Canadian filmmaker Stephen Dunn’s tale of a young gay man’s coming of age story is one of the most imaginative and insightful movies in that genre we have seen in quite a while. Set in his native Newfoundland it’s the story of Oscar (Jack Fulton) who at the start is a relatively happy 8 year old whose seemingly idyllic life is suddenly brutally interrupted when his parents announce they are going to get a divorce. His mother (Joanne Kelly) is moving out which makes the situation even worse for Oscar who is then fobbed off with a gift of a hamster intended as some sort of consolation.
He names his new pet Buffy and he soon discovers that as she is in fact his ‘spirit angel’ and can actually talk, and over the next 10 years becomes the Oscar best friend and confidante.
One day after school he witnesses three older boys hitting the living daylights out of a fourth. He follows them as they drag the screaming boy into the cemetery where they are bent on doing even more harm to him, and Oscar grabs a wooden stake intent on help defend the boy when his assailants rush off and leave him half dead. When the viscous attack makes the TV evening news, his father (Aaron Abrams) tells him that the reason they had beaten the boy up was because he was gay. These are words that will stick in Oscar’s memory for years as he eventually tries to come to terms with his own sexuality.
Fast forward 10 years and Oscar (Connor Jessup) has developed into a creative and talented artist who has applied for a place at a school in New York to study cinematic make-up which he has been practicing on his patient best friend Gemma (Sofia Banzhaf) for years. His mother has remarried and now he has two siblings but he doesn’t feel that he that welcome in their family unit, so he has an uneasy truce with his controlling father who still will not even give him a front door key and who insists on giving him a rude to work everyday. Oscar has a job at a large DIY store for which he shows no talent for at all. His patient boss tells him that all he has to do whenever he sees a customer holding a product just say ‘that’s a nice one’ as she is convinced that suits most situations.
What may suit Oscar however is Wilder (Aliocha Schneider) who is one of his co-workers about his own age and who is not particularly nice but is very hot looking and Oscar can hardly stop starring at him. There is obviously some sort of connection between the two young men but Oscar is too unsure about his own sexuality and feelings to ever want to try and find out more.
That is however until the day that they both get laid-off from the Store and Wilder announces that as he is leaving to go to Berlin for a few months the next day, his roommates are throwing a farewell/Friday the 13th party for him. Deciding to accept his invitation, Oscar is tries to pick out a costume from his closet which still contains all his mothers old clothes as his father had stubbornly refused to hand over to her. He is caught in trying on her clothes by his slightly drunk father who suspecting Oscar may be gay, starts a fight which ends badly when Oscar pushes him over into the closet.
Partying too hard, Oscar is in no fit state to go home, so he and Wilder end up in his childhood tree house that he still escapes too especially when his father has one of his temper rages. Together in bed and half naked the conversation soon turns to sex with Wilder urging Oscar to just accept who he really is.
Asides from the main thrust of the story of this very likable young man trying to get beyond his dysfunctional parents as he matures, Dunn insists on putting some unexpected plot twists that not only serve to keep us on edge until the very end, but helps make Oscar’s journey of self-discovery such a compelling one. Well acted, particularly by Jessup as the young lead, and especially by the hamster too, who was played by none other than Isabella Rossellini, who actually gets the last line and the last laugh in this rather delightful movie.
“Closet Monster” will be shown at Frameline 40 Monday, June 20 at 9:15 p.m. at the Castro Theater in San Francisco
Days after a gunman killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Florida, the judge in a hate-crime murder case in New York invoked the massacre as he sentenced a man to 40 years to life in prison on Tuesday.
The man, Elliot Morales, was convicted in March of murder as a hate crime for killing Mark Carson, 32, a gay black man, in the West Village in Manhattan three years ago, after spewing homophobic invectives at Mr. Carson and his companion.
“I can’t help but perceive or observe the parallel tragedy in Orlando,” the judge, A. Kirke Bartley Jr., said as he imposed the sentence in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. “That parallel is revealed in hatred, self-loathing, fear and death.”
Mr. Morales, 36, was convicted after a two-week trial during which he represented himself, assuming the dual roles of defendant and defense lawyer. Addressing Mr. Morales, Justice Bartley said that the defendant’s ability to appear in the courtroom “calm, intelligent, well-prepared, well-behaved” could not deter from the fact that he was “something worthy of a character in a Stephen King novel, in short, a monster.”
“Mr. Morales, yours is a legacy of death and fear, nothing more, nothing less,” the judge said.
Mr. Morales, looking at an audience of Mr. Carson’s friends and family in the courtroom, insisted that the killing was neither bias-motivated nor purposeful.
“I’m really, really, really, truly sorry for what happened,” he said. “What happened is a tragic accident. In no part was it based on my bias toward anyone’s sexual relationship.”
Then, turning toward the judge, he added, “It is beyond my comprehension how someone like myself who happens to be bisexual and part of the L.G.B.T. community can be falsely accused and then convicted of a hate crime.”
Jurors deliberated for two days before rejecting Mr. Morales’s contention that his intimate relationships with transgender women proved he was not homophobic and that he did not kill Mr. Carson out of hatred toward gay people.
Photo
Mr. Carson’s aunts Florine Bumpars, left, and Deborah Bumpars spoke to reporters after the sentencing. “He got what he deserves,” Florine Bumpars said.Credit Bryan R. Smith for The New York Times
Instead, the jurors saw the pattern of Mr. Morales’s behavior that evening as underscoring such prejudice.
Before his fatal encounter with Mr. Carson, Mr. Morales stormed the Annisa restaurant on Barrow Street shouting antigay slurs and brandishing a weapon, after an employee there upbraided him for urinating on the sidewalk.
Mr. Morales left enraged and soon spotted Mr. Carson and Danny Robinson, two friends from Brooklyn, strolling amiably on a warm summer night dressed in shorts and tank tops. Mr. Morales taunted the men, calling them “gay wrestlers” and “faggots.” The friends challenged Mr. Morales’s mocking tone, and the confrontation continued as they moved into the shadow of a closed bookstore. There, Mr. Morales pulled out a silver revolver and shot Mr. Carson in the face while Mr. Robinson tried to call the police.
Mr. Morales said he acted in self-defense, afraid that the phone Mr. Robinson had retrieved was a weapon. But the prosecution thwarted that notion, insisting that Mr. Morales had acted out of “bigotry” and “unjustifiable rage,” not fear for his safety.
After Mr. Morales fled the scene of the murder and was apprehended by the police, he told the officers that he shot Mr. Carson “because he tried to act tough.”
The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., lauded the stiff sentence. “Any life lost to gun violence is a tragedy for our city,” Mr. Vance said in a statement. “But homophobic, hate-fueled incidents like this one are particularly unconscionable. As we mourn the lives lost in Orlando, we remain committed to doing everything we can to combat and prevent crimes against L.G.B.T. New Yorkers.”
Shannon Lucey, the lead prosecutor, described Mr. Morales in court as having “a lot of self-loathing issues.” She noted that while he had sexual relationships with transgender people, he never appeared with them in public. Seeing Mr. Robinson and Mr. Carter together, Ms. Lucey argued, may have triggered Mr. Morales’s discomfort with his own sexuality.
After the verdict was rendered in March, one juror said that Mr. Morales’s actions that night showed that “he was kind of categorizing people,” in a manner that exposed his bias toward gay people and that culminated in the shooting of Mr. Carson.
Outside the courtroom on Tuesday, Florine Bumpars, an aunt of Mr. Carson, spoke through tears as she castigated Mr. Morales.
“He got what he deserves,” Ms. Bumpars, 47, said. “If he was sorry he would’ve never did it.”
A federal judge in California ruled on Thursday that state prisons must allow transgender inmates greater access to commissary items that are consistent with their gender identity. The ruling stems from a settlement reached in August 2015 that mandates the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) to pay for a transgender inmate’s sex reassignment surgery.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas said the proposed policy of allowing access to female-oriented items does not go far enough, and that transgender inmates in men’s prisons should have many of the same items provided to inmates in female facilities.
According to CBS Los Angeles, Vadas said the CDCR should give transgender inmates access to items such as nightgowns, chain and necklaces, robes, sandals, scarves, T-shirts and walking shoes. He also ruled that these inmates should have supervised access to pumice stones, emery boards and curling irons. However, Vadas listed bracelets, earrings, brushes and hair clips as items that pose significant safety and security risks and should not be given to inmates.
The case was first brought forward by 56-year-old Shiloh Quine, a transgender woman currently being held at Mule Creek State Prison, a men’s prison southeast of Sacramento. Represented by the Transgender Law Center in Oakland, CA, her case was first brought forward after she was denied sex reassignment surgery in addition to clothing and other items that were only available to inmates in women’s prisons due to California state prison policy.
Quine’s attorneys argued that these actions and policies are discriminatory and violate constitutional guarantees, including the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment outlined in the Eighth Amendment. Quine and her attorneys argued the state’s policy on the restricted access to commissary items have a foundation in gender norms rather than security concerns.
The complaint for access to the commissary items requested was part of Quine’s request that the CDCR provide her with sex reassignment surgery as a medically necessary treatment for her gender dysphoria. After Quine’s surgery, now set for December, she will be placed in a CDCR facility for female inmates, and will have access to the items designated for female inmates.
Ilona Turner, legal director at the Transgender Law Center, said in a statement that transgender women should not be denied items that other women in CDCR facilities can access. “We are pleased that the court recognizes the importance of having access to clothing and personal items that reflect a person’s gender, and that denying items because someone is transgender is discrimination,” she said.
Kent Scheidegger said the ruling was ridiculous. He serves as the legal director at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law organization that advocates for the “swift and certain punishment” of criminals on behalf of their victims rights of crime victims, in addition to promoting use of the death penalty.
He further said this increased access to feminine products may exacerbate the problem of sexual assault in men’s prisons, a prevalent issue in the state’s facilities. According to a study conducted by the University of California Irvine on transgender inmates, 59 percent of the transgender population in the California prison system have experienced sexual assault. These statistics suggest that the problem exists independent from transgender woman having greater access to items consistent with their gender identity.
The outcome of Quine’s case follows similar instances in the past year of transgender inmate’s fighting for their right to receive sex reassignment surgery and receive greater support from the prison system. Back in April 2015, a federal judge ruled that transgender inmate Michelle-Lael Norsworthy receive sex reassignment surgery as a medical necessity. In the same month, the Justice Department condemned prisons who do not provide adequate support for their transgender inmates, in a case brought forth by 17-year-old Ashley Diamond.
The United States federal government has recognized as legally valid the April 1975 same-sex marriage of Richard Adams and Anthony Sullivan, approving the “green card” petition that Adams filed in 1975 for his husband, an Australian citizen. After Adams died in December 2012, Sullivan sought to have the Immigration Service recognize their marriage and grant a green card to him as the widower of a U.S. citizen.
The green card, granting Anthony permanent resident status in the United States, was issued on the 41st anniversary of his Boulder, Colorado marriage to Richard — a same-sex marriage that remained in the record and which was never invalidated by Colorado officials.
The green card was recently delivered to the Hollywood apartment Richard and Anthony shared for nearly four decades.
The green card was issued on the 41st Anniversary of Australian national Anthony Sullivan’ marriage to his American husband Richard Adams.
Immigration authorities, in 1975, famously refused the couple’s “green card” petition, saying they had “failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots.”
A ten year legal battle followed, as Richard and Anthony brought a lawsuit against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now called United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) in federal court, becoming the first gay couple to sue the U.S. government for recognition of a same-sex marriage.
When the final ruling came from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1985 they were forced to leave the country.
Together, they endured expulsion from the United States, bounced from country to country and would go on to suffer decades of indignities; upon return to the U.S. in 1986 they were forced to keep a very low profile, living in fear that Anthony would be deported. It was a fear finally eased a year before Richard’s death in 2012 when the Obama administration issued a memo to protect low-risk family members of U.S. citizens from deportation, including same-sex partners of American citizens.
As newlyweds, Richard and Anthony could never have imagined that 41 years later the White House would ask the Director of USCIS to issue a direct, written apology to them. Nor could they have imagined that, in 2016, the very same downtown Los Angeles Immigration office that denied Richard’s green card petition for Anthony with such offensive language would, at long last, recognize their marriage and take the position that Anthony should be treated the same as all other surviving spouses under U.S. immigration law, with the dignity and respect he deserves in accordance with recent Supreme Court rulings.
Lavi Soloway, their Los Angeles-based attorney, says the federal government’s recognition of their 1975 marriage is groundbreaking because it affirms that the constitutional protection of fundamental personal liberties, including the right to marry, extends to a marriage entered into by a same sex couple that took place decades ago.
“The unique and historic nature of this case cannot be understated. The U.S. government not only apologized directly to Anthony Sullivan, but, for the first time since the Supreme Court established the right of same-sex couples to marry as a protected, fundamental liberty—the Immigration Service has shown its willingness to correctly apply recent Court rulings and to recognize as valid this same-sex marriage that took place in 1975. Undaunted by setbacks in the 1970s and 1980s Richard and Anthony never wavered in their belief that their marriage was valid and should be treated with dignity and respect. Eventually the Supreme Court and the Immigration Service caught up with them,” said Soloway.
“This outcome is an example of the potentially far reaching ripple effects of the Court’s ruling in Obergefell,” Soloway added.
“In 2014 we asked USCIS to take the steps necessary to reopen Adams’ 1975 petition in light of the Supreme Court ruling striking down the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” and subsequent victories by gay couples in marriage equality cases.” The last ruling on their petition had been issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals in 1978,” explained Soloway.
Anthony Sullivan and attorney Lavi Soloway exiting USCIS in Los Angeles in 2014.
“After the Supreme Court ruling on Marriage Equality, USCIS acted on our request to apply, constitutionally valid principles to the 1975 green card petition. As a result, in 2015 the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered the petition be reopened and the original denial reconsidered,” he said.
In January 2016, Adams’ original petition was approved and, because he was deceased, it was converted by USCIS into a widower’s petition, allowing Anthony to move forward with his green card application.
Anthony Sullivan (left) and Richard Adams married in Boulder, Colorado on April 21, 1975.
A LOVE STORY Theirs is a monumental love story that began in “The Closet” only to make history and has come to embody the entire narrative arc of the modern gay rights struggle and the fight for marriage equality.
They met in 1971 at “The Closet,” a Los Angeles gay bar, at a time when LGBT people were referred to as ‘homosexuals,’ or ‘faggots,’ were denied travel visas, classified as mentally ill, barred from many professions — a time when most of us were rejected by our families, could be imprisoned for having sex, were routinely evicted from our homes, easily fired from our jobs, and few authorities cared if we were beaten in the streets or even killed.
It was a time when our very right to existence was challenged at a near cellular level, even before AIDS.
Falling in love was one thing but finding a way to stay together was an entirely separate matter: Anthony was in the United States on a 90 day tourist visa. But they decided would pursue all legal avenues to stay together.
In the early 1970s, since Anthony was unable to obtain a long-term visa, they made risky border crossings to Mexico every 90 days to renew his tourist visa.
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 was the law of the land, declaring homosexuals ‘excludable at entry,’ along with ‘perverts’ and ‘psychopathic personalities.’
“We had a cloud over us,” Richard said in a documentary about their lives called “Limited Partnership,” which was broadcast on PBS in 2015. “Anthony didn’t want to get closer (in case a separation would occur). So, we had to start thinking of a way to stay together. There’s no way two men could stay together,” he said.
If Richard and Anthony had been a heterosexual couple they would have been able to fill out some forms, attach a marriage certificate and eventually go through an interview process that would result in the foreign spouse receiving a Green Card.
Soloway, says “When Anthony and Richard met in the early 1970s, as citizens of two different countries, there was no country in the world that provided for immigration for same-sex couples. There was no country in the world that was even discussing it. They had no country to go to.”
“We eventually realized,” Anthony told The Pride LA, “that the only thing that was stopping us from being able to remain together was the fact that we were two men and couldn’t get married.”
“And then…out of the blue, out of nowhere, we saw the most incredible news,” he said, referring to a Boulder, Colorado County Clerk, who created a huge controversy four decades ago when she issued the nation’s first marriage licenses to gay couples.
That was 1975. It is a seminal event in LGBT history that has been largely forgotten, only six years after the Stonewall riots in New York’s Greenwich Village.
“At the time I didn’t even know any gay couples,” said the clerk, Clela Rorex. “I was being faced with a very profound moral issue: ‘would I discriminate against two people of the same sex when I had been so involved in fighting discrimination against women,” she said.
She sought legal counsel from Boulder’s district attorney who determined there was “nothing in the Colorado marriage code that would prohibit” her from issuing marriage licenses to two people of the same sex.
Rorex began issuing licenses to same-sex couples. In a 1975 article in The New York Times Rorex suggested that marriage inequality could be “resolved by eliminating the gender words. Her reasoning, she said, was “Who’s it going to hurt?”
By week’s end, her defiance was top of the fold news.
Richard and Anthony were elated: “They’ve allowed these marriage to go on for a month. Johnny Carson has talked about them, so the government can’t claim ignorance. Therefore, these must be valid!”
They flew with friends and their Metropolitan Community Church minister to Boulder to get married. “We got the license in the morning and immediately got married.” Anthony says proudly.
The marriage, now recognized as valid for federal purposes, was certified in 1975.
“The press picked up on it and it was really quite chaotic,” Richard said. “We were conscious that if we weren’t careful it would become a three ring circus, which we didn’t want.” But it did and the impact of that publicity was was devastating.
“All of a sudden everyone looked at me differently,” Richard said. He was harassed and ultimately terminated from his job of ten years and his relationship with some members his large Filipino family soured.
Anthony’s mother wrote “a missive” from Australia, telling him she “could endure no more. Perversion is bad enough…but public display never,” she wrote, signing the letter “It is finished.” She never contacted him again and disinherited him.
One of the first things the couple did after they married was to return home to Los Angeles was to apply for spousal green card.
Weeks later an official response came from the United States Depart of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Services office in downtown Los Angeles: “You have failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots.”
Richard and Tony were photographed by Pat Rocco in fall 1975.
But in case that wasn’t clear enough the Justice Department sent a second letter: “neither party can perform the female functions in the marriage.”
Anthony was certain he would be forced to leave the country.
Word of the “faggot” letter quickly spread throughout what was already a well-organized gay community in Los Angeles. MCC’s Reverend Troy Perry and 500 people protested at the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles. “Justice! Justice! Justice!,” chanted the placard wielding protesters.
Anthony told The New York Times that his marriage to Richard was a test of the immigration laws that permit a foreign spouse to remain in this country: “we wanted to have the full benefits of other married couples — income tax returns, inheritance, wills and so on.”
But “rogue” activism was frowned upon by many of the emerging legal and advocacy organizations who felt the case was of little strategic value. “Some of our so called movers and shakers told us they weren’t interested in the case because we were a losing battle; the “faggot letter” had gotten too much attention,” Anthony says.
“Talk about a bunch of hens in a snit!” Anthony says of being confronted by one “leader” at a fundraising dinner. “He grabbed a white linen napkin off the table and, crunching it in his hands, and said ‘We will make you understand who is in control of this movement!’”
The couple was determined to pursue a legal course of action and hired a private attorney, David Brown, a Los Angeles constitutional lawyer. Brown told the media that gay couples had existed since the dawn of time and that equal rights should be afforded them.
LGBT equality was barely on the radar in the mid and late 1970s: The Supreme Court ruled that homosexual acts were illegal, Anita Bryant was leading a national crusade against gay rights laws in Florida and elsewhere, California was embroiled in a contentious debate about whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to teach in public schools and Harvey Milk was assassinated in San Francisco. Demanding the right to marry seemed, well, ridiculous.
The couple persevered, filing suit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The case, Adams v. Howerton, sought to force the immigration service to recognize their Colorado marriage so that Anthony would be allowed to remain in the United States permanently as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. Their argument — that to discriminate against them because they were two men was a violation of their constitutional rights — is familiar and obvious today, but at the time it was unheard of,” said their attorney, Lavi Soloway.
Their argument was quickly shot down by the U.S. District Court Judge who ruled in the case relying on a now debunked justification for anti-gay discrimination: “marriage was intended to unite a man and a woman for the purpose of propagating the species.”
The case was appealed and in 1982 the Supreme Court had the last word on the case, refusing to hear it.
The only option left to the couple was to pursue another immigration hearing to make an appeal. In 1984 they requested that Anthony be permitted to stay in the United States because deportation would cause Richard “hardship” as his spouse. The request was denied when the Judge in the case disagreed that Anthony’s deportation would cause “hardship greater than that which would be faced by anyone being deported.”
They appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Anthony, recalling that hearing, says the “The quality of argument by our opposition was not good. The INS lawyer got the countries mixed up, our names mixed up and finally, in desperation, she said ‘well, he can go back to Australia and have another one of those… relationships.”
In what is surely the most striking alignment of the stars in their story, it was future United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, then an Associate Judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled against Richard and Anthony, setting Anthony’s deportation in motion. Kennedy wrote that he found “no extreme hardship to Sullivan because he is not ‘a qualifying relative’ to Adams.
It is poetic that the man who ordered such a callous action against a same-sex couple would, thirty years later, write perhaps one of the most beautiful — and certainly most consequential — gay rights decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In 2015, writing for the majority in [the case known as] Obergefell vs. Hodges, Anthony Kennedy said same-sex marriages were protected by the United State Constitution. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” he wrote.
In 1985, facing deportation, Richard and Anthony had exhausted their appeals. There was no court left except the court of public opinion. So they turned to popular talk shows of the time. On The Today Show, an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman called Anthony out: “Do you intend to leave our country on the 23rd of November?”
Richard replied for Anthony, “We are both leaving; we are not going to be separated.”
They became men without a country, forced to leave their friends and all their worldly possessions behind and headed to the airport.
As they arrived at LAX, they faced what Anthony called “a media circus” as they boarded a flight to London. Dozens of friends and family gathered to say goodbye. “It felt like death,” said Richard.
“We floated around the continent for many months,” said Anthony, until one day they both realized, “We need to be back home in Los Angeles.”
They decided to risk everything. Already experienced with crossing the Mexican border, they decided to fly to Mexico and re-enter the United States by car. “I was shit scared,” said Anthony. The American border guard simply waived them through.
Once home, Richard and Anthony had no options except to hide out and attempt to make a life on the margins of society.
The AIDS crisis began to hit close, devastating their family of friends and intensifying their sense of isolation. “The late 80s and early 90s was a horrible period for all of us,” said Anthony.
But then a small window of hope began to open, and, in forward and backward steps, gay rights began to advance. ACT UP broke the scientific and government wall of silence around AIDS. The Bush administration presided over reform passed by Congress in 1990 that removed the restriction on LGBT people entering the U.S., though HIV+ people were barred from entry. Then in 1992, the Democratic candidate for President made a major play for the gay vote and defeated the incumbent A protracted national debate ensued about gays in the military resulting in the uneasy compromise known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” which arguably, for the first time, officially allowed lesbian and gay servicemembers to remain in the armed forces. Protease Inhibitors slowly began to transform AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic, manageable illness. A case brought in Hawaii began a national conversation about gay marriage rights, catapulting the obscure subject into the spotlight as a political wedge issue and the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act by Congress.
The isolation and hiding required to stay together took a toll on both of them. Richard, in the documentary Limited Partnership said, “It’s 2002 and we are more in the closet on one level now than when we first met.”
By the mid-2000s the debate over gay marriage engulfed the nation and the marriage equality movement emerged. Vermont offered legalized civil unions, following the example of cities like San Francisco and New York which created domestic partnership registration in 1989 and 1993, respectively. But losses followed in court — New York, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Indiana.
By 2004, a coordinated campaign to boost evangelical turnout for George W. Bush’s reelection saw 11 states pass constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. More states followed in 2006 and by 2012, gay-marriage bans had been put before voters in 30 states and won every everywhere. For every step forward for gay marriage, there seemed to be many more steps back.
Those halting steps emboldened Richard and Anthony as they became more righteous about their story, even though Anthony still faced immigration action. “Richard and I have never budged on the concept that the Boulder marriage was legitimate — it’s still on the books,” Anthony told the Washington Post.
In early December 2012, as Richard was dying of cancer, Soloway met with his clients and urged them to consider remarrying in nearby Washington state. They reluctantly agreed, thinking of it as a renewal of their vows rather than a new wedding. But Richard passed away the next day.
Sullivan’s despair was absolute but he was resolute that his relationship with Richard be honored with the dignity and grace civilized societies offer widowers. “I wrote to President Obama,” he said.
“I requested, basically for Richard, an apology for the faggot letter, because I felt that as an American citizen, he didn’t deserve to have that on his record,” Sullivan said. “Because he loved his country.”
León Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote on behalf of the President: “This agency should never treat any individual with the disrespect shown toward you and Mr. Adams,” Rodriguez wrote. “You have my sincerest apology for the years of hurt caused by the deeply offensive and hateful language used in the November 24, 1975, decision and my deepest condolences on your loss.”
With federal recognition of their marriage and green card in hand, Sullivan is filled with wonder about the full circle of his life. “The same office that said we had failed to establish that a relationship can exist between two faggots now says yes. And on the day of our anniversary!”
Thumbing through a now historic folder of documents, Anthony looked at his hands and then gazed directly ahead, with a tear rolling down his cheek, and said “I desperately wish Richard was here with me for this.”
Of all same-sex married couples, Richard Adams and Anthony Sullivan now take their place in history as having the first legally recognized marriage in the world.
Today, the Walt Disney Company is announcing a $1 million cash commitment to the OneOrlando Fund, established by Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer to assist those affected by the tragic events in Orlando. Also, eligible donations from Disney employees will be matched dollar for dollar by Disney Employee Matching Gifts: A Program of The Walt Disney Company Foundation.
“We are heartbroken by this tragedy and hope our commitment will help those in the community affected by this senseless act,” said Bob Chapek, chairman, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. “With 74,000 Cast Members who call Orlando home, we mourn the loss of the victims and offer our condolences to their families, friends and loved ones.”
OneOrlando Fund will provide funds and other services to individuals affected by the tragedy. The website for the new fund is www.oneorlando.org.
Walt Disney World Resort has also been working in coordination with other Central Florida agencies and leaders to provide support to those in need. In coordination with OneBlood, cast members and other employees working at Walt Disney World Resort wishing to donate blood to help victims may donate at five designated locations across the resort property.
Through an effort led by the City of Orlando and the Central Florida Hotel & Lodging Association, Walt Disney World Resort is also providing complimentary accommodations for the families and friends of the victims.
Our hearts are with everyone impacted by this horrific event.
After Saar Maoz an utterly charming 40 year old man served as a paratrooper in the Israeli Army, he was kicked out of the Kibbutz where he had been living with his large extended family for being gay, so he moved to London to begin again and look for the love of his life. Now 18 years later, his ‘forever’ boyfriend left after three years and the very untamed man that took his place lead Saar down a wild and indulgent path which resulted him being diagnosed HIV+. With his conservative religious family back in Israel struggling with their very judgmental opinions on what they consider are the consequences of his ‘life style choices,’ Saar finds a replacement for them in the shape of the London Gay Mens Chorus where the other members give him the unconditional love and fellowship that he so desperately needs and wants.
This new heart-tugging documentary from the Israeli filmmaker Heymann brothers follows Saar for about a year as he seeks to see if can, or even wants to, effect any meaningful reconciliation with his family back home. We see him sitting in his small North London apartment trying to hold back his tears as he reads an old letter from his very macho military father that is full of anger and denial about Saar’s sexuality that was the start of him wanting to disengage from the family. Yet later when his mother comes to London on her own to visit Saar who is her eldest (of seven) child. her love for him is muddied by the fact that the Torah tells her that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished by death. Also she is worried that as Saar’s life expectancy may be limited, they should all be spending it together.
When Saar then goes back to the Kibbutz for a nephew’s Bar Mitzvah, his family who have albeit ostracized him, now openly express their very hostile opinions on both Saar’s sexuality and his diagnosis. It is mainly based on sheer ignorance but also on a their basic desire not t0 want to even try to understand Saar’s point of view or any real facts. To his credit Saar reacts calmly and tells them that their claim about him ‘abandoning’ his family, and they in turn have chosen to all but ignore him too beyond the occasional phone call. The filmmakers linger on these scenes so that we get the full sense of the arguments, and so that they very carefully ensure that they are seen as being totally bipartisan.
As the story unfolds we see that asides from one rather impossible brother, that everyone moves to more of a central position, and when the Saar’s father visits London, there is a very definite warming between the two men as they try and understand each other more.
As Saar realizes that his pull to both his family and his homeland is far stronger than he had ever realized, he knows that making choices about the next stage in his life may mean leaving the other family who have always accepted him un-conditionally ….the London Gay Mens Chorus.
How the filmmaker ever persuaded the very unpretentious Saar Moaz and his very reticent and conservative family to even agree to make this documentary is a source of amazement, but we should be so very pleased that they did. This excellent film is so compelling and completely engaging that it deservedly picked up the Panorama Audience Award at the Berlinale earlier this year. Plus by the time the final credits role, the title becomes rhetorical as there is no doubt that besides his family, there will be plenty of offers of love for Mr Moaz.
Literally just a stone’s throw from the corridors of power in our nation’s capital, lies a whole area of Washington that is completely alien territory to most Americans. Seeing it portrayed in this startling powerful new documentary, you find that you have to pinch yourself to remember what is being played out here is not some fictional dramatized TV program, but very real life. This area is home to hundreds of african/american and latino gay and transgender youth who have to survive in a culture which has one of the highest rates of anti-gay violence in the whole country, but who have now collectively decided that enough is enough, and it is time to fight back.
Ten years ago, a group of middle-schoolers started ‘Check It’ to provide its members safety in numbers and let people know that if you jumped a gay kid in DC now, you’d likely get jumped back in retaliation. The original 10 members have grown to over 200 tough, rough kids who put up this angry aggressive front with everyone outside of the tight clique that they encounter. They are mouthy and sassy and although most of them are extremely effeminate and outrageously flamboyant, they are far from being sissies for as well as their wickedly sharp tempers, they are also packing knives and brass knuckles. They walk around wearing lipstick and dresses daring anyone to say something to them which is pretty brave …… and very crazy too.
They fund their activities with petty crimes and car jacking, but a great many of them end up hustling as rent boys (and girls) for cash on a notorious stretch on K Street, which means they have to grow up faster than most to become street-wise to survive. One of the more scarier facts that the documentary reveals is in scene when they all rather matter-of-fact recount the number of times they have been attacked, beaten up and even shot-at. There is one sobering incident when one of them phones a rape-help support line, but gets refused help when she reveals the attacker was a prostitution client.
The movie avoids having any real narrative for the first part of the film as it starts to explore the lives of Trey, Day Day, Alton, Star, Skittles and a handful of others. However the second half focuses more on how a couple of extraordinary adults are committed to trying to make a difference to these kids lives that the authorities have, for the most part, given up on. The main one is Jarmal Harris, who also grew up in the Projects, and now runs a summer fashion camp to offer some of the kids an opportunity to prepare for actually getting a job in a field that they love. Even he has trouble making them lose their loud angry attitudes and to stop fighting him every inch of the way, as he is one of the very few chances that they may have of real hope and even happiness.
At this juncture in the movie although the filmmakers and kids have left you reeling in both shock and despair, you end up desperately hoping that this lifeline will be enough to really make a difference. The police call ‘Check It’ a gang, but you cannot help siding with its members who think of it as their family, particular by the very many whose parents had both addictions and issues so that they literally grew up on their own.
Dana Flor and Toby Oppenheimer the filmmakers filmed this over three years, and went back a year later for an epilogue for these kids story. So far thanks to Ron “Mo” Moten the founder of Peaceoholics Inc, it is a good one that is making a difference for a few , which is a start, but they still have a long way to go to give these LGBT kids hope for a better future.
This excellent thought-provoking movie paints a picture of such stark reality that is tough for most of us to even comprehend. More importantly it is yet another wake-up call that it is far to early for anyone to get complacent about LGBT rights simply because we had major victories like SCOTUS making same-sex marriage legal. The kids in ‘Check It’ need so much more than that just to simply survive.
This morning, Dr. Delores A. Jacobs, chief executive officer of The San Diego LGBT Community Center, responded to the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida.
The investigation in Orlando is still underway, and additional facts will become known in the coming hours and days. At this time, it appears an action of terrorism and hate — carried out in part with an assault weapon — has taken the lives of at least 50 people and injured 53 more in a shooting at Pulse, a popular Orlando LGBT nightclub.
In addition, earlier today law enforcement authorities in Santa Monica, CA found weapons, ammunition and possible explosives in the vehicle of a man who said he was in town for the L.A. Pride festival in West Hollywood. It remains unclear at this time whether or not these events are connected.
The statement below is from Dr. Jacobs.
“We are simply devastated at the news of this horrific loss of life in Orlando. Unfortunately, our LGBT community is far too familiar with violence. This shooting – during LGBT Pride month – is now the deadliest mass shooting in United States history.
“Our hearts, thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their friends and families. This weekend, and over the coming days, our community around the country will hold vigils and other commemorations of support, solidary and strength.”
In light of this tragic event, the San Diego LGBT community and its allies will gather together at The Center, 3909 Centre St., on Monday, June 13 for the San Diego United: #OrlandoStrong rally.
The doors to The Center will open at 6:30pm, with a short program, followed by a candlelit vigil stopping at the Hillcrest Pride Flag and ending at Rich’s nightclub. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to join us to stand together and unite in support of all those affected by this tragedy. For more information, call (619) 692-2077.
The Center offers counseling services through its Behavioral Health Services program. To speak with an on-duty counselor or request an appointment, email onduty@thecentersd.org or call (619) 692-2077, ext. 208on Monday.
As with the recent interest in Samuel Steward, the Midwestern sex chronicler and tattoo artist, gay scholarship has begun to recover the legacy of gay men from the pre-Stonewall generation, who were part of a thriving homosexual underground. These were the sexual outlaws and renegades who found their homosexuality as an alternative to the conformity of heterosexual America, which Boyd McDonald characterized as a “sexual dictatorship”
McDonald was one of the literate stars of this underground. Known for his homoerotic series of chapbooks, Straight to Hell, beginning in 1973, he published the true stories of men who had sex with other men. McDonald’s focus was on sexual accounts from all walks of life. Inspired by Gore Vidal’s 1968 satirical novel, Myra Breckinridge which was denounced as obscene by conservatives, McDonald embarked on a radically, offensive publication, one that avoided the sexless influence of middle class gay mores that sought to whitewash the homosexual experience in order to present a more palatable image of assimilated gays to the general society. This political strategy was successful in achieving gay marriage and more tolerance, but, in the opinion of McDonald, came at a cost.
Straight to Hell was in fact the first queer zine. Utilizing erotic photos, interviews and news, McDonald saw it as a “newsletter for us,” the small group of deviates who were its earliest subscribers. Its relevance has reached far beyond McDonald’s death, as in 2006 it was the subject of a court case where it was deemed pornography in an opinion written by Sonia Sotomayor.
McDonald, himself, like Samuel Steward, was a product of the elite university system. McDonald, a Midwesterner by birth, graduated in 1949, after service in World War II, from Harvard University, which he entered on the GI Bill. Classmates included John Ashbery and Frank O’Hara. Ashbery remembered McDonald as “rather colorless in appearance and personality, with absolutely no hint of the sex guru he was to become.” When asked by an interviewer whether Boyd had much sex at Harvard, McDonald answered, “No, I didn’t want any. I was completely occupied by my books and papers. “
McDonald’s concentration at Harvard was American History and Literature. After graduating he worked by his own admission as a “hack writer” for Time magazine. This was followed by IBM’s Think magazine in 1957 where he was an editorial associate. Boyd’s phase of life in corporate America was described by a friend as “one long bender.” A severe alcoholic for most of his early years, he sobered up in 1968 after drying out at Central Islip Psychiatric Hospital. Having lost his apartment and his livelihood, he applied for welfare and found a place to live in an SRO (single room occupancy) hotel in New York City. Eventually he moved to Riverside Studios on West 71st in Manhattan, where he would spend the rest of his life in a tiny single room, sleeping on a cot.
Suffering from mental illness including depression and agoraphobia, he gradually withdrew from society although continuing to correspond with others and carry on phone chats. A cultural outsider, McDonald chose poverty over bourgeois and bohemian pretensions. Boyd “flipped a finger at everything that was false and turned it into a biting joke.” “Downwardly mobile,” Boyd appreciated working-class men, reveled in sexual filth and defied the norms. In Straight to Hell he wrote essays “that expressed a range of class antagonisms and resentments normally repressed in mainstream American culture.” But his life of defiance took its toll. Always a chain-smoker and drawn to a subsistence on doughnuts and coffee, McDonald’s health steadily declined until his death in 1993.
An avid reviewer of old movies, Boyd wrote a book, Cruising the Movies: A Sexual Guide to “Oldies” on TV in 1985. His fascination with female stars such as Barbara Stanwyck paralleled the star worship of gay men of his generation who saw in female film dialogue, the tough talk and transports of emotion, a way of venting their own sexual frustrations.
For the most part William E. Jones has written an informative and original book. He does digress toward the end of the book towards research into historical precedents for Boyd’s work. This was perhaps the weakest section, making rather unconvincing case parallels with Robert Burton’s The Anatomy of Melancholy and the Menippean satires of the 3rd Century BCE.
All and all though it is scholarship such as this, which is doing the necessary and vital work of revising the gay history of late twentieth century America. Boyd McDonald, the curmudgeon, the “Ivy League Fuck-Up,” the sexual provocateur and satirist, is resurrected in all of his controversial ways to his place as a key figure in the American underground.
– See more at: http://www.lambdaliterary.org/reviews/memoir/04/27/true-homosexual-experiences-boyd-mcdonald-and-straight-to-hell-by-william-e-jones/#sthash.UWgsdrvL.dpuf
The legendary gay activist and writer Larry Kramer always takes great pains to state that how as a community we need our history ….. and he is not just talking about the tome he published last year The American People. It’s a topic that is very dear to queerguru’s heart especially now that several of the struggles for equality have come to fruition, and there is a real danger that some our new freedoms will make us somewhat complacent and start to forget the fearless brave pioneers who made them all possible.
This new wonderfully uplifting documentary from filmmakers Jonah Markowitz andTracy Wares is the remarkable story of the first four openly gay members of the Californian Legislature whose fierce determination to get some basic LGBT rights were crucial milestones in the continuing journey to full equality. The four were all women Sheila Kuehl who was first one to be elected to the Assembly in 1994, followed by Carole Migden, and then later by Christine Kehoe and Jackie Goldberg.
Each of them proved to be a very shrewd political operator as they introduced Bills piecemeal to stop discrimination a little at a time, which was no easy feat given the rigid opposition that they faced. We can see through all the revealing archival footage in the documentary all the horrifying and shocking hostility hurled at them mainly from the extreme rightwing faction of the male dominated Republican Party who just loved to enter the Chamber brandishing their bibles.
It is difficult to comprehend why these God-fearing elected officials stood up to oppose bills presented by these women that were aimed at making schools safer for LGBT children, or making it illegal for people to be fired for being gay. This was just 15 years ago and it is hard to believe that even in a so-called enlightened State like California, homosexuality was still being compared to necrophilia, pedophilia and even to the mating habits of one Assemblyman’s heifer cows! Never at a loss to defame a community that they hadn’t the faintest idea about, one official declared homosexuality as “the most dangerous lifestyle in America… far worse than smoking or driving without a seatbelt.”
This all makes for compelling viewing because these extraordinary women had the courage of their convictions to be openly gay politicians when that just wasn’t done, but also because they are very warm and witty women too. They had to become much more than mere spokesmen for our community and often be our ambassadors too. Carole Midgen couldn’t help herself telling the story when Dianne Feinstein as Mayor of San Francisco wanted to be au fait with a glossary of gay terms, and meekly asked what a glory hole was!
As a piece of history the movie is essential viewing, and is probably one of the best LGBT documentaries of the year. Carole Midgen downplayed their major contribution with her own modest summary ……..I just wanted to make a footprint of earth to help generations to come. She, and the others, certainly did that and so much more.
“political Animals” will be shown at Frameline40 Sunday, June 19 at 11 a.m. at the Castro Theater.