This Day in Gay Utah History AUGUST 6th

August 6th

1637-The Pilgrims came to Provincetown, Plymouth Colony in 1620 and spent five weeks there, during which time they created and signed the Mayflower Compact. In 1637 a Plymouth colony court found John Allexander and Thomas Roberts guilty of "often spending their seed one upon the other." Both were found guilty and severely whipped, and Allexander was branded on the shoulder and banished from the colony. Although the colony had made sodomy punishable by death the previous year, it required penetration, which was not proven in this case.  Today Provincetown is one of the Gayest cities in the world.  At Plimoth Plantation, lessons in gay history-Boston Globe

Magnus Hershfeld The Einstein of Sex

1913-Leading sexologist of the early 20th Century and homosexual, Magnus Hirschfeld, spoke at the International Medical Conference in London and met with British Gays to discuss forming a London branch of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee.

1915 At his hearing before Justice Middleton, Wednesday, Peter Javahakis of Price, Utah charged with a “Crime Against Nature” was discharged. News Advocate Local News Briefs page 12 

Andy Warhol

1927-Andy Warhol, a Gay  American artist who was a leading figure in the visual art movement known as pop art in the 1960's and 70's was born. His studio was called the Factory and was the hip hangout for artsy types, amphetamine users, and the Warhol superstars. It was famed for its groundbreaking parties. By the time Warhol had become famous, he was working day and night on his paintings. To create his art, Warhol used silk-screens so that he could mass-produce images the way capitalist corporations mass-produce consumer goods. In order to continue working the way he did, he assembled a menagerie of adult film performers, drag queens, socialites, drug addicts, musicians, and free-thinkers that became known as the Warhol Superstars, to help him. These "art-workers" helped him create his paintings, starred in his films, and basically developed the atmosphere for which the Factory became legendary.

Martin Duberman

1930- Martin Duberman, historian, biographer, playwright, and Gay-rights activist was born. Author of Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past 1989,  Cures: A Gay Man's Odyssey, 1991. and Stonewall, 1993.

1942 The Vichy government of occupied France raises the age of consent for both male and female same-sex acts to 21 and prescribes penalties of between six months' and three years' imprisonment.

1956 Salt Lake Police Chief W. Cleon Skousen dismissed Ray Shartau, 27, from the police

Cleon Skousen

force “because of conduct unbecoming an officer.” The chief declined to comment specifically on why the officer was discharged. (Sltribune 09/06/56 Pg. 15 Col. 6)

1970 -Legal Action by Hippie was an article written on perennial flower child and alternative lifestyle Charles [Charlie Brown] Altman suing Salt Lake City  (08/06/1970 SLTribune D-2)

2nd South SLC 

1970 - Roger Cutler, assistant city attorney, ordered last months revocation of Nolan Jones business license during business as Jeff’s Grocery at 511 West 200 South stopped. Revocation pending 3^rd District Court ruling whether city’s action was legal. Commissioners ordered revocation by reason that Mr. Jones rented upstairs rooms to known prostitutes. None of the women had ever been convicted of prostitution. (08/06/1970 B)

1970 The SLC Commission unanimously directed the city's attorney's office to do everything in its power to institute new court proceedings to stop the showing of the X rated movie "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". Public Safety Commissioner James L. Barker Jr. criticized city Judge Maurice D. Jones for ruling that the city did not have enough evidence to indicate the movie is obscene and should be seized by the court. "Only a pervert would go to a show like that!" Mr. Barker said. He said to complete the police file on perverts, perhaps the police "could set up a camera and take pictures of those going into the movie. Mr. Barker said he had not seen the picture. None of the other commissioners had either. The film played at the UPTOWN Theater. (08/06/1970 B-1)

John Bennett 2003

1987--Thursday- “Went to the Gay Community Council where we elected John Bennett chair for the rest of the year.  John Sasserman stepped down from acting chair.  Three people ran for the office, Mark LaMarr, Lyle Bradley, and John Bennett.  Lyle Bradley was elected vice-chair. I’ll see if I can name off in attendance- representing Salt Lake Affirmation myself, Beau Chaine the Aardvark, Russ Lane the Wasatch Affirmation, Bruce Barton of MCC, Bruce Harmon, Graham Bell activist, Mel Baker of Concerning Gays and Lesbians, Curtis Jensen  representing LGSU, David Nelson activist, Michael Aarons of AVP, Lyle Bradley who works at KSL,  Laurie Bennett host of This Feminine Position on KRCL, John Bennett representing Desert & Mountain States, John Sasserman of the Triangle, Donny Eastepp  Emperor of the Royal  Court, Chuck Whyte of Crossroads Urban Center and  Mark LaMarr. Graham Bell criticized Dr. Craig Nichols of the Health Department for not using federal AIDS funds for the Gay community

1992-The Ontario Court of Appeals issued a ruling which voided the Canadian military's ban on Gays and lesbians.

1997- A 45-year-old Iraqi man Qassim Ali Al-Raheemi, who sought political asylum in the United States from Saddam Hussein's regime, invited a man into his apartment, at 211 W. 500 North, Salt Lake City, and barged into the bathroom, while the man was urinating.  Al-Raheemi knocked the man to the floor, jumped on top of him, grabbed the victim's genitals and tried to kiss him. The man fought off the attack and fled.  That same day, Al-Raheemi followed a 32-year-old man from the Radio City Lounge at 147 S. State St., grabbed him from behind and dragged him to a nearby parking lot. Al-Raheemi forced the man to the ground, pulled down the victim's pants and sexually assaulted him.   

David Hardy

6 August 2000-The Salt Lake Tribune Page: B2 Mormon Pamphlets on Gays Criticized Parents share their struggles at annual Sunstone Symposium BY HILARY GROUTAGE SMITH   THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE David Hardy, a former Mormon bishop no longer active in the LDS church, has a message for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Stop giving kids pamphlets that promote misunderstanding about homosexuality. At the 26th Annual Sunstone Symposium Saturday, Hardy, his wife, Carlie, and son, Judd, shared the struggle they have had with their Mormon faith since Judd told them he is Gay and attempted suicide as a teen. "I thought if I was truly religious, I would be able to get over this," Judd Hardy said. "I can't describe what kind of vicious cycle that puts in place.''  Neither prayer nor reparative therapy helped Judd. Compounding the struggle, his father said, were pamphlets given to his son and countless other young Mormon men and women. They are outdated, said Hardy, and contain misinformation that adds to the anxiety felt by young LDS people who are Gay or lesbian. "In private talks with many general authorities and other church leaders, we tend to hear conciliatory words and expressions of love for our Gay and lesbian sons and daughters," David Hardy said. "But for every off-the-record statement of one of the brethren attempting to evidence a 'kinder and gentler' attitude toward Gays and lesbians in the Church, there exists the enormous weight of the written word that is publicly disseminated to the membership."   For the Strength of Youth, To Young Men Only and To The One pamphlets have been handed out to young men and women for years, Hardy said. All contain advice for dealing with homosexual feelings.  Two of the pamphlets, To The One and To Young Men Only, were written by President Boyd K. Packer, senior member of the

Boyd Packer

church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.    In the latter publication, Packer instructs young men to "vigorously resist" men who try to entice them to join in "immoral acts." Hardy said a vignette in the booklet, in which Packer tells the story of a missionary who strikes his companion, presumably after the young man made a sexual advance toward him, promotes violence against homosexuals. "I am not recommending that course to you," Packer wrote, "but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself." "Some of these works are over 20 years old, but the fact that they are still in print and distributed is attested to by the new Church logo prominently displayed on the back cover," Hardy said. The Mormon Church redesigned its logo in December 1995. "As far as church members know, these works collectively constitute the definitive written policy and doctrine of the Church on the issue of homosexuality. They are written -- and therefore enduring -- word of the brethren," Hardy said. Reached by telephone on Saturday, Mormon Church Spokesman Dale Bills did not

Gordon Hinckley

comment specifically on the pamphlets, but said President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly expressed compassion and concern when asked about his church's attitude toward homosexuals. Bills, quoting Hinckley, said the prophet's "caring words speak for themselves: Our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as Gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married." For Hardy, the growing gap between the church he and his family loved and the church's attitude toward homosexuals became impossible to reconcile. Eventually, they stopped going to church, and so did five of their six children. But that doesn't mean he has stopped believing, David Hardy said. "The fact that we're not attending doesn't mean we don't believe the teachings and the doctrine [of the Mormon faith]. We just can't square with ourselves with what is going on."

Pride Day Committee 2002

2002 Craig Miller to Chad Keller Subject Pride Merger: That sounds good to me.  I think there's still quite a lot to talk about and I don't do well in debates or confrontation. Chad, I was surprised by the direction the meeting took the other night.  I thought those discussions were a bit premature given the whole Board had not been alerted to the financial problems with anything more than "It doesn't look good."  I'm actually not convinced things are as bad as they were presented to us. When I went home, I poured over the figures and there are good possibilities there is still money owed to us that we have not collected yet.  For the record, I do support entertaining the idea of letting the Center organize Pride if it will benefit the community.  I am also opposed to liquidating our independent 501 ( c ) 3, non-profit status hastily.  So, discussions are a good thing to have at this time.  But time is what I'm running out of.  Would a lunchtime meeting work, or afternoon?  Tuesday is my next free evening but I try to guard against having meetings every night of the week, so that's best if we can avoid it....Craig.  

• Chad Keller to Geoff Partain and Craig Miller Subject Pride Merger: I have had a few moments to take a second to breath.....and to step back for a minute....thanks Geoff for slapping me up to side of the head.  I’m still peeved that it has come to this.  I knew in my heart we were going too wild on spending and not watching the money closer.  That

  

  Chad Keller

  aside......  I am still against the "merger"  so if you both are willing to sit down this weekend or soon, I would be willing to give you the gist of the structure ideas as well as some items that should solve the financial  problems, provided we can get all outstanding monies collected.  I would prefer that it just be us and perhaps Stacey [Robinson] and/or one other person.....this I would hope would not be a debate but a brainstorm session and outcome better than the resolution we are heading toward let me know....it up to you, the offer is there. 
• Geoff Partain to Chad Keller: Subject Pride Merger: I'm more than willing to discuss any options.  I am open to different possibilities for the future of Utah Pride Inc..  The merger concept has some strong pros, as well as some cons, but I don't think we should dismiss the idea altogether.  If a merger is the direction we choose to go, it will be on our terms as much as those of the Center's.  That is why we've chosen a group to study and negotiate any merger.  Chad, I hope you will come to any meeting with an equally open mind.  I think a meeting should consist of the three of us, as well as Darin [Hobbs], ( to elucidate on our financial situation, and answer any questions regarding the merger from the Center’s point of view), and Donna [Jensen-Wysinger], as co-chair, and Hazel as a member of the negotiation sub-committee. I would suggest a neutral location, and a casual, comfortable setting to keep this meeting as friendly, and productive as possible. I'm not available this Friday or Saturday, but I am available Sunday afternoon.  Generally any day except Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday morning is fine. Regards, Geoff.

David Nelson 2013

2002 David Nelson: Subject Pride Merger: In a previous message, I reported about the machinations of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah Inc. and Utah Pride Inc. as described to me in interviews with an unnamed source. I disclosed publicly how the two non-profit corporations had shared assets and asset management, while the pride leaders developed a deficit for the 2002 pride events, suffered the untimely resignation of one of their officers, and planned two meetings, one public and one private, to deliberate the result of these events. Despite some ad hominem messages, every disclosure was verified by others including one who is a pride board member. Now, it seems, a private meeting was, in fact, held on Saturday and much of what even I doubted was verified. Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah Inc. leaders will pursue acquiring Utah Pride Inc. as a center project with a paid events coordinator. Regardless of the merits of this corporate takeover, the matter of its conduct is suspicious at best. To be fair, a non-profit corporation may vote by simple majority at a regular meeting of its governing board to dissolve and transfer its assets to another non-profit corporation -- or "give" itself to the other corporation freely or for a negotiated price. That is, it may, unless its rules prevent the acquisition or its conduct. There is some question about whether pride board members acted according to its rules by calling a private meeting without the described minimum notice. Board member Geoff Partain wrote in his message of July 31 that the board must meet within 48 hours after the resignation of its officer. I presume, then, that the board is also, normally, required to give its members certain notice of a meeting. Also, normally, an acquiring corporation examines the condition of the corporation it plans to acquire. In this case, how could center board members make such a hasty decision to pursue acquiring Utah Pride Inc. without knowing the very financial status that hasn't yet been reported to pride board members? As I wrote earlier, pride leaders suffered a deficit reportedly as large as $6,000. The final figure is still unknown because the corporate financial report is still being determined pending the receipt of past-due revenue. In fact, the pride budget from which a financial report must be developed was reportedly never made to the board members and was rumored to be known only to the corporate executive-committee members who proscribed divisional budgets vaguely. One such divisional-budget expense which was questioned involved a $500 payment to the state government for T.I.P.S. registration of alcoholic-beverages volunteers despite the willingness of registered bartenders and servers to work free of charge. When they volunteered, they were told that their work schedules were presumed to be in conflict with the pride events and were never asked. Utah Hospitality Association leaders often negotiate a reduced price for their T.I.P.S.-registered members, but were also never asked. And, as reported earlier, the private-label pride water was stored at the Center. But the storage, however inappropriate for two corporations to do, was committed despite the negotiated resale of the water to businesses and the very gay and lesbian clubs who'd benefit from its sale. That's right, the water had been arranged for resale to others. The attempt to do so was reneged. But it wasn't merely water that seemed to grease the acquisition skids. Pride board members were told that sponsors [Michael Marriott and Bruce Bastian] would likely contribute more to the events IF the acquisition were approved.  How could pride sponsors make such a decision to contribute more without knowing that an acquisition was even a possibility? Did they also know of the looming deficit? Without board approval, who among the pride leaders broached the idea with anyone, let alone with past-due sponsors? I appreciate that pride leaders were exhausted before, during and, certainly, after the pride events. Why not, then, create an ongoing self-sustaining corporation with which future pride events could be endowed? When did the decision to acquire Utah Pride Inc. shift for center leaders? Center Executive Director Paula Wolfe reportedly said in January that center leaders had no interest in acquiring the pride franchise, but center Assistant Director Darin Hobbs was also a pride board member and other pride leaders were understandably supportive of the center as well. How supportive seems to be what others are wondering? Shortly after the center opened its doors a few years ago, Salt Lake City Weekly Assistant Editor Ben Fulton wondered in print if the Stonewall Cafe was a project of the center as it claimed, or if the center was merely a part of the cafe it operated. Stripped of eloquence, he questioned where the sacred cash cow was.  Indeed. As I wrote earlier, I wondered if the center, with its board of directors, executive director, assistant director, development director, youth-projects director and, now, hospitality and retail director was a corporate bureaucracy in search of itself ... and a staff. Now, it seems, comes a ready-made event with staff, budget, media relations and, of course, sponsors who promised to contribute even more should a deal be struck to avoid what they must see as two meddlesome pied pipers. The niggling question is why. Why would the pride board members believe that this is better for the group than going it alone? Why would the center board members, after twice saying they had no interest, suddenly be moved to take over this kind of debt? And in their negotiations of acquisition, will the center board members recognize the intrinsic value that more than 20 years of Utah pride have produced? I doubt it. In fact, I see little altruism in this whole affair. From  the private meeting about shared assets, deficits resignations and board-member vacancies to the cynical "positive spin" that an internal pride memorandum had hoped to achieve publicly, I see another cash cow with room for salaries and little hope of a better pride next year than we had this year. In fact, the matter has now earned the attention of the InterPride International Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Pride Coordinators Inc. members. It ain't over. David NelsonDavid Nelson Utah Activist Wikipedia

Dr. John Reeves PhD

2006 John Reeves wrote: I just read a couple of pieces from Utah that you sent me. The first had to do with the "Crackdown" on cruising in St. George-----more especially the Gay Community's simpering acquiescence to the Sherriff. I think their response could be characterized as "yowsah, yowsah, yowsah boss," as they shuffle off to wherever they hang out. The other piece was the article, "Gay, Mormon and Married." I've printed it out and am going through it with a "red pencil." It's such a piece of homophobic B**S***, I can hardly believe that those people are serious! Ah well, to each his/her own. When those marriages collapse will they blame God for letting them down? Anyway, Ben, stuff like that just gets my dander up----its so enraging and harmful to everybody concerned. New: but related topic. There's a new book our that I picked up in Philly when we were there. It's called  "Ex-Gay Research" by Jack Drescher and Kenneth Zucker. It takes apart the so-called research basis of the Ex Gay movement. 'Nother topic: earlier this spring, our department decided to make a`change in the psychology textbook we use in most of our classes, and let various publisher know we were looking for a new text. Being's I'm the chairman of the department I was deluged with examination copies of Psychology textbooks (12 in all) I decided to see what each of them said about homosexuality, and to catalog the research they used. I ended up with a list of over 200 studies, and work from 57 academic publications. I've spent a good part of this summer assembling what I've learned about 15 different topics from prevalence studies to causal studies to homophobia, religiosity, etc., and am incorporating it into my Soc of Homosexuality course for Fall. If you like I'll send you copies of what I'm doing so you can use the stuff to light your fireplace `this winter. In every case, the psych textbooks are very supportive of "gay" and very suspicious of the "ex-gay" movement as being flim-flam. Well, its been god ranting and raving on. Thanks for everything. Love (Jimmy sends his love, too) John From: "Ben Williams" To: "John Reeves" can I post this on the Utah Gay Forum site?  Glad you are keeping busy with projects that keep you young.  Yes Utah is still a backwater.  I have been busy lately with this DNA research I had done. It’s pretty interesting.  Take care and it’s so good to hear from you.

Bob Waldrop

2009 Bob Waldrop to Ben Williams Dear Ben, Well, I was going through the 6000+ messages in my in box this AM doing my semi-irregular deletion of email and found this one, oops, sorry I didn't notice it in a more timely way. I am still alive, kicking, afflicting the comfortable, and comforting the afflicted, see www.bobwaldrop.net for more details. Good to hear from you, I never hear from anyone in Salt Lake City anymore except occasionally from Willy Marshall. RMW 

• Ben Williams to Bob Waldrop I check up on the Oscar Romero site once and awhile to see what you are up too. You just don't know how much I admire you... I've found some Waldrops in my family tree one even named Robert H Waldrop so I am claiming you as kin. I have no life outside of compiling Utah Gay History [of which you feature prominently]. The State Historical Society wants my collection to be donated to the Marriott Library so trying to get it done before I croak. I turned 58 this year.  I'm still in the belly of the beast but someone has to be the record keeper. I guess you heard about the kiss-in at Temple Square after two guys were arrested for an innocent kiss...what else is new right? I am still teaching school starting my 22 year but truly am wanting to retire and do something else but would like to hang in there for a pension.  I just heard from Bruce Barton on facebook the other day and he was reminiscing about the firebombing of your car and the MCC church on highland which I guess happened about this time of year.There's a new crop of kids running things here so that's a good thing but I miss having the energy to be a hell raiser.  I just want to wear loose fitting clothes, reminisce and smoke pot which I don't dare LOL.  Please keep in touch once in awhile and let us here know what you are up to. Your friend Ben 
• From: Robert Waldrop Subject: Re: Saying Hi I haven't been to Utah for years, I really need to come for a visit.  The NY Times had an article about Crownburgers, and I wanted one!  That and a Greek souvlaki.  And breakfast at Kostas on 11th East (is it still there?).  A kid from U of U came all the way here to OKC and interviewed me for several hours for a master’s thesis he is doing, that was last year.  So much history.  So much fun.  Take care, thanks for thinking of me.  I am on Facebook too, btw.  Rmw

Jesse Furhwirth

2010 Why didn't LDS Church, Prop. 8 supporters fight harder? In Section: Salt Lake City News News Blog Posted By: Jesse Fruhwirth Yesterday I wrote that the trial against California's Proposition 8 was "kind of a sham." I stand by that--despite a lot of criticism--but whose fault is it that the trial was so lopsided? Why did supporters of the ban against gay marriage--like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints--not involve themselves more in defending the law they so vigorously fought to pass?      A lot of people want to celebrate the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and maybe they should, but it should also be noted that 52 percent of Californians voted in favor of the law that banned gay marriage, and our system of justice somehow failed to produce a robust defense of it. Regardless of whether Prop. 8 is discriminatory, this, to me, seems unfair. The quality of defense experts was low--one's testimony was ruled unreliable because he doesn't even have a bachelor's degree relevant to the subject of marriage or homosexuality--and the quantity was also low: a mere two experts (one a suspected quack) compared to the pro-gay rights sides' nine bona fide experts. On top of that, two more Prop. 8 defenders' testimony was withdrawn by defendants after the gay rights side argued that their deposition statements actually helped prove the plaintiff's claims that Prop. 8 is discriminatory. Stupid.  Like I wrote yesterday, imagine the tables were turned, 52 percent of Californians had voted against Prop. 8 and during a federal challenge of the results, only a meager and ridiculous defense was put up to defend the clear preference of the voting majority. Say what you will about mob rule, but even a mob deserves good representation in court, don't they? This is a democracy. So why was the defense of Prop. 8 so paltry? Was it the fault of an "activist judge"? I don't think so. Are there simply no credible experts who support Prop. 8? Yeah, right. Is there really no credible way to defend the ban on gay marriage? Maybe. But I suspect the real answer lies in Temple Square or in the office of "The Father of Proposition 8." Why didn't, for example, the LDS Church have one of their in-house experts like LDS Family Services clinical director Jerry Harris testify in defense of Prop. 8? Say what you will about Harris's beliefs--he supports therapy that helps people repress their "same sex attraction," which may be unhealthy--but at least he's a bona fide expert under the analysis applied by the court. Suffice it to say, Harris and other educated colleagues who share the LDS and Catholic church's party line of being against gay marriage did not testify to defend it. In the end, almost no one of any real intelligence defended Prop. 8. That's curious, isn't it? I called the LDS Newsroom this morning about this issue. I was told I'd receive a call back. When/if I do, I'll update this post. Cynics will say the LDS Church is trying to avoid bad PR by not appearing to beat up on the gays again; church defenders might be more inclined to believe that the real battle is in the appeals anyway, so why waste time on the trial level? The church is still licking its wounds after paying a fine for violations of California's election laws related to its campaign for Prop. 8, so maybe that has something to do with it. Whatever the case, I want to hear from the church itself on why it didn't assist the defense more robustly, or indeed, whether it assisted at all. Don't you? Why does this matter if you wanted the gays to win anyway? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court must defer to Walker's findings of fact unless those higher courts undermine the whole package and say that he abused his discretion by taking factual evidence in the first place. The Prop. 8 defenders, you see, argued that whether or not Prop. 8 is Constitutional is simply a matter of law--an academic question of theory--and that facts about homophobia in the real world are irrelevant to that discussion. Something tells me Justice Antonin Scalia, et al, agrees with them. Because Walker's findings of fact are so lopsided in favor of the gays (they are universally gay friendly), the conservative Supremes have even more political incentive--and political cover--to strike them from the record when/if the case reaches them. In fact, that's my best guess as to what's going to happen. But what do I know? What do you think?

• Adrian Parra responded: You're neglecting a glaring tenet of our constitutional law. Namely, fundamental civil rights may not be submitted to a popular vote.  You can hate the gays as much as you want, the Blacks, the Latinos, women, etc.  You can abhor equal marriage, interracial marriage, etc.  Your hate, however, does nothing from allowing these groups enjoy the same civil rights and equal protection under the law that everyone else receives. Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives: the right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t 'special' to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship.
• Ryan Shattuck: For the record, Jesse Fruhwirth is NOT a bigot. I think he is simply playing the devil's advocate. I appreciate that Jesse, who is gay himself, understands that it's okay to celebrate the Proposition 8 ruling, while simultaneously maintaining a healthy level of journalistic cynicism.
• Jesse Fruhwirth:  Thanks Ryan. I don't often consider it entirely relevant to my journalism, but since it's been brought up, yes, Yes I am a flaming homosexual and dang proud of it. Any more questions about my personal attributes? I think it's fair for readers to know "where I'm coming from" as NYU journo professor Jay Rosen says.
• Michael P Gotch "A lot of people want to celebrate the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and maybe they should, but it should also be noted that 52 percent of Californians voted in favor of the law that banned gay marriage, and our system of justice somehow failed to produce a robust defense of it. Regardless of whether Prop. 8 is discriminatory, this, to me, seems unfair." [My italics] Jesse, how could you write this and not see how obviously flawed your thinking is from a constitutional law standpoint?  Unfortunately, your view is held by probably 100% of the 52% you cite as prop 8 supporters.  It’s simply not the case.  A popular vote on an issue (see bush v. gore) does not guarantee the law or decision it produces will stand.  Imagine if what you said was in reference to the civil rights act.  If popular vote was the deciding factor in whether a law stands, then we'd have quite a problem in many areas of the United States that still support segregation, bans on interracial marriage, and the like.  The court's decision in this case has a long way to go before it is upheld, but i for one am glad that we have a system in place which has some checks and balances.  as far as the merits of the defense of prop 8, you may be right.  Monday morning quarterbacking is often infallible and had the decision been the other way, i doubt you'd have anything to say.  The story is not over, of course, and you may be right about the Supreme Court.  We’ll see.  Until then, brush up on the way the system works before you reveal too much ignorance.

Rev. C Welton Gaddy

2010 Interfaith leader calls gay marriage legal issue By JENNIFER DOBNER The Associated Press People of faith should engage in civil dialogue about gay marriage, but government should rely on the U.S. Constitution — not religion — in deciding who can marry, the head of the national Interfaith Alliance said Friday. The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy says marriage is a legal issue in the United States and only government can grant a marriage license. “Religions care about it, yes, but you can’t get married because of your religion,” Gaddy said during a presentation on religious freedom at Sunstone, an annual forum for Mormon culture and academic study in Salt Lake City. Support of, or opposition to, gay marriage is “not a matter of whether you are a good Christian, a good Mormon, or a good Muslim,” said Gaddy, a Baptist who is also a pastor at Northminster Church in Monroe, La. “It’s a question of whether or not you’re a good American. It’s a question of whether or not you support the Constitution.” Churches belong in the conversation — and have the right to denounce homosexuality and gay relationships — but should not be allowed to impose their sectarian positions on government. Like many faiths, the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers traditional marriage an institution established by God and a cornerstone of society. The church has consistently fought marriage equality legislation across the U.S. since the 1990s. The church was heavily criticized for its role in the 2008 passage of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state. Church members were vigorous volunteers and by some estimates donated tens of millions of dollars to pass the measure, which was overturned by a federal judge in a ruling Wednesday. Mormon church leaders responded to the ruling by expressing their “regret” but also called for civil and respectful dialogue between those with opposing viewpoints. Gaddy shares that call for civility, but disagrees with Mormon leaders who suggest that laws that legalize gay marriage are eroding the rights of churches to practice their beliefs. “Regardless of how many millions of dollars it invested in the Proposition 8 debate, the Mormon church today, after the court ruling, still has the same right to denounce gay marriage,” Gaddy said. “It has not been silenced. It will still be respected for its views, even if we disagree.” Some Mormons disagree with their church and have turned to the Internet and other forums to voice their dissent. Some members have left the church over the issue, but many are quietly working within the faith to bridge differences in opinion. “I know that it’s difficult to stay in your church, it was difficult for me to stay in my church,” Gaddy said Friday. “I admire you for doing it. I also would understand if you didn’t.” Gaddy said he expects Wednesday’s court ruling — and a subsequent appeal — will ramp up the emotion and hyperbole around the marriage debate in the months ahead. But he encouraged conference-goers to stay at the table long enough to reason through conflicts. Laura Compton, a co-founder of the website and advocacy group Mormons for Marriage, said she was encouraged by Gaddy’s perspective and experiences. She said she believes she sees some progress toward more dialogue in her own Mormon congregation. “I see a lot of people really sitting back and thinking maybe we do need to have some open hearts and open minds,” said Compton, of Cupertino, Calif. 

2010 McEntee: Prop 8 ruling advances civil rights movement of our time By PEG McEntee The Salt Lake Tribune When I think about California’s Proposition 8, I think about my family, friends and co-workers, and the people I serve and those who serve me. And I think about the bitter antipathy of the voters who passed Prop 8 in 2008, leaving so many of us with the equally bitter taste of bigotry made law. Now, a federal judge has found Prop 8 unconstitutional in that state and the United States. He has validated the reasoning of the four plaintiffs, two women who wish to be legally married, and two men who want the same. And for me, and so many of my loved ones, it is a huge step toward justice in one of the most important civil rights movements of our time. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker found that Prop 8 failed to “advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license” and did nothing more than “enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” On the federal front, Walker found that the proposition puts gays and lesbians at a disadvantage without rational justification, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  (Last month, a Massachusetts judge found the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional on the same grounds.) The case is bound for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. And for now, gays and lesbians who wish to marry in California cannot join the 18,000 people who were legally wed before Prop 8 passed. That’s right off the table in most states, including Utah, where voters approved a defense-of-marriage amendment to the state constitution in 2004. The LDS Church, among others, played a huge role in Prop 8; its Utah members spent about $2.6 million to ensure its passage. But a source tells me that church leadership may be easing away from such obvious political involvement. When Argentina opened its laws to same-sex marriage, LDS Church leaders there were all but missing from the public debate. But while policies and politics are at the forefront now, the LGBT community is way ahead of the curve — and so are our young people. In the spring of 2004, I was there when two lovely young women pledged themselves to one another in Memory Grove. My brother Bill has been with Steve as long as my husband Bill and I have — 28 years and counting. A dear friend who legally married his partner in San Francisco lost him a year or so ago. My friend still wears his wedding band, as any widower would. He also proudly sports his San Francisco Opera ball cap — they did love the opera. And maybe most importantly, the young don’t see much to get excited about when it comes to gay marriage. For them, any opposition is a tiresome and outdated fear of “the other.” We all need to look at our friends and families. Who among your brothers and sisters, your children, would you deny the protection and joy of marriage?  Peg McEntee is a columnist. Reach her at pegmcentee@sltrib.com.

2016 OGDEN — The Ogden Pride Festival returns to downtown Ogden for its second year of celebration Saturday. The festival, dedicated to celebrating and supporting the area’s LGBT community, runs from 2 to 10 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 6, at the Ogden Amphitheater, 343 25th St. The event includes a pet parade, live music and entertainers performing on two stages. Though admission to the event is free, attendees must pay for food and carnival games. Each game costs one ticket, which can be purchased two for $1, according to the event’s website. Other items like T-shirts, decals, buttons and umbrellas will also be on sale.
At 8:45 p.m., the winner of the 2016 Ogden Pride Poetry Contest, Patrick Ramsay, will read his original poem inspired by the theme “pride elevated.” About 50 businesses will have booths at the festival, according to the event’s website. PET PARADE The Pet Parade &

Saliva Sisters

Fashion Show returns for the festival’s second year. The show begins at 3 p.m., when pet parents can strut their animals across the stage. Participants need to be at the courtyard stage with their pets ready to go by 2:45 p.m. ENTERTAINMENT The Saliva Sisters headline a list of entertainers at the festival. The group has enjoyed more than 20 years of melody and mirth in Utah, the festival says. Singer-songwriter Talia Keys is slated to perform, as is Cheer Salt Lake, an adult cheerleading team that raises money for health-related charities. DJ Suzy Bean caps the night by DJing a dance party.

2017 QSaltLake Magazine once again presents Q Lagoon Day the first Sunday of August: Aug 6th. Let's celebrate and have a gay old time time.  Discount coupons, worth $9 off at the gate, are at Club Try-Angles, Off-Trax, Cahoots, Club Jam, Friar Tucks Barbershop, No Fills Diner in Ogden, City Limits in Provo and Charleys in Pocatello. Wear RED to stand OUT. Canyon Pavilion at the north end of the park near the Rocket. Join us at the Canyon pavilion for karaoke, picnicking (bring your food and drink), lounging on the grass, etc. Noon - 4pm Karaoke by DJ Kevan of Providing Entertainment, LLC 4 pm is the GROUP PHOTO 4:15 Bingo with the Matrons of Mayhem - Drag Queen Bingo for charity in Salt Lake City