Michael Colbruno, a managing partner with the Milo Group of California, has been elected President of the Port of Oakland’s Board of Port Commissioners. Colbruno becomes the first openly LGBT Oakland Port Commissioner to lead the Board. He co-founded the country’s first LGBT Port affinity group with San Francisco Port Commissioner Leslie Katz and San Diego Port Commissioner Bob Nelson, which focuses on making California ports safe and welcoming workplaces for LGBT people. Both Katz and Nelson served as presidents of their respective Port boards last year.
The former two-term member and past chair of the Oakland Planning Commission was chosen unanimously by the seven-member Board last night. He succeeds Commissioner Earl Hamlin who concludes his one-year tenure as President but remains on the Board. The Board also elected Ces Butner First Vice President and Joan Story Second Vice President.
“The Port of Oakland is the main cog in the Bay Area’s economic engine and prides itself in its commitment to the community and promotion of diversity,” said President Colbruno. “I’m grateful for the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of President Hamlin and to work with top-notch staff who have made the seaport and airport such a vital part of the Bay Area.”
President Colbruno joined the Board of Port Commissioners in 2013. He has been a key staff person for leading Bay Area elected officials, having served as San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs and Chief-of-Staff to Carole Migden at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the California State Assembly, where he also staffed her on the Assembly Select Committee on Ports.
LGBT In The News Panel Photo: Veronica Zerrer (Neutral Corner)
What does it mean to be transgender in America today? The San Diego Press Club recently hosted a panel of six transgender activists to discuss the topic at Urban Mo’s Bar and Grill in Hillcrest. The event was part of the larger series LGBT In The News, started in 2013 by noted southern California journalist Thom Senzee.
The event sponsors included Urban Mo’s, SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actor’s Guild, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), the Gender Illumination organization, Dr. Bronner’s Organic Liquids and Soaps, Skyy Vodka, Baja Betty’s Mexican Restaurant, Gossip Grill, and the Fabulous Hillcrest Neighborhood organization.
April Harter Enriquez, President of the San Diego Press Club, opened the forum. Thom Senzee served as moderator. The panel included the following individuals:
Kristin Beck, former US Navy SEAL. Her 2013 memoir Warrior Princess detailed her transgender journey and was brought to the screen in the subsequent CNN documentary “Lady Valor: The Kristin Beck Story”. https://www.facebook.com/theladyvalor
Connor Maddocks, Director San Diego LGBT Center’s Project Trans.
Sam Moehlig, transyouth, whose story was detailed this past April in the San Diego Union Tribune “Transgender youth begins new life as a boy”. http://transfamilysos.org/
What is the transgender experience? Each panelist offered very personal and powerful observations. Kristen drew on her own military experience and says that when transgender people try to blend in and “pass” as cisgender people, “We’re all operating behind the [enemy] lines. We have to cover ourselves in order to survive….Stealth is taught as the goal…[But] we need to stop making this our goal, we need to be happy with ourselves”. She also calls attention to the fact that transpeople can be fired or denied regular jobs, virtually forcing many into the sex industry just to put food on the table. Vicki spoke movingly about the lengths transgender people go to in order to avoid public ridicule. When she started transition to female, she says “Whenever I heard anyone laugh, I thought it was at me…I couldn’t take being called a dude in a dress anymore”. So she spent over $40,000 on facial feminization surgery. Terrence, an African American transyouth, told of how he strove to be the stereotypical black male: “But the closer I got to it, the farther I got away from myself”. He tells us that all people, even transgender ones, are raised with heteronormative ideas about gender roles. These cripple our imagination. Ariel sees being trans in a more political context “Your existence is resistance”- being transgender challenges social norms and furthers the process of social change. Connor reminds us that being trans and figuring out one’s own sexuality first starts with self-acceptance: “How do you know who you love if you don’t love yourself?” And Sam, a transyouth age 15, spoke about the human cost of growing up transgender: one of his transgender friends around the same age committed suicide this past year. But, Sam reminds us with a wisdom beyond his years “Just because you lost them doesn’t mean they’re gone”. (It is estimated that the trans-community has a 41 percent rate of suicide or attempted suicide).
How does the society view transgender people? Here, the panel members made some very forceful criticisms. Ariel says “When little boys put on dresses and makeup, people freak out. Why? It’s basically hatred of women”. Terrence says “Kids are cruel, but they inherit it from their environment-Adults need to take ownership of that”. Vicki notes that most of “straight” society’s introduction to transgender is in a sexual context, through pornography, prostitutes and fetishwear. It’s no surprise most cisgender people miss the larger world of transgender and see it as a just a perversion. Sam tells us that trans-bullying isn’t just confined to schools. He tells us of his own experience with Medical professionals who misgendered him as a patient, either out of ignorance or inattention. Connor sees the problem as one of social ignorance “People muddle it…they just can’t see that sexual orientation and gender identity are separate”. He also sees transphobia as a larger social problem: “Our society is sick in that we’re concerned with how people look. All the bullying, harassment, and violence comes from people having no sense of self-worth, so they have to put it on others”.
Transpeople of color have a particularly difficult life experience. Terrence tells us “There are so many chains that need to be broken,” reminding us that racial issues often eclipse or overshadow transgender ones. He notes the US prison industrial complex, which many believe to be both a profit-making enterprise as well as a tool of social control. Most significantly, he says of relations between people of color and law enforcement “Every move we make is the wrong one”.
It’s obvious that transpeople are threatened, demeaned, attacked and discriminated against by the larger society. But sadly, transpeople do the same thing to each other within their own community. Connor says “I deal with our community every day. We are so marginalized, and we turn around and do it to each other. I wish our community could stop the bickering and infighting”. He goes on to say “When we hear someone in the community tearing someone down, we need to start standing up and stopping it. Raise each other up, don’t tear each other down!”. Kristen adds that the problem can be one of perceived competition for scarce resources. “We have this weird idea that we’re limited in resources and we fight each other”. She adds “We are NOT 501 ( c ) (3) people”, meaning that we shouldn’t see ourselves as little organizations, focused only on getting our own slice of the pie and not caring about anyone else.
Given all that’s been said, what can the transcommunity do about it? First, Terrence reminds us “We’re all growing at a different rate”, meaning that we need to keep in mind that each one of us has their own unique perspective. He also advises us “Don’t exclude allies. Trans people shouldn’t tell cisgender allies ‘we don’t need you’. Ariel warns us that “We have to acknowledge that in certain parts of our country, being visible is a death sentence. Doing this on our own is not possible. I’m only here because people mentored me”. Connor says “What we need to do is step out of our comfort zone and get involved in the bigger community. If you have a hobby, join that club as an open transperson. We have to put ourselves out there”. Vicki has done just that, as a member of the boards of nine different civic organizations. And Kristin, in a conversation with this writer after the event, offered this suggestion: The community would be strengthened if it had more of a Chain-of-Command. She has learned many useful life lessons in her military career, one of them being that a community that’s advocating for itself needs to be focused, organized, and responsible.
Perhaps Ariel made the most illuminating observation about the transgender experience, saying “I wasn’t born in the wrong body. Society was born in the wrong mind”.
The rights of transgender Americans have never been so hotly debated. Whether in the military, in schools, in athletics or in the workplace, ending transgender discrimination has become one of the civil rights causes of this decade. And with a new estimate out last week that there are 1.4 million transgender Americans – double previous figures – it’s an issue that touches every community in the country.
Now an experienced transgender awareness trainer is teaming up with education marketplace ZipMart to launch a first-of-its-kind, HR Certification Institute-approved course to help businesses create a truly inclusive workplace – and understand their responsibility and liability under the law. The course is featured on ZipMart.com as well as available for licensing. With 90% of transgender men and women still experiencing harassment at work, workplace discrimination impacts businesses of every size in every industry.
“The simple truth is that in many organizations, most colleagues and managers don’t understand the issues, don’t know how to manage an employee transition or even which pronouns to use,” said trainer Carolyn Weiss, who herself transitioned after a year-long conversation with management while working at the City of Los Angeles. “This course is designed to change all that. It will lower the risk for businesses while preventing discrimination against men and women who truly need their colleagues’ support.”
It’s become critical that all businesses understand what to do if an employee wishes to transition or come out on the job; how to be welcoming to transgender customers; how to create a strong company policy; and most importantly comply with the state and federal laws, which offer stringent protections including allowing trans employees to use a bathroom that corresponds with their gender. Even the Pentagon acknowledged the issue’s importance when it lifted its ban last week on transgender people serving openly in the military.
The hour-long course, “Transgender Awareness: Intro to Best Practices,” is designed for all employees from CEO on down. It helps organizations gain a better understanding of what it means to be a transgender person and offers guidelines for creating an inclusive work environment to support transgender colleagues. The course covers important terminology and legal protections, answers common questions related to gender identity and expression, and identifies respectful approaches to addressing transgender issues and preventing discriminatory behavior.
“In today’s business environment, fostering an inclusive, supportive, work environment for transgender people is no longer optional,” said Oleg Shvarts, CEO of ZipMart. “We partnered with Carolyn to create a powerful tool to help businesses create an inclusive environment for all. The course will help any business give much-needed support to employees while protecting the bottom line.”
In the coming months ZipMart plans to introduce additional transgender training courses focusing on issues in specific industries including healthcare, higher education and security. The first course has been approved by the HR Certification Institute for 1 Continuing Education Credit.
The LGBT community is no stranger to attacks on the safety, health and well-being of its members. From the recurring police harassment and violence that precipitated the Stonewall riots to the ravages of HIV and AIDS in the 1980s — coupled with an apathetic government and public — all the way through to the recent Orlando massacre, LGBT people repeatedly find themselves in the crosshairs of dangerous threats.
With such monumental obstacles to our health and well-being, it’s easy to overlook a much more subtle but even more deadly killer: smoking.
The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 30,000 LGBT Americans die from tobacco-related diseases annually. By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 14,000 Americans with an AIDS diagnosis — gay, straight, transgender, and cisgender — died in 2012.
Our community spends nearly $8 billion annually on cigarettes. As a result, the U.S. Surgeon General confirms that smoking is the LGBT community’s biggest health burden. Adding to this tragedy is the fact that HIV-positive smokers lose an average of 12.5 years off their lives, compared with 5.1 years for HIV-positive nonsmokers.
Sad as these statistics are, isn’t smoking a problem for all Americans?
Yes, it is, but it’s an even bigger problem for LGBT Americans.
Smoking is much more common among lesbian gay, and bisexual adults in the United States than among heterosexual adults. Nationally, nearly one in four (23.9 percent) lesbian, gay, or bisexual adults smokes cigarettes compared with roughly one in six (16.6 percent) heterosexual adults.
As we all know, LGBT people are also likely to have risk factors for smoking like depression, anxiety, and daily stress related to prejudice and stigma — all of which lead to the urge for a cigarette. Add to that aggressive marketing by Big Tobacco directly targeting the LGBT community — including LGBT teens — and we have another potent killer on our hands.
In my home state of California, the disparity is even greater. Lesbian, gay and bisexual Californians smoke at two to three times the rate of heterosexual Californians, according to the California Department of Public Health. That’s a smoking rate of 27.4 percent among the LGBT community in California, compared to a non-LGBT smoking rate of 12.9 percent.
Smoking is the number 1 cause of preventable death in California, with a disproportionate effect on the LGBT community. This needs to change. We need to provide health care for those in our community who have become ill from smoking, we need to conduct research into cures for cancer and other tobacco-related diseases, and we need to change behaviors to reduce those disproportionately high smoking rates among LGBT people.
Fortunately, California is taking on this insidious killer with the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016, and Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBT civil rights organization, is proudly supporting the effort.
This initiative will raise California’s smoking tax by $2 on tobacco products, including e-cigarettes containing nicotine. EQCA has endorsed this initiative, which will help save lives, protect teens, and improve health care for members of the LGBT community and for all of California. The money raised by the tax will fund health care costs and research into cures for cancer and other tobacco-related diseases.
Here in California, we’ve discovered the effectiveness of user fees to change people’s behavior. Just look at how many of us bring reusable bags to the grocery store every week rather than pay that 10-cent bag fee. By comparison, think how many LGBT lives we can save if we bring the smoking rates in the LGBT community to lower levels through common-sense measures like this one, while funding healthcare and cancer research. It’s a win-win.
From Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children campaign in the 1970s to the HIV epidemic to the recent horrific shootings in Orlando, our community is accustomed to rallying against outside threats. Smoking is no exception; we need to protect our community wherever its health and well-being are threatened.
San Diego Pride announced today that for the first time, the annual festival will feature metal detectors at the entrances. The festival will have more entry lanes to avoid long lines.
As always, there will also be a significant law enforcement presence, the San Diego Police Department’s mobile command unit will be stationed in front, and undisclosed additional precautions will be taken.
“We want everyone to feel safe while they’re having fun at this year’s festival,” said Stephen Whitburn, San Diego Pride’s executive director. “We encourage people to come out and celebrate Pride with confidence.”
The additional security precautions are intended to address safety concerns felt by some community members in the wake of the tragedy in Orlando. While security precautions are taken every year, and San Diego Pride is confident in those measures, the addition of metal detectors is intended to provide further reassurance to attendees.
The attack at Pulse nightclub has weighed heavily on the LGBT community. It has also demonstrated the community’s strength, resolve, and compassion. In its wake, San Diego Pride is preparing for the biggest, most meaningful Pride the city has ever seen.
“Our community is no stranger to adversity, and we will not be silenced,” Whitburn said. “Our movement is far from over, and we have no doubt that our community will come out to Pride as never before to mourn our losses, acknowledge our accomplishments, recommit to the work ahead, and celebrate our diverse community with love and Pride.”
The festival will be held Saturday, July 16 from 11:00 am – 10:00 pm and Sunday, July 17 from 11:00 am – 8:00 pm at Balboa Park’s Marston Point. sdpride.org
Two active-duty Marines are under investigation in connection to a social media post purportedly threatening to attack gay bars following Sunday’s deadly mass shooting in Florida.The California-based I Marine Expeditionary Force launched a command investigation after a photo surfaced on social media showing a corporal in uniform holding a rifle with his finger near the trigger. The words “Coming to a gay bar near you!” appear at the bottom of the photo.
The picture was posted recently to Camp MENdleton resale, a closed Facebook group for male Marines with more than 25,000 members. The person who purportedly posted it also wrote “Too soon?”
The post follows Sunday’s terror attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 people and left 53 wounded.
First Lt. Thomas Gray, a spokesman for I MEF, told Marine Corps Times that the command has identified the Marine in the picture and the one who posted it on Facebook.
“We cannot discuss details of an ongoing investigation, but I can tell you the command is taking this incident seriously,” Gray said.
Marine officials have vowed to take “appropriate action” in response to the social media post, according to a statement released by I MEF.
“The Marine Corps does not tolerate discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender or religion,” the statement says. “…This type of behavior and mindset will not be allowed, and it is not consistent with the core values of honor, courage and commitment that are demonstrated by the vast majority of Marines on a daily basis.”
Michael Moss, the founder of the Camp MENdleton resale Facebook group, said on Facebook that the post was deleted as soon as it was reported, and the person was banned from the group immediately.
“We do not tolerate hate speech,” he said. Moss was not immediately available for comment.
The incident coincides with a separate investigation by the FBI and San Diego police into an anonymous threat posted Tuesday on the men-seeking-men section of the Craigslist San Diego personal ads, according to local television station KGTV.
“Orlando was long overdue,” the post stated, according to ABC affiliate. “…San Diego you are next.”
So far, there are no indications that the Marines’ social media post and the Craigslist threat are linked, but both investigations are ongoing, Gray said.
The FBI reached out to San Francisco police after this weekend’s massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando to offer added security for the upcoming Pride celebrations, while San Francisco’s police chief expressed concern about the prospect of a “copycat” shooting.
“Anytime you have something like this happen, you worry about a copycat,” said interim Police Chief Toney Chaplin on Monday, shortly before department officials met with Pride organizers to discuss enhancing security measures for events that include a downtown parade on June 26. “So I’d rather err on the side of caution and put more security out there and make sure that we have a high presence.”
Shooting highlights threats
San Francisco Pride is one of the biggest events of its kind in the country, with an expected draw of around 1 million people. On Monday, several people in the Castro neighborhood said they still plan to attend the events, in part because they don’t want to be cowed by fear. But they said the shooting at the Pulse nightclub underscores day-to-day threats faced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, even amid hard-fought progress in gaining acceptance and legal rights.
San Francisco law enforcement officials would not comment on how security might be beefed up after a gunman in Orlando killed at least 49 people early Sunday before being fatally shot by police. But according to one source familiar with Pride planning, guests at the festivities can expect more patrolling police officers as well as snipers and bomb-sniffing dogs.
Chaplin told reporters that “there are no threats presently” to San Francisco Pride. He urged residents to report potential threats.
“Oftentimes, someone knows something in advance,” Chaplin said. “And if they’ll reach out to us and let us know, then at the very least, we can investigate it and stop it before it happens or minimize the damage.”
Hours after the Florida rampage, Santa Monica police arrested a man who allegedly had a car full of guns, ammunition and bomb-making materials and was planning to attend Los Angeles’ gay pride festival that day. Law enforcement officials considered canceling the annual parade, according to the Los Angeles Times, but went forward with the event with increased security.
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said in a statement Monday that the city would “continue to lead in the celebration of diversity and show the world despite the horror of Orlando, we will stand together with our LGBT community to celebrate Pride.”
He said the city is “working closely with the San Francisco Pride organizers and our public safety agencies in a coordinated effort to make our renowned San Francisco Pride celebration an event where everyone can freely express themselves.”
Supervisor Scott Wiener, whose district includes the Castro, said that beyond the Pride events, “bars and clubs are looking for guidance from police.”
“This isn’t about having the police in bars and clubs,” he said. “This is about making sure the bars and clubs have security plans in place that match the current reality we face given what happened (Sunday), and making sure the police know about those plans so that they can respond effectively.”
The pall cast over the Pride festivities this year is a marked contrast to the jubilation of last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court had just issued its ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
“It feels like when we make progress, others hate it and then have to hurt us,” said Sam Judice, while drinking a cup of coffee Monday morning at Eureka Cafe in the Castro, which his husband owns. “They feel if they can intimidate us, kill us, then progress will go away. But you know, it’s an idea. It’s not a person. And hopefully that idea will stay rooted.”
Heightened vigilance
Judice said he still plans to attend Pride events, but will be more “thoughtful and aware” of his surroundings.
A few feet away, a group of 15 teenage girls ate ice cream in the cafe. They were part of a church youth group from Tequesta, Fla., just south of Orlando. Youth minister Julie Bird said the tour of the Castro took on extra significance after Sunday’s shooting.
“It reinforces the importance of mobilizing and being understanding and loving and supporting everybody. We are all made in God’s image … whatever religion we are,” Bird said. “The spreading of hate can be a very horrible thing.”
Police are investigating an online threat of violence to San Diego’s LGBT community which read, “You’re next.”
On Tuesday evening, a 10News viewer saw the post in the men-seeking-men section of the Craigslist San Diego personal ads. He took a screenshot and sent it to us before the post was flagged and removed.
The post is titled, “We need more Orlando’s (sic).” It is accompanied by a photo of a hand firing a revolver with a bullet coming out of the barrel.
The post read: “Orlando was long overdue. Cleanse your community of the filth that gives decent gay men and women a bad name. Those people were walking diseases, bug chasers, and thank god for AIDS and 9-11 and now Orlando. San Diego you are next…”
10News sent the screenshot to the San Diego Police Department and the FBI.
SDPD Lt. Scott Wahl said the department will investigate the post. Wahl emphasized that police have had extra officers on patrol in places where people gather in the wake of the Orlando shooting.
FBI Special Agent Darrell Foxworth told 10News the FBI will assist the SDPD with the investigation if need be. Foxworth added that, as of Tuesday night, there were no known specific and credible threats against San Diego.
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.
