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

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

Trying to get to Shreveport while storm was going on

2009-10-31T10:55:00.002-05:00

I left San Antonio late as all planes at Dallas were late, and in fact got on an earlier flight than they had rescheduled me for, so got to Dallas and then naturally could not get to Shreveport as that was the time the tornados and heavy rain was hitting. So after two attempts and cancellations, we had to stay in Dallas over night. And then, again, I got on an earlier flight than I had been rescheduled for, so got here at about 8:30 Friday. I think I'm the only one who hung around, and had asked, so one AA man said, well, here's a lunch voucher, but by that time the main one taking them, MacDonald's was closed, so used it for breakfrast.

I did not know, but walked around to get a little exercise and found, near, B28 gate, a lounge area with 10 chairs, half lounges and half very soft chairs, and so actually slept almost as I do when I go to sleep in my recliner.

Donnie had gone on home Thursday night to Arcadia as we knew the flights would not go, and Friday schools were out, so when I got here he and two older boys came to get me and then we immediately drove by to see the storm damage. We saw the Methodist Church steeple laying near the church. Some people saw this on CNN news who were there taping as we drove by. And then the news said the man whose car it fell on as ok, but you wonder how when you saw the picture of him in the car, squashed. His name was Williams, and wife Judy said he was ok but of course in hospital.

The tornado then skipped over to I-220 and Airline in Bossier and hit tops of condos and at least 20 roofs of house, then left on Brownlee, and I think that was it. But another one had hit Haughton, and top of Patrick’s relative's house. But streets were flooded. My area was ok. But almost everyone lost electricity.

Cats were ok, thanks to neighbor Mrs. Patrick and Donnie. Haven’t heard from Jamie. So I decided to come on to the Broadmoor library and say hi, since I couldn’t at the airport as my laptop does not have the connection to plug in-I just can use it where there is wifi or whatever it is and just plug in electricity. I gather this is telephone thing, I never knew to get it, so I could not connect at the free T-Mobile thing at the airport. And naturally after 15 moinutes of watching CNN it was same thing for rest of time. I saw repeat of Jon Stewart after i got here and he was funny but accurate about how Fox and even CNN make the news and then “report” it, but they never do more than 15 minutes, mostly of same stuff and it is not news.

So things are back to normal. Will waste time watching the talk shows tomorrow and have my usual Sunday eggs, grits and toast and Jelly. I did not lose any weight in San Antonio, as Ron and Afandi kept me eating and Ron and I led Lynn astray to Marie Callendars. Ron and I also drove to Austin to visit Toby Johnson and we drove to Lake Travis and ate at Oasis—of course the view is great.

So it is bright and sunny and probably going to be 70 here, so we are doing ok. Hope everyone else is.

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

2009-10-15T10:11:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-10-15T10:07:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-13T16:39:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Most homosexual Americans will understand what Judge Sotomayor means

2009-06-05T08:57:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

2009-06-01T08:59:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-05-20T17:50:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do homosexuals need a Martin Luther King, Jr to lead us? (Windy City Times, May 18 thissue)

2009-05-18T18:46:00.000-05:00

Wayne Besen’s column “A Fractious Movement” in May 13th Windy City Times concerns an issue that our community/movement should be talking about. It is only one of the issues that can affect how successful we are and will be in gaining our equal/civil rights and helping everyone understand our concerns, which many of us don’t even understand, much less non-homosexuals.

Besen says that some of us are thinking we need a charismatic person to come lead us, something I assume like the black civil rights movement had Dr. King. That seems stange considering how successful our cause has been since 1950 wihout such a person. He is right when he says that in fact it is the diversity of people and ideas and efforts that has made us strong and more difficult to stop. An example he gives is that while most of us have problems with how religion has harmed us, some of us are working within the various religions to change them.

It was not easy when there was only “ONE” organization and publication speaking for us, even though ONE, Incorporated, always gave equal opportunity to all groups and views. But it is good today to have so many millions of us working for the cause that each of us can choose the particular part of the cause we want to work on, legal (such as Lambda Legal, GLADD, NCLR, etc.), religious (such as SDA Kinship, Dignity, Affirmation, and of course MCC), our heritage (ONE Institute, Gerber/Hart, Lavender Library, Homosexual Information Center, etc), political (such as Stonewall, Log Cabin, etc.),social service (such as the several good glbt centers in major cities, youth concerns (such as GLSEN), the military (such as SLDN) and even bloggers who alert us to what our enemies are doing, and sites such as Daily Queer News, On GYB, etc.

So anyone who wants to step forward and try to speak for us, fine, but I personally don’t want the President (Obama or whoever) to choose one person to decide what millions of homosexuals want or think. For instance, while it seems most of us are pro-choice, we have pro life people such as PLAGAL. We are strong ony when we allow diversity that we ask of others. While I don't seek marriage, I certainly do nothing to discourage those who do. And a final thought: It is very interesting, for those who read and trust polls, that while more and more people are now in favor of same sex marriage, more people now are against abortion. How do those in favor of civil rights explain this?

Where do we get our moral leadership? Preachers or tv/movies

2009-04-15T14:46:00.000-05:00

One of the basic arguments we get from religious bigots is that without religion, their god and church, synagogue or mosque, there would be no basis for morals, integrity, and education of future generations on our heritage as a people.

Nonsense. The evidence I go by was reinforced this week by seeing some old movies and tv shows and what I got was better moral leadership from these sources than any preacher, rabbi or imam I have heard—in fact I have heard none of such people saying that the Islamist or Christian terrorists are evil and wrong.

I think members of our community/movement need to THINK. The fact is that much of our work was harmed in the early days by the failure of the media to hear us, thus meaning few people knew of our work and ideas, including homosexuals who were deep in their closet.

Much of the problem of homosexuals or people preferring homosexual sex comes from religion, laws based on religion and mental health people whose “thinking” also comes from religion more than they seem to understand.

So what have we heard from religion? Not much except how bad we are and a few quotes from a book that not only has been badly translated, but has hundreds of different interpretations, not only on the issue of homosexuality but even how to baptize or what day of the week we should give to our god.

But what have we been getting, for several years now, from the media, the “industry” and writers of tv shows and movies. A lot. All good. But does the average person know how much such resources affect our lives and how others view the world, including views on homosexuality? Idon’t think so.

In fact, often, when some person or show does try to cover our issue they get no congratulations and support but negative feedback if they don’t do and say the exact thing some pc person, self-appointed, thinks is “right.”

So here is a list of a few such shows that should have been on the radar of every person concerned with discrimination against homosexual Americans.

I watched two older movies, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Anyone who watches these two movies, and many others and doesn't consider gay-friendly and gay-supportive has a personal problem with themselves. These shows and the people behind them should be honored. And the probability is that millions of people who haveseen these shows are less anti-gay than they were before the movies.

By the way, local people seeing a new movie channel over the air (not on cable/satellite) from the local CBS station are seeing many promos for non-profits, and one is a series of ads against using the word gay negatively. I wonder if this “message” is heard in any local churches?

Most people have heard the humor on shows of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, on Comedy Central, and know that they are not anti-gay and make fun of bigots of all sorts, again I know of no preachers who speakout against bigots like such tv shows. I do know, from seeing the dvd, that Hal Holbrook’s show of Mark Twain does.

And what is the average viewer seeing on tv shows? Good things in our area. I only am concerned that we do not know in advance when a good show is coming on. For instance last night the ABC tv show Cupid was about a teenage homosexual boy being bullied at school. How relevant since this week another such boy committed suicide in Massachusetts. Have many preachers spoken out against people who don't protect our children from gay-bashing? So we get better advice from movies and tv than from our so-called moral leaders.

We must do what we can to be sure that anyone needing support knows where to get it. That is why we need PFLAG, yet support for some chapters has been falling—such as the Houston chapter.

But why is it that some parents and school personnel still don't know about GLSEN, which exists soley to support children suffering for their sexuality.

And do glbt newspapers and magazines list resources for their area? Have such publications as Gayellow Pages been mentioned in our media?

And have we challenged the academic community and professions to provide information to students and people on their work? Do law schools cover the duty of school boards to provide protection for students? Do medical schools cover problems, mental and physical that homosexuals may face? Have history professors stopped trying to delete homosexual history from coverage, and literary professors stopped hiding the homosexuality of famous writers? It is the bigots who have the “agenda.” They fear that if the average person knows the facts about homosexuality it will make them gay? Or what?

Hopefully gay marriage, aka same sex marriage, will not only be everywhere soon, but that the process is going to educate us all on what life as second-class citizens means and thus why we and all Americans deserve equal/civil rights.

How sad that the push for civil rights for us, as was the real case for blacks, women, etc,not only does not come in most churches, but in fact that those churches harbor and support bigots who quote their ignorance of their guide book against us as they have aganst equality for races, sexes, etc. And it was they who supported the decimation of American Indians/Native Americans in the name of “saving” them and didn't stop if it took killing them to save their souls—which of course meant that “we” could take away their land.

At least when the movies gave us the good cowboys and bad Indians, they knew they were exploiting the subject and making up history and have now moved on in the real world of this century.

Newsweek's article on The End of Christianity/post-Christian america

2009-04-08T12:18:00.002-05:00

My thoughts on reading your excellent article on Christianity today was, even agreeing with your thinking: Nonsense. What the skeptics are ignorant about is what has caused the “problem,” they have their complete misunderstanding of Jesus' teachings and what they see as the “wrong” direction the nation is taking, and the “failure” of the people to follow their personal ideas on morals (abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, etc.) is really the people and the true “remnant” of Christianity slowly going toward the ideals Jesus practiced as well as taught.

Most Americans have not rejected religion, just the stupid ideas, political and otherwise, of a few fanatic nuts who seem to get all the publicity in the lazy msm (main stream media).

As a person who has, following his religious beliefs from the late ’40s in a old Methodist Church in a then small town Southern town (Bossier City, LA). I took what my Sunday School teacher and church and local YM/YWCA taught and understood that the churches had been wrong about their use of the bible to support slavery and then racial legal racial segregation-never equal of course-as they were, no matter how “sincere” when they supported and voted for prohibition, antigambling laws, etc. And had the churches not been ignored by the government we would still have laws against inter-racial marriage, as these same ignorant un-Jesus -like churches still oppose same sex marriage.

Jesus was concerned with, as the article says, people, not nations. And as He did not worry about politics, history, despite what the media and many “gays” think today, the change in issues of homosexuality did NOT come from politicians until it had been changed in the general population, including, sadly, homosexuals themselves. An even sadder fact is that the change has still not come to Christian churches, nor Jewish nor Muslim or other religious groups. What a terrible indictment of the leadership of these religions.

I think this is what Cal Thomas is saying. And it seems that, as in those days when Jesus walked the earth, the people who “get it” and truly follow Him are not the politicians or church leaders, but the average person, and that is why our nation will not follow Europe and abandon religion, but just cast out the false prophets, as they had to do in the endless line of spendor (the title of a book on the history of Methodism in America).

Again, we need to educate the ignorant leaders of religions, which still kill homosexuals, beat and kill women victims of rape, that the reason we don't want prayer in school is because of the question of whose prayer will it be, and who will choose the prayer, and why would “conservatives” want government dictating religious events? No one seeks to promote abortions, but again, it is not the government’s business to control our personal lives, and that applies to same sex marriage as it did to laws against inter-racial marriage, etc. And the more equal/civil rights we get, the more Jesus-like we become.

One final warning. To anyone rejecting “Chrisianity”— be careful of letting radical Islamists replace it.

Washington Blades’ coverage of the salaries of glbt leaders

2009-03-30T12:24:00.000-05:00

I wonder what other people thought if they have seen the news in the Washington Blade on how much money the heads of glbt groups are paid. In a sense it is only the concern of those who give money to these groups.

But intelligent donors should want to know how their money is spent—a question the Johnny-Come-Lately Republicans are asking about the current stimulus money of the Obama Administration but didn't seem to worry about when it was the Bush Administration..

But I can give a personal view, and not out of jealousy. I worked from the ’60s to today with the oldest lgbt organization, coming out of early Mattachine (and I was at the infamous Mattachine Convention in Denver that got all the publicity in Denver and San Francisco, with mostly bad results) as ONE, Inc (1952) to be the public voice, the first national publication, which won the first legal battle of our community/movement and then co-founded out of ONE the information part, the Homosexual Information Center (1965–68).

I did financial work at ONE/HIC. I helped put out the magazine. We had little income, little media support and few homosexuals supporting us. The opposite is true today. Every major media service is eager to support our cause. Where we had a few heterosexual attorneys, publishers/printers that helped, we could get no gay professionals to help us.

The opposite is true today. So the job of these leaders is not hard. And if we accomplished what we did-they sure have built on what we have done and in a sense are still doing with our libraries/archives—with so little support and money, they have no excuse for not doing a great job, but that does not mean I personally would accept their reasoning for taking so much money to do their job. Again, if we are saying the Wall street greedy people who got our nation in the financial mess we are in should not be rewarded, we should ask why these leaders with all they have, mostly donated work they if fact refused in the Prop 8 effort, need such high salaries, to do what we did with so little, and we DID succeed. Have these leaders known about Harvey Milk, or seen the movie?

I would like to know where the income of these groups comes from. I suspect lots of it is tax-payer money-I’m sure the gay center in L. A. was donated by the government and much of their income comes from the city/county/state. So we are entitled to know where the money goes. I wonder how easy it is for someone to get help from these gay centers in L. A., New York, Chicago, San Francisco. I sure can remember sitting with the only person at the L. A. gay center, on weekends when it was really doing a good job, on Highland, and few people had an income from the work.

And I suspect many people have good memories from the first days of the L. A. center, at that old Victorian house on Wilshire Blvd., when Morris et al. did something, and inspired so many at a time when it was a rare thing, not something seen daily on many TV shows, and written up often in the newspapers, etc. Do young people today who have contact with gay centers come away with a good feeling?

After all, there are now organizations specifically for help them-GLSEN, The Point Foundation, etc. And there are legal (lgbt) groups to help them, Lambda legal, NCLR, GLAD, and for military issues SLDN, etc. So what does the Human Rights Campaign do? What does The Task Force do? The name doesn't tell us who it serves.

And who knows what the professional glbt groups do. Do we know what the gay/lesbian journalists do? The gay physicians? And do we hear anything from the groups for sociology, psychology, anthropology, history, politics???

I have no doubt that if the pioneers had had the money and media support the current leaders have they could have done even greater things. I can tell you that it sure is cheaper to reach people on the internet than it was to type and mail letters, and to pay telephone bills. Of course we didn’t have to have expensive offices-sort of like those bankrupt bankers do.

I know these groups will not get any financial support from me-but they do from taxpayers. And like the call to eliminate the tax-exemptions for religious organizations that indirectly get taxpayers’ money, that may come for such groups as HRC, the centers, etc.

But like a lot of things that people seem to think were better in the old days—we did the work with no income and in fact donated not only our time and energy but our money, and it was our desire to change things that gave us the motivation.

I suggest that income for these leaders be ended and let’s see how many of them are still willing to give some of their spare time—as they earn a living elsewhere as some of us did—to the cause. Then they will deserve credit and respect. Now they don’t need that—they get lots of money as the motive.

Milk, a major ingredient, but only one of many in community/movement

2009-03-18T12:28:00.003-05:00

Milk, the movie, like milk the drink, is important (although I understand there are some people who can't take either).

I think the movie is important, and it is educational, and in a way, entertaining. And it is interesting to consider Milk and Brokeback Mountain as movies, their timing and what they say to and about homosexuals.

Like Stonewall, Milk, the man and "event" owe a little of their success to the media. As has been pointed out, not only did the movement for homosexual civil rights (and please, that covers—despite dear Morris Kight, et al.—gay rights, lesbian rights, queer rights, dyke rights, etc.) start in Los Angeles (Henry Gerber and any others were a blip and died fast) but so were the first of everything, including riots, or as Stonewallers prefer, rebellions, happened in California but the media ignored them. And so lazy "historians" have ignored them. As they have ignored the founders of Mattachine and ONE. Has anyone wondered why there is no mention of Mattachine in the movie Milk?

Milk came to San Francisco, as hundreds of thousands of others came to California, some from New York, etc., perhaps because they knew that things were happening in California.

Hal Call came to California. He joined early Mattachine and immediately started taking over, using the clam that the founders were communists and this would hurt the cause-probably true, although some think that ONE went too far in the other direction, being mainly conservative Republicans.

There should be no question that Harvey Milk was a great person, and inspired man people, including those who heard of him in other places. But it does not take away one iota from him and his co-workers to point out that this is true of Harry Hay, Don Slater, Dorr Legg, Jim Kepner, Frank Kameny, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon, Frank Kameny, Barbara Grier, Barbara Gittings, et al.

Such people, publications and organizations had been preparing the way for Stonewall and Milk since the early 1950s.

And that is true of Mattachine in San Francisco, and Hal Call, Don Lucas et al (Guy Strait, SIR, Tavern Guild, etc).

What worries me about Milk is its main point: success. All the marches, the victory of No on 6—how would people have thought of this if they had seen it before the loss of Prop 8? You can't miss the exact tactics used by the religious bigots on 6 and 8. Only time can tell if the people running No on 8 had learned nothing from the No on 6 people or if new times needed new tactics.

And if young people come away from Milk feeling good and hopeful, will they join an organization to continue Harvey's work? Or do they think, despite anti-gay marriage wins, Milk did it, so we can just enjoy it?

Again, Harvey, like others, came to California because they thought it was better there, and thankfully a few like Milk joined to help make it even better. I'm not sure, as the movie hints, that generic "David Goodsteins," (and his Advocate) did.

But, as in other civil rights movements, it takes many ways to a goal, education, picketing, entertainment, etc. Hal Call and his Mattachine was visible—certainly from that great good and terrible convention in Denver in 1959, when innocent people voted to praise the mayor of San Francisco for being gay-friendly, the purpose of the person who made the proposal was to defeat the mayor and what happened, as so often in life, sometimes good and sometimes bad, is that it had the opposite affect. The newspapers were not gay-friendly, but they shouted that this was a "attack" not only on the mayor but on the citizens and city of San Francisco. Think what that word meant—it sure didn't mean they were "gay-friendly."

Hal Call and Mattachine were well known in San Francisco. Later others started working the cause from different angles, SIR (social until the stupid police forced them to be activists along with the preachers and attorneys of the newly formed Council of Religion and the Homosexual), the Tavern Guild (Bill Plath, et al), Guy Strait—no comment—his wonderfully campy U S News & Cruise News newspaper. And into the mix came Harvey.

But if people get a good feeling from Milk, did they get a realistic view? And how does that compare in promoting the cause of civil rights for homosexuals to Brokeback Mountain. That is not a "gay" movie. And while today many people say to those two men, and others like them, then and now, get out of that place and go to the big city. How realistic is that today, with our economy, as it was at the time of the movie?

And do we abandon the rest of the nation to religious bigots except the blue states and urban areas? As we abandon the churches to the bigots? And is it possible that many people, seeing and feeling the pain of the men of Brokeback Mountain might finally come to a better understanding of what society has done to homosexuals? As entertainment perhaps Milk is better, as education, I'm not sure. And I wonder how I would feel if Milk had come first? But I have no doubt that both will influence everyone, even those who don't bother to see the films. And does it do any good to tell someone that they should see them?

Arthur Laurents and Don Slater: You can be affected by and inspired by, someone you never knew

2009-03-15T12:11:00.004-05:00

My thinking about the book I found accidentally, the autobiography of Arthur Laurents, titled, strangely, Original Story By, subtitled A memoir of Broadway and Hollywood, is proof to me that I was affected by the work of this man that I had never heard of. Yet he was working in “Hollywood” during the time I was working in Hollywood (both on Cahuenga Blvd. West across the freeway from Universal Studios and later ON Hollywood Blvd. in 2 places, 6715 and 6758.

He was working with rich and famous celebrities (actors/writers/directors) whose work reached millions in books and movies—and would today on the TV celebrity shows. We were reaching hundreds with a message that he personally needed. He wrote, and we wrote.

He reached millions, most of whom did not know who he was, but saw his work, on Broadway and in the movies. He seemed to know every famous person, and had sex with most, such as of course Farley Granger. We did a lot of talking about homosexuality—we were educational, not entertaining—but had little sex. The media did not find the work of the early people working for civil rights for homosexuals of interest, even that of the cute, sexy ones. So no one heard of Don Slater-even though his work appeared not only in ONE/Tangents Magazine but also in the pages of the Los Angeles Times, the Herald Examiner and our work was written up by Peter Bart in The New York Times, and his military work was covered briefly in Randy Shilts’s book, Conduct Unbecoming: Gay and Lesbian People and the Military, and later in the book of short biographies of pioneers edited by Vern Bullough, Before Stonewall, plus tv and radio talk shows (Joe Pyne, for instance, that day’s Rush Limbaugh?) and at college and church discussions. I was on Regis Philbin’s show, treated shabbily, and Louis Lomax’s, treated well, and a few others. As were Harry Hay and John Burnside. And so were people on the East Coast, making news, which Laurents doesn’t seem to have known about, as he dealt with his “issues.” But Judd Marmor was one of his consultants, and he worked with our movement too.

So I personally got much pleasure out of The Way We Were, and I did so then and now regardless of any “issues” Laurents had with the others who got the movie made. My overall feeling was and is that it is both a love story and how politics etc affect even those who love, and how things turn out. That was what I wondered then, and now at the age when I KNOW how things turned out. And the issues covered by the move, the black list, HUAC, applied not only to Laurents and his friends, but to our movement’s main co-founder, Harry Hay, so this all is the same even if the players never knew each other.

I feel America is better for the work of Laurents, even if we don’t know it, and that is true of the work of Don Slater.

Gay Lib New York pictures and articles in current Gay & Lesbian Review

2009-03-03T12:37:00.002-06:00

The cover alone of the March/April 09 issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review, the two contrasting pictures of gay marches, is great history. My first thought is, tell us where the people in both pictures are today and how they view the world today? The idea of a picture of early gay lib days, the great Come Out picture (1970, New York), and the more recent picture of people in California marching in 2005 for marriage is great visual history of the homosexual community/movement.

And the article “The Look of Liberation,” by Steven Dansky, and the additional pictures should put this part of Stonewall history in place for future generations. I do wonder about the continuitng disagreement on the term to describe the event—riot versus revolution. (I cannot understand the places in the picture versus the names, but to see names such as Jim Fouratt makes this still relevant today.)

It could be another philosophical discussion on tactics, etc, when you think that the Come Out!! picture was staged and some people think only “spur of the moment” things are valid—and yet the actual photo is almost accidental and so even more valuable as at another second it could have been just another picture. And that some people are not in the picture, such as Allen Young, and others almost weren’t, such as Ron Ballard, makes it of interest as it tells us of how people had to deal with being “out.” then. And the pictures that record such things as the Effeminist Manifesto, with Kenneth Pitchford, et al., show that much was happening.

I personally was happy to see that even the people at events then now can not remember all that happened, even where the picture was taken or which house a meeting was held in, as I have the same lack of specifics on what happened, where, when,etc.

Let’s hope the people in the 2005 picture and the events since Prop 8 protests, etc will keep a record. And the article on Milk was valuable for the same reasons, to know the general atmosphere in San Francisco then as compared with today is important.

I also liked that Lillian Faderman tries to keep reality in how Hollywood really was in those early days. Some people try to make it sound gayer than it really was, and that distorts history. Wonder why Brett Abrams in Hollywood Bohemians tries to make us think stars were out and life was easy when it was not?

Christianity and Homosexuality: the major issue of our time

2009-02-26T19:40:00.001-06:00

It is clear that all of the problems homosexual Americans have in gaining equal/civil rights come directly from religion—all religions.

So in most cases thinking homosexuals have left religion, since “religion” left/rejects them. But there are those who do not leave their religion. And so there is a conflict in the community/movement in how to deal with the opposition coming from religious institutions and people.

It is time that homosexuals stop doing to each other what bigots in religions have done to s: refuse to listen to other views, possible methods/tactics.

A resource to start this dialogue is found in such a book as Christianity and Homosexuality—some Seventh Day Adventists Perspectives, edited by David Ferguson, Fritz Guy and David Larson, published in 2008 by Adventist Forum, in Roseville, California.

The problem, as usual, is getting such an excellent tool to the very people who need it—not only members of the Seventh day Adventist Church, but all people dealing with religious issues. For while there are a few small sections that deal with specifically Seventh Day Adventist issues, over 90% of this book has material—facts and views—that are not only useful to everyone but in a few cases have not seen print anywhere else.

Since religious problems are a personal issue, the first section is from personal experience as a LGBT Adventist, and most of the writers came from a deep SDA background.

Then there is a remarkably good “history” of the biomedical history in dealing with homosexuality. The major people are covered, such as Hooker, Kinsey, and Bergler and Bieber, etc. Then there is the behavioral aspect, sociology talking. Then a scriptural discussion, overwhelming in a sense, and as is later pointed out, irrelevant to most people since logic is not a good argument to people who have a fixed view, pro or con. Then there is the question of how the church should handle the issue, how it should act over making laws—a very special issue for SDA people since the church has suffered greatly s a church that worships on Saturday and thus its members have been punished for not being like “normal” Christians.

While some homosexuals will not understand the homosexuals who insist on staying in their church, there is a good thought presented, some of us are incurably homosexual and incurably religious.

The book is mainly a product of the LGBT group of SDA members, Seventh Day Adventist Kinship International. They have been active since the1970, incorporating as a group in1981, and later had to fight a legal battle with the church over the use of the church name, which they won.

A type of thinking toward the Bible and history is called “present truth” which means having beliefs that are based on study and revelation as well as word for word use of the Bible.

There can be no doubt, as is covered in the book, that the behavior of the church has harmed young people. A good use for the book is to show to young people that there have been other SDA people who have overcome the terrible injustice of the church.

As an aside, I thought the issue of having a partner was handled well when it is said that if you can't find a good Adventist partner, it is better to have a good Methodist than settle for a bad Adventist.

One problem I have with the coverage, which is excellent on how the world has looked at homosexuality, is the complete failure, with only the usual exception, to acknowledge that the advance made in our area has been the result of the civil rights movement for homosexual citizens started mainly in Southern California in 1950 with early Mattachine, moving onward with ONE, Inc./Homosexual Information Center, later Mattachine, the Daughters of Bilits, SIR, etc. It is hard to understand why all of the writers seem to ignore or not know of this history and only think this movement started a virgin birth at Stonewall in 1969-it will not make those people happy to know that the one mention calls it a riot, since those there constantly point out that it was a revolution, a big difference.

This is relevant since there might not have been a Dr. (Evelyn) Hooker, or even a good Dr. (Alfred) Kinsey had therefore not been the help of Mattachine and ONE. Yet their work is presented in a good timeline of events and people in the long procession toward today.

The writers do accept the relationship among the various civil rights movements—black, women, etc. So it is clear that the people who then (and now) rejected homosexuals, also rejected blacks, poor, etc. (Which again makes it hard to understand why so many blacks stayed in the church that supported slavery, or women stayed as major supporters in a church that kept them as second class members, and also why homosexuals stay.

The book discuses the ex-gay movement, especially how the church accepted a fraud, Colin Cook, and it also points out that, as some relatives kept saying to those who came out as gay, you know what the Bible says, and you know the devil knows how to use it, and that applies to our movement, which seems to worry about letting our work be known—in both cases the fact is that “Satan knows the Bible better than we do” and our enemies know what is going on in our movement faster than we do.

The ideas come forth that having companionship is important, both as a support group and as a partner, and thus comes up the issue faced in the very first public discussion of gay marriage, in ONE Magazine in 1953, it may lead ot an idea that there are good/moral homosexuals, who are monogamous, and the rest who are bad and NOT monogamous.

The point is made that giving long factual arguments does not always work, and I want to say people should have read this issue a long time ago in such books as In Defense of Homosexuality, by R.O.D. Benson. Logic doesn't work with bigots or fanatics. And the more “religious” someone is, the more judgemental—an example being that relatives often constantly harassed a gay person who said he or she was homosexual.

Another aside, some of the people writing in this book should be the type of guests Ophrah has, and not all the suddenly outed celebrities, who have never suffered the loss not only of a job, but of a family, church, etc.

One of the better chapters is by the mother of a gay son. She covers all the usual stereotypes and dismisses them, and gives a list of resources.

I also found it interesting to know that the daughter of H.M.S. Richards, a radio preacher, has two gay children. So, being a leader of a church does not mean your children will not be homosexual. (I had listened to him, but don't recall him discussing this issue.)

In a list after each chapter there are resources and references, and I see some, such as Wayne Bensen, and wonder if he and others have seen this book.

An issue is raised by one writer about wondering if the church should be encouraged to start discussing homosexuality. At first thought the answer today would be no since it would be a negative one. That is like what Don Slater and ONE said about having sex courses in school: don’t, as none of them would allow the homosexual viewpoint, so it would be more harmful, and of course we see— think of the daughter of the governor of Alaska— that abstinence-only classes have proved worthless.

I don’t recall hearing before a term used, but it is used wisely. It seems in years past many people were classed as social degenerates, meaning those who were not white men mostly—and that was racism. slavery, anti-semitism, anti-homosexual, anti-poor, etc. Medicine often did not correct this anti-human view, and the writing makes it clear that while Freud did not consider homosexuality a problem, later Jewish physicians did and often caused harm, and the problems was that their views were not based on medicine or research but on their religion, and that often to try to prove that Jewish doctors were just as good as non-Jewish. Only later did sociologists etc. understand that it is not homosexuals who are ill, but society. And it is to the same of what should be a great medical school, Loma Linda, which works to make people healthy, would use medicine to harm homosexuals. And like too many medical schools, a person could graduate without ever having talked about homosexuality.

In this regard, the change in the view of the psychiatrists and psychologists is discussed, and it is pointed out that it was NOT politics that made them change their views, and in fact it was politics that had made homosexuality an illness in the first place.

The point is made that in medicine the issue of homosexuality should not be a theological or moral issue. It is past time to allow prejudice to become evidence. And no matter what the view a school can not allow bullies to harm a child, and the schollsmust be attacked legally if they do.

In the discussion of “change,” it is pointed out that if someone claims no longer be homosexual, the claim is disproved when it is admitted that when they have sex in a dream, it is still homosexual.

The church claims to be a caring church, but it turns out on this subject to be like President Bush’s compassionate conservatism: nonexistent.

A question being asked today is where in a church’s priorities is the issue of homosexuality. This church has spent much money on Colin Cook and his Homosexuals Anonymous and Quest, and lately against gay marriage. This is in direct violation of the history of the church, which suffered greatly from laws against it. It promoted separation of church and stage, as of course did early Baptists.

This church often talked about freedom. Yet has fought gay marriage. And much of the religious discussion seems to deal with Paul,strange that Christians ignore Jesus and push Paul. If the church is not ready for gay marriage, the church may not be ready for Jesus. Certainly the early religious practiced incest and polygamy, and no one talks about David and Jonathan.

But the worst sin of this church is that it is not using these wonderful resources, these fine men and women who seek to join and serve.

Certain phrases stand out: the gospel is first, the law is second. We can be “correct” and still be wrong. And the closing pages go directly to what seems irrelevant, but is pure Jesus. Rethink what is said in the story of the Good Samaritan-lawyers and preachers passed the hurt man by, the outsider did the right thing. Others would seek to call a conference to deal with the generic issue of criminals, set up a committee, find any excuse, but talk rather than act and take responsibility.

And then finally there is the return of the prodigal Son, who returns. He is given equality, which doesn't make the son who stayed happy.

The church today, has to face reality: if Ellen White could allow members to accept racial segregation if they lived in the south, and not try to end prayer in school, then it is past time for the church to deal with the fact that a Bible that accepted slavery is not a Bible that should be used to make homosexuals outcasts, and the future of our nation will not have a place for a church that is less Christ-like than the government.

This book is almost a one stop history of all issues of homosexuality. Every library should have it, and every young person should be able to read it. It gives no false hopes, but it gives a honest view of the past and present and perhaps the future, and considering the world of a President Obama, that is a good start.

Discussion on Sullivan's Blog sound like discussion in book on muckraker Lincoln Steffens, in early 1900s

2009-02-18T13:55:00.002-06:00

As I see discussion on Andrew Sullivan's blog, of the current financial crisis, etc., I find words sounding the same in a glance at Justin Kaplan's biography, Lincoln Steffens (1974, Simon & Schuster).

In discussing financial problems of the President T. Roosevelt era, I see words such as (Page 161) Steffens saying to Roosevelt, “Fighting dishonesty as you are, you are doing more than all the rest of us so-called muckrakers put together to show the American people that the cause of graft and the result of all our corruption is simply misrepresentation in government, and that the cure is to regulate, to control, or if these fail, to own those businesses which find it necessary to their success to corrupt men and cities and states and the United States....You ask men in office to be honest, I ask them to serve the public.”

Although Steffens had been wrong about some people and events, such as Mussolini, Hitler, Spain, in the Afterword we are told that Steffesn had predicted the arrival of a time when the government would give way to a consortium of special interests.

In saying that muckraking is still needed, and this is in the time of Ralph Nader, My Lai and Watergate, the author closes the book with what sounds like a comment for today. “Never before, perhaps, has there been quite so much to expose or so strong a resistance to exposure. Never before has muckraking had to contend with such elaborate safeguards and such an advanced state of moral numbness on the one side and, on the other, so high a threshold of moral outrage in the public sensibility. Never before has muckraking-‘the letting in of light and air’-been so nakedly recriminated and menaced by men in power. Lincoln Steffens’ bold thrust and Theodore Roosevelts's seemngly operatic party prefigured a conflict of as yet unsettled dimension and outcome.”

Outing, still an issue, and two examples in Windy City Times

2009-02-15T13:51:00.000-06:00

It is sort of frustrating that our community/movement still has to deal with issues we had to worry about over the past 50 or so years. And in the pages of the Windy City Times we have how the more things change the issue is the same.

Does someone deserve to be outed? You I think are right in saying: only if they are being anti-gay. And so we have Tracy Baim and (Rev) Irene Monroek giving us two examples to think about.

Baim says also there is a question of how someone who has been “protected” by the glbt community and media owes it to us to “come out” in our arena, when too many celebrities come out for the publicity—a great change of course—they get from doing it on tv or on the cover of People Magazine, etc. Yet here is a public official who comes out to preempt the bigots from his being “outed” as he is about to head education, which is really bringing our movement up from the very first, to my knowledge, attack we faced, when Mattachine tried to involve itself in a school board issue—and of course children are the first thing bigots scream about—us tring to recruit the children. Yet he does come out, but not in LGBT media. Yet he is a good guy so it is not an issue, and so even if he doesn't do it, say, in Windy City Times, you can say, Thanks for coming out of the closet.

But how do we deal with a (Rev) Ted Haggard, as Monroe covers. He is not out yet. He still preaches one thing and does another. And still, even after being outed because he has acted against our community, in some ways we feel sorry for him-he sure doesn't fit the word gay. But is he exploiting the issue, trying to have it both ways? And he is only one of many religious bigots who have beedn outed.

The first person (Rob Huberman, heading the Chicago Public Schools) is a good model that young homosexuals can respect. The second person (Haggard) is the opposite, he is still deceiving himself, his family, his fellow church people, etc and watching his “story” on tv will only hopefully warn young homosexuals to NOT follow his example. Maybe both can be used as educational material.