Gay seniors embrace a newfound openness
Marvin Levin was speaking to his psychiatrist in November 2003. The conversation halted briefly as Levin looked away, collecting a thought that had waited decades to surface.
“You know what?” he said, looking up at his doctor. “I’m gay.”
At age 61, married more than 30 years, this was an unlikely admission.
“It was the first time I’d ever put words to that,” Levin said. “It was like an epiphany. And then I looked back on my life and said, ‘You dummy, of course you are.’ ” Levin, now 67, grew up in Chicago, part of a conventional Jewish family. He found himself interested in the gay lifestyle — still highly taboo at the time — but resolved that he was “straight but curious.”
Conforming to the social mores of the time, he married in his mid-20s. “I can’t really say I was madly in love. This was a woman I knew and we had the same sets of values and beliefs. It seemed a good fit.”
Together they had two sons, were active in their synagogue, entertained regularly and worked through the ups and downs of marriage.
“I was Mr. Straight,” Levin said. “There were certain things in life that you do, and I would just go ahead and do them. I was fascinated by this other world. The gay world had this attraction. But I just never did anything with it. It was just there.”
In the 1970s, Levin began suffering from depression. He went into counseling and got on medication but could never identify the source of his unhappiness. Until that day in 2003, in his psychiatrist’s chair.
“My wife at first was shocked,” he said. “But she was also glad I’d finally figured out why at times I was non-functional. She’s a wonderful woman and was very supportive of me through all of this.”
See Gay seniors embrace a newfound openness
Chicago Tribune
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/gay-seniors-e…
Jubilation muted on Calif gay marriage anniversary
(San Francisco) Jonathan Abernethy-Deppe vividly remembers the bustling city clerk’s office and the happiness of fellow couples a year ago Tuesday when California began granting same-sex marriage licenses.
But he and his now-husband, David, say their first anniversary won’t be nearly as jubilant. Last month the state Supreme Court upheld a …
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Mike Gin, Redondo Beach’s Chinese-American, Rotarian, Gay Mayor
After months of living legal limbo, Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin’s marriage was finally declared legal several days ago by the California Supreme Court. But marital validation was no tonic for Gin, who wasn’t celebrating the landmark decisions on same-sex marriage issued last week by the California Supreme Court.
“It’s a bittersweet feeling,” he admits. “My husband and I are thrilled about that part of the ruling that affects us, but there are many other couples now who cannot share in the happiness that we were able to experience on our wedding day. I’m hoping that someday all of us can experience that same happiness.”
Gin and his husband, Christopher Kreidel, were part of the pool of approximately 18,000 gay people married after the California Supreme Court ruled a year ago that same-sex marriages were legal, but before the Proposition 8 vote last fall banned same-sex marriage.
Despite the ruling early last week upholding Prop. 8, he is not discouraged. He notes that Prop. 22, the long-standing gay-marriage ban overturned by the courts last May, passed in 2000 with 60 percent of the vote, while Prop. 8 passed with only 52 percent.
“I think it is still a very strong social issue on both sides in our society right now,” he says. “But the voting numbers show that as a society we’re moving in the right direction.”
Gin is an unusual public official in that he is gay, married, Asian-American — and popular at a time when California politicians are reaching new lows in approval-rating polls. After serving eight years on the Redondo City Council and four as mayor, Gin has developed a reputation as a classic old-school politician who listens patiently to residents, considers a wide array of arguments and interests before making a decision, and goes out of his way to avoid confrontation.
See Mike Gin, Redondo Beach’s Chinese-American, Rotarian, Gay Mayor
LA Weekly
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/mike-gin-redo…
Lambda Legal Marks First Anniversary of Historic California Marriage Victory
‘…denying marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples is morally wrong…’
(Los Angeles, May 15, 2009) — On the first anniversary of the California Supreme Court’s historic ruling in In re Marriages, Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director Jennifer C. Pizer issued the following statement:
“One year ago today many thousands of lesbian and gay Californians became full citizens for the first time when the state supreme court ruled that we all are equal under law and everyone – gay and straight alike – must have the same right to marry the person they love. For some of us who’d worked on the case for years, the court’s clarion clear decision gave real meaning to the California Constitution’s promise of equality. And then, as more than 18,000 same-sex couples jubilantly exercised that right all over the state, family and friends shared their joy, cried during their vows, and were changed for the better.
The court’s historic decision also paved the way for the high courts of Connecticut and Iowa, which in turn gave great boosts to the legislatures in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia. Awareness now is dawning for great numbers of Americans that denying marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples is morally wrong and inflicts real harms—government should not be in the business of discrimination. Public opinion is shifting fast toward fairness. But no minority should have to depend on the generosity of the majority to enjoy basic rights. Proposition 8′s theft of our right to marry has advanced a broadly pernicious recasting of “equal protection” that, if upheld, puts every California minority at risk. It was a sad, knee-jerk response to the sight of couples in love celebrating their happiness.
Paper is the traditional first anniversary gift and there are two obvious examples — our constitution, torn asunder by Prop 8′s antigay exception, and the high court’s imminent decision that we hope will mend that tear. Today’s anniversary reminds us that we win in court and in life when we publicly celebrate our truth, love and joy in equal measures.”
Jennifer C. Pizer is Director of Lambda Legal’s Marriage Project and co-counsel in the cases that established same-sex couples’ right to marry in California and the pending challenge to Proposition 8.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/lambda-legal-…
In Moscow, an Attempt to Wed Pushes Gay Rights
MOSCOW — They knew they had no chance. But there they were anyway at a marriage registration office in Moscow on Tuesday. Two young women, wearing tuxedos and clutching bouquets, trying to become the first same-sex couple in Russia to legally wed.
“We have love, we have happiness, we want to be together for our whole lives and we want to do this here in Russia,” said Irina Fedotova, who hoped to marry her longtime partner, Irina Shipitko.
In a country where the push for gay rights has materialized only recently — and in fits and starts often met with violence and arrests — their attempt to marry was a bold, if muted, political statement as much as it was an expression of love.
The unsurprising response from the official at the registration office was dry and unequivocal. “According to article 12 of the family codex, for a marriage to be sanctioned it is necessary to have the mutual and voluntary agreement of a man and a woman.”
Both women said they had expected their marriage application to be rejected and said they would appeal the decision.
Their attempt to marry was meant in part to draw attention to gay rights in Russia as thousands of Europeans flood Moscow for the Eurovision song contest.
Gay rights groups plan a demonstration in Moscow Saturday, the day of the Eurovision final. See In Moscow, an Attempt to Wed Pushes Gay Rights New York Times * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-moscow-att…
Brian Normoyle: Gathering Storm: Miss California Trying to Redefine Traditional Breasts for the Rest of Us
For many thousands of years, across every culture and continent, women have known traditional or “natural” breasts to be those that God — or nature — gave them. To think otherwise flies in the face of millennia of human history and spiritual doctrine. Prejean’s Bible repeatedly reminds us we are made in God’s perfect image while warning us against exchanging the “natural” use of our bodies for those deemed “unnatural.” And, while one could argue the rights to privacy and personal freedom are inherent in our nation’s founding democratic principles and that every American has a right to his/her own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, organizations like NOM — for whom she’s now a spokesperson — Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council repeatedly admonish us that life in America would be better if theology and biblical doctrine were the primary determinant of civil law and personal liberties.
While someone else was footing the bill, Prejean made the choice to defy her God’s perfect design and creation of her and to rebel against the intended and “natural” purpose of her mammaries: namely, the nursing of babies rather than the visual attraction sufficient enough to win a vanity contest. Moreover, if her teeth aren’t capped, I’m betting they were braced; and I’d also put money down on the fact that Prejean has, at some point, performed other “unnatural” acts with her organs like chewing gum, wearing eye-glasses, enjoying a Diet Coke or two or even… um… er, well, you get the idea.
So, Carrie, you may find full civil equality for all Americans to be “unnatural” and not “Biblically correct,” but, frankly, neither are your Jugs for Jesus and your Caps for Christ. “No Offense.” See Brian Normoyle: Gathering Storm: Miss California Trying to Redefine Traditional Breasts for the Rest of Us
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/brian-normoyl…
Deb Price: More Republicans embrace gay equality
Rumblings of change are beginning to be heard from deep inside the Republican Party.
The gay Log Cabin Republicans’ recent national convention offered a tantalizing peek at a possible not-so-distant future when the Republican Party has finally — and firmly — turned the corner and embraced equality for gay Americans.
Marquee speakers were Steve Schmidt, former senior campaign strategist for 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, and former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, a founder of the moderate Republican Leadership Council.
Representing the youth vote that will determine the GOP’s fate was Meghan McCain, 24-year-old daughter of Sen. McCain and a contributor at TheDailyBeast.com.
Each supports marriage for same-sex couples.
That puts them firmly in the minority of today’s Republicans, but definitely not of future Republicans if the party is to grow, appeal to young voters, and be competitive beyond the south.
“We were crushed by the Obama campaign with voters under 30,” Schmidt pointed out.
What distinguishes the youth vote, he continued, is “a greater acceptance of people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex.” One day, a majority of Americans will follow, and, he added, “sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up.”
Whitman, tackling the problem of broadening the party without scaring away social conservatives, said, “It’s not about saying to the Christian conservatives, ‘There is no place for you.’ It’s about saying, ‘Would you please stop saying there’s no place for us?’”
Afterward, Whitman told me, “It’s not going to threaten my marriage to have a gay couple marry.” She wants the issue out of the party platform.
Meghan McCain was blunter: “Republicans’ using Twitter and Facebook isn’t going to miraculously make people think we’re cool again. Breaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don’t divide our nation further will.”
It’d be easy to dismiss the trio of speakers as preaching to choir, but encouraging rumblings are coming from elsewhere as well:
Gay Republicans point with pride to the fact that eight Republicans in the Vermont Legislature helped override the governor’s veto of gay marriage.
Meanwhile, gay Iowans are set to begin marrying on Monday, thanks to a ruling written by a Republican appointee. A University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll conducted just before the April 3 unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage found that 58 percent of Iowans aged 18 to 29 favor gay marriage, 17 percent prefer civil unions, and only 16 percent oppose both.
That means fewer than one out of five favors the official Republican position.
Contrast that with Iowans 65 or older: 18 percent favor gay marriage, 31 percent civil unions and 42 percent neither.
If you were running a company that hopes to still be around in 20 years, which customers would you appeal to?
That question is being asked in elite Republican circles. In a survey of its Republican political insiders, National Journal magazine found in its most recent issue that only 50 percent think their party should oppose gay marriage, while 8 percent think the party should embrace it and 37 percent say it should steer clear of the issue.
Speaking freely behind the cloak of anonymity, one Republican insider said, “Perception of complete hostility to all gay rights is killing the GOP among voters under 29. Evolve or perish, Republicans.”
A growing number of Republican thinkers are concluding that their party’s future hinges on finding a way to comfortably embrace gay rights.
Reach Deb Price at dprice@detnews.com or (202) 662-8736
See More Republicans embrace gay equality
The Detroit News
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/deb-price-mor…
Gronstal marriage speech is a big draw on youtube DesMoinesRegister.com
he Democratic leader in the Iowa Senate is becoming a bit of a worldwide celebrity as people around the globe listen to his speech on marriage equity.
Video of Sen. Mike Gronstal’s speech Monday had attracted over 65,000 hits on YouTube as of Wednesday afternoon. It was the 10th most viewed YouTube video worldwide, edging out “SpongeBob Burger King” and highlights from the Michigan State vs. North Carolina men’s college basketball championship game. It was still behind a video of Eminem with a Sarah Palin look-alike, though.
Staff said e-mails from around the world have arrived at the Statehouse to thank Gronstal, who some bloggers have hailed as a “hero.” BBC Radio interviewed him Wednesday.
“He is a cult hero as it relates to this change,” said Sen. Matt McCoy, a Democrat who is openly gay. “He’s Iowa’s own version of Harvey Milk. He’s instilling hope and pride and happiness in a community that’s been out wandering in the desert for a long time.”
On Monday, Gronstal told fellow senators he will not bring up legislation this session that would help reverse the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage – and explained why. Gronstal can single-handedly block debate of legislation in the Senate.
Meanwhile, a speech by Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton, calling for Gronstal to stop obstructing Iowans’ chance to vote on gay marriage, had racked up only about 700 hits on YouTube.
See Gronstal marriage speech is a big draw on youtube DesMoinesRegister.com
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/gronstal-marr…
Gronstal marriage speech is a big draw on youtube DesMoinesRegister.com
he Democratic leader in the Iowa Senate is becoming a bit of a worldwide celebrity as people around the globe listen to his speech on marriage equity.
Video of Sen. Mike Gronstal’s speech Monday had attracted over 65,000 hits on YouTube as of Wednesday afternoon. It was the 10th most viewed YouTube video worldwide, edging out “SpongeBob Burger King” and highlights from the Michigan State vs. North Carolina men’s college basketball championship game. It was still behind a video of Eminem with a Sarah Palin look-alike, though.
Staff said e-mails from around the world have arrived at the Statehouse to thank Gronstal, who some bloggers have hailed as a “hero.” BBC Radio interviewed him Wednesday.
“He is a cult hero as it relates to this change,” said Sen. Matt McCoy, a Democrat who is openly gay. “He’s Iowa’s own version of Harvey Milk. He’s instilling hope and pride and happiness in a community that’s been out wandering in the desert for a long time.”
On Monday, Gronstal told fellow senators he will not bring up legislation this session that would help reverse the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage – and explained why. Gronstal can single-handedly block debate of legislation in the Senate.
Meanwhile, a speech by Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton, calling for Gronstal to stop obstructing Iowans’ chance to vote on gay marriage, had racked up only about 700 hits on YouTube.
See Gronstal marriage speech is a big draw on youtube DesMoinesRegister.com
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/gronstal-marr…
