Box Turtle Bulletin

Mormon Times: CA Gays are “Sore Losers”

The Mormon Church has been as some effort to tell the world that the tens of millions of dollars and nearly endless manhours which they dedicated to banning marriage equality for gay citizens in California and Arizona was not based on malice. They aren’t haters, you know. They are full of love love love.

But when talking amongst themselves, another picture emerges. And in tone it seems to have less love than is promised. Take, for example, an article by Lee Benson in the Mormon Times. Benson chats merrily away about “winning streaks” and percentages, all as though this is nothing more than a game.

In all, 58,911,741 Americans over the past decade have cast votes on the issue.

The overall score is 37,662,846 to 21,248.894.

If it were a football game, you’d change the channel in the third quarter and watch something else.

And by now, we should just accept the actions of his church. They’ve won, you know. And from the astonishingly arrogant position of Benson and – from everything I’ve seen – the leaders of his church, that’s all that matters. We won – you lost – so shut up and take it.

But California won’t let it go. The whining is enough to make a soccer player envious. Lawyers are headed to court to block the proposition. Others are demanding that the vote go back on the ballot in 2010. Proponents of Prop. 8 are being singled out for abuse by opponents.

Sore losing is having a field day.

I’ll admit that at times I may wonder if perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is getting too much of the burden of anger for their efforts. But it’s articles like this one that remind me that not only are they confident in their power and arrogant in their self-justification, but when they think no one’s listening they are contemptious towards those they’ve hurt.

Milk Does Well at Opening Box Office

Gus Van Sant’s Milk, the dramatization of the life and death of gay pioneer Harvey Milk, performed well during its opening weekend. Although in limited release at 36 theaters, it drew in a healthy $1,381,000 for a screen average of $38,371 (by comparison, Four Christmases drew $31.7 M but played at many more theaters. It’s screen average was $9,571).

The roll-out is reminiscent to that which Focus Features used for its Brokeback Mountain release. And they may be hoping that the same nomination and critical success will result.

UK Catholic Bishops Instruct Priests Not To Offend Gays

New instructions from UK Roman Catholic Biships:

Roman Catholic priests have been banned from using ‘heterosexist’ language in their churches in case they offend gay worshipers. They have been told by their bishops not to assume that every churchgoer is a heterosexual and to reflect this ‘in language and conversation’. ‘Remember that homophobic jokes and asides can be cruel and hurtful – a careless word can mean another experience of rejection and pain,’ say the bishops in a leaflet advising priests and worshippers how to be more welcoming to gay people.

I think maybe they need to address these instructions to some of the guys at the top.

NY Dems: Thanks for the Money but Forget the Promises

Democrats in New York have taken the State Senate for the first time in 40 years, to a significant extent due to a flood of contributions from gays and lesbians wanting marriage equality. Now it looks as though this was not money well spent.

Since the election, three Democratic Senators have been holding up the assention of the Senate leader, threatening to vote with Republicans unless there is a written promise not to bring marriage equality up for a vote. Now it seems that other Senate Democrats are finding that “it’s not the right time” to support their gay constituents (NY Times):

After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.

But now, party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.

I know that there are stong allies of equality in the NY Democrat Party. And I hope that they will remind their associates that the duty of an elected official is to his constituents and that promises – even those made by politicians – are not empty words to be disgarded when inconvenience rises.

If that doesn’t work, maybe gay money (and gay-friendly money) can fund primary challenges in coming elections.

Minority Groups Fear Prop 8’s Implications

If you can strip away rights already enjoyed by one unpopular minority via a popular vote, why not go after someone else’s?

“The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were subject to simple majority rule,” read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic groups challenging the ban. “This case is not simply about gay and lesbian equality.”

… “The history of California demonstrates with sobering clarity the potential for disfavored minorities to be subjected to oppression by hostile majorities,” the minority groups say in their brief, pointing to segregation laws and one excluding Asian-Americans from land ownership as examples. …”It is not hypothetical. It’s a track record,” said Stanford University law professor Jane Schacter, who has not filed briefs in the case.

Vigil At Mesa, AZ Temple Tonight

I wish I had found out about this earlier:

When Mormons light their massive and colorful Christmas displays tonight on the Mesa Arizona Temple grounds, thousands of candles may burn across the street in a vigil in Pioneer Park.

Vigil organizers call it a demonstration of solidarity for gays and lesbians seeking full civil rights. They say their vigil was precipitated by Mormons’ staunch opposition to same-sex marriage with passage of amendments to constitutions in Arizona, California and Florida in the Nov. 4 general election.

“We are not going to march. It is not a protest. We will have our candles,” said an organizer, Robert Parker, an outspoken gay Mormon from Mesa. Parker hopes to get 5,000 people to assemble in the park “to stand in solidarity with gay Mormons who are stuck in the closet and need to know that we are working to help secure their civil rights.”

Mormons in Arizona contributed at a minimum 40% — some say as much as 80% — of the $8 million raised to pass Prop 102 in Arizona. Prominent Mormons were also at the head of the official “Yes” campaign in support of Prop 102. But for all of that, Don Evans, spokesman for LDS church in Arizona, continues to express surprise at being “singled out”

This constitutional amendment was supported by the Catholic Church, which is far and away the largest church in Arizona, and it was also supported by the various evangelical congregations.” All of those churches consistently opposed same-sex marriages, but “our church has taken the lion’s share of the protest,” Evans said.

The LDS church has taken a lion’s share of the protest because the church took on a lion’s share of the work — running the campaigns as well as using LDS tithing rolls as a fundraising tool among church members. Evangelicals and Catholics, while supportive of the amendments, did not take nearly as prominent a role as the LDS church chose to take.

And when anyone chooses to insert themselves in the rough-and-tumble world of politics, they can expect to experience the political consequences and criticisms of their actions, be they a political party, James Dobson, Swift Boat Veterans, or the Mormon church.

And if any other group had gone in as deeply and as enthusiastically into this political fight as the Mormon church has, they’d be fair game for protests. We could just as easily be targeting General Motors if GM had played the role that the LDS leadership did. But GM didn’t put their reputations on the line and fight to strip people of rights that they already enjoyed. The LDS church did.

And they did it with Big Mormon Money and Big Mormon Organization. In Arizona’s example, they out-spent anti-102 forces by nearly 12-1. They are also under investigation in California for making unreported in-kind donations — providing for free the sort of services that campaigns typically have to pay for. The LDS Church provided free phone-banking, satellite broadcasts, travel, a web site, commercials, and so forth — all of which are reportable under California and Arizona law.

So because of all that, the LDS leaders are now political figures just like anyone else who organizes and executes a political campaign. And because they chose to exercise their rights to do that — and as citizens and under current IRS regulations, it is their right to do so — they are now subject to the same scrutiny and criticisms as any other political figures or organizations.

They have given up their right to be “puzzled” and pretend that they are just another church. They’re not. They are now political activists just like the rest of us. Welcome to our world.

See also:
LDS Church Can’t Hide Behind A Temple

Tragedy In Mumbai

It appears that this is India’s 9/11. Whenever news of this magnitude breaks, I prefer to go to the source. During the first Gulf War, I bought a shortwave radio and listened to broadcasts from the Middle East. During the subway attacks in London, we watched live coverage from London via BBC America. Now, my partner is watching CNN and MSNBC, but I’m impressed with some of the coverage available via streaming video direct from Indian broadcasters.

The most polished and professional coverage appears to be from India’s NDTV, which offers live streaming via the internet. They’ve been breaking developments long before CNN. NDTV however, focused their coverage at the Taj Hotel. To learn more about what’s happening at the Oberoi Hotel or the Jewish community center at Nariman House, IBN has provided better live coverage.

Both networks’ coverage is impressive.  IBN, CNN’s affiliate, was talking about Nariam House several hours before American broadcasters noticed that the Jewish center was targeted. And NDTV broke the story of the inflatable Zodiacs the militants used to storm the gate in front of the Taj, again several hours before the American networks. They’re both doing a good job, but of the two networks, IBN is less polished and much more excitable.

And it’s that excitability which concerns me. The first twenty-four hours were characterized by shock. But now, it’s turning to anger — anger at the attackers, and anger at the government, which observers charge hasn’t “learned the lessons of 1993.” That’s when thirteen bombs exploded around Mumbai, killing 250 and injuring 700 more. India has a sizable Muslim population. Will they become targets of that anger? What about Pakistan? This is an extremely volatile situation.

As we go about our Thanksgiving dinners and traditions, and as we reflect on the many things we are thankful for in 2008, please pause a moment to remember the people of Mumbai.

Today In History: Candlelights At City Hall

Harvey Milk finally succeeded in becoming the first openly gay non-incumbent candidate to win a political office for two reasons. One, he refused to hide who he was; and two, he made it his mission to build alliances with groups that other gay activists thought were impossible to reach.

So to those who knew Harvey well, it came as no surprise that shortly after the 1977 election, Harvey was on good terms with Dan White, a conservative supervisor representing a blue-collar district in the city’s southeast. White, a former cop, was supported by the city’s police union whose leaders were angry over  city policies which they considered to be soft on crime and homosexuals. There couldn’t have been two politicians from more opposite ends of the political spectrum. The local media ate it up as the two made joint appearances on local talk shows where they both talked warmly of each other. Harvey began to privately telling friends that he thought White was “educatable,” and that the two might actually be able to work together.

The warm feelings didn’t last long. During the election campaign, White had made a centerpiece of his campaign his opposition to a proposed psychiatric treatment center in his district. Neighbors worried that the center would put “arsonists, rapists and other criminals” in their neighborhood. Harvey was inclined to support White, which would have given White the 6-5 majority he needed to block the facility. But as Harvey learned more about the center, he discovered that San Francisco children would be sent instead far away to a state hospital where they would be cut off from their families. He concluded that “they’ve got to be next to somebody’s house,” and switched his vote.

The loss infuriated White, who blamed Harvey for the loss. For the next several months, White would not speak to him or his aides. Other supervisors noticed that White stopped spending as much time at his office in City Hall, and he was sullen during the weekly board meetings.

White retaliated by switching his vote on Harvey’s gay rights bill. Before the vote on the psychiatric center, White voted for the bill in committee and spoke passionately for it, tying it to his experiences as a paratrooper in Vietnam. But when the gay rights law came before the entire board a week after the vote on the psychiatric center, White changed his vote. The bill passed 10-1.

These two episodes were the start of a bitter public feud between White and Milk. White opposed every street closing or permit involving the gay community — he was often the only supervisor to do so. But as the year went on, White became increasingly disillusioned with politics. He also found that the $9,600 per year salary wasn’t enough to support his wife and infant child. He had opened a potato restaurant at Pier 39, but that business was struggling. Citing these pressures, White abruptly resigned on November 10, 1978.

This resignation gave Mayor George Moscone a tremendous opportunity to reshape the Board of Supervisors. The makeup of the eleven-member board was roughly split 6-5, and White was part of the majority who favored of conservative, business-friendly, pro-growth policies. With White’s resignation, the Mayor now had the opportunity to tilt the balance toward those who favored a more neighborhood oriented approach.

White’s supporters in the business community and police union were alarmed at his sudden resignation. They met with him to promised some financial support, and urged him to ask Moscone to reappoint him to his seat. Meanwhile, Milk and other progressive leaders lobbied Moscone to appoint someone more in line with their views. The fact that Milk vigorously opposed White’s reappointment was an open secret. Randy Shilts, writing in The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, described an encounter between Charles Morris, a publisher of a local gay paper, and White at a political fundraiser. White appeared to be in a good mood, so Morris struck up a conversation with him. At one point, Morris suggested that “there are some in the gay community who think that you might be anti-gay.” White replied, “Let me tell you right now. I’ve got a real surprise for the gay community — a real surprise.”

Mayor Moscone set Monday, November 27 as the day he would announce whether he would reappoint White or name someone else. The night before, a reporter from KCBS called White to say that a source told her that he would not be reappointed. White refused to comment. He hung up the phone and stayed up all night, eating cupcakes and drinking Cokes. The following morning, his aide called to say that a group of his supporters planned on going to city hall to present Mayor Moscone with petitions and letters of support. Since his wife had already taken the car to go to work, Dan asked for a ride to city hall. He hung up the phone, got dressed, and loaded his .38 Smith & Wesson.

White’s aide dropped him off at City Hall. White paced around a bit, then found an open basement window. He jumped through the window, allowing him to avoid the metal detectors at the building’s entrances. He made his way to Moscone’s office, who agreed to meet with White in the outer office. White asked Moscone to re-appoint him to his former seat. Moscone declined, and their conversation turned into a heated argument. Moscone then suggested they move to a private lounge attached to the mayor’s office where they could speak privately. Once inside the small room, White pulled out his pistol and shot Moscone twice in the abdomen, then twice more in the head.

White then reloaded his gun and went down the hall to Harvey’s office. There, he asked to speak privately in an adjoining room. White later recalled that he began to scream at Harvey and that Harvey got up out of his seat. White then pulled his gun and shot Harvey three times in the chest, once in the back and two times in the head. White then fled City Hall, and eventually turned himself to his former co-workers at the police department.

Thirty years ago today, on November 27, 1978, tens of thousands of stunned mourners gathered in the Castro for an impromptu candlelight march to City Hall. The sea of candles stretched ten city blocks long. At the steps of city hall, Joan Baez led the crowd in singing “Amazing Grace” and the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus sang a hymn by Felix Mendelssohn.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving

Amidst our disappointment over propositions, our uncertainty about the economy, and our dissatisfaction over the continued inequalities and indignities that are casually accorded our community, take some time this holiday to recall that we do have much for which to be thankful.

“Wow. BTB just got Phelpsed”

That was one commenter’s reaction to another comment left by Margie Phelps. She, of the Westboro Baptist clan, had a few words to say about a protest in Omaha which didn’t turn out so well for her compatriots:

It is so beautiful watching this nation raise an entire generation of mindless illiterate raging brats. It is the perfect picture of the curse of God on this nation.

When they get all riled up and try to attack the peaceful kind-hearted prophets of God, you cheer like a bunch of stupid trained seals. But when they turn their filthy vulgar violence on society-at-large — you cry like a bunch of little girls. The very same day the brutish brats at the Omaha high school were raging — trying to change the standard of God — furious-at-heart because every adult they’ve ever met before meeting the Westboro Baptist Church good souls have lied to them about any and all things important — the Omaha media reported a hysterical conference by the “leaders” of the community about the out-of-control gang problem.

Meanwhile as you show your backsides in your comments — encouraging violence for one reason, to wit, to try to shake off the bands our words put on your evil dark consciences — your duty stays the same forever: Get a Bible; read it; urge your fellow man to read it; obey it; urge your fellow man to obey it; otherwise shut up!

You are an altogether worthless people. You have no character, substance or righteousness. You glorify yourselves and spend out your days in vain pursuit of lust and greed. You hate each other; you hate yourselves; you have a society that is rotting from the inside out; God is cursing you in every way, every day. And you’re just too plain blind and dumb to see it. God did that to you by one awesome judicial stroke: Made you blind, stupid and drunk-acting — so you are incapable of any right thinking. Lord help those pitiful kids raised by the parents of today! They have no hope! That’s why they are reduced to throwing food and drink at people who care for their souls. You taught them that vile parents, teachers, preachers and “leaders.”

God has raised up a perfect arrogant ass to be the president of this generation of spoiled no-impulse-control brats, named Obama. He will lead these bombastic big mouths to their final destruction. God put him in this position of power so he could use him as his servant for his glory to destroy doomed america.

Your only hope is this: Shut your big blasphemous mouth; get a Bible; read it; and OBEY! Fear God! Keep his commandments! He is the Creator of all things. Those animal-acting slobbish children can’t change that fact! The hour of his coming draws nigh. The Judgment Day she cometh.

God hates you doomed america. He sent you sissies and toddlers to rule over you; and they have you in a grip you can’t get out of. God hates you nasty Nebraska. God hates you Oafish Omaha. He hates the lying whore false prophets of your land; he hates the parents of your land; and he hates those rutting retards you call children! God hates you!

Magormissabib.

Margie Phelps
One of your only true BFFs in the whole world, at Westboro Baptist Church, the last spot on this earth where you will hear the truth

PS We’ll be back to that high school early and often — stay tuned — because those little brutes WILL drink the cup of his wrath — and since you parents, teachers, preachers and “leaders” won’t tell them the truth — we’ll do the job for you

‘Milk’ Reviews Are In!

The reviews of Milk, the biopic of slain gay San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk, are almost unanimous:

• “Emotionally devastating.” Four stars — Roger Ebert
• “Sean Penn shines in new Gus Van Sant biopic ‘Milk’.” — New York Daily News
• “‘Milk’ and Penn are a powerful cinematic combination.” — USA Today
• “Gus Van Sant males ‘Milk’ a real, moving story.” — Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• “‘Milk’ is a marvel.” — New York Times
• “‘Milk’ hits the stirring heights.” — Washington Post

Okay, I said almost unanimous:

• “Sean Penn overacts as gay leader in ‘Milk’.” — Washington Times

So go see it. Just don’t go to a Cinemark, Century, CineArts or Tinseltown theater.

No On 8 Answers Charges of Incompetence With Incompetence

Leaders of the  No on 8 campaign held a widely-publicized virtual town hall last night to address criticisms of their campaign, including charges of incompetence and lost opportunities. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the leaders of No on 8 addressed those charges because their virtual town hall ONLY WORKED ON WINDOWS MACHINES!

Nearly a quarter of all visitors to Box Turtle Bulletin are Mac users, as is this humble scribe. So are Andy Towle and Jeremy Hooper. Fifteen minutes after the meeting started, organizers belatedly gave a phone number for Mac users, but that was after most had already left in disgust. Queerty was able to phone in twenty minutes after the meeting started.

A forum that was intended to dispel the idea that the No on 8 campaign missed too many opportunities before the election missed a HUGE one after the election. It’s incredible that this professional leadership could be so clueless. They couldn’t get a decent virtual townhall meeting deployed, which really isn’t that hard to do. Meanwhile, Amy Balliett used the power of social networking to set up Join the Impact, mobilizing a nationwide protest in less than a week. She was also supposed to be part of the panel, but was MIA. I wonder, is she a Mac user as well?

Predictions of The Demise of AIDS

Don’t get your hopes up, but the Associated Press is reporting on a study published online Tuesday in the respected journal The Lancet, which, using complex mathematical models, predicts that HIV could theoretically disappear within a decade if everyone living in countries with high infection rates are regularly tested and treated.

Caution is always wise when reading about research like this. Mathematical models on HIV/AIDS regularly come and go. I’m not aware of very many which have proven to be accurate as a predictive tool, and I doubt this one will be either since it’s is loaded with assumptions which simply aren’t realistic. I don’t have the full-text article, but the short abstract alone doesn’t give much reason for optimism.

The predictive model was based on data from South Africa and Malawi using a number of assumptions. The model assumed that people would be voluntarily tested each year and immediately given drugs if they tested positive for HIV, regardless of whether they were sick. That last assumption alone is problematic. Even if drugs were available for everyone, having them take it even when their HIV infection hasn’t progressed to AIDS is fraught with controversy. AIDS medication has several serious side-effects, and the long-term effect of taking these powerful drugs is unknown. The longest that most of these drugs have been available is only about ten years.

The model also assumes that all HIV transmission in South Africa is heterosexual. While HIV is predominantly transmitted heterosexually in South Africa, this assumption  does represent a strange gap in the model.

Another concern not mentioned in the abstract is the assumptions they used concerning the transmissibility of HIV in people who are infected but are on Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART). We do know that HAART can drive viral loads to undetectable levels in most cases, and thus reduce the risk of transmitting the virus onto others. But that risk of transmission is not zero, and besides that, viral loads can fluctuate — for example, when the patient has a cold or flu.

But if all the model’s assumptions did hold true, this model suggests that HIV could be theoretically eliminated in a decade. The cost test and treat everyone as the study suggests would be staggering, but no more staggering than the way we are doing things now:

“We estimate that in 2032, the yearly cost of the present strategy and the theoretical strategy would both be US$1-7 billion; however, after this time, the cost of the present strategy would continue to increase whereas that of the theoretical strategy would decrease.

I doubt that we will see the demise of AIDS within ten years, but its incidence could be significantly reduced. This model clearly demonstrates the benefits  of universal testing and treatment to society overall, not just to those who are infected today. Sticking with current policies all but guarantees the continued growth of the pandemic worldwide.

Palm Center Warns of Bias in Obama Military Advisor

In an article in the New Republic, Nathanial Frank explains why overturning Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell, the military’s ban on open service of gay persons in the military, should not be a difficult problem.

Today, it’s a far different world. Conservative and military resistance to openly gay service is swiftly falling. Last week, over a hundred retired generals and admirals released a statement calling for an end to the gay ban. Earlier this year, a report by a team of bipartisan retired flag officers (released by the Palm Center, where I work) became the most extensive study of gay service since 1993. Its conclusion: Congress should repeal the gay ban. Last year, General John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came out against the ban. He was quickly followed by former GOP lawmakers and pro-ban supporters Alan Simpson and Bob Barr. Even Sam Nunn, who led the opposition to gay service, has changed his tune. This year he called for a review of the policy, saying that “times change,” and it is now “appropriate to take another look.”

Polls corroborate the sea change in opinion. Roughly four fifths of Americans oppose “don’t ask, don’t tell,” including a majority of Republicans, conservatives, and church-goers. Polls show that about half of junior enlisted personnel now support lifting the ban, and that three quarters of enlisted personnel are “personally comfortable” with gays and lesbians. Only five percent are “very uncomfortable.” This all demonstrates a major gulf between the assumptions of the old guard (that homosexuality is incompatible with military service) and the reality on the ground (that whatever homophobia still exists does not break unit cohesion).

But Frank warns that Retired General Merrill McPeak, President-Elect Obama’s chief military advisor, has a history – as recent as last month – of expressing anti-gay bigotry and opposition to equality.

In his recent comments, McPeak openly admitted that his position is based on his own personal intolerance and that of other senior military leaders. “I couldn’t see how I could become an advocate for open homosexuality in Air Force combat units,” McPeak said last month. In order to lift the ban on open gays, “the service leadership will have to go to the gay and lesbian annual ball and lead the first dance,” something he and other brass have no intention of doing.

While McPeak’s anti-gay attitudes are disturbing, they are perhaps not surprising. The Palm Center (Frank’s employer) reveals that McPeak also has a history of misogyny.

In 1991 and 1992, McPeak opposed women in combat, saying in talks with lawmakers that he had “personal prejudices” against expanding combat roles for women, “even though logic tells us” that women can conduct combat operations just as well as men. He told Congress then that he would choose an inferior male flight instructor over a superior female one even if it made for a “militarily less effective situation.” “I admit it doesn’t make much sense,” he said, “but that’s the way I feel about it.” Elsewhere he repeated that his position did not meet “strict evidence standards for logic,” but that that did not raise doubts in him about his position.

No doubt Obama feels loyalty to this military leader who supported his campaign. But let’s hope that he gives no heed to the advice of a man whose judgment is admittedly swayed by his own personal bigotries.

What Defines a Community Organization?

Tonight there will be a “townhall meeting“, a 90 minute online forum to address “Prop. 8: The Facts and the Future”. It is hosted by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and will feature its CEO, Lorri Jean.

At first glace this seems like a reasonable organization and individual to take charge and really address this situation. After all, what could be more representative of the gay community than “the world’s largest LGBT organization”?

But is this really the world’s largest LGBT community organization? And what makes an organization “community”?

I would argue that for an organization to be “community” it has to fit some criteria: it must be where the community is, provide services to the community, be welcoming to all members of the community, and be a home, a place of security and warmth, a shelter.

Sadly, the LA Gay and Lesbian Center fails on nearly all accounts.

The heart of Los Angeles’ gay community can be found in West Hollywood on the corner of San Vicente and Santa Monica. Although today that portion of West Hollywood plays social host to a mostly white male gay crowd of a certain age and dynamic, it is to that location that our community gravitates in time of protest. Yes, there are other parts of the city that play host to various subsets of our community, but West Hollywood is ours. It is our safe spot.

Hollywood is not.

A lone gay man or woman would not feel completely safe at night on Hollywood Boulevard towards the eastern end of the cruise strip. This is straightsville, and not a very safe part of it at that. Yet it is on a side street off Hollywood, three miles from the community, that the LAGLC’s chose to purchase a four story office building. And while it may be safe to wander around the neighborhood streets during the day, parking is only available for a hefty price.

If there is one thing obviously missing from the neighborhood in which the Center is located, it would be gay people.

But they also have another site – used mostly for fundraising. It has an art gallery, a theater, and rooms your organization can rent for occasions. It’s also in Hollywood and has no parking and I’ve yet to meet the person who wanders over to spend the afternoon.

But one might overlook the location if the draw was adequate. If they offered a service that was communal, that drew people together, that created a bond, a common meeting space, a feeling of unity.

Well, perhaps a glance at the Center’s revenues and expenditures can give us some sense as to whether LAGLC has the unification of the community as their primary goal.

According to LAGLC’s Form 990 for the year ended 6/30/07, the Center allocated their program service expenditures as follows: 77.0% as a pharmacy, 5.8% as an AIDS information clearinghouse, 5.7% for health education, for combined health services of 88.5% of their overall expenditures. Perhaps that’s why health care is featured so prominently on their website.

But healthcare is not their only function. They also provide care for homeless youth, free internet access, programs for seniors, and legal advice. All told they spent $32,895,161 doing good deeds.

For which they received reimbursement of $36,711,446 by the state, insurance companies, and fees.

Even after paying all administrative and fundraising expenses, the Center was in the enviable position of being able to reserve 43% of their direct public support away for a rainy day.

As for the average Joe or Jane gay person, for you there is not so very much.

Now you may be new in town and wander down Rand Shrader Place wondering what that brightly colored building is. And you may even go inside thinking it would be cool to maybe meet other gay people. But unless you are here for medical services (what’s your insurance?) or have an appointment, there’s no seating provided in the marble lobby and loitering isn’t allowed. (While once waiting for a friend who was receiving “legal advice” I was informed that there was a bench outside).

If you’re new in town and want to hang out with other gays, try either Starbucks on Santa Monica across from the gym or the new coffee place on the corner of Robertson. Or visit a church, join a club, or have a cocktail in any of dozens of bars scattered throughout the city. But don’t go near the Center.

Now don’t get me wrong. I very much appreciate the medical services they provide to those who are indigent or uncomfortable with another health care provider. And it’s awfully nice that someone is caring for youth and seniors. Truly. We need to better address the issue of homeless gay youth.

But I’m not sure why an adjunct of the State Health Department thinks that it is qualified to speak for me on issues of civil equality or why Lorri Jean has anything to say about the passage of Proposition 8.