Sadly, most homosexual Americans will understand what Judge Sotomayor means when she says she hopes that someone like a Latina, growing up in a single parent family in a poor environment (not much money, hard jobs, etc.) will be more realistic about how laws work in reality than a middle class or upper class white male, at least until recent years.
What most homosexuals would say is that a black American who has suffered from discrimination in America should have more empathy for other minorities, including homosexuals, against whom laws, like the Bible, have been used to make unequal to the majority white males who have dominated America for centuries.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
What others may see in the book: RE: Todd’s book and the generic issue of getting books read.
As I would understand it, Todd marshalled all the facts on what happened at ONE, and gave readers a background, starting with early Mattachine. It could be that he gave too much for average readers, but I assume serious researchers will want to see all the notes and minutes, etc. I didn’t then, nor now.
The irony as I said to everyone then is that I am one person who has always been in a position to do what I wanted to. I have made some mistakes, as I confessed to Prof. Rodney Grunes Political Science students Friday, as I think, now, that the issue of me and the Army was more my fault than theirs, although it is probably that sooner or later I would have been kicked out for homosexuality. But I was, from a logical Army view, not a very good soldier if I fell a part when they had to change the goal of sending me to Germany—unless I reenlisted and had more time. I liked the Army and was not mistreated, even when living the last few weeks on a cot in the Headquarters Company of the First Infantry Division. But I would never have stopped having sex. I also once did not showup for KP duty when I had been ordered to do so as I thought they were wrong. I went, naturally, to the library and read magazines. Nothing ever came of it.
But few people had income from a family so that they could choose what they wanted to do, as I could take a the job at ONE, which paid nothing, really, and paid really nothing at HIC. In fact, more than once I had to put money into HIC, one time $2,000 my folks gave me to help get an issue of the magazine out.
This is being said to make it clear that Dorr should have understood, and Don, that it made no difference to me personally if I were a voting member.
I said then, and poor Todd understands that now as even Don did a few times, that I would not do anything I did not want to do. So it would give me no more “power” to be a voting member. If the board instructed me to do something I didn't want to do, I simply would refuse and if necessary, leave.
Which is what I think some editor said when she had to quite ONE as she had to do work at a job that paid her salary. It is hard to tell volunteers what to do if they don't want to. that of course was Dorr's fear. Most of ours were not too smart about the workings of ONE and didn’t care, and I didn't until Dorr stupidly started fearing what I might or might not do. It was one thing for me to not show up for work a day after I had found a good Marine, but when I actually started understanding the workings, that was threating to Dorr.
The irony as I said to everyone then is that I am one person who has always been in a position to do what I wanted to. I have made some mistakes, as I confessed to Prof. Rodney Grunes Political Science students Friday, as I think, now, that the issue of me and the Army was more my fault than theirs, although it is probably that sooner or later I would have been kicked out for homosexuality. But I was, from a logical Army view, not a very good soldier if I fell a part when they had to change the goal of sending me to Germany—unless I reenlisted and had more time. I liked the Army and was not mistreated, even when living the last few weeks on a cot in the Headquarters Company of the First Infantry Division. But I would never have stopped having sex. I also once did not showup for KP duty when I had been ordered to do so as I thought they were wrong. I went, naturally, to the library and read magazines. Nothing ever came of it.
But few people had income from a family so that they could choose what they wanted to do, as I could take a the job at ONE, which paid nothing, really, and paid really nothing at HIC. In fact, more than once I had to put money into HIC, one time $2,000 my folks gave me to help get an issue of the magazine out.
This is being said to make it clear that Dorr should have understood, and Don, that it made no difference to me personally if I were a voting member.
I said then, and poor Todd understands that now as even Don did a few times, that I would not do anything I did not want to do. So it would give me no more “power” to be a voting member. If the board instructed me to do something I didn't want to do, I simply would refuse and if necessary, leave.
Which is what I think some editor said when she had to quite ONE as she had to do work at a job that paid her salary. It is hard to tell volunteers what to do if they don't want to. that of course was Dorr's fear. Most of ours were not too smart about the workings of ONE and didn’t care, and I didn't until Dorr stupidly started fearing what I might or might not do. It was one thing for me to not show up for work a day after I had found a good Marine, but when I actually started understanding the workings, that was threating to Dorr.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Thoughts on a book lead to a good discussion of masculinity, etc. (Editorially Speaking, May issue of Liberty Press)
In talking about a book she read, Sheryl LeSage in the Editorially Speking column in the May issue of Liberty News brings up several issues homosexuals deal with—and gives evidence that more and more of our community/movement publications are going to deal with aspects of sexuality that must be faced.
The book, Androphilia: Rejecting Male Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity, by Jack Malebranche (what a name) apparently says that men have been “indoctrinated” by gay culture to be less masculine. Strange, it was my thinking that the opposite is true.
As LeSage points out, this is the opposite of the “feminist” movement which told women to have to fit a “pattern” and not be butch or femme, and as she asks, “how’d that work out for those pinch-faced ladies?”
Speaking of books, she (LeSage) also finds books about male homosexuals written by women. Sweet love stories of sweet young men. Again, the opposite of what the usual books are, lesbian sex written for men. Only sexy women will do.
What we are in reality usually doesn’t fit the molds or stereotypes. As she says, the cover of the book has Spartan helments, and they are empty and hollow and imposing and hard. Is that a good view on life?
The question is obvious? Why do homosexuals have to fit a pattern? And why are WE trying to force our idea of a good pro-gay on the community almost as much as the bigots do? And why are we so worried about which is the best term to call ourselves? Why must there be only one acceptible term? Why must we have a hetero type marriage? And how is that working for the heteros? (See current articles on growing number of single moms, growing number of heterosexuals who are living together and NOT marrying.)
The book, Androphilia: Rejecting Male Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity, by Jack Malebranche (what a name) apparently says that men have been “indoctrinated” by gay culture to be less masculine. Strange, it was my thinking that the opposite is true.
As LeSage points out, this is the opposite of the “feminist” movement which told women to have to fit a “pattern” and not be butch or femme, and as she asks, “how’d that work out for those pinch-faced ladies?”
Speaking of books, she (LeSage) also finds books about male homosexuals written by women. Sweet love stories of sweet young men. Again, the opposite of what the usual books are, lesbian sex written for men. Only sexy women will do.
What we are in reality usually doesn’t fit the molds or stereotypes. As she says, the cover of the book has Spartan helments, and they are empty and hollow and imposing and hard. Is that a good view on life?
The question is obvious? Why do homosexuals have to fit a pattern? And why are WE trying to force our idea of a good pro-gay on the community almost as much as the bigots do? And why are we so worried about which is the best term to call ourselves? Why must there be only one acceptible term? Why must we have a hetero type marriage? And how is that working for the heteros? (See current articles on growing number of single moms, growing number of heterosexuals who are living together and NOT marrying.)
Monday, May 18, 2009
Do homosexuals need a Martin Luther King, Jr to lead us? (Windy City Times, May 18 thissue)
Wayne Besen’s column “A Fractious Movement” in May 13th Windy City Times concerns an issue that our community/movement should be talking about. It is only one of the issues that can affect how successful we are and will be in gaining our equal/civil rights and helping everyone understand our concerns, which many of us don’t even understand, much less non-homosexuals.
Besen says that some of us are thinking we need a charismatic person to come lead us, something I assume like the black civil rights movement had Dr. King. That seems stange considering how successful our cause has been since 1950 wihout such a person. He is right when he says that in fact it is the diversity of people and ideas and efforts that has made us strong and more difficult to stop. An example he gives is that while most of us have problems with how religion has harmed us, some of us are working within the various religions to change them.
It was not easy when there was only “ONE” organization and publication speaking for us, even though ONE, Incorporated, always gave equal opportunity to all groups and views. But it is good today to have so many millions of us working for the cause that each of us can choose the particular part of the cause we want to work on, legal (such as Lambda Legal, GLADD, NCLR, etc.), religious (such as SDA Kinship, Dignity, Affirmation, and of course MCC), our heritage (ONE Institute, Gerber/Hart, Lavender Library, Homosexual Information Center, etc), political (such as Stonewall, Log Cabin, etc.),social service (such as the several good glbt centers in major cities, youth concerns (such as GLSEN), the military (such as SLDN) and even bloggers who alert us to what our enemies are doing, and sites such as Daily Queer News, On GYB, etc.
So anyone who wants to step forward and try to speak for us, fine, but I personally don’t want the President (Obama or whoever) to choose one person to decide what millions of homosexuals want or think. For instance, while it seems most of us are pro-choice, we have pro life people such as PLAGAL. We are strong ony when we allow diversity that we ask of others. While I don't seek marriage, I certainly do nothing to discourage those who do. And a final thought: It is very interesting, for those who read and trust polls, that while more and more people are now in favor of same sex marriage, more people now are against abortion. How do those in favor of civil rights explain this?
Besen says that some of us are thinking we need a charismatic person to come lead us, something I assume like the black civil rights movement had Dr. King. That seems stange considering how successful our cause has been since 1950 wihout such a person. He is right when he says that in fact it is the diversity of people and ideas and efforts that has made us strong and more difficult to stop. An example he gives is that while most of us have problems with how religion has harmed us, some of us are working within the various religions to change them.
It was not easy when there was only “ONE” organization and publication speaking for us, even though ONE, Incorporated, always gave equal opportunity to all groups and views. But it is good today to have so many millions of us working for the cause that each of us can choose the particular part of the cause we want to work on, legal (such as Lambda Legal, GLADD, NCLR, etc.), religious (such as SDA Kinship, Dignity, Affirmation, and of course MCC), our heritage (ONE Institute, Gerber/Hart, Lavender Library, Homosexual Information Center, etc), political (such as Stonewall, Log Cabin, etc.),social service (such as the several good glbt centers in major cities, youth concerns (such as GLSEN), the military (such as SLDN) and even bloggers who alert us to what our enemies are doing, and sites such as Daily Queer News, On GYB, etc.
So anyone who wants to step forward and try to speak for us, fine, but I personally don’t want the President (Obama or whoever) to choose one person to decide what millions of homosexuals want or think. For instance, while it seems most of us are pro-choice, we have pro life people such as PLAGAL. We are strong ony when we allow diversity that we ask of others. While I don't seek marriage, I certainly do nothing to discourage those who do. And a final thought: It is very interesting, for those who read and trust polls, that while more and more people are now in favor of same sex marriage, more people now are against abortion. How do those in favor of civil rights explain this?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Where do we get our moral leadership? Preachers or tv/movies
One of the basic arguments we get from religious bigots is that without religion, their god and church, synagogue or mosque, there would be no basis for morals, integrity, and education of future generations on our heritage as a people.
Nonsense. The evidence I go by was reinforced this week by seeing some old movies and tv shows and what I got was better moral leadership from these sources than any preacher, rabbi or imam I have heard—in fact I have heard none of such people saying that the Islamist or Christian terrorists are evil and wrong.
I think members of our community/movement need to THINK. The fact is that much of our work was harmed in the early days by the failure of the media to hear us, thus meaning few people knew of our work and ideas, including homosexuals who were deep in their closet.
Much of the problem of homosexuals or people preferring homosexual sex comes from religion, laws based on religion and mental health people whose “thinking” also comes from religion more than they seem to understand.
So what have we heard from religion? Not much except how bad we are and a few quotes from a book that not only has been badly translated, but has hundreds of different interpretations, not only on the issue of homosexuality but even how to baptize or what day of the week we should give to our god.
But what have we been getting, for several years now, from the media, the “industry” and writers of tv shows and movies. A lot. All good. But does the average person know how much such resources affect our lives and how others view the world, including views on homosexuality? Idon’t think so.
In fact, often, when some person or show does try to cover our issue they get no congratulations and support but negative feedback if they don’t do and say the exact thing some pc person, self-appointed, thinks is “right.”
So here is a list of a few such shows that should have been on the radar of every person concerned with discrimination against homosexual Americans.
I watched two older movies, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Anyone who watches these two movies, and many others and doesn't consider gay-friendly and gay-supportive has a personal problem with themselves. These shows and the people behind them should be honored. And the probability is that millions of people who haveseen these shows are less anti-gay than they were before the movies.
By the way, local people seeing a new movie channel over the air (not on cable/satellite) from the local CBS station are seeing many promos for non-profits, and one is a series of ads against using the word gay negatively. I wonder if this “message” is heard in any local churches?
Most people have heard the humor on shows of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, on Comedy Central, and know that they are not anti-gay and make fun of bigots of all sorts, again I know of no preachers who speakout against bigots like such tv shows. I do know, from seeing the dvd, that Hal Holbrook’s show of Mark Twain does.
And what is the average viewer seeing on tv shows? Good things in our area. I only am concerned that we do not know in advance when a good show is coming on. For instance last night the ABC tv show Cupid was about a teenage homosexual boy being bullied at school. How relevant since this week another such boy committed suicide in Massachusetts. Have many preachers spoken out against people who don't protect our children from gay-bashing? So we get better advice from movies and tv than from our so-called moral leaders.
We must do what we can to be sure that anyone needing support knows where to get it. That is why we need PFLAG, yet support for some chapters has been falling—such as the Houston chapter.
But why is it that some parents and school personnel still don't know about GLSEN, which exists soley to support children suffering for their sexuality.
And do glbt newspapers and magazines list resources for their area? Have such publications as Gayellow Pages been mentioned in our media?
And have we challenged the academic community and professions to provide information to students and people on their work? Do law schools cover the duty of school boards to provide protection for students? Do medical schools cover problems, mental and physical that homosexuals may face? Have history professors stopped trying to delete homosexual history from coverage, and literary professors stopped hiding the homosexuality of famous writers? It is the bigots who have the “agenda.” They fear that if the average person knows the facts about homosexuality it will make them gay? Or what?
Hopefully gay marriage, aka same sex marriage, will not only be everywhere soon, but that the process is going to educate us all on what life as second-class citizens means and thus why we and all Americans deserve equal/civil rights.
How sad that the push for civil rights for us, as was the real case for blacks, women, etc,not only does not come in most churches, but in fact that those churches harbor and support bigots who quote their ignorance of their guide book against us as they have aganst equality for races, sexes, etc. And it was they who supported the decimation of American Indians/Native Americans in the name of “saving” them and didn't stop if it took killing them to save their souls—which of course meant that “we” could take away their land.
At least when the movies gave us the good cowboys and bad Indians, they knew they were exploiting the subject and making up history and have now moved on in the real world of this century.
Nonsense. The evidence I go by was reinforced this week by seeing some old movies and tv shows and what I got was better moral leadership from these sources than any preacher, rabbi or imam I have heard—in fact I have heard none of such people saying that the Islamist or Christian terrorists are evil and wrong.
I think members of our community/movement need to THINK. The fact is that much of our work was harmed in the early days by the failure of the media to hear us, thus meaning few people knew of our work and ideas, including homosexuals who were deep in their closet.
Much of the problem of homosexuals or people preferring homosexual sex comes from religion, laws based on religion and mental health people whose “thinking” also comes from religion more than they seem to understand.
So what have we heard from religion? Not much except how bad we are and a few quotes from a book that not only has been badly translated, but has hundreds of different interpretations, not only on the issue of homosexuality but even how to baptize or what day of the week we should give to our god.
But what have we been getting, for several years now, from the media, the “industry” and writers of tv shows and movies. A lot. All good. But does the average person know how much such resources affect our lives and how others view the world, including views on homosexuality? Idon’t think so.
In fact, often, when some person or show does try to cover our issue they get no congratulations and support but negative feedback if they don’t do and say the exact thing some pc person, self-appointed, thinks is “right.”
So here is a list of a few such shows that should have been on the radar of every person concerned with discrimination against homosexual Americans.
I watched two older movies, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Anyone who watches these two movies, and many others and doesn't consider gay-friendly and gay-supportive has a personal problem with themselves. These shows and the people behind them should be honored. And the probability is that millions of people who haveseen these shows are less anti-gay than they were before the movies.
By the way, local people seeing a new movie channel over the air (not on cable/satellite) from the local CBS station are seeing many promos for non-profits, and one is a series of ads against using the word gay negatively. I wonder if this “message” is heard in any local churches?
Most people have heard the humor on shows of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, on Comedy Central, and know that they are not anti-gay and make fun of bigots of all sorts, again I know of no preachers who speakout against bigots like such tv shows. I do know, from seeing the dvd, that Hal Holbrook’s show of Mark Twain does.
And what is the average viewer seeing on tv shows? Good things in our area. I only am concerned that we do not know in advance when a good show is coming on. For instance last night the ABC tv show Cupid was about a teenage homosexual boy being bullied at school. How relevant since this week another such boy committed suicide in Massachusetts. Have many preachers spoken out against people who don't protect our children from gay-bashing? So we get better advice from movies and tv than from our so-called moral leaders.
We must do what we can to be sure that anyone needing support knows where to get it. That is why we need PFLAG, yet support for some chapters has been falling—such as the Houston chapter.
But why is it that some parents and school personnel still don't know about GLSEN, which exists soley to support children suffering for their sexuality.
And do glbt newspapers and magazines list resources for their area? Have such publications as Gayellow Pages been mentioned in our media?
And have we challenged the academic community and professions to provide information to students and people on their work? Do law schools cover the duty of school boards to provide protection for students? Do medical schools cover problems, mental and physical that homosexuals may face? Have history professors stopped trying to delete homosexual history from coverage, and literary professors stopped hiding the homosexuality of famous writers? It is the bigots who have the “agenda.” They fear that if the average person knows the facts about homosexuality it will make them gay? Or what?
Hopefully gay marriage, aka same sex marriage, will not only be everywhere soon, but that the process is going to educate us all on what life as second-class citizens means and thus why we and all Americans deserve equal/civil rights.
How sad that the push for civil rights for us, as was the real case for blacks, women, etc,not only does not come in most churches, but in fact that those churches harbor and support bigots who quote their ignorance of their guide book against us as they have aganst equality for races, sexes, etc. And it was they who supported the decimation of American Indians/Native Americans in the name of “saving” them and didn't stop if it took killing them to save their souls—which of course meant that “we” could take away their land.
At least when the movies gave us the good cowboys and bad Indians, they knew they were exploiting the subject and making up history and have now moved on in the real world of this century.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Newsweek's article on The End of Christianity/post-Christian america
My thoughts on reading your excellent article on Christianity today was, even agreeing with your thinking: Nonsense. What the skeptics are ignorant about is what has caused the “problem,” they have their complete misunderstanding of Jesus' teachings and what they see as the “wrong” direction the nation is taking, and the “failure” of the people to follow their personal ideas on morals (abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, etc.) is really the people and the true “remnant” of Christianity slowly going toward the ideals Jesus practiced as well as taught.
Most Americans have not rejected religion, just the stupid ideas, political and otherwise, of a few fanatic nuts who seem to get all the publicity in the lazy msm (main stream media).
As a person who has, following his religious beliefs from the late ’40s in a old Methodist Church in a then small town Southern town (Bossier City, LA). I took what my Sunday School teacher and church and local YM/YWCA taught and understood that the churches had been wrong about their use of the bible to support slavery and then racial legal racial segregation-never equal of course-as they were, no matter how “sincere” when they supported and voted for prohibition, antigambling laws, etc. And had the churches not been ignored by the government we would still have laws against inter-racial marriage, as these same ignorant un-Jesus -like churches still oppose same sex marriage.
Jesus was concerned with, as the article says, people, not nations. And as He did not worry about politics, history, despite what the media and many “gays” think today, the change in issues of homosexuality did NOT come from politicians until it had been changed in the general population, including, sadly, homosexuals themselves. An even sadder fact is that the change has still not come to Christian churches, nor Jewish nor Muslim or other religious groups. What a terrible indictment of the leadership of these religions.
I think this is what Cal Thomas is saying. And it seems that, as in those days when Jesus walked the earth, the people who “get it” and truly follow Him are not the politicians or church leaders, but the average person, and that is why our nation will not follow Europe and abandon religion, but just cast out the false prophets, as they had to do in the endless line of spendor (the title of a book on the history of Methodism in America).
Again, we need to educate the ignorant leaders of religions, which still kill homosexuals, beat and kill women victims of rape, that the reason we don't want prayer in school is because of the question of whose prayer will it be, and who will choose the prayer, and why would “conservatives” want government dictating religious events? No one seeks to promote abortions, but again, it is not the government’s business to control our personal lives, and that applies to same sex marriage as it did to laws against inter-racial marriage, etc. And the more equal/civil rights we get, the more Jesus-like we become.
One final warning. To anyone rejecting “Chrisianity”— be careful of letting radical Islamists replace it.
Most Americans have not rejected religion, just the stupid ideas, political and otherwise, of a few fanatic nuts who seem to get all the publicity in the lazy msm (main stream media).
As a person who has, following his religious beliefs from the late ’40s in a old Methodist Church in a then small town Southern town (Bossier City, LA). I took what my Sunday School teacher and church and local YM/YWCA taught and understood that the churches had been wrong about their use of the bible to support slavery and then racial legal racial segregation-never equal of course-as they were, no matter how “sincere” when they supported and voted for prohibition, antigambling laws, etc. And had the churches not been ignored by the government we would still have laws against inter-racial marriage, as these same ignorant un-Jesus -like churches still oppose same sex marriage.
Jesus was concerned with, as the article says, people, not nations. And as He did not worry about politics, history, despite what the media and many “gays” think today, the change in issues of homosexuality did NOT come from politicians until it had been changed in the general population, including, sadly, homosexuals themselves. An even sadder fact is that the change has still not come to Christian churches, nor Jewish nor Muslim or other religious groups. What a terrible indictment of the leadership of these religions.
I think this is what Cal Thomas is saying. And it seems that, as in those days when Jesus walked the earth, the people who “get it” and truly follow Him are not the politicians or church leaders, but the average person, and that is why our nation will not follow Europe and abandon religion, but just cast out the false prophets, as they had to do in the endless line of spendor (the title of a book on the history of Methodism in America).
Again, we need to educate the ignorant leaders of religions, which still kill homosexuals, beat and kill women victims of rape, that the reason we don't want prayer in school is because of the question of whose prayer will it be, and who will choose the prayer, and why would “conservatives” want government dictating religious events? No one seeks to promote abortions, but again, it is not the government’s business to control our personal lives, and that applies to same sex marriage as it did to laws against inter-racial marriage, etc. And the more equal/civil rights we get, the more Jesus-like we become.
One final warning. To anyone rejecting “Chrisianity”— be careful of letting radical Islamists replace it.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Washington Blades’ coverage of the salaries of glbt leaders
I wonder what other people thought if they have seen the news in the Washington Blade on how much money the heads of glbt groups are paid. In a sense it is only the concern of those who give money to these groups.
But intelligent donors should want to know how their money is spent—a question the Johnny-Come-Lately Republicans are asking about the current stimulus money of the Obama Administration but didn't seem to worry about when it was the Bush Administration..
But I can give a personal view, and not out of jealousy. I worked from the ’60s to today with the oldest lgbt organization, coming out of early Mattachine (and I was at the infamous Mattachine Convention in Denver that got all the publicity in Denver and San Francisco, with mostly bad results) as ONE, Inc (1952) to be the public voice, the first national publication, which won the first legal battle of our community/movement and then co-founded out of ONE the information part, the Homosexual Information Center (1965–68).
I did financial work at ONE/HIC. I helped put out the magazine. We had little income, little media support and few homosexuals supporting us. The opposite is true today. Every major media service is eager to support our cause. Where we had a few heterosexual attorneys, publishers/printers that helped, we could get no gay professionals to help us.
The opposite is true today. So the job of these leaders is not hard. And if we accomplished what we did-they sure have built on what we have done and in a sense are still doing with our libraries/archives—with so little support and money, they have no excuse for not doing a great job, but that does not mean I personally would accept their reasoning for taking so much money to do their job. Again, if we are saying the Wall street greedy people who got our nation in the financial mess we are in should not be rewarded, we should ask why these leaders with all they have, mostly donated work they if fact refused in the Prop 8 effort, need such high salaries, to do what we did with so little, and we DID succeed. Have these leaders known about Harvey Milk, or seen the movie?
I would like to know where the income of these groups comes from. I suspect lots of it is tax-payer money-I’m sure the gay center in L. A. was donated by the government and much of their income comes from the city/county/state. So we are entitled to know where the money goes. I wonder how easy it is for someone to get help from these gay centers in L. A., New York, Chicago, San Francisco. I sure can remember sitting with the only person at the L. A. gay center, on weekends when it was really doing a good job, on Highland, and few people had an income from the work.
And I suspect many people have good memories from the first days of the L. A. center, at that old Victorian house on Wilshire Blvd., when Morris et al. did something, and inspired so many at a time when it was a rare thing, not something seen daily on many TV shows, and written up often in the newspapers, etc. Do young people today who have contact with gay centers come away with a good feeling?
After all, there are now organizations specifically for help them-GLSEN, The Point Foundation, etc. And there are legal (lgbt) groups to help them, Lambda legal, NCLR, GLAD, and for military issues SLDN, etc. So what does the Human Rights Campaign do? What does The Task Force do? The name doesn't tell us who it serves.
And who knows what the professional glbt groups do. Do we know what the gay/lesbian journalists do? The gay physicians? And do we hear anything from the groups for sociology, psychology, anthropology, history, politics???
I have no doubt that if the pioneers had had the money and media support the current leaders have they could have done even greater things. I can tell you that it sure is cheaper to reach people on the internet than it was to type and mail letters, and to pay telephone bills. Of course we didn’t have to have expensive offices-sort of like those bankrupt bankers do.
I know these groups will not get any financial support from me-but they do from taxpayers. And like the call to eliminate the tax-exemptions for religious organizations that indirectly get taxpayers’ money, that may come for such groups as HRC, the centers, etc.
But like a lot of things that people seem to think were better in the old days—we did the work with no income and in fact donated not only our time and energy but our money, and it was our desire to change things that gave us the motivation.
I suggest that income for these leaders be ended and let’s see how many of them are still willing to give some of their spare time—as they earn a living elsewhere as some of us did—to the cause. Then they will deserve credit and respect. Now they don’t need that—they get lots of money as the motive.
But intelligent donors should want to know how their money is spent—a question the Johnny-Come-Lately Republicans are asking about the current stimulus money of the Obama Administration but didn't seem to worry about when it was the Bush Administration..
But I can give a personal view, and not out of jealousy. I worked from the ’60s to today with the oldest lgbt organization, coming out of early Mattachine (and I was at the infamous Mattachine Convention in Denver that got all the publicity in Denver and San Francisco, with mostly bad results) as ONE, Inc (1952) to be the public voice, the first national publication, which won the first legal battle of our community/movement and then co-founded out of ONE the information part, the Homosexual Information Center (1965–68).
I did financial work at ONE/HIC. I helped put out the magazine. We had little income, little media support and few homosexuals supporting us. The opposite is true today. Every major media service is eager to support our cause. Where we had a few heterosexual attorneys, publishers/printers that helped, we could get no gay professionals to help us.
The opposite is true today. So the job of these leaders is not hard. And if we accomplished what we did-they sure have built on what we have done and in a sense are still doing with our libraries/archives—with so little support and money, they have no excuse for not doing a great job, but that does not mean I personally would accept their reasoning for taking so much money to do their job. Again, if we are saying the Wall street greedy people who got our nation in the financial mess we are in should not be rewarded, we should ask why these leaders with all they have, mostly donated work they if fact refused in the Prop 8 effort, need such high salaries, to do what we did with so little, and we DID succeed. Have these leaders known about Harvey Milk, or seen the movie?
I would like to know where the income of these groups comes from. I suspect lots of it is tax-payer money-I’m sure the gay center in L. A. was donated by the government and much of their income comes from the city/county/state. So we are entitled to know where the money goes. I wonder how easy it is for someone to get help from these gay centers in L. A., New York, Chicago, San Francisco. I sure can remember sitting with the only person at the L. A. gay center, on weekends when it was really doing a good job, on Highland, and few people had an income from the work.
And I suspect many people have good memories from the first days of the L. A. center, at that old Victorian house on Wilshire Blvd., when Morris et al. did something, and inspired so many at a time when it was a rare thing, not something seen daily on many TV shows, and written up often in the newspapers, etc. Do young people today who have contact with gay centers come away with a good feeling?
After all, there are now organizations specifically for help them-GLSEN, The Point Foundation, etc. And there are legal (lgbt) groups to help them, Lambda legal, NCLR, GLAD, and for military issues SLDN, etc. So what does the Human Rights Campaign do? What does The Task Force do? The name doesn't tell us who it serves.
And who knows what the professional glbt groups do. Do we know what the gay/lesbian journalists do? The gay physicians? And do we hear anything from the groups for sociology, psychology, anthropology, history, politics???
I have no doubt that if the pioneers had had the money and media support the current leaders have they could have done even greater things. I can tell you that it sure is cheaper to reach people on the internet than it was to type and mail letters, and to pay telephone bills. Of course we didn’t have to have expensive offices-sort of like those bankrupt bankers do.
I know these groups will not get any financial support from me-but they do from taxpayers. And like the call to eliminate the tax-exemptions for religious organizations that indirectly get taxpayers’ money, that may come for such groups as HRC, the centers, etc.
But like a lot of things that people seem to think were better in the old days—we did the work with no income and in fact donated not only our time and energy but our money, and it was our desire to change things that gave us the motivation.
I suggest that income for these leaders be ended and let’s see how many of them are still willing to give some of their spare time—as they earn a living elsewhere as some of us did—to the cause. Then they will deserve credit and respect. Now they don’t need that—they get lots of money as the motive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
