General: June 2004 Archives

I read this disturbing story about a gay man who was harassed and finally fired from his job at The Foot Locker. I have shopped at the Foot Locker and have purchased shoes there in the past. But no more.

In case you should want to let them know how you feel, here's the corporate address.

Director of Corporate Staffing
Foot Locker, Inc.
112 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10120
(212)720-3700

Foot Locker, you are on my official boycott list! :)

(Columbia, South Carolina) A lawsuit was filed Tuesday accusing Foot Locker, Inc. of harassing and then firing a gay employee.

The suit alleges that Kevin Dunbar (pictured left), 26, suffered antigay harassment and discrimination at the hands of his coworkers, supervisors and customers.

Dunbar claims that when Dunbar formally complained that he was being harassed the discrimination grew worse. His suit says that he was transferred from one store location in Columbia to another, where his new store manager refused to shake his hand and said, "I heard about your shit, I don't want your faggot ass in my store."

"Once I became a target, every morning when I woke up and I was scheduled for work, I knew that my supervisors and coworkers would verbally insult and degrade me, probably in front of customers," Dunbar said Tuesday. "At best, they'd talk behind my back and make my every task twice as difficult -- just because I'm gay." [...]

In conjunction with the lawsuit, Lambda Legal launched what it calls a "Blow the Whistle on Foot Locker" campaign today, designed to activate people nationwide beginning with a series of town hall meetings set to kick off in Columbia after Labor Day. An aggressive post-card campaign also launched today will encourage thousands of people nationwide to complain to the company. (source)

June 29 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, citing free- speech concerns, blocked a federal criminal law that would bar commercial Web sites from making pornography available to children.

The justices, voting 5-4, said the law may unduly restrict access by adults to material that is sexually suggestive, yet constitutionally protected. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said an alternate approach, blocking and filtering software, may be a more effective way to restrict youth access to online smut.

"Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people,'' Kennedy wrote for the majority. (source)

This is good news. It's not that I'm an advocate of pornography, but I certainly am an advocate of free speech and free expression. If you start limiting what pornographic sites can offer, who will be the next target?

I also read that the way the law was worded, that even sites with gay content (such as this one) could be construed to be pornographic, or, a threat to children. Think about that. And think about the gay kid who is looking for information and has no way to obtain that information.

I also want to point out that this case lost by 1 vote! If Bush wins in November, we can expect to see the makeup of the Supreme Court change as justices retire, and not in a good way.

Gay pride and politics. Where do you separate the two? And can they be separated?

For me, every single presidential election that I've been able to vote in has been to put my energy into getting the guy elected who is "least bad". I have voted based on who I think will be best for the environment, people, families, and jobs. I have voted for who I believe will be the best leader for our country.

As a gay American, I have never been able to vote for any candidate who would strive for our equality, who would denounce hatred towards our community, or who would acknowledge our relationships and our need for the protections of marriage. And this year, that has not changed.

I'm a member of the Human Rights Campaign, and they have endorsed Senator Kerry for President as well, and they sent me a letter asking me, as a member, to support him as well. This is the quick, short letter I sent back to them. I received no reply to my letter.

Jun 22, 2004 2:22 PM

I received your email newsletter last night of your endorsement of Senator John
Kerry.

I've been with my life partner for 30 years now. My question is this: If Senator
Kerry just can't seem to bring himself to endorse full marriage for me and my partner,
why the hell should I support him?

Good question, isn't it? Civil unions just don't cut it anymore.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
A member of HRC

Am I supposed to endorse someone who won't even acknowledge that we are equal in our relationships, just to keep the present President from getting re-elected? I guess that is the strategy, but I know I'm not alone. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this presidential election year is no different than all the others have been, as far as my community is concerned. I had just hoped, with all the publicity over our relationships in the last year, that John Kerry could at least acknowledge us as equals.

I will end up voting for John Kerry, despite this issue I have with him. I know he will be better than the schmuck we have in there now. He has vowed to end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the military. We will see what happens with that one. I can see nothing happening once he gets in office and it will be just another broken campaign promise that we should all be used to by now.

I didn't do much for gay pride this month. This is of course Gay Pride Month. But I didn't attend any of the celebrations in Connecticut, Massachusetts, or New York. I don't like large crowds and for the most part, I don't connect to a lot of the politics of many gay organizations.

But one thing did catch my eye this year. For the first time ever, gay married couples have participated in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade. That's worth noting. It's more symbolic than anything else. It shows that our community has fully endorsed gay marriage along with many of our straight friends. People outside of the gay community, many of who view people in gay pride parades as a bunch of freaks, it will make little difference, other than to make them once again think about the issue of gay marriage. I suppose that has merit as well.

SAN FRANCISCO - The party still had its traditional leather-clad legions and dramatic drag queens, but Sunday's gay pride parade featured marchers even more radical - married same-sex couples.

Gay and lesbian newlyweds hoisting poster-sized reproductions of their marriage licenses had a starring role at San Francisco's 34th annual parade. They were joined by Mayor Gavin Newsom and others who helped promote same-sex unions in the history-making wedding march at City Hall earlier this year.

Newsom, 36, the straight, Irish Catholic Democrat who thrust the marriage debate onto the nation's agenda by directing his administration to certify marriages for gays and lesbians, shared grand marshal duties alongside veteran gay rights activists. (source)

I don't go to Andrew Sullivan’s website often. Andrew and I come from much different political backgrounds. I disagree with much of his political philosophy. But occasionally, he gets it right. Below are a couple of his entries that I think are very telling.

THE GAY LIFESTYLE

Here's a list of the occupations of the gay applicants for civil marriage licenses in Massachusetts in the first week:

Acceptance tester, Accounting manager, accounts payable manager, activist, activity director, advertising, administrative assistant, administrator, airline employee, anesthetist, antiques dealer, appraiser, area manager, architect, artisan, artist, arts administrator, assembler, assembly technician, astrologer, at-home mom, athletic coach, athletic trainer, attorney, audiovisual coordinator. [...]

Here's a challenge. Think of any straight person you know who does a job like this. Now imagine telling him or her that he or she has no right to marry, that his or her spouse is a room mate and his or her children can be taken away by relatives or the state at any time. That's what gay people live with every day. They are treated as sub-human and beneath full citizenship. That must end.

And finally, on President Bush's speech on AIDS:

BUSH ON AIDS

He spoke movingly and powerfully yesterday. History will credit him for caring about this issue far more than his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Maybe because it was my eleventh anniversary of finding out I got HIV but I was moved by his words. Except, of course, for his usual exception in his compassionate conservatism: gay men. The president managed to give an entire speech and - again - never mentioned one of the biggest groups in the country affected by it. Amazing. How do his speech-writers do it? To a black audience, he had a chance to help them confront the homophobia that has crippled the black community's ability to confront the epidemic. But, of course, Bush didn't. [...]

And yet, in one of the populations most at risk from this disease, Bush opposes any measures that would encourage marriage. In fact, he is waging a war to ban such marriages, and erase any incentives for gay men to stick together. Is Bush aware of this lacuna? If marriage cannot be a strategy for prevention among gays, then what is his prevention policy? He has none, because in order to have one, he would have to acknowledge that gay people exist - and that he is their president too. That he cannot and will not do. It's too depressing for words.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - One of two men convicted of murdering gay college student Matthew Shepard lost a bid Friday to have his life sentence reduced.

District Judge Jeffrey A. Donnell rejected Russell Henderson's contention that he was denied effective legal assistance during trial. He argued that his court-appointed lawyers were ineffective because they did not discuss potential appeals.

Henderson and Aaron McKinney kidnapped Shepard in October 1998 and tied him to a fence outside Laramie, where he was pistol-whipped, robbed and abandoned. The 21-year-old University of Wyoming freshman died five days later.

McKinney received two consecutive life sentences after being found guilty of murder.

Henderson pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping to avoid a possible death sentence. His current lawyer, Tim Newcomb, declined comment on the decision. (source)

Strike another point for justice. Maybe Matthew will rest easier.

WASHINGTON (AP) Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose state is the only one to recognize gay marriages, on Tuesday urged passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, even as the conservative who wrote a federal law denying recognition to such marriages said that law was sufficient.

Senate backers of the ban have predicted that gay marriages will spread like a ''wildfire'' across the country, eroding traditional marriage and voiding more restrictive laws in other states.

''It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue, it must now be confronted on a national basis,'' Romney said. (source)

Am I the only one who is getting tired of windbag Romney? To quote from Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." This dude is in serious denial of reality. He needs to move on with his life and let others try to be happy, despite the fact that many of the morons in the US Senate want to amend the US Constitution turning the U.S. into a country club of who will be admitted (given equal rights), and those who will be second class.

And all for the sanctity of marriage. I've got news for you folks. There is no sanctity left in marriage. Chew on that for awhile, because it's the truth. What you think is the sanctity of marriage is a 50% divorce rate, couples who are cheating on each other more times than not, and children who are caught in the middle of all of this. But you aren't concerned for them, the children, because they are in a home with a "stable relationship". Yeah right. You just keep telling yourself that.

Every time I hear that we should stop gay marriage because it goes against what the Bible says, I want to ask, "Yeah, well, does the Bible say anything about a priest who molests children? Does the Bible say anything about a church who goes out of it's way to hide the fact that many of it's priests are abusing children?"

To the Catholic Church specifically: You have worn out "children" as an excuse to stop gay marriage. It's very clear to all of us that you are not sincere when you state that you want to stop gay marriage "for the good of children" when you have done great harm to them already.

To the U.S. Senators and Representatives who want a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage: YOU are representatives to ALL of your constituents. Start acting like it. The greatest threat to the Constitution right now is YOU. By attempting to alter it to deny a selected segment of the population equal rights cheapens the document and cuts at the very core of why it exists. It exists because of what you are trying to do. It exists to keep an unpopular minority from suffering the wrath of the majority. But now you want to change the rules. You would do the document more dignity to simply burn it, rather than to turn it into your own personal view of what you feel the world should be.

To Mitt Romney: Does the sanctity of marriage include have more than one wife? You are Mormon. It wasn't that long ago that Mormon families consisted of one man with multiple wives. I'm sure you will distance yourself from that now because it won't serve your needs.

It's time that my community demand to be treated equally. Our relationships are real. They are intense. They are emotional. They are filled with deep and committed love for each other. And, if any gay couple can stay together for more than five years, given all the crap we have to put up with day in and day out, they damn well deserve civil marriage.

After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable. - Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader

It's an old story that some feel is just too tired to discuss anymore. I refuse to let this issue die and go away because of the principle of freedom itself. I did a bit of research on the matter and compiled a couple of charts.

The first chart shows the number of military personnel discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The second chart shows the total cost to us, the tax payers, for these discharges. The data was gathered from the Service Member's Legal Defense Network.

Brian Muller, 25, who served as a team leader on an Army bomb squad for eight years and had advanced training on weapons of mass destruction, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.

"I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," Muller said in an interview. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."

Muller, who was deployed to Afghanistan, Bosnia and also served on a security detail for President Bush, said he would have remained in the Army for the rest of his career if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy were changed.

"I wanted to serve my country -- I loved what I did," Muller said. "I wasn't the type that was flamboyant, putting my business out there." (source)

I guess the real question here is, why would you want to work for an employer who openly hates your existence?

I work for a private employer, and the owners are Republican and have made no bones about that. We have over the years, sponsored functions to help out Republican candidates. The owners are also very conservative in their values.

I have been at the same place for 15 years now, and except for a rude comment here and there from stupid people, I get along ok. But this wasn't always the case. At the time that I started with them, Connecticut did not have any law on the books that protected the rights of gay workers. In other words, at that time, if an employer found out you were gay, they could fire you just for that. This is still the case in the majority of states.

Knowing this, I tried to keep a low profile and I tried to keep people from knowing anything about my personal life. I was "out" to my friends, but as far as work went, Kent did not exist. You can only keep up this lie for so long. Eventually, someone found out, and word leaked out that I was queer.

One thing led to another, and it wasn't long until the President of the company was calling me derogatory names and making snide comments about me in front of others. That eventually led to an altercation between me and him. Instead of punishing him, I was put on verbal notice (meaning, nothing went to my personnel file) that they were "watching me" and my actions.

I told my manager at the time that it wasn't my fault, that the guy hated gays. My manager looked at me and said, "I don't want to ever hear about this topic again. I don't want to know if you are gay or not because quite frankly, it sickens me."

After that, I spent a lot of energy staying low-key and if I spotted anyone that had a "problem" with me, I went the other direction. Then, a great thing happened. Connecticut was able to pass, after years and years of trying, an anti discrimination law. Which meant, if you are going to fire someone, you had better have another reason to do it.

After that, things gradually improved. After a time, we had our first training on sexual harassment. I remember it vividly because the guy who was giving me all the trouble got into a fight with the person giving the training. He basically saw it all as a big waste of time.

I was a very different person then. I know what it is like to be scared of being fired for being gay. I know what it is like to have zero ego and to feel like you are at the mercy of others (the word is called hopelessness). It was during that period of time I was having thoughts of suicide. I was extremely depressed. It was horrible. But you can't live your life like that. Living life in that kind of fear is no life at all. I had to tolerate it because no one would have hired me with something in my personnel file that said I was gay. They just wouldn't want to deal with it, assuming they weren't just outright homophobic.

And now, it seems that the Catholic Church in Massachusetts is having talks about firing anyone who works for them who marries their partner. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering who it is, but it's a shame that, for being an organization who is suppose to practice compassion, that they have none. The sad thing is, being a religious institution, they can pretty much do whatever it is they want. Full Story.

I had a good friend once, before he decided that he needed to "move on" so he could "grow more". I told him, "If you 'move on' and 'grow' too much, you might just find someday that you have no friends left." His name was Austin, and I loved him dearly. People have to find their way in life. Sometimes that may mean that they grow apart. I wish him nothing but happiness and the very best in life.

One of the arguments that I would have with Austin was the need for hate crime protections for gay people. He disagreed for the need for hate crimes. It wasn't a gay issue with Austin. He didn't feel the need for hate crimes at all, for any group, saying that all violent crimes are hate crimes.

Hate crimes are crimes that target a person or persons of a specific group. The victim of these crimes are not know by the one who commits these crimes. The impetus of the crime itself is hatred based on some perceived attribute of the victim (skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.). Not robbery, or anything else; just hatred.

I argued with Austin that there should be laws created specifically to target that kind of behavior, to discourage it. If you target the behavior that causes the crime in the first place and stop the crime, that would be a good thing.

I found this excellent article that defines what a crime consists of. It's one of the best definitions I've found.

An easy way to differentiate hate crimes laws from normal laws is to think of the same crime in terms of personal and impersonal motives. Murder is a good example. Murder most often happens because of personal motivations. If one comes home and finds one's husband in bed with his lover and one kills him (or the lover) such a crime is an act of passion. [...] This is why crimes of passion (such as second degree murder and manslaughter) are dealt with less harshly than premeditated killing (first degree murder).

First degree murder is another step removed; it requires the murderer to plan the crime in advance, even if that planning entails only seconds. Still, it tends to happen for personal reasons. [...] Due to this increased possibility of further crime, the penalties for first degree murder are significantly greater.

However, there is another kind of crime. If someone kills a black man for walking through a park at night because he is black, that is an impersonal crime. The person killing him doesn't know him at all, there is no way to distinguish between this black man and any other black man. This means that any other person with dark skin could trigger the same reaction. That is a hate crime. To many the answer to this is clear; there need to be harsher penalties for hate crimes in order to give people an additional deterrent. Similar to the death penalty, there is little evidence to show that it works, most likely for the reasons mentioned above, but the logic is sound. (source)

I'm honestly not sure that having hate crime laws would deter others from doing a hate crime. First of all, those who commit a hate crime probably don't stop to think that they are going to get an extra five years in prison for committing a hate crime, if they even know what a hate crime is. I just don't think they stop to analyze the situation that much. Their focus is on committing the actual crime itself.

I suppose the most valuable thing that would come out of being a protected group under the federal hate crimes law, is that statistical information on the number of hate crimes committed against gays solely based on hate would be collected. So, we would know how big a problem it is nationwide, along with statistics for individual states.

I believe hate crimes occur more than people realize. I'm just one person, and I can't tell you how many times I have been cursed at with anti-gay remarks from people who pass me on the street. I remember one time being on a lunch break from work. I had taken my car into a car wash. I finished, left the parking lot and was parked at a stop sign about to enter the road leading back to work. I had to stop for a bicyclist who was approaching. As he got close to my car, he decided to go behind my car, but just before he turned his bike to go behind, he shouted at me, "fucking faggot", and kept going as though nothing had happened. It gave me a chill to think that even though this guy didn't know me, that he would pass judgment like that. How did he know I was gay? I have no idea except I was wearing a light pink (more white than pink) dress shirt. I suppose from that that he could have assumed I was gay.

I know people like that are morons. But let's change the scenario just a bit. Let's say that I am walking home after work, and I live in the same area as work. I come upon this individual and he has a couple of friends with him. It's not hard for me imagine that with his attitude and the assumptions he made about me, that some incident would come out of this.

I think the hate crime legislation would shed light on these incidents. Maybe it wouldn't stop them, but it would at least show how big a problem it is. And I think the results would be very shocking to a lot of people.

What do they all have in common?

A bill that grouped the three together in Russia. I suppose that I should feel comforted that they didn't include necrophiliacs in with the group.

Apparently, prison life isn't agreeing with Russell Henderson so well. He was one of two people convicted in the death of Matthew Shepard over five years ago. Now, he's claiming his rights were violated.

I only have this to say to Russell Henderson: What about the rights you took from Matthew Shepard? What about the life you stole from him? I hope you never see life outside of the prison you live in.

(Laramie Wyoming) A Wyoming judge will hear arguments this week that one of the men convicted of killing Matthew Shepard should be given a lighter sentence.

Russell Henderson made a deal with prosecutors to void the death sentence and pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping in the brutal slaying of the gay college student in 1998. He is currently serving two life sentences.

With the help of a new lawyer he is seeking a sentence reduction claiming he was not given effective legal assistance during his trial.

Lawyer Tim Newcomb had earlier filed a motion saying his client's rights were violated after he pleaded guilty because the defense team allegedly did not discuss his right to appeal within 30 days. (story)

The second man convicted of Shepard's murder, Aaron McKinney, also is serving two life sentences for the killing.

During their trial the court heard that Henderson and McKinney, both 21 at the time, kidnapped, pistol-whipped, robbed and left Shepard tied to a fence outside Laramie in October 1998. The 21-year-old University of Wyoming student died five days later at a hospital from massive head injuries.

The trial was told that the pair targeted Shepard solely because he was gay.

A state district judge will hold a hearing on Newcomb's motion Tuesday in Laramie.

Assistant Attorney General Melissa Swearingen, in a brief to the court, said that Henderson fails to offer claim of error in the conviction process. That relief can come only when there is a strong suggestion of a miscarriage of justice, she wrote.

She also pointed out that Henderson pleaded guilty with no strings attached and understood he wouldn't be allowed to withdraw the plea if sentencing didn't go the way he wanted.

"The petition should be dismissed … because the ultimate relief Mr. Henderson is seeking is simply not available under Wyoming statute," Swearingen wrote. (source)

An excelent opinion piece from the Arizona Republic.

There is a reason why anti-gay forces desperately need you to believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice, a "behavioral problem."

If gays are born gay or otherwise have no choice in their sexual orientation, then bigotry is really all that is left at the root of efforts to deny equal rights. (story)

I have been to New Orleans, and I had a great time. It's a wild city with a lot of fun things to do there. But the older I get, the more I realize that when I go to places like Louisiana, that is trying to pull crap like this, that I'm just supporting bigotry and discrimination.

Kent and I were planning on going to Louisiana in the next few years for a vacation, because I told him what a great time I had. Great time or not, we will not be going there. I will not support this kind of behavior.

In case anyone would like to complain, here's the address:

Louisiana State Board of Tourism
PO Box 94291
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Phone: 225-342-8119
Fax: 225-342-8390
800-33GUMBO

Adley said Monday that his reason behind the language change has been widely misinterpreted and misunderstood by reporters. He said he offered it to keep the issue from becoming entangled with the homosexual rights debate.

That's bull. Adley offered the legislation specifically to prevent homosexual couples from taking advantage of the homestead property tax exemption. How stupid do they think people are?

Louisiana, you can keep your bigoted ways, and I will keep.... my money to myself and go places that are supportive of us.

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Language in a proposed constitutional amendment that could deny homestead property tax exemptions to homosexual couples may soon be removed from the measure.

The legislation — an overhaul of the homestead exemption provisions in the constitution by Sen. Reggie Dupre, D-Houma — was originally drawn up to ensure that widows and widowers who have adult children will not lose their homestead exemption.

But legislators led by Sen. Robert Adley, D-Benton, changed the language to state that people who co-own a home and who are not related — by blood, adoption or marriage — are not entitled to the exemption.

Adley said Monday that his reason behind the language change has been widely misinterpreted and misunderstood by reporters. He said he offered it to keep the issue from becoming entangled with the homosexual rights debate. [...]

The Louisiana Assessors Association made their position clear in a letter to lawmakers Monday, saying their should be only two questions to ask to determine homestead exemption eligibility: "Do the `person or persons' own the property? Do the `person or persons' occupy the property?" (source)

ALSO CONCERNING LOUISIANA

BATON ROUGE, LA—In a vote of 31 to 6, the Louisiana State Senate overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment outlawing both marriage equality and civil unions, altering the House version only slightly to put the measure to a popular vote in September, not November, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

A draft report prepared for the University of California research program shows that despite official Pentagon assertions that the military takes anti-gay harassment as seriously as harassment against women and racial minorities, the military's policies and practices reveal markedly different enforcement and deterrent efforts for these three forms of abuse. [...]

...according to Sharon Terman, author of the new 39-page report, the Pentagon's policies and practices all demonstrate far more meaningful efforts on the part of the military to prevent racial and sexual harassment than anti-gay harassment. (source)

In my opinion, it's not going to be possible to stop the harassment of gay members in the military until the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is done away with. How can you stop harassment against something that you aren't even suppose to talk about? They claim that soldiers who are harassed for being gay, or should I say, being accused of being gay, have the right to complain to a superior office to report the harassment.

Now I ask you, if you were that soldier, gay or straight, would you report such harassment? Think about it. Before you know it, there may be an investigation against you for the mere mention of it.

In San Francisco, the number of AIDS cases peaked during the Reagan administration. AIDS activist Rene Durazzo remembers it as a frightening time when "chronic death" seemed to pervade the city streets.

"The number of people dying was horrific. The disease was very visible - people were suffering and wasting," Durazzo said. "It was a very volatile environment, there was so much anger at the government for not paying attention."

Yes, it was like that and "chronic death" very much describes it. This is yet another article on Reagan's handling of the AIDS issue.

As one of the first physicians to confront AIDS when it began its rampage through the gay community, Dr. Marcus Conant lobbied the Reagan administration in 1982 to launch an emergency campaign to educate Americans about the disease.

It took the president five more years to publicly mention the crisis. By then, almost 21,000 Americans had died and thousands more had been diagnosed. Conant, who lost scores of friends and patients to the disease, is still deeply angry - one of many Americans who view Reagan's legacy in a harsh light.

"Ronald Reagan and his administration could have made a substantial difference, but for ideological reasons, political reasons, moral reasons, they didn't do it," said the San Francisco dermatologist, who now deals with a new generation of AIDS patients. "President Reagan and his administration committed a crime, not just a sin."

A Letter to My Best Friend, Steven Powsner On the Death of Former President Ronald Reagan
by Matt Foreman (Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force)

Dear Steven,

I so much wish you were here today to tell me what to do. You would know if it's right to comment on the death of former President Reagan, or if I should just let pass the endless paeans to his greatness. But you're not here. The policies of the Reagan administration saw to that.

Yes, Steven, I do feel for the family and friends of the former President. The death of a loved one is always a profoundly sad occasion, and Mr. Reagan was loved by many. I have tremendous empathy and respect for Mrs. Reagan, who lovingly cared for him through excruciating years of Alzheimer's.

Sorry, Steven, but even on this day I'm not able to set aside the shaking anger I feel over Reagan's non-response to the AIDS epidemic or for the continuing anti-gay legacy of his administration. Is it personal? Of course. AIDS was first reported in 1981, but President Reagan could not bring himself to address the plague until March 31, 1987, at which time there were 60,000 reported cases of full-blown AIDS and 30,000 deaths. I remember that day, Steven - you were staying round-the-clock in Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital caring for your dying partner of over 15 years, Bruce Cooper. It was another 41 days of utter agony for both of you before Bruce died. During those years of White House silence and inaction, how many other dear friends did we see sicken and die hideous deaths?

Is it personal? Yes, Steven. I know for a fact that you would be alive today if the Reagan administration had mounted even a tepid response to the epidemic. If protease inhibitors been available in July of 1995 instead of December, you'd still be here.

I wouldn't feel so angry if the Reagan administration's failing was due to ignorance or bureaucratic ineptitude. No, Steven, we knew then it was deliberate. The government's response was dictated by the grip of evangelical Christian conservatives who saw gay people as sinners and AIDS as God's well-deserved punishment. Remember? The White House Director of Communications, Patrick Buchanan, once argued in print that AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men. Reagan's Secretary of Education, William Bennett, and his domestic policy adviser, Gary Bauer, made sure that science (and basic tenets of Christianity, for that matter) never got in the way of politics or what they saw as "God's" work.

Even so, I think I could let go of this anger if this was just another overwhelmingly sad chapter in our nation's past. It is not. Steven, can you believe that the unholy pact President Reagan and the Republican Party entered with the forces of religious intolerance have not weakened, but grown exponentially stronger? Can you believe that the U.S. government is still bowing to right wing extremists and fighting condom distribution and explicit HIV education, even while AIDS is killing millions across the world? Or that "devout" Christians have forced the scrapping of AIDS prevention programs targeted at HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in favor of bullshit "abstinence only until marriage" initiatives? Or the shameless duplicity of these same forces seeking to forever outlaw even the hope of marriage for gay people? Or that Reagan stalwarts like Buchanan, Bennett and Bauer are still grinding their homophobic axes?

No, Steven, I do not presume to judge Ronald Reagan's soul or heart. He may very well have been a nice guy. In fact, I don't think that Reagan hated gay people -- I'm sure some of his and Nancy's best friends were gay. But I do know that the Reagan administration's policies on AIDS and anything gay-related resulted - and continue to result - in despair and death.

Oh, Steven, how much I wish so much you were here.

Matt

On November 20, 1995, Steven Powsner, died of complications from AIDS at age 40. He had been President of the New York City Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center from 1992-1994.

I've talked a bit about my feelings of Ronald Reagan and his presidency. Some of you feel that I have judged him too harshly. Perhaps I have. I only have my own experiences and feelings about what I went through while he was President. Maybe some of you think that he was wonderful.

I have also noticed some headlines creaping up such as "Gays still bitter over Reagan". Bitter? Well, yes I am because I think he has a lot of blood on his hands.

But you be the judge. Some highlights from the article:

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS. [...]

A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." [...]

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing. [...]

With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg, who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have raised money by campaigning against homosexuals." [...]

As millions eulogize Reagan this week, the tragedy lies in what he might have done. Today, the World Health Organization estimates that more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 alone.

Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' " (source)

So you decide if Ronald Reagan is the great man that everyone is trying to make him out to be. To me, he falls just short of being a Fascist. And just about the time that I think that comparison is too intolerant and too stern, I think of all the friends I had who are now dead. They died in a nation that had a president who felt that they were getting "what they justly deserved".

So how will history remember Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney?

Though he has said nothing so incendiary as Wallace's segregation-forever statement, will we remember Romney as the politician who seems to be making a roughly equivalent statement about gay couples vis-à-vis equal rights as it applies to marriage?

It is nothing short of ironic that Romney is using against gay couples a 1913 law intended to prevent interracial couples from getting marriage licenses in Massachusetts. The law prohibits nonresidents from marrying if their marriage would not be legal in their home state.

Romney, stymied by the courts and failing to get the Legislature to enact an amendment to bar the marriages before a Supreme Court order would take effect allowing them, is using the law to prevent nonresident gay couples from getting Massachusetts marriage licenses. [...]

History will not be kind to Romney. And, barring a profound conversion, it shouldn't be. (source)

A very interesting opinion piece. I am absolutely certain that history will not treat Governor Mitt Romney with kindness. The only question is, how long will it take Romney to realize that he was wrong? I suspect it will happen in the later years of his life, as it did for Governor George Wallace.

The home of the Liberty Bell hopes to become a major gay tourist destination this year with a flashy national television ad campaign that begins running tonight.

The 30 second commercials, the first in the country to target the LGBT market in tourism, were the brainchild of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corp., which is sponsoring the ad campaign. [...]

"This is an invitation, that you are welcome here, because of what Philadelphia is and what Philadelphia has to offer, and because we have a strong gay community," Meryl Levitz, president and chief executive of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing told a news conference to unveil the commercials. (source)

I guess it's a nice thought, but if they really wanted to make gay travelers feel welcome in their state (and in Philadelphia), perhaps the citizens of Philadelphia should lobby their state Reps to legalize marriage between gay and lesbian couples.

There's just nothing quite like putting your money where your mouth is and nothing says "welcome" better than telling folks that their relationships are "equal" to everyone else. If they did that, we might even consider going to Philadelphia to get married.

I saw this letter from a gay service member, and thought I would share it with all of you (source).

A letter by John R. Ball Jr.

Hello. My name is John Ball Jr. I served under "don't ask, don't tell" in the U.S. Marine Corps from September 1999 to September 2003. I was honorably discharged a sergeant. Since I got out, it has been very rough adjusting back to civilian life. I had at one point made a decision to reenlist and go back into the Marine Corps. I started the paperwork and was awaiting a response from headquarters.

While I was waiting, one weekend I went to Washington, D.C. to attend an event at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's second annual lobby day. There I saw a performance by Marc Wolf, "Another American: Asking & Telling." This was a very powerful play that really spoke to me. After the play, I spoke to many gay veterans. Some I talked to retired with honorable discharges and others were discharged without any benefits because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This really opened my eyes and made me realize that if the U.S. Government found out I was gay, they would not fight on my behalf or support me in any way.

It's not like I hadn't thought about this before, but it was just so real to me now. You could be the best soldier in your unit, with respect from all ranks in your chain of command. You could go to war, risk your life, help your brothers next to you. But when they found out you were gay, they would just kick you out in the middle of the street with absolutely nothing -- and sometimes even ask you for money for benefits they had given you.

I am a proud American. I shed tears when the national anthem is played. I get chills when I'm driving down the road and see Old Glory flying in the wind. I get angry when other countries do hateful things to the U.S. I gave four years of my life to serve this country out of the gratitude of my heart. Yes, I was honorably discharged, and my chain of command did not find out I was gay. Yes, I still have VA benefits. Yes, I still love this country and would not want to live any other place. But to think that uncle Sam could legally take everything away from me if he found out I was gay. To think of how I would have been treated. To think they could have taken away everything that I had. It really makes me think that gay and lesbian soldiers are fighting for freedom they do not even have. They are proud of this country and fighting for it, yet they do not share the same freedoms that they are fighting for. What sense does this make?

I loved the Marine Corps and would go back in a heartbeat. But it scares me to think that they can take away everything I've earned so fast. It made me very hesitant to reenlist. I know I am not alone. I know there are tons of soldiers, sailors and airmen out there who share the same trials and tribulations as I -- service members who want to reenlist but know they want to start living their life out of the closet.

That's one of the reasons I am writing this. Since then, I've been out and I've made up my mind not to reenlist. I constantly have thoughts about getting involved with the movement to lift the ban on "don't ask, don't tell." I'm not sure what I can do, or if my story would even make an impact. But if there is anything that I can do, just contact me and let me know. I am willing to give my time, energy and whatever I can to make a difference.

Thanks for you time,
John R. Ball Jr.

(Written in Ogunquit, Maine, 2:30am with the sound of ocean surf in the background)

It's rare in life to realize the completion of something monumental in the work of a life. Most people struggle through life from one thing to the next, never once stopping to think of what their thoughts have been; what got them there; what kind of person they have ended up being.

A few days ago, it hit me. It was enlightenment, if you will. It occurred to me that after a lifetime of struggle, self doubt, self loathing, that I had everything. I have a home, a mate in life that would always be there for me, financial security, love, and, most importantly, the ability to appreciate everything.

To my astonishment, the one thing that made this all possible was the one thing that I have spent my entire life despising. It is the one thing that I have blamed for most of the hardship, self-doubt, self-hatred, and despair that life has given me. It is being a homosexual. It is what it is. It is not being queer, gay, poofter, faggot, or any of the other emotionally charged terms that society has seen fit to bestow upon us. It is simply, to be accurate and non-emotional, homosexual.

This is what it has given me. It has given me the pain of being different; not a small thing when living with a species that hates anything different. It has made me the target and recipient of physical, and emotional violence. It has forced me to a place in life that suicide seemed to be my only option, three times. It has made me curse the very people who brought me back to life after my decision to end that life. How dare they! They are normal. What right did they have?

It has made many of my dearest friends suddenly want to walk the other way upon hearing about me being a homosexual. A friendship in college that I was developing suddenly ended when someone in my dormitory told him that I was a homosexual (faggot was the exact term they used). But he didn't come talk to me about it. That would have been too simple, too logical, and it would have given me, a faggot, too much dignity. No. He wanted me to feel shame and humiliation for being homosexual – even the absence of any further acknowledgment as a human being. He wanted me to feel something much worse; the absence of his friendship. So, he stopped talking to me. What heartless bastard would do this you ask? The answer is, all of you, depending on the time and place. That feeds on other things. Such as the psychological need to feel wanted and to be a part of things. He never talked to me again. I don't honestly know how many did this, there were so many. I lost count.

Others were more devious. They would call me in the middle of the night and ask me how much I charged for a blow job. Didn't they know that I could recognize their voice because one of them was the Resident Assistant (RA) on my floor? I could hear him and his friends laughing in the background. The next morning, they would say hi to me, barely able to keep themselves from laughing about it, and always with a smirk on their face. One even put his arm around me and asked me (in front of the others, of course), if I would drive out to the lake with him, presumably to give him oral sex. The others laughed. I turned the tables. When I put my arm around him and said, without cracking a smile or a hint of disgust, "That will be fifty bucks. More if the others want to watch." He quickly withdrew his arm from my shoulder, and was disgusted. The others looked away. I left, went to my room, and cried. Everything from high school was happening all over again.

I remember vividly being around a group of students in college in the cafeteria, when the subject of bisexuality came up. The subject quickly changed when one of the girls said, "You guys, bisexuality is gross." That was the end of that subject. I remember thinking at the time, "My God, I'm so glad that she doesn't know that I'm a full homosexual!" It would have been another lost friendship. And, maybe at the time that would have been true. When we go to Idaho next August, we will see her and her husband again. We are now friends. People can and do change.

Occasionally, I would meet another homosexual at college. We had a way of knowing each other, but we were all so scared at being "found out", that we rarely did more then exchange eye contact. It was sad in a way. My college life consisted of trying to do the best I could in my classes, all the while spending so much energy to try to keep a secret. This is probably the most profound part of gay life that straight people cannot comprehend. Not many I know have some secret about themselves that they spend most of their lives trying to keep from others. It does take a toll on the soul.

So now, after years of being away from that, why is my life so perfect? It's perfect because of what being a homosexual has done to, or should I say, for me. I always thought about it as a curse and something that I had to endure. And, when my life was over, the reward for going through a life of misery that others had subjected me too, would be everlasting burning in Hell for the sin of being homosexual. God loves all of us who do things such as beat up or kill homosexuals, and he's willing to forgive us for that because He hates homosexuals even more than he hates what we do to them. With religion, everything is a negotiation.

What has being a homosexual done for me? It has done for me what it did for Michelangelo. It has given me a view of the world that very few of my straight male counterparts can even comprehend. I look at everything differently. I realize that all the grief I went through as a young man for being homosexual was just the other side of the coin. Since I was able to survive my own attempts to end my life, and the attempts of others to attempt to kill me in high school, I have an appreciation for other things in life, such as a flower. Not the way most people do. People will look at flowers, say something lame such as "aren't they lovely", and go about their business. It seems a terrible insult that the parent plant sacrificed everything to make this happen. I think that demands more than the adjective of "lovely" being applied to them. I study them. I study the shapes, the smell (good or bad), the profound effect they are having on my senses, and their roll in changing the world by their presence here.

Being homosexual has made me realize that there is no difference between being in awe of some creature such a bee and marveling at what she does, or lying in a pool of my own blood after being beaten to a pulp wondering where I am, and why I should be feeling pain, but feel nothing. It's an odd sensation. Both are filled with wonderment and fascination. Why did this happen? Is this my role in life? Is this what I do? Is that my purpose? Was I in that place at that time to be beaten by this group of men to aid in their passage through life? Was that part of my purpose, or was I nothing more than food to fuel their hate? Am I fulfilling some need, just as the bee who goes about her business of fertilizing a flower?

Being homosexual has made me realize that there are those who have empty lives. I rarely go to newsgroups on the internet anymore. You can find anything there. I read some from a newsgroup talking about gay marriage. One man said, "I'm willing to give gay couples marriage licenses, as long as you get fifty couples together, and force them to give each other blood transfusions. After that, they can have their marriage licenses." I presume he felt that at least one person in the fifty couples would be HIV positive, or have AIDS. Everyone else in the group would therefore contract the disease, and eventually, there would be no marriages left from that group, because everyone would eventually die. And this, my friends, is why the human race is doomed. It has no ability to see beyond it's own hatred. As for the man who wrote this, I see a man who will never savor fulfillment in life, who will live his life consumed by such hatred, and at the end of his life only have his hatred as his companion. That's the thing about hatred, it doesn't like to share.

Being homosexual has given me the ability to realize that those who dislike or hate me are suffering from the disease of hate. And, that doesn't come at a small price. If they hate me, it will never stop with me. It will eventually pollute their relationships and their family. In the case of some, their children will inherit their hate, and it goes on and on.

They will never have the ability to be friends with whoever they choose to be friends with – no matter what, without other baggage being in the way, such as, what will other people think? It will never occur to them that in the very short time they will spend here in this life that extraordinary things could happen to them. They will miss it all.

They will never have the ability to openly and unapologetically weep at the passing of Mimi in Puccini's La Boheme. When Calif summons the Princess in Turandot to give him his three riddles to solve, upon which he will become the Prince and rule the Kingdom, did he ever stop to think of anyone but himself? He solved the riddles, only to enrage Turandot. He knew he couldn't win her love by force, so he gave her a riddle; announce my real name by sunrise, and you are free. Of course, throughout the night, she tortured and killed many, trying to make them tell her his real name so that her and her ancestor's would not have to be disgraced by being with the likes of him (or any man, for that matter). Despite all the killing, he declares that in the morning he will triumph. He declares this to himself, in one of the most stirring arias in all of opera; Nessun Dorma! All the time, you can hear in the back ground the sorrows and torture of people.

Everyone in the audience cheers at his determination of triumph. "At daybreak, I shall conquer! I shall conquer! I shall conquer!". I want to say to Calaf, "You fool. At what price do others pay for your victory, and what horrors are left to come? You sacrificed your father and others who love you for this? Their blood is on this victory of yours." How relevant is this you ask? I don't know, you tell me. We are at war in Iraq and have tortured people, all the while declaring in our arrogance that we will conquer. The only question left that I have to ask is, "...at what price, and what horrors are left to come?"

So, a few days ago, it occurred to me, "My God, Bill. You have everything. You have spent a lot of your life convincing yourself that there are things worth living for, over and over and over again, as if to convince yourself, as in a 12-step program for homosexuals. Suddenly, astonishingly, you believe it! Only, you are surprised at this."

A few days ago at work, we were talking about free speech. It has taken me a long time to open up to the guys I work with. I mentioned that people were coming to my site more and more, because of the Abu Gharib prison photos I had published. After I mentioned to one of my coworkers that I would probably be taking them down soon, he said that it was more important than ever that I keep them up because the news agencies were being pressured by the Federal Government to remove them, because it looked bad for the United States. It was a free rights issue. I mentioned that I didn't want to give Ashcroft a reason to shut me down. My co-worker said, "Bill, he can already do that for having a site that advocates a pro-homosexual activist agenda."

What is significant to me on a personal level is that this was openly stated with no attempt to sugarcoat it. And, it was not only okay with these two straight coworkers, but it was totally accepted. I realized that there was no judgment and they were letting me know, whether they knew it or not, that they are my friends, and it doesn't matter that I'm homosexual.

So now, I look at my life and realize that I have it all. I love what I am, I have a great partner who loves me, I have only a few friends in life, but all have shown that they don't care what I am, in fact they love what I am. I have a home filled with love. And, for the first time in my life, it hit me that I didn't hate myself for being homosexual. I love what I am and I love that it has given me the sight to see what others cannot see. That surprised me more than anything else. I never hide it. I don't think I flaunt it, but it seems easy to spot because I am just being myself. I have no desire, time, or energy to care about what others will think of me. I am just, me. And, that is a good thing!

I used to tell people that if I could be straight, I would be. That if I had kids, I would want them to be straight, because life is easier. But now, I realize how much I would be giving up. In essence, I would be giving up the most wonderful gift anyone could have; the unique ability to look at the world and see more of what it has to offer, in all it's good and bad.

Now, the only thing that will complete my journey would be marriage. The ability to put a label on what Kent and I have together and the ability for society to see us together and say, "A couple, not gay or straight, but a couple. We accept you. Welcome to our family."

Before I die, I want to feel that.