Box Turtle Bulletin

Cuz when it comes down to it, we are all fighting for equality

R. Clark Cooper (left) and Joe Jervis (right). Photo by Phil Reese

Joe Jervis, of Joe.My.God, and Clark Cooper, former head of Log Cabin Republicans don’t see eye to eye on much. One is a fierce fighter for progressive causes and the other a defender of conservative principles. But while they may not agree on how to get there – or even what “there” looks like – both are battling for a day when Americans, irrespective of sexual orientation, are equal under the law.

Sometimes it’s nice to remember that. And that while they may differ, both are gay men, part of a greater LGBT community, and – most importantly – human.

A very classy “no”

The Campaign for Southern Equality is hoeing a tough row. They are fighting for our equality in that part of the nation most reluctant to recognize it, the Southern states.

Part of their strategy is asking for what we don’t have. Personally, I think this is something we must always consider. If we let people go without even asking, they may never confront within themselves the reality that they are harming others.

Since January 1st, 35 LGBT couples from across Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee have stood up for marriage equality in their home states. The WE DO Campaign involves LGBT couples in the Southern communities where they live requesting – and being denied – marriage licenses in order to call for full equality under federal law and to resist unjust state laws.

And as part of that ongoing effort, yesterday couples met at the Arlington County Courthouse to request marriage licenses. Their reception was a very classy “no”: (arlnow.com)

Participants gathered in the square to request marriage licenses from Paul Ferguson, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County and the City of Falls Church.

“I commend each of you that is coming forward today for your courage. I think you do realize that by law, the Commonwealth of Virginia does not allow me to issue those marriage licenses to you,” Ferguson said. “I hope that if laws do change in the future, that you will choose to return one day to Arlington County to receive a marriage license.”

More than a dozen couples stepped forward to request marriage licenses from Ferguson. In turn, each was rejected.

“Unfortunately, I am not able to grant that license by law,” Ferguson repeated to each couple.

Each of the couples acknowledged the rejection, some vowing to return for licenses should the laws change.

“You’re just doing your job. We’ve been together 25 years. It hurts to be rejected,” one tearful applicant said to Ferguson. “We know hearts and minds do change, and we hope Virginia will too.”

Appeals court finds for Palm Springs cops, not “filthy mother-f*ckers and c*cksuckers”

Two years ago, the police in Palm Springs decided that they wanted to crack down on the “bunch of filthy mother-f*ckers” and “c*cksuckers” who frequent the Warm Sands area. So they set up a sting. They dressed attractive officers in tight clothes to give come-hither looks to the gay men going to the various spas.

And when a man approached, the officer would say, “show me what you got“. Some of those foolish enough to suppose that the police in gay-friendly Palm Springs would never engage in entrapment fell victim to the officer’s encouragement and were arrested for indecent exposure.

This did not go over well with the city’s residents and the Chief of Police resigned. But the Riverside County District Attorney, who answers to a larger much more conservative constituency wasn’t going to let the obvious entrapment and homophobic slurs stop him from prosecution. So rather than go for the mild “lewd acts”, he sought prosecution on “indecent exposure” charges, a criminal category designed to punish predatory acts on unwilling victims which requires the guilty party to register for life as a sex offender. And he was shocked, shocked!, when four of the victims didn’t just plead guilty in exchange for dropping the sex offender registration, like he requested.

And when they got to court, the judge wasn’t at all interested in the fact that the police regularly ignored heterosexual lewd acts and made no attempt to crack down on repeated complaints about heterosexual acts. Nor did he think it worth noting that there had been no complaints at all – none – about this “threat to public decency”. Instead he discovered that there was nothing at all discriminatory about the targeting of gay men – and only gay men – in sting operations.

So they appealed.

And on January 3rd, the appellate court agreed. (mydesert.com)

A three-judge panel concluded that “there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the prosecution did not engage in invidious discrimination.”
…
“As unprofessional and inappropriate (as) the comments may be, they do not demonstrate discriminatory intent on the part of the Department,” the judges wrote in the ruling.

Which is, of course, absurd. There really is no question whatsoever that this was discrimination. Not to those who are open to even the possibility that gay people should be entitled to the same treatment by their government as straight people – which, it seems, does not include these judges.

Even the police force couldn’t muster up a statement of agreement.

“The Police Department respects the decision of the Riverside County Superior Court in this matter,” Chief Al Franz wrote in an email. “We reached out to the community after those events transpired in an effort to regain the community trust that was lost. We will continue building upon the relationships with all of the citizens and businesses that we serve and are dedicated to moving forward.”

So, unless they fight on, these four men will be sex offenders, a danger to the safety of children, criminals. All because some police officers channeled the 70’s and decided to go show the faggots who is in charge.

But the vile truth is that it is perfectly legal to target gay people for discrimination in law enforcement. Laws directed at gay people, and only at gay people, are legal. We are not a protected class, there is no presumption of unconstitutionality in the behavior of federal, state, or municipal officers, and if the courts protect the police from the people (instead of the other way around), we have little recourse.

Today.

Which is why the cases before the Supreme Court right now, the DOMA3 case and the Prop 8 case, are so very important. Yes, they address marriage, but they really address a bigger issue: do the protections of the US Constitution also apply to gay people. And are laws (and relatedly behavior) which target gay people for abuse to be subjected to merely to “rational basis” rules or are the realities of millennia of oppression and hostility directed at the LGBT community to be recognized and some form of enhanced scrutiny applied when police and district attorneys and judges decide that heterosexuals deserve one type of treatment while reserving quite a different treatment for the “”.

Unfashionably Late: GOProud Endorses Marriage Equality

But they only endorse it “where civil marriage is possible“:

The move follows a decision by the GOProud board earlier this month to expand the group’s mission to include state-level work. It also comes after, LaSalvia noted, the re-election of a president who supports same-sex couples’ marriage rights, while some in the Republican Party are urging their party to reassess their position on the issue.

Since its founding in 2009, GOProud has always opposed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, calling the law a “federal power grab,” but it avoided the underlying issue of marriage rights. In the course of a 285-word statement provided to BuzzFeed on “marriage and relationship recognition” being released publicly Friday, though, the group declares, “Where civil marriage is possible, we support civil marriage.”

At the same time, the group is pushing strongly for a state-level, political efforts — not judicial decisions — and LaSalvia warned that “a sweeping decision” in the Supreme Court case challenging California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex couples’ marriages “will create a backlash” — including the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment being “brought to the forefront again.”

That last statement tells me that GOProud is gearing up to fight the last decade’s battles. The FMA’s high water mark was in 2004 and 2006, and both times it failed to pass either the House or the Senate by the required two-thirds vote. Both Houses have changed quite a bit since then. Someone needs to show GOProud a new calendar.

The Daily Agenda for Friday, January 18

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Events This Weekend: Aspen Gay Ski Week, Aspen, CO; Midsumma, Melbourne, VIC.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Transgender Man In the News: 1894. The following item appeared in the Badger State Banner, published in Black River Falls, Wisconsin. It’s interesting that what would have been a normal news item about a larceny case instead focused on the nature of the defendant and his wife.

Anna Morris Given One Year
Anna Morris, alias Frank Blunt, the woman who has tried to be a man for the last fifteen years, was sentenced to the penitentiary for one year by Judge Gibson at Fond du Lac. She was arrested several months ago in Milwaukee charged with stealing $175 in Fond du Lac. It was then discovered that the prisoner was a woman, although she had worn masculine attire nearly all her life. A jury convict her of larceny and a motion for a new trial was overruled. After the sentenced had been passed Gertrude Field, a woman who claimed to have been married to the prisoner in Eau Claire, fell upon the neck of the prison and wept for half an hour. This woman had furnished all the money for Blunt’s defense, and now proposes to carry the case to the Supreme Court.

[Source: Jonathan Katz’s, Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976): pp 231-232.]

A Simple Home Device for Aversion Therapy: 1964. On this date, the British Medical Journal published this article by R.J. McGuire and M. Vallance:

Click to enlarge

Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique
Aversion therapy has been used for many years in the treatment of alcoholism. Apomorphine and emetine are the usual drugs used as the unconditioned stimuli for nausea and vomiting, with alcohol as the conditioned stimulus. More recently the same procedure has been used in the treatment of sexual perversions — for example, fetishism, transvestism and homosexuality.

There are several disadvantages to the use of drugs in conditioning procedures. The time between the stimulus being presented and the nausea being produced is uncertain. The patient may not even feel nausea; and, further, the cerebral depressant effect of the drug may interfere with the patient’s ability to form conditioned responses. In addition, the treatment may have to be terminated prematurely because of its dangerous side-effects.

Alternative unpleasant responses can be used to produce aversion. In experimental psychology electric shock has been widely used both in animals and in humans. In clinical treatment, however, it has been less often used. The technique is simpler, more accurately controlled, and more certain in producing an unpleasant effect than drugs. This article describes a simple apparatus designed by one of us (R. J. McG.) and its use in the aversive treatment of sexual perversions, alcoholism, smoking, and neurotic symptoms.

Apparatus. — The components are cheap (under £1) and fit into a box approximately 6 in. (15 cm.) square and 2 in. (5 cm.) deep (Figs. 1 and 2). It is powered by a 9-volt battery and is therefore completely portable. The shock is administered through electrodes on a cuff around the patient’s forearm. To construct the apparatus requires no special skill, and the technical details are given at the end of the article.

…After initial instruction he can treat himself and may take the apparatus home to continue the treatment there. Besides saving the therapist’s time and making frequent treatment possible, this arrangement is to be preferred when the symptom is one usually indulged in alone-for example, masturbation to perverse fantasies. While the patient can use the apparatus whenever he is tempted to masturbate, he should also each day deliberately carry out the treatment at a time when the desire to masturbate is not strong.

This isn’t the first time a device for administering electric shock has been described in the medical literature for treating homosexuality. Electric Shock Aversion Therapy has been discussed since at least 1935 (see Sep 6). But as modern science entered the space age, a few therapists got the idea that there was a demand for an inexpensive home version.

[Source: R.J. McGuire, M. Vallance. “Aversion Therapy By Electric Shock: A Simple Technique.” British Medical Journal 1, no. 5376 (January 18, 1964): 151-153. Available online here.]

Anita bryant and Bob Green at a church service during the campaign against Miam-Dade’s gay rights ordinance.

Miami-Dade County Approves Gay Rights Ordinance: 1977. An angry mob of anti-gay conservatives led by singer and Florida Orange Juice spokesperson Anita Bryant packed the Miami Commission Chambers in an attempt to shout down a proposed gay rights ordinance which would extending nondiscrimination protections in employment, housing and accommodations on the basis of “affectional or sexual preference.” Despite the evident anger in the room, the Commission passed the ordinance 5-3.

Bryant and her husband, Bob Green, vowed to lead a campaign to repeal the ordinance at the ballot box, a campaign that she subsequently won (see Jun 7). That victory led to similar campaigns to overturn similar ordinances in St Paul, Minnesota (see Apr 25); Wichita, Kansas; and Eugene Oregon. That tidal wave reached its high-water mark in 1978 when California voters defeated the Brigg’s Initiative which would have banned gays and lesbians from working in public schools (see Nov 7).

On December 1, 1998, the Miami-Dade County Commission again passed another non-discrimination ordinance by a vote of 7-6. Opponents again petitioned for a vote, but the law was upheld on September 10, 2002.

All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena, CA.

First Same-Sex Blessing In Episcopal Church: 1992. Mark Benson, a 47-year-old physician’s assistant, and Philip Straw, a 45-year-old postal worker, both of Pasadena, California, had been together for eight years when they decided to make honest men of each other. And so they did what any normal self-respecting couple would do when they wanted to get married. They went to their church, All Saints Episcopal Church of Pasadena, which just happens to be the largest Episcopal Church west of the Mississippi. It also happened to have a very receptive rector in Rev. George Regas. He had already proposed that All Saints begin blessing gay unions in a sermon two years earlier.

Regas held back from calling the ceremony a “wedding,” calling it a blessing instead. But even that small concession went far beyond what the national denomination at the time was willing to sanction. At the denomination’s national summit in 1991, they were unable to reach a consensus on a wide range of gay-related issues, instead affirming a “traditional” standard which calls for unmarried people to remain celibate. Regas understood that the ceremony, which was attended by 500 guests, would case a stir. “Homosexuality is such a divisive issue, I’m sure there is a great deal of distress” about the ceremony, he told a reporter from The Los Angeles Times. “But the people who were there, who know these men, knew this was appropriate and good. … It had such a sense of rightness about it.”

Of course, not everyone agreed. Two weeks later, a group of fundamentalists marched outside All Saints during a Sunday service holding signs reading “Homosex is a sin,” and handing out flyers asking “What’s worse than dying with AIDS?” to parishioners. The protest was organized by R.L. Hymers, pastor of the Baptist Tabernacle of Los Angeles, who in 1986 had asked his parishioners to pray for God to remove Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan from his seat on the court by death over Brennan’s 1973 vote in Roe v Wade. He also chartered an airplane to fly over Los Angeles trailing a banner reading, “Pray for Death: Baby killer Brennan.”  Hymers was simillarly bombastic during this protest. “It’s absolutely the wrong signal with the AIDS epidemic raging out of control, he told reporters. “The last thing a pastor should do is advocate a life-threatening and soul-threatening practice of sodomy.”

Regas remained unapologetic. “We have done what we think God is calling us to do. We believe the inclusive love of Christ welcomes everybody.” Philip Straw died from AIDS the following December.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Lafayette’s Jews call for action against boy scouts

In Contra Costa County across the bay from San Francisco, the little town of Lafayette is a nice place to be. The hills are pastoral, the air is clear, the median family income is about $150 K and homes average over a million. But even amidst this paradise, the Jews are pissed. (Contra Costa Times)

The board of directors of Temple Isaiah voted unanimously this week to oppose the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to disqualify boys because they admit to being gay.

Or, more specifically:

We recommend Temple Isaiah members who are involved with Boy Scouts to advocate for change in the BSA membership policy by taking actions such as:

• Writing letters to BSA protesting its non-inclusive policy;

• Joining and supporting organizations such as Scouts for Equality that are organizing campaigns by boy scouts against the anti-gay policy;

• Working within their troops to oppose the current membership policy and foster diversity and inclusion;

• Withdrawing from troops that support the BSA anti-gay policy and joining troops that are opposed to that policy.

• Exerting financial pressure on BSA by withholding contributions to the national BSA (beyond required dues) and supporting troops that are opposed to the non-inclusive policy, and letting BSA know the reason for this decision; and

• For those considering joining Boy Scouts, postponing joining until the anti-gay policy is changed on a national level or joining a troop that takes issue with the national policy and communicating the reason for this decision to the local council and national organization.

This is part of a decade long effort by Reform Synagogues to walk away from discrimination and bigotry in the Boy Scouts.

Seattle’s Mars Hill Church thinks you are all “infected with AIDS”

Mars Hill is a hip, cool mega-church in Seattle with about the nastiest anti-gay culture you can imagine. And like many mega-churches, it has various “campuses” – spin-off churches, sometimes with their own pastor.

Well Mars Hill is all excited that one campus has a new location, right next to Capitol Hill, the gay neighborhood. (press release)

“This is an incredible opportunity to be a ministry hub for downtown Seattle as it will allow us to better serve the business men and women in our city, as well as the homeless and marginalized, as we’re closer to one of our ministry partner, Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission,” says Tim Gaydos, lead pastor of the Downtown Seattle church. “Also, being closer to Capitol Hill is a blessing as we are serving and ministering to those who are infected with AIDS on the hill.” CrossCut News recently reported on some of the church’s community reach efforts.

So I went to see what CrossCut News had to say about the service and ministry to “those who are infected with AIDS on the hill”. I didn’t find any mention of services or care, but I did find this:

Mars Hill is known as hip, but also theologically conservative. Two issues, in particular, tend to put Mars Hill at odds with much of liberal Seattle: views on homosexuality and the role of women.

So I asked Gaydos, “What about gay people and people of other faiths? Are you comfortable working with people like that?” “Absolutely,” said Gaydos.

“We want to make this a great city where everyone flourishes and that means loving everyone of different backgrounds and beliefs. Actually, we have a lot of gay people coming to the church.”

To be clear, GLBT are welcome to attend and participate at Mars Hill Downtown. They are not able to become members of the church.

That’s it. Just “a lot of gay people coming to the church”. But surely that can’t be what they mean by “those who are infected with AIDS”, can it. Surely they don’t just assume all gay people are “infected with AIDS”.

And what’s with that term: “infected with AIDS”? I don’t think I’ve seen that particular phrase since some time in the 90’s.

So I looked closer. What is the message of this ministry to Those Who Are Infected With AIDS On The Hill? Well, the church is doing a series on Who Do You Think You Are (buy the book) by Pastor Mark Driscoll, author of the exciting Real Marriage (buy the book).

It’s full of exciting advice on how to avoid “a false identity apart from Christ” and includes such zingers as “Sin may explain some of your activity, but it’s not your identity.” Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

But maybe I’m oversensitive and misunderstand. So I checked Mars Hills website to see if they do indeed have a ministry in service to those who are, well, ya know. And when I looked for ministries I found a few choices: Family Ministry, Student Ministry, Women’s Ministry, Global Ministry. No that didn’t seem right. But there also were Biblical Counseling, Pre-Marital (clearly not us), and Redemption Groups.

Wait. Redemption groups. Hmmm. Maybe the service and ministry to the AIDS-infected is under Redemption groups. Yep, I clicked on Redemption groups (buy the book) and there we were: “the gay lifestyle was everything I was” — redemption in the life of Dan.

But that was 2010 and not AIDS-infected specific. Surely a church with a ministry to T.W.A.I.W.AIDS.O.T.H would have some mention of it somewhere on their rather extensive website.

So I searched the entire site and Yes! I found it:

In this church we have some people who are both rich and righteous. They’re like Boaz. You never hear of them because they’re not looking for accolades. They’re just looking for opportunities. You know, we have a ministry to those who struggle with same-sex attraction, for example. And we had someone who had a brother who died of AIDS, and he sent us a very generous check saying, “Use this money to help people who are struggling with same-sex attraction, so that they know the love of Jesus and have a new life.” That’s very generous. Didn’t owe us anything. Never even met this guy – what is that? Righteous rich. That’s a kind thing. That’s a nice thing to do, because he understood the gospel.

Overlooking the morality tale about “don’t leave your assets to your homophobic ahole brother” it’s a revelation. There we have it. Voila, we found the ministry to “those who are infected with AIDS on the hill”. It’s the ministry to those who struggle with same-sex attraction.

You say “gay”, Mars Hill says “infected with AIDS”. Same difference.

Maggie Gallagher rebuts Maggie Gallagher

I found a delightful article by Maggie Gallagher today.

Wait. That can’t be — let me check…

Nope, that’s right: I found a delightful article by Maggie Gallagher today.

Maggie and her anti-marriage colleagues like to say the essential public purpose of marriage is regulation of procreation for the benefit of society; so if gay people can’t procreate, why should the government promote such relationships at all, much less grant them marital status?

Oh, I hear this all the time. I hear less enthusiasm for listening to an answer though. The question is usually offered up as an ultimate rock-em-sock-em debate clincher. But perhaps people like Maggie Gallagher should pay more attention to…people like Maggie Gallagher.

Twelve years ago, before the marriage equality fight was essential to her income her primary cause, Maggie wrote an article whose whole point, chief thesis, and entire raison d’être was to convince people that protecting children is not the only societal benefit of marriage. Maggie wrote:

Yes, marriage protects children. And yes, marriage therefore protects taxpayers and society from a broad and deep set of costs, personal and communal. But there is another case for marriage, equally significant, that you probably haven’t heard. Marriage is a powerful creator and sustainer of human and social capital for adults as well as children, about as important as education when it comes to promoting the health, wealth, and well-being of adults and communities. [emphasis added]

She then list “TOP TEN REASONS WHY MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR YOU”:

IT’S SAFER.

IT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE.

IT CAN SAVE YOUR KID’S LIFE.

YOU WILL EARN MORE MONEY.

DID I MENTION YOU’LL GET MUCH RICHER?

YOU’LL TAME HIS CHEATIN’ HEART (HERS, TOO).

YOU WON’T GO BONKERS.

IT WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY.

YOUR KIDS WILL LOVE YOU MORE.

YOU’LL HAVE BETTER SEX, MORE OFTEN.

Only 2 of those reasons are tied to procreation, and none of her arguments for them depend on mixed-gender relationships. It’s hard to say for certain that such benefits will extend to same-sex couples, but there’s the fact that, you know, we’re human beings too. In any case, there’s only one way to find out!

If you find yourself in these sorts of debates often, then bookmark Maggie’s article and have it ready when your opponent asks why the government should grant marriage to same-sex couples. And then come back here and let me know how it went.

Transman files complaint against spa

From Windy City News:

Levi Pine, a Chicago transgender man, has filed an Illinois Dept. of Human Rights (IDHR) complaint against King Spa & Sauna in Niles, after a manager told him he would have to use a private shower or leave.

“The experience I had was particularly degrading,” said Pine.

Pine has been on masculinizing hormones for a year. When he went to the spa on Dec. 9 with a friend, he used the men’s shower facilities. Pine said the manager approached him while he was naked and asked to speak with him.

Both the manager and Pine tell the same story about what happened next.

The manager, who identified himself as John but declined to provide a last name to Windy City Times, questioned Pine about his gender. Pine told John that he was transgender, and John said he could provide Pine with a private shower.

Pine said he did not want a private shower and that he could use the same facilities used by other customers. But, John said, other customers had complained.

I support the rights of transpeople to self identify as to gender. I support the rights of transpeople to live in accordance with their gender identity.

And I understand that a transman is a man. Not a woman masquerading as a man. Not a kinda almost man. But a man.

However, if you happen to be a man with a vagina, you really do have to take that into consideration.

It’s no one’s business whether you have a penis, a vagina, both or neither. But when you get naked in front of their children, you make it their business. And the King Spa (a Korean Jjim-Jil-Bang spa) allows children.

As Kelli Busey eloquently blogged at planetransgender:

It’s not optional, it’s not a case of discrimination regardless of consequences, its our duty as citizens if a person has not had bottom surgery, full nudity must be considered a condition reserved for consenting adults. If children are present or the possibility exists a child could enter the room under those conditions, it’s not just wrong, it’s immoral.

NOTE: the original title “transman sues spa” has been revised for accuracy

RI marriage bill goes to House Judiciary on Tuesday

After a hearing on Tuesday at which the Governor and State Treasurer spoke in favor of equality, the marriage bill in Rhode Island will face its first hurdle in the road to law. (WPRI)

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on the measure for Tuesday.

If the panel passes the measure as expected, it will head to the full House for a vote, possibly next week. House Speaker Gordon Fox has said he wants the House to vote on the legislation by month’s end.

RI marriage bill goes to House Judiciary on Tuesday

After a hearing on Tuesday at which the Governor and State Treasurer spoke in favor of equality, the marriage bill in Rhode Island will face its first hurdle in the road to law. (WPRI)

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on the measure for Tuesday.

If the panel passes the measure as expected, it will head to the full House for a vote, possibly next week. House Speaker Gordon Fox has said he wants the House to vote on the legislation by month’s end.

Dan Savage Discusses Impact of Merle Miller’s 1972 “What It Means To Be A Homosexual”

As featured in today’s Daily Agenda, it was forty-two years ago today when Merle Miller’s landmark essay, “What It Means To Be Homosexual,” appeared in The New York Times Magazine. In other venues, Dan Savage has describe it as a kind of an “It Gets Better” video of its day. The piece generated some five thousand letters to The Times — nearly two thousand in the first six weeks alone — nearly all of them from gay people. Later that year, it was published again in book form as On Being Different. Penguin Classics re-issued it again last year (available in paperback and on Kindle) with a foreword by Dan Savage and afterword by Charles Kaiser. The clip below, which was posted today, features Savage talking about the importance of “What It Means To Be Homosexual” then and now.

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, January 17

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Events This Weekend: Aspen Gay Ski Week, Aspen, CO; Midsumma, Melbourne, VIC.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
ACLU Says Anti-Gay Laws Constitutional: 1957. In response to pleas from gay activists from the Mattachine Society, Daughters of Bilitis and ONE Magazine, the National Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union issued the following statement:

The American Civil Liberties Union is occasionally called upon to defend the civil liberties of homosexuals. It is not within the province of the Union to evaluate the social validity of laws aimed at the suppression or elimination of homosexuals. We recognize that overt acts of homosexuality constitute a common law felony and that there is no constitutional prohibition against such state and local laws on this subject as are deemed by such states or communities to be socially necessary or beneficial. Any challenge of laws that prohibit and punish public acts of homosexuality or overt acts of solicitation for the purpose of committing a homosexual act is beyond the province of the Union.

In examining some of the cases that have come to our attention, however, we are aware that homosexuals, like members of other socially heretical or deviant groups, are more vulnerable than others to official persecution, denial of due process in prosecution, and entrapment. As in the whole field of due process, these are matters of proper concern for the Union and we will support the defense of such cases that come to our attention.

Some local laws require registration when they enter the community of persons who have been convicted of a homosexual act. Such registration laws, like others requiring registration of persons convicted of other offenses are, in our opinion unconstitutional. We will support efforts for their repeal or proper legal challenge of them.

The ACLU has previously decided that homosexuality is a valid consideration in evaluating the security risk factor in sensitive positions. ‘We affirm, as does Executive Order 10450 and all security regulations made thereunder, that homosexuality is a factor properly to be considered only when there is evidence of other acts which come within valid security criteria.

Executive Order 10450, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 (see Apr 27), went far beyond “security risk factors in sensitive positions.” It actually barred all federal employment for gay people. That ban remained in place until 1975 (see Jul 3).

In 1957, homosexuality was illegal in all forty-eight states in the Union, as well as the District of Columbia and all American territories. Illinois wouldn’t drop its anti-sodomy charge until 1961 (see Jul 28), and it would remain the only state to do so for the next decade. For many gay activists, overturning sodomy laws was still a distant dream. There were more pressing matters: police harassment, entrapment, raids, and other forms of official persecution. And for the first time, the ACLU committed to defending gay people in those areas.

That’s why a statement like this, which today would seem to be a setback for gay people, was actually welcomed by many gay activists at the time. The Daughters of Bilitis issue a statement “commend(ing) the ACLU for its fine work in the defense of civil rights for all citizens” and urged its members to support the ACLU “whenever and wherever possible.” The Mattachine Society agreed: “We believe that the serious interest of ACLU in matters  of civil rights and due process of law merit the praise of Mattachine members and friends, and urge readers to  support the organization’s effort with memberships and  donations whenever possible.”

But ONE magazine, which was in the midst of its own legal battle with the Post Office (see Jan 13), wasn’t having it. “One question,” it asked. “Would it be within the province of the Union to evaluate the social validity of laws aimed at the suppression or elimination of Negroes, Jews, or Jehovah’s Witnesses? Of course it would. Then why not homosexuals?”

[Sources: Unsigned. “The ACLU Takes a Stand on Homosexuality.” The Ladder 1, no. 6 (March 1957): 8-9

Unsigned. “ACLU Position on Homosexuality. Mattachine Review 3, no 3 (March 1957): 7.

Dal McIntire “Tangents.” ONE 5, no 4 (April 1957): 11-13.]

New York Times Magazine Publishes “What It Means To Be A Homosexual”: 1971. The Harper’s October 1970 cover screed by Joseph Epstein — the one where he called gay people “an affront to our rationality” and were “condemned to a state of permanent niggerdom among men” — generated an outpouring of anger in the gay community, which resulted in a protest inside the offices of Harper’s (see Oct 27). Gay activists demanded another article to give the gay community equal exposure, but the Harper’s refused the request. Its editors also refused to apologize. The outrageous insults in the piece become something of a second, lesser Stonewall in the way it brought out even more gays and lesbians who decided it was time to become more involved publicly.

Among them was Merle Miller, a former editor at Harper’s who was also a novelist and biographer. His anger was apparent to two New York Times editors when they met for lunch one day. They discussed the Harper’s article, and as discussion that became increasingly heated — the other editors didn’t think there was anything wrong with it — Miller finally said, “Look, goddamn it, I’m homosexual … and I’m sick and tired of reading and hearing such goddamn demeaning, degrading bullshit about me and my friends.”

Now, it’s important to remember that throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s, The New York Times had earned the enmity of gay people everywhere for its reticence in covering issues important to the gay community. In fact, under the editorship of A.M. Rosenthal, the very word gay was banned, unless it was a direct quote from someone else. He refused to make Walter Clemons a daily book critic once he found out Clemons was gay. Reporters and editors soon got the message: propose too many stories about gay people, and you too might come under suspicion.

But in 1971, The New York Times Magazine operated separately from the daily paper, and until the operations were merged in 1976, Rosenthal had no say what went into it. And so a few days later, those two editors proposed that Miller write a piece for the magazine. He accepted, and his essay, “What It Means To Be A Homosexual,” would become a landmark. Miller described the pain of growing up gay in Iowa, how, as a young reporter, he learned to behave as a stereotypical tough-guy blood-and-guts reporter, denouncing “queers” regularly, to hide who he was. At one time he sought a psychiatrist to try to become straight, to no avail:

It took me almost fifty years to come out of the closet, to stop pretending to be something I was not, most of the time fooling nobody. …I dislike being despised, unless I have done something despicable, realizing that the simple fact of being homosexual is all by itself despicable to many people, maybe, as Mr. Epstein says, to everyone who is straight. Assuming anybody is ever totally one thing sexually.

Miller’s essay was unlike anything that had ever been published before. Untold thousands of closeted gays read, for the first time, about Miller’s experience in coming to terms with his sexuality and his experience of coming out. Letters poured into the Times mail room — almost 2000 in the first six weeks alone, and almost all of them from gay people, expressing their gratitude for Miller’s honesty.

Later that year, “What It Means To Be A Homosexual” was published again in book form as On Being Different. Penguin Classics re-issued it again last year (available in paperback and on Kindle) with a foreword by Dan Savage and afterword by Charles Kaiser.

Texas AIDS Quarantine Proposal Withdrawn: 1986. Texas Health Commissioner Robert Bernstein announced that he was withdrawing the proposal to impose a quarantine on “incorrigible” people with AIDS (see Dec 14). The announcement came three days after twenty witnesses testified in a public hearing against the proposal, saying it would do little to stem the spread of the disease. The specter of a possible misuse of a quarantine, AIDS and other health advocates said, would prevent a lot of people with HIV/AIDS from getting tested or seeking services. Gov. Mark White also weighed in, saying that the proposed quarantine was “not an appropriate solution.”

In a news conference in Austin announcing the about-face, Bernstien said that because of the “furor and the emotion” the proposal generated, the relationship between public health officials and the gay community “would suffer out of all proportion to the value gained.” But he hadn’t yet given up on coming up with some method for isolating people with AIDS. “We’re not dropping it,” he said. “We are just going to go about it in a less tumultuous way.” Gay leaders in Texas hailed the turnaround and promised to help a newly expanded task force identify effective ways for dealing with the disease.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

The evolution of domestic partnerships

Representative Cathy Connolly (D-Albany) has submitted two bills to the Wyoming legislature, one providing for marriage equality and one providing for domestic partnerships. Both bills have bipartisan support in the House, and the domestic partnership bill has bipartisan support in the Senate.

While marriage is highly preferable, either bill would be a great improvement in the lives of gay couples in the state. And even the domestic partnership bill has taken a step further than other DP bills have.

Domestic Partnerships were first proposed in San Francisco in the late 70’s. The City Counsel approved such a provision in 1982, but then-mayor Diane Feinstein vetoed the bill (San Francisco finally got domestic partnerships in 1990). In 1985, the newly chartered city of West Hollywood created the first Domestic Partner registry.

In 1999, the State of California passed the first state-wide domestic partnership bill. The benefits were limited; it provided for a public registry, hospital visitation rights, and authorized health insurance coverage for domestic partners of public employees. Over the next several years, additional benefits and obligations were added and the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 provided that (nearly) all provisions that impact marriage also impact domestic partnerships (though as recently as 2011, additional tinkering was required).

Oregon (in 2007) and Nevada (in 2009) started where California ended up. Oregon’s HB2007 Section 9 starts with “Any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married” and runs for about 500 more words. Nevada’s SB283 Section 7 manages to squeeze the definition down to about 365 words and begins thusly:

Domestic partners have the same rights, protections and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under law, whether derived from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

But the proposed Wyoming law takes a unique approach and, I think, one which reflects the evolution in the nation’s thinking about same-sex couples.

For purposes of Wyoming statutes, administrative rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil or criminal law, the term “spouse” shall include a party to a domestic partnership contract evidenced by a certificate issued pursuant to this chapter.

No longer are domestic partners treated just like spouses. Should this bill become law, in Wyoming domestic partners would be spouses.

Obama Selects Pro-Gay Episcopal Priest For Inaugural Benediction

From CNN:

The Rev. Luis León told CNN on Tuesday the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee invited him last week to deliver the closing prayer at the 57th Presidential Inauguration.

León pastors Saint John’s Church, an Episcopal parish just across Lafayette Park from the White House, dubbed the “Church of the Presidents.”

“I found out last week,” he told CNN in an interview on Tuesday.

A source close to the inaugural committee confirmed León would be delivering the benediction and said a formal announcement would be coming later in the week.

The “Church of the Presidents” sets aside Pew 54  in case the President happens to drop by, which every President has done at least once since 1815. León delivered the invocation for President George W. Bush’s second inauguration in 2005. Which means that pretty much everyone should be happy with this choice. Right?

León’s invitation comes after evangelical pastor Louis Giglio removed himself from Obama’s inaugural program after an anti-gay sermon from the mid-1990s came to light.