5 February
1910- H.D. Fairchild Case 2341 Third Judicial
District Court: H.D Fairchild, a 39-year-old roomer at Lincoln House, SLC, and
electrician by trade was charged with Crime Against Nature in 1910 for having
sex with Willard Partridge a fourteen-year-old youth. Partridge was born
January 1896 in Salt Lake City the son of Jonathan and Mary Partridge who lived
at 877 East 800 South. The father Jonathan W. Partridge was a Mormon born in
1856 in Utah . He is not listed in the 1900 Census therefore
not a long time resident. Complaint: On this seventh day of February A.D. 1910
before me John Bowman, Judge of the city court within and for Salt Lake City,
Salt Lake County, State of Utah personally appeared Richard Beynon who on being
duly sworn by me on his oath did say that H.D. Fairchild on the 5th day of
February A.D. 1910 at the County of Salt Lake, State of Utah, did commit the
infamous crime against nature as follows to wit: That the said H.D. Fairchild
did at the time and place aforesaid unlawfully, wilfully (sic) and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of the body of one
Willard Partridge who was then and there a male person. Information: H.D.
Fairchild having heretofore been duly committed to this court by J.M. Bowman, a
Committing Magistrate of said County, to answer to this charge, is accused by
Frederick C. Loofbourow, District Attorney of the Third Judicial District of
the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, by this information, of the CRIME AGAINST
NATURE committed as follows, to-wit:
That the said H.D. Fairchild at the county of Salt Lake City, State of
Utah, on the 5th day of February A.D. 1910, did wilfully (sic), unlawfully and
feloniously commit the infamous crime against nature by then and there wilfully
(sic), unlawfully and feloniously having carnal knowledge of the body of Willard Partridge the said Willard Partridge
being then and there a male person. Contrary to the provisions of the statute
of the State aforesaid, in such cases made and provided and against the peace
and dignity of the State of Utah .”
Signed Frederick C. Loofbourow. 15 March
1910 Bail for H.D. Fairchild was set at $1000. 4 June 1910 Pled Not Guilty Willard
Partridge, William Partridge, Charles Riley, Emil Mills, Campbell, and W.B.
Morrison subpoena to testify. A William R. Partridge of SLC was age 53 in 1910
(1857). 13 July 1910 Found Not Guilty by Jury. Foreman Marion H. Kimball.
(Kimball was a 48 year old man who was employed in a Salt Lake Emporium
according to the 1910 Census)
1965 William Pope, 23, was found guilty of 1st degree murder and sentenced
to life in prison at hard labor by Judge Joseph C. Jeppson for the murder of
Johnny Wesley Wallace, on 2nd South and 5th West, SLC UT
1981-In Toronto ,
305 men were arrested in a raid on four bathhouses. It was the largest civilian
mass arrest in Canadian history.
 |
| Personal Best |
1982-"Personal Best" opened. Problems encountered during
filming included bomb threats, physical attacks, verbal harassment, and death
threats.
1988- Aunti De's (Dean Walton) annual Salute to
the Cowboys show was held at Radio City, in SLC UT.
1988-Friday- Mark LaMarr called me about having found a location
for our dances. We can have them at the Central City Community Center for $45
for three hours 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. I need to talk with Chris Brown of LGSU and
Dave Malmstrom of Affirmation before confirming it. [1988 Journal of Ben
Williams]
1989- Dick Dotson who founded a food bank for the
Salt Lake AIDS Foundation (along with Chuck Whyte) left the foundation along
with Donald Steward program director of the People With AIDS Foundation, as
well as the founder of the People With AIDS Coalition, David Sharpton. The men claimed
that the SLAF was spending its resources inappropriately by hiring too large a
staff, and not making adequate efforts to use the trained volunteers. David
Sharpton and Ben Barr had had a stormy relationship for some time.
1989 Sunday- I talked with David Sharpton today and we discussed
what people are saying about Derek
Streeter and trouble at the Salt Lake AIDS Foundation. [1988 Journal of Ben
Williams]
1991- In New York City ACT-UP members Scott Sensenig, Dorice
Meieran, and Christiane San Miguel were arrested and accused of painting
"O'Conner Spreads Death" on the sidewalk in front of Cardinal John
O'Conner's home. Sensenig was seriously beaten by police during the arrest.
1992 GROUPS SEEKING HATE-CRIMES LAW OK COMPROMISE By Bob Bernick Jr.,
Political Editor Deseret News Published: Wednesday, Feb. 5, 1992 Blacks, Jews, homosexuals and
other groups demanding a new hate-crimes law from the Legislature agreed
Tuesday to a compromise bill but vowed to return next year if prosecutors and
judges don't adequately sentence those who commit crimes against them. In the
face of certain defeat in the House Judiciary committee, Rep. Frank Pignanelli,
D-Salt Lake, sponsor of the original hate crime bill, agreed to a compromise
proposed by House Majority Whip Byron Harward, R-Provo.Harward says his bill is
broader and more likely to result in convictions of those who menace people
because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or any other characteristic
that a bigot may despise. While Pignanelli's bill listed categories - like
religion, race, ethnicity - into which victims could fall and be covered by a
hate crime law, Harward's on the other hand strikes at the intent of the
criminal. Harward's bill says that if a person commits a misdemeanor with the
intent to intimidate or terrorize another person then the crime becomes a
third-degree felony. Harward gives this example: A person for whatever reason
spray-paints a garage door, and that's vandalism. But under current law it is
still just vandalism if a neo-Nazi spray paints a swastika on the door of a
Jewish person's home. However, the painting of the swastika is done to
intimidate and terrorize and under his bill would now be a third-degree felony
punishable by up to five years in prison. The normal vandalism, depending on
the amount of the damage, would be a misdemeanor with a fine and a short jail
sentence. The representatives of minority groups met with Pignanelli and
Harward for Tuesday's committee meeting. Most were not enthusiastic about giving
up Pignanelli's original hate crimes bill - which they believe gives them more
protection because it specifically lists categories of minorities and enhances
hate crime penalties for all violations, misdemeanors and felonies. But facing
the political realities, they decided to support Harward's compromise,
promising to be back next year if gay-bashing and other acts of bigotry are not
prosecuted to the full extent of the new law. Said Pignanelli, "If rocks
are thrown out a window of a synagogue on Hitler's birthday again this year,
then the prosecutors and judges better sentence the SOBs who did it to a
third-degree felony or you can bet we'll be back." While groups for and
against Pignanelli's original bill were satisfied with Harward's compromise and
spoke of healing old wounds Tuesday, the bitter debate over freedom of speech,
increased protection for some minority groups at the expense of all and the
sensitive issue of placing homosexuals as a protected class in a Utah law all
left a bad taste in some lawmakers' mouths. For example, Harward said he was
still upset over a press conference called Sunday by gay and lesbian groups in
which they criticized legislators for not supporting Pignanelli's bill.
"That was just plain lying," he said.
1999 Data Lounge Utah Senate
Committee Kills Hate Crimes Bill By C. Barillas, Editor SALT LAKE CITY, Ut. --
The Deseret News reports the Utah Senate Judiciary Committee voted down a
proposed hate crimes bill by a final vote of 4 to 2 on Thursday, ending hopes
for passage of a law this year. The Utah
bill was worded to protect people against crimes motivated by race, religion,
national origin, color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or mental or
physical disabilities. The Utah statute also provided additional penalties for
crimes motivated by malice toward psychiatric hospitals, abortion clinics and
health-care providers. Democratic Sen. Pete Suazo argued the changes were
necessary to discourage bias crime in the state, and to help make current Utah
statutes enforceable. Suazo said the current bias statute has never been used
by state courts because many judges and prosecutors believe it is too vague.
Opponents of the bill included leaders of Utah Eagle Forum, Utah Concerned
Women of America and America Forever, who argued the law granted "special
rights to homosexuals." Utah Democratic Gay and Lesbian Caucus Chair David
G. Thometz ridiculed the argument, saying the bill did nothing more than
provide protection, not special rights, to targets of bias-related attacks.
"Rape is a crime of intimidation and terror that is not adequately
addressed by simple assault, battery, molestation or forced-sex laws,"
Thometz said. "Does this law give anyone 'special rights'? Of course
not... hate crimes are crimes against entire classes of people." Gay state Democratic leader David Nelson
helped write the bill and called the committee vote a partisan move designed to
placate right-wing Republicans. "It's obvious that the committee members
voted along party lines," Nelson said. "The Republican senators' vote
to defeat this bill - without offering any amendment to make it more acceptable
- will let more hate criminals out on the streets, and sends the message that
hate is welcome in Utah."
2003 Ben Williams-Chad,
I must have deleted Geoff's reply after I thought I had sent it to
you...Basically he apologized for not getting back sooner..had been sick...up
shot was that he didn't feel that it was necessary to met with both you and I over what he has in mind. ...I am not even going to be here for the Center's Lieberstrum Party in June
so if he wants anything from me he can go through you. So they are fighting
over: GTLB-GTBL, GLBT, GLTB, GBLT,GBTL,LBTG,
LBGT LGBT,LGTB, LTBG, LTGB, BGLT, BGTL, BTGL, BTLG, BLGT, BLTG,
TGLB, TGBL, TBLG, TBGL, TLBG, TLGB -Take
Your Pick!!! Print them all and say "so as not to offend anyone---"
What a bunch of idiots! Mommy I didn't get to be first! Not that
I give a rats ass but Gay Liberation movement
came first- late 60's early 70's (which included men, women, and
trans) then late 70's early 80' Lesbian with the separationist (Radicalesbian
movement), then the Bisexual
(early 1990's -hey its safe now)and finally jumping on the band
wagon were the Trans community (My imitation of Ms. Storni "We started it
all- you just didn't know it"). Stop using ALPHABETS all together...Use
something like "Sexual minority communities" or simply homo. BEN :)
- Dear PFLAG Family and Friends: Thanks to everyone who showed up at the Capitol last month for the rally. Unity
2003 Demo hate-crime bills in House, Senate differ Deseret News
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2002 Utah Democrats have opted for another
two-pronged approach in an effort to pass hate-crime legislation this year.
Following the lead of Sen. Alicia Suazo, who's sponsoring hate-crime
legislation in the Senate, Rep. David Litvack Monday unveiled his own
hate-crime bill in the house. But unlike last year, when Litvack and the late
Sen. Pete Suazo sponsored identical hate-crime bills in both bodies of the
legislature, this year's House bill takes a different approach than hate-crimes
legislation in the Senate. Instead of enhancing a crime one degree if the
defendant selected the victim or his or her property based on "race,
color, disability, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, gender or sexual
orientation," HB151 allows for a stiffer sentence. Suazo's SB64 would
enhance the penalty for a hate crime one degree.
 |
| Rosemary Winters |
2003 Page: A10 Honor All Families: I am disgusted with Rep. Tom
Hatch, R-Panguitch, and his proposal that the Utah Legislature pass a resolution
urging Congress to support the insidious Federal Marriage Amendment -- an
amendment that would perpetuate legal discrimination against lesbians and gays.
As a citizen and a voter, I insist on respect from our representatives for all
members of our community. The amendment, which would define marriage as legal
only between a man and a woman, would extend the power of the federal
government into an area that has always been a state issue, making it
impossible for states to create marital laws based on the needs of their
individual populations. By preventing homosexual couples from being legally
recognized, we do not prevent relationships that some people may disapprove of,
we only make the lives of those family members more difficult. Lesbian and gay partners
are unable to secure hospital visitation rights, health-care benefits,
inheritance rights and many other benefits and advantages that married couples
enjoy. The Marriage Amendment would not
protect families. It would harm them. Lesbians and gays are not isolated
individuals. They are our brothers, sisters, parents, daughters, sons, aunts,
uncles, cousins, friends and neighbors. We are all members of families. It is
time to adopt legislation that accepts and values all families instead of
legislation that harms families outside of a narrowly drawn definition of
"traditional." ROSEMARY WINTERS Salt Lake City
2005 EDITORIAL, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
NO GAY MARRIAGE The Utah legislature is determined that gays and lesbians will
not be allowed to marry. Even when they don't want to. Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, proposed a
bill that would allow two adults "who are not eligible to be married under
the laws of Utah" to enter into contracts that would give them limited
mutual rights and responsibilities concerning health care and property. The
Senate defeated the bill the other day, 18-10, on the theory that the contracts
would amount to gay marriage by another name.
This was wrong for two reasons. First, as quoted above, the bill
specifically stated that only two adults who could not marry under the law were
eligible for the contracts. Second, the bill was carefully written to say that
these contracts would not be marriages and were not to be treated as if they
were. In short, no one was proposing
gay marriage. But the Senate is so blinded by its antipathy toward the idea of
gay marriage that it cannot bring itself to make it easier for same-sex couples
to exercise certain mutual contract rights, such as the ability to visit a
loved one in the hospital or share property in joint tenancy. This treatment of
gays and lesbians is wrong because it sends the message that they are less
entitled to certain basic rights than other people. We, like most other Utahns, do not support
gay marriage. But we do believe that gay couples should have certain basic
rights that married couples enjoy, among them the rights that Senate Bill 89
would have afforded. Utahns voted
overwhelmingly last November to amend their constitution to protect the
institution of marriage. The new amendment, which appeared on the ballot as
Amendment 3, says that marriage consists only of the legal union between a man
and a woman. The second part of the amendment says that no other domestic
union, no matter what you call it, may be recognized as a marriage or given the
same or substantially equivalent legal effect. We worried at the time of the election that
the second part of that amendment would create barriers to affording gay
couples basic rights. As a matter of law, that issue has not been decided by
the courts. But as a political reality, it is clear from the Senate's vote on
SB89 that our concern has been realized.
A simple contract that allows one person to make health-care decisions
for an incapacitated adult, as an immediate family member could, is not a
"domestic union." Neither is a contract that would allow two
unmarried people to own property in joint tenancy. Making it easier for people
to enter those contracts, and register them with the Health Department, is a simple
courtesy, not a marriage. It's too bad
that 18 Utah
senators can't, or won't, see that.
2005 Rebel Mormon's memoir ignites a furor Accusations: Author
Martha Nibley Beck
claims her father, a respected LDS intellectual, abused her
By Peggy Fletcher Stack The Salt Lake Tribune A daughter of famed Mormon
intellectual Hugh Nibley has accused him of ritually abusing her as a
5-year-old, possibly wearing some kind of Egyptian garb and imitating the
sacrifice of the biblical Abraham. Martha Nibley Beck makes this and a host of
other allegations against her aged father, mother,
siblings, Brigham Young University, Mormons in general as well as leaders of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in an explosive new book,
Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith. Beck, author of
the best-seller Expecting Adam, takes the far side of often virulent debates
about recovered memories of sexual abuse versus false memories, dissidents
versus the LDS Church, scholarly debate about the veracity of Mormon truth
claims, and feminists versus patriarchal religions. For many, especially
non-LDS readers, it will be a compelling tale, enlivened by hilarious as well
as agonized dispatches from Mormon country. Beck's "sarcastic
self-scrutiny and laugh-out-loud prose elevate her story far above the
run-of-the-mill dysfunctional family memoir," said a Dec. 15 review in
Kirkus. But Publisher's Weekly said the book was "marred by shallow,
formulaic anti-Mormon criticisms." And Tom Kimball, a Utah marketing
director, compared it to "a 19th century anti-Mormon narrative of Utah
where women claimed to have jumped into the Great Salt Lake from the towers of
the Salt Lake Temple and swam to safety." Kimball worries that such an
approach will "undermine the credibility of those who have been
legitimately abused by family and others and . . . that apologists will use
Martha's exaggerations and fabrications as an excuse to discredit legitimate
Mormon scholars who are critical of traditional or orthodox Mormon
claims." Adds BYU sociologist Marie Cornwall: "If you believe
'Desperate Housewives' is an accurate reflection of American society, then
you'll believe this book." Leaving the Saints is scheduled to be published
on March 8, the same month that Nibley will turn 95. Beck, a columnist for
Oprah Winfrey's magazine O and a "life coach," will be promoting the
book on a national tour - which won't be stopping in Utah - hoping to sell the
first printing of 75,000 copies. Though the book is not yet available to the
public, Beck said Friday that she has been receiving "a lot of nasty
e-mails." Most of the large Nibley clan, including Beck's seven siblings,
have read parts or all of it. They have known about their sister's accusations
for more than a decade, but only heard about the book last November from her
ex-husband, John Beck. At that time, several of her sisters tried to talk her
out of publishing what they see as outrageous lies about their father and their
family. "I don't believe it, not remotely," said Zina Nibley
Petersen, the next-youngest sister who shared a room and a bunk bed with Beck
for much of their childhood. Martha had the upper bunk. One day when they were
very small, the two were playing on the top bunk when the slats shifted and the
mattress collapsed, dumping them on the floor and knocking out two of Zina's
teeth. "That was with two little wispy girls," Petersen recalled.
"To say nothing of an adult trying to manipulate a child into sex."
Their room was next-door to their parents', she said, and their mother was a
light sleeper. Doors were always open and walls were thin, she said. Christina
Nibley Mincek, the eldest daughter, said Beck's details of her abuse grew after
she first started telling them the story in the early 1990s. She added the
Egyptian elements and vaginal scarring later, Mincek said. She believes Beck's
experience corresponds to someone who had a false implanted memory. Beck read
Courage to Heal, a kind of how-to book about unleashing recovered memories that
was popular in the early 1990s, and was in therapy. And she experimented with
self-hypnosis, Mincek said. "Martha wanted to teach me and her sisters how
to recover these memories," she said. None did. Even Rebecca Nibley, whom
all siblings agree is Beck's strongest supporter in the family, doesn't believe
their father abused anyone. "The one thing she wanted so badly was for us
to say, 'it happened to me too,' " she said. "But we couldn't because
it didn't." And Nibley, four years older than Beck, is surprised that her
sister failed to mention several key facts in this memoir: that Beck and her
husband are divorced and that both are gay. "When the key issue in the
book is her sexuality and how she got the way she is, to leave that out is
going to make her look foolish," Rebecca Nibley said. Beck responded that
she left out that information because Leaving is a memoir of her life between
the ages of 25 and 30. "At the time, I knew that my then husband John had
struggled with homosexual attractions and behavior for most of his life,"
she said. The family has hired Christopher Barden, a psychologist and lawyer
who has testified in court cases on False Memory Syndrome. He has compiled
affidavits from all the Nibley siblings, some in-laws and their mother,
Phyllis. They are considering legal action against Beck or her publisher,
Random House in New York. Hugh Nibley has been bedridden for two years and is
mostly lucid, Alex Nibley said. He is aware of the accusations and vehemently
denies them. Mormons have been feverishly circulating excerpts of the book on
the Internet. An editor's note mentioned it at the bottom of Beck's column in
January, and Nibley family friend Linda Smith has launched an e-mail campaign
to dissuade Oprah from giving Beck an additional platform in her magazine or on
her show to promote the book.
 |
| Martha Beck |
Such an organized reaction is
"really surprising," Beck said by telephone from her home in Phoenix.
"I don't feel I'm significant enough." But just about anyone else
would have predicted the onslaught. Her book makes many exaggerated claims about
Mormons and Mormonism: that the governing First Presidency maintains a
"death squad . . . to deal with malcontents," that the incidence of
sex abuse among Mormon families far
exceeds any other group, that "virtually all Mormons agree with the
current prophet that mothers should not work under any circumstances,"
that the church wire-tapped her home phone, that BYU removed all mention of
Equal Rights Amendment Mormon activist Sonia Johnson from its library and that
a Provo hairdresser insisted Beck get permission from her husband before
cutting her hair. But more than anything, this book is about her view of one of
the church's most favored sons: Hugh Nibley. For more than 50 years, he was
leadership's go-to scholar on LDS claims about the ancient origins of the Book
of Mormon. The BYU-based Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies
(FARMS) has spent the last couple of decades building on his research. Beck
writes that 90 percent of his books' footnotes are invented, a fact disputed by
numerous proofreaders. And she blames the LDS Church for putting her father in
a bind by demanding that he prop up indefensible history. "He could either
lose his job, his livelihood, his social standing, his bully pulpit, by
publicly revealing information that would undermine the very foundation of
Mormonism, or he could lie flat out," she writes. "In a way, I admire
him for choosing the only other alternative: he went crazy." Beck's family
says she's the unstable one. "She has a long history of mental illness,
especially anorexia and depression," Mincek said. "I am worried about
her. [The negative mail] is probably throwing her into a total panic." On
the contrary, Beck is at peace with her book. "I write memoir and
self-help because trusted editors and my own heart seem to push me toward
dealing with the most difficult issues of real life," she said. "I
wrote this book now because it is about an experience that taught me more than
any other experience of my life about fear and pain as a path to compassion,
forgiveness, and hope."
 |
| Scott McCoy |
2005 Subject: Senate District Two
Ladies and Gentlemen, as some of you may have heard by now, Scott McCoy
has been chosen by the delegates in Senate Distrust 2 to replace Paula
Julander. I wish to extend my congratulations to Scott. This is a first fot the
LGBT Community; having an openly gay man in the State Senate. I believe he is
extremely qualified to represent the people of District 2. I wish him the best
of luck and look forward to working with him in the future. Mike Picardi, Chair,
Utah
2005 EDITORIAL, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE NO GAY MARRIAGE The Utah legislature is determined that gays and
lesbians will not be allowed to marry. Even when they don't want to. Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, proposed a
bill that would allow two adults "who are not eligible to be married under
the laws of Utah" to enter into contracts that would give them limited
mutual rights and responsibilities concerning health care and property. The
Senate defeated the bill the other day, 18-10, on the theory that the contracts
would amount to gay marriage by another name. This was wrong for two reasons. First, as quoted above, the bill
specifically stated that only two adults who could not marry under the law were
eligible for the contracts. Second, the bill was carefully written to say that
these contracts would not be marriages and were not to be treated as if they
were. In short, no one was proposing
gay marriage. But the Senate is so blinded by its antipathy toward the idea of
gay marriage that it cannot bring itself to make it easier for same-sex couples
to exercise certain mutual contract rights, such as the ability to visit a
loved one in the hospital or share property in joint tenancy. This treatment of
gays and lesbians is wrong because it sends the message that they are less
entitled to certain basic rights than other people. We, like most other Utahns, do not support
gay marriage. But we do believe that gay couples should have certain basic
rights that married couples enjoy, among them the rights that Senate Bill 89
would have afforded. Utahns voted overwhelmingly last November to amend their
constitution to protect the institution of marriage. The new amendment, which
appeared on the ballot as Amendment 3, says that marriage consists only of the
legal union between a man and a woman. The second part of the amendment says
that no other domestic union, no matter what you call it, may be recognized as
a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. We
worried at the time of the election that the second part of that amendment
would create barriers to affording gay couples basic rights. As a matter of
law, that issue has not been decided by the courts. But as a political reality,
it is clear from the Senate's vote on SB89 that our concern has been realized. A
simple contract that allows one person to make health-care decisions for an
incapacitated adult, as an immediate family member could, is not a
"domestic union." Neither is a contract that would allow two
unmarried people to own property in joint tenancy. Making it easier for people
to enter those contracts, and register them with the Health Department, is a
simple courtesy, not a marriage. It's too bad that 18 Utah senators can't, or
won't, see that.
- Utah Stonewall Historical Society Comment by Ben Williams: In a Tribune article yesterday Utah Senators Lyle Hillyard, Bill Hickman, and LaVar Christensen were quoted saying that Senate Bill 89 which would have allowed for some domestic partnership benefits was part of an agenda to push Gay Rights. The most hateful words came from Christensen who “assailed the bill as a Trojan horse for gay rights.” He said, "I'm sure gay couples would like to ride the coattails of two widows to advance their cause," said Christensen, one of the original sponsors of Amendment 3. Only three Senators had the courage to stand up against the culture of hate that is being perpetuated in this state. After watching the PBS series Auschwitz it became clear that a culture of hate must first be developed before the people demonized can be eradicated with impunity. Utah has had a culture of hate since it was founded, demonizing Gentiles by church authorities to the point that in a frenzy more than 120 men women and children were massacred in Southern Utah. The LDS Church could stop this culture of hate towards Gays at any time by positive pronouncements from the top echelons but the silence is deafening. The legislators of this state 90 percent who are Mormons have decided that Gays are not worthy of constitutional protection or guarantees of liberties there in contained. Bill Hickman of St. George even implied that we are not people of the state. The Nazi state moral justification of eradicating the Jews was that they were enemies of Germany, they corrupted children, and their blood was contamined. Sound familiar? When GBH says Gays have a problem, he might as well said “Thus Saith the Lord!” The Mormon Church is complicit in this neo con (fascist) movement by its silence in not standing up for a Hate Crime Bill (isn’t that a moral issue?} not speaking out for a domestic partnership bill for those that can not legally marry, and for the safety of Gay children in Utah’s schools. Make no mistake about it, Utah is perpetuating a culture of hate one that will have dire consequences. While Utah has always been intolerant of outsiders its now becoming institutionalized. As a school teacher, I hear “smear the queer,” calling people fag or he’s so gay every day. These children are being carefully taught at home to hate or if Gay hate themselves. With the attitude I’d rather see my son dead then immoral no wonder Stuart Matis and tens of others are driven to suicide. God bless PFlag and People Who Care organizations that love their children unconditionally.
2006 Saturday by Ben Williams Cowboy
Romances on the Big Screen This article leaves out the obvious Butch
Cassidy and the Sundance Kid..You know they were saddle buddies. Article Last
Updated: 2/02/2006 11:17 PM Howdy, partner! Love stories about manly men go way
back By Mark Rahner Seattle Times Salt Lake Tribune You'd think people had
never laid eyes on a gay cowboy before. Weeks after ''Brokeback Mountain Utah ,
still makes national news for shunning the movie, even though most critics love
it, it ruled at the Golden Globes and led Tuesday's Oscar nominees, and it's a
bona fide success at the box office. Still can't wrap your head around the
concept of gay cowboys? Got news for you, pardner: You've been watching them
all your life. The cowboys in a lot of classics may not be explicitly getting
it on like the ''Brokeback'' boys, but there's no denying the obviousness of
what you could delicately call a strong homoerotic subtext. It doesn't take a
decoder ring or a social/political agenda to spot the signals, whether you're
straight or gay, a Western buff or tenderfoot. And I'm not even talking about
Robert Conrad's tight little outfit in the old ''The Wild Wild West'' TV
series. But trust me, I've put in some time in the saddle and rustled up a few
classic Westerns that really are love stories between men. Manly men. ''Red River '' (1948): Howard Hawks' classic was already
notorious before the 1995 documentary ''The Celluloid Closet'' outed it. See
the flirting between cowboys Montgomery Clift and John Ireland while admiring
each other's pistols. Ireland 's
character, Cherry (!), says, ''There are only two things more beautiful than a
gun: a Swiss watch or a woman from anywhere. Ever had a good . . . Swiss watch?''
Later, damsel Tess Millay (Joanne Dru) hollers at feuding Clift and John Wayne:
''Anybody with half a mind would know you two love each other.'' Hawks' ''Rio Bravo '' (1959) isn't as overt. Sheriff John T. Chance
(John Wayne) relies on alcoholic Dude (Dean Martin), cranky old Stumpy (Walter
Brennan) and handsome young Colorado
(Ricky Nelson) to fend off thugs trying to break a murderer out of jail. Take a
gander at the looks on the faces of Dude and Colorado as they sing - to each other. Or
the way they walk down the street whistling together at the end, and the way
Dude opens a door for his new companion. ''Hawks' camera does cast a pretty
queer eye on the young Rick Nelson - but that could be there as much for the
girls as for the boys,'' says Robert Cumbow, the author of Once Upon a Time:
The Films of Sergio Leone. ''Arguably the gayest thing in the film is Walter
Brennan's fussy old Stumpy, constantly bickering at John T. (while doing his
housekeeping for him) as if he were genuinely jealous of the sheriff's
relationships with younger men.'' Could that have anything to do with the
playful kiss Johnny T. plants on the top of Stumpy's noggin? ''The Virginian''
(1929, not on DVD): In the swishiest of several versions, Gary
Cooper plays The V, and he wants to know why his friend Steve (Richard Arlen)
is hanging around with that black-hatted tramp Trampas (Walter Huston), who's
seducing him to the dark side. ''Why didn't you wait for me?'' The V asks when
he sees Steve with Trampas at a party. ''You ain't very choosy about your
company.'' ''Maybe you'll explain what you mean by that,'' Trampas retorts.
Catfight over a guy! ''You and I done a lot of loco things,'' The V later tells
Steve, as he puts his hand on Steve's leg, leaves it there a really long time, then
slowly slides it off. ''The Wild Bunch'' (1969, R), just out in a magnificent
two-disc special edition from Warner's must-have ''Sam Peckinpah's The
Legendary Westerns Collection,'' which also includes ''Ride the High Country''
(1962), ''The Ballad of Cable Hogue'' (1970) and ''Pat Garrett and Billy the
Kid'' (1973, R). Don't let the bloodshed distract you. Dutch (Ernest Borgnine)
clearly has a man-crush on gang leader Pike (William Holden) and meets his
maker with the other man's name on his lips. Ex-Bunch member Deke (Robert Ryan)
pursues Pike with the determination of an old girlfriend. ''Ride the High
Country'' (1962): Aging cowboy stars Randolph Scott and Joel McCrea are like an
old married couple as they bed down in a barn in their union suits. Scott
removes McCrea's coat for him before a fight and puts it back
on afterward. Scott snaps at McCrea about rescuing damsel-in-distress Mariette
Hartley: ''She stays here! We're packing gold, not petticoats.'' And when they
do rescue her from hilljack predators, they change her from a fancy dress into
guy's clothes! Which brings us to ''Johnny Guitar'' (1954, not on DVD). ''I've
never seen a woman that was more a man,'' a bartender says of Joan Crawford's Vienna character, perhaps
named after those little sausages. She dresses and holds a gun like a man. And
just so's you know who's in charge, her suitor goes by the moniker The Dancin'
Kid. And this doesn't even begin to get into the singing cowboy.
2006 Kanab’s ‘natural family’ decree spawns tourism backlash By
Mark Havnes The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake Tribune KANAB – Ted Hallisey’s job
is to turn tourists on to Kane County, but Kanab’s endorsement of a
“natural-family resolution” is turning some visitors off. “Recently read about
your vote to censure anyone other than . . .heterosexual, childbearing couples.
Even though I fit that bill, I am so disturbed by your actions that I am
rescheduling my travel plans to avoid Kanab completely,” reads one e-mail sent
to the city. “Y’all are silly,” reads another e-mail, obtained by The Salt Lake
Tribune through the Government Records Access and Management Act. And a
northern Utah
woman vows to stop visiting Kanab because the resolution supports “prejudice,
discrimination and subtle social cruelties.” Such responses from potential
hotel-staying, souvenir-buying, restaurant-dining visitors worry Hallisey,
executive director of the Kane County Office of Tourism and Film Commission.
“With 700 of 1,000 [hotel] rooms in the county here in Kanab, it’s a viable
tourist location,” he says. The nonbinding resolution – drafted by the
conservative Sutherland Institute – calls marriage between a man and woman
“ordained of God” and urges homes to be open to a “full quiver of children.” It
also encourages young women to become “wives, homemakers and mothers” and young
men to grow into “husbands, home builders and fathers.” Ever since Kanab’s City
Council unanimously adopted the nonbinding document last month, the topic has
been issue No. 1 in this scenic southern Utah
city. Letters filled four pages of the Feb. 1 Southern Utah News. “How mean-spirited, how sad,”
writes Kanab resident Vicky Cooper. “We are not all the same. Some of us don’t
have a quiver of children because we see problems from overpopulation and
choose not to add to them.” Says Greg Metcalf of Kanab: “I would showcase my
heroic, widowed, working mother’s ‘unnatural’ family with the council’s natural
family anytime.” Dixie Brunner, the paper’s publisher and editor who penned an
editorial condemning the council’s action, says she expects more letters on the
issue. The resolution is a “slam to everybody, including those who fit their definition
of a natural family,” Brunner says. “We’re becoming a diverse community so
there are more who feel comfortable about speaking out.” That includes those
who support the resolution. “I salute Mayor Kim Lawson and the council,” writes
Katie Thomas, who noted she came to the area 32 years ago from California seeking a
quieter way of life. “Many of those who are offended and opposed to the
proclamation . . . may have an agenda that would bring the kind of changes that
could redefine all that we came for.” The Rev. Doug Hounshell says he “thanks
God for a community that doesn’t think it has to be ‘gay-friendly.’ “ “We don’t
mean to be mean-spirited,” says Hounshell, pastor of Cliffview Chapel
Baptist Church Salt Lake City . “It’s unfortunate to see such
hateful behavior published in the name of a religion,” Marquardt says. “I’m
sure he represents just a small number that is supposed to be about love.”
Councilman Terril Honey acknowledges some residents have complained to him
about the resolution, but adds there are no plans to rescind it. “Most who have
talked to me have some pain from a past experience that has resurfaced [because
of the resolution] and that is too bad,” Honey says. “Our intent was for a good
purpose. That Kanab is a good, wholesome place to live.” But Hallisey fears
tourists may not see Kanab as a wholesome place to visit . He got an e-mail
from a Canadian woman who says the resolution prompted her to change her
family’s vacation plans to Colorado .
“Shame on you,” she writes. mhavnes@sltrib.com Resolution highlights l Marriage
between a man and a woman is “ordained of God.” L Homes should be open to a
“full quiver of children.” L Young women are seen as “growing into wives,
homemakers and mothers and . . . young men [as] growing into husbands, home
builders and fathers.”
2006 Tonight (Sunday Night) is the last night of the Salt Lake City
Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. We are announcing the Best of the Festival for
all categories tonight. 6PM – Best of the Fest – Short Features Come see the
best short features – gay, lesbian and transgender 8PM – “Gay or Not?” – a
discussion and presentation on the history of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender characters in film over the years. 10PM – Best of the Fest – Drama
The winning film – “Eighteen” will be shown after we announce all the winners
of the festival. This is the final show of the festival. Hope to see you all*
at Brewvies for the festival finale. Brewvies Cinema and Pub (*Must be 21 to
enter) 677 S. 200 West http://saltfest.og
2006 Winter Fest-Neighborhood Potluck Socials! Kick-off is February
5th and will be held monthly there-after. This is a fun way to meet your queer
neighbors and socialize, no matter where you live! Neighborhood Potluck Network
– A Program of the GLBT
Community Center Davis - North Salt Lake
and Davis County
* Summit - Park City
2006 SLC Winterfest Film Premiers
~Utah's First Peek At "Unveiled", "Dorian Blues",
"The Journey", and "Adam & Steve" ~ Saturday, February
5, 2006 Regency Theater at Trolley Square - 602 East 500 South 2:00 pm - "Unveiled Fabria, prosecuted
in Iran because of her love for a woman, flees to Germany where her application
for asylum is turned down. Assuming the identity of a man who recently
committed suicide, she is sent to a refugee camp near a small German village
where she meets Anne. Directed by Angelina Maccarone. 4:30 pm - "Dorian Blues" First time director Tannyson Bardwell reinvents
the universal coming-out story with novelty and delight; like fresh air in the
tire of a faithful old ten-speed. Bardwell's award-winning screenplay
embellishes familiar milestones with an exhilarating quirkiness and the
intoxicating suggestion that each of us is eminently lovable, even at our most
geeky moments.
2006 WINTERFEST BOWLING PARTY NIGHT at Bonwood Bowl 2500 S. Main Street, S. Salt Lake Sunday - February 5 7:00 PM Tickets $10 - At The Door This event includes three games and shoe
rental. There will be a raffle for a bowling ball and bag. A "Mystery Game"
and a "Strike-It-Rich" game will be held. Meet new friends, or come
with your own team of six. ~The
Winterfest Bowling Party Night is graciously underwritten by Salt Lake
Goodtimes Bowling League~Hurry and check out the many other SLC Winterfest
activities being held through Feb 12th! Visit www.slcwinterfest.com for more
information and tickets
2009 Gay-rights advocates take their case to
sacred ground Lehi » Two dozen gay-rights advocates rallied outside of
Thanksgiving Point on Thursday night as more than 600 Utahns gathered inside to
answer what they saw as a "challenge to family and freedom." Conservative
think tank The Sutherland Institute formally launched its Sacred Ground
Initiative to counter Equality Utah's push for "common ground," a
legislative effort that would offer some basic protections to same-sex couples...
Author: Rosemary Winters The Salt Lake
2010 Should politicians
heed their prophet or pope? Blind obedience or open defiance can cost
lawmakers.By Peggy Fletcher Stack The Salt Lake Tribune Updated: 02/05/2010 One
day he's dissing gay activists as immoral "buggers" and perhaps the
"greatest threat" to the nation. Then, he's embracing
anti-discrimination legislation and conceding the "right" gay
residents have to job and housing protections. What swayed state Sen. Chris
Buttars? His church. In November, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints announced its support of Salt Lake City's measures safeguarding gay and
transgender residents from discrimination. Suddenly, Buttars, R-West Jordan,
and his Mormon colleagues on the right who had vigorously -- and vociferously
-- opposed such laws faced a choice: Should they back or buck their church?
This same "follow the prophet" pressure gripped LDS liberals when the
Utah-based church came out in favor of California's Proposition 8, defining
marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. For Latter-day Saints,
adherence to their prophet's instructions is more than an abstract notion. It
is repeated often from the pulpit and written into the Mormon identity. Roman
Catholic lawmakers bump into similar dilemmas when the pope or bishops weigh in
on issues from abortion to health care to capital punishment. How much
deference, if any, do politicians of faith owe to their ecclesiastical leaders,
especially in religions with top-down hierarchies? Catholics regard their
leaders as stand-ins for Christ who speak on moral issues with an undeniable
authority. The church's catechism states "the faithful receive with
docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different
forms." In today's political universe, that seems increasingly to cut both
ways. "Whenever people claim, 'the church says,' that's a clue that one
side [of the debate] is trying to shut down the other," says Alpine resident
Charles Randall Paul, a Mormon and president of the Foundation for
Interreligious Diplomacy. "It's possible for Mormons to say, 'You're a
prophet, but I think you're wrong about this.' " Like many religious
people, Kristine Haglund, an LDS writer in Boston, embraces statements by
church leaders "that tend to confirm my prejudices, and [looks] for ways
to rationalize, historicize, relativize or contextualize the ones that are
challenging." Still, Haglund, editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
Thought , says she takes seriously the idea that the Holy Spirit can help
members know when the LDS prophet is speaking for God. "In the absence of
that witness," she says, "I feel that God expects me to exercise my
own intellect and the capacity for moral judgment that is a gift to all God's
children to arrive at a position that seems reasonable and just." But
that's a complicated, messy process. What if not everyone arrives at the same
conclusion? Latter-day dilemma » At some point in their careers, all Mormon politicians
face the prospect that their opinions could diverge from LDS stands on issues
such as women's rights, abortion, euthanasia, immigration, same-sex marriage,
liquor laws or even what to do with a particular block of downtown Salt Lake
City. "If the church takes a position on a public-policy issue contrary to
popular sentiment, as a public official, I have two choices: Either I follow
the will of the people and be popular or follow my faith leaders, risking the
rejection of the voters," says Stuart Reid, a former Salt Lake City
councilman. "When faced with this dilemma, it's my guiding principle that
devoted Mormons involved in politics should always choose to follow their faith
leaders no matter their own personal views or the political consequences."
Reid, now an Ogden developer who lost a bid for Salt Lake City mayor, says he
"held to that principle and experienced the consequences." For its
part, the LDS Church long has said it is politically neutral and, even on those
occasions when it takes a stand, members usually are free to follow their
conscience without facing church sanctions. Mormon voters, however, may not
approve of politicians who seem to either blindly follow or openly disagree
with the church. Utah legislators who are LDS mention the need to balance their
respect for Mormon officials with representing the voters who elected them.
"I am a really devout, committed member and believe strongly in the tenets
of the religion. I take seriously whatever positions the church takes on a particular
issue," says Rep. Ronda Menlove, R-Garland, whose husband is an LDS stake
president. "I am also a pragmatist, [so] not all of my votes are driven by
what the LDS Church says." She -- like Sens. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, and
Curt Bramble, R-Provo -- agrees with the LDS Church's endorsement of the city's
anti-discrimination ordinances (also adopted by Salt Lake County), but Menlove
is cautious about how broadly to apply them in the state. Lawmakers reached a
tenuous truce last week delaying any action for or against such statutes until
next year. The buzz around the Capitol was that some LDS lawmakers were ready
to defy their faith's leaders and strike down Salt Lake City's
anti-discrimination ordinances even though the church had urged legislators to
leave them intact. "I am concerned about some elements in the Salt Lake
City statutes," Hillyard says. "I represent my constituency, and I
suspect if the City Council [members] in Logan wanted to do it, they would
have." The longtime Republican senator says if he disagreed with Mormon
officials, he would feel comfortable taking a different position. "I
understand," Hillyard says, "they have a perspective not only of Salt
Lake City but of Utah and the world that may be different than my constituents'."
LDS legislators also are divided on immigration policies, although their church
has urged a "compassionate" approach. "My constituency has been
very adamant in support of legal immigration," Sen. Karen Morgan,
D-Cottonwood Heights, says, "and I've been pretty firm with that position.
I haven't been influenced by any one religious organization, whether my own or
anyone else's." For his part, Bramble, who grew up Methodist and attended
Notre Dame and then Brigham Young University, where he joined the LDS Church,
says he never has found himself at odds with his faith. "The stands they
have taken have not been inconsistent with my own personal philosophy,"
says Bramble, who opposed last year's Common Ground initiative that included
housing and employment safeguards for gays but now supports Salt Lake City's
statutes. "It's a chicken-or-the-egg question." Bramble says he
decides for himself how to vote. "Ecclesiastical positions and political
positions are not the same thing," he says, referring particularly to the
church's views on immigration. "I certainly know the church's position on
compassion for all human beings, but I don't think it's appropriate for any
church to be in the position of enforcing immigration laws." Catholic
model » There are as many ways of responding to issues as there are Catholics
and politicians, but the church has clear moral teachings on issues such as
abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, immigration,
health care and social justice. It teaches, for example, that abortion is wrong,
that people ought not be involved and that government ought not support it.
What about Catholic politicians, then, who support abortion rights? Are they,
to use the faith's vernacular, "wrongfully cooperating with evil"?
Some bishops, including former Utah Bishop William Weigand, now retired in
Sacramento, Calif., believe such politicians should not take Communion during
Mass. "As your bishop," he said in a 2003 homily, "I have to say
clearly that anyone, politician or otherwise, who thinks it is acceptable for a
Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at
risk and is not in good standing with the church." Some go further and
argue that Catholics who vote for such politicians should be denied Communion.
Notre Dame theologian and legal scholar Cathleen Kaveny opposes such sanctions,
which she believes politicize the issues, without considering a politician's
motivations. She also points to difficulties facing other public officials. "Should a district judge quit rather than issue a decision that
supports Roe v. Wade? Most Catholics would say no. That's not within his
scope," Kaveny says. "When are you allowed to go along with something
and when do you have to stop and say, 'I can't do that?' " The strong emphasis
on obedience to authority in Catholicism is matched by an equally strong
emphasis upon individual conscience as "the voice of God inside us,"
explains Mathew Schmalz, a Catholic who teaches Mormon studies at the College
of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. "One's conscience might very well
dictate that one has to disobey that teaching in special circumstances. I am
required to take [church teaching] seriously and to critically examine my own
conscience if I disagree." As a Catholic, Sen. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake City,
respects Utah Bishop John Wester on his faith's overall teachings, but
disagrees on some public-policy issues. "I would be strongly in favor of
counseling any family member about alternatives to abortion, and I would
encourage adoption or foster care that would accommodate for that life,"
he says. "Yet, legislatively, I don't believe it is appropriate for the
government to be overly engaged in that decision-making for individuals. As a
matter of public policy, I have defended a woman's right to choose."
Romero also backs capital punishment, while his church opposes it. He does
align with the bishops on welcoming and not punishing those coming to America
for a better life. The church has a role relative to "advancing the human
condition," Romero says. "Elected officials share that role but also
have the additional burden for public safety, knowing who is in our community
and that they're behaving well, not committing crimes and that they're not
manipulated or abused in a black market." Romero says he recently met with
Wester to discuss upcoming legislation, much as other legislators huddled with
LDS officials. Not all believers are deferential to popes or prophets. Catholic
bishops are free to talk about morality, says Patrick Shea, a Utah attorney and
former director of the Bureau of Land Management under President Bill Clinton,
"but cannot and should not, in ecclesiastical roles, speak on ethics. That
is a secular matter suited for give and take in the marketplace of ideas."
Shea, a Jesuit-trained Catholic, was outraged by the bishops' opposition to
health-care reform because they feared government funds would go toward
abortions. "The idea that some nuanced and Machiavellian statements from
bishops sitting in Washington would negate the opportunity for 40 million
Americans who don't have health insurance is incongruous and, in my judgment,
immoral," Shea says. "I am against abortion, but I don't think Roe v.
Wade should be set aside. It is the law of the land." Shea, who doesn't
think there has been a good pope since John XXIII died in 1963, says he would
take advice from Weigand or from Monsignor Terrence Fitzgerald, the Salt Lake
City Diocese's vicar general. But when the bishops "cross the wall and
move from morality to ethics," he says, "they have no greater
credibility than the bus driver or the garbage man."
2014 Utah
Senate GOP snuffs out bill that would ban bias against gays Legislature
• Sponsor is the only one to vote that his measure should be heard. BY
ROBERT GEHRKE THE
SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Senate
Republicans, in a private, closed-door meeting Tuesday afternoon, voted
overwhelmingly not to consider the anti-discrimination measure, sponsored by
Sen. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George. Senate
leaders had said repeatedly they didn’t want to consider any bills affecting
gay and lesbian issues while the state is appealing a federal judge’s ruling
overturning Utah’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Votes
in the GOP caucus are supposed to be secret, but sources confirmed that
Urquhart was the only vote in favor of hearing the bill this session. Urquhart
said Wednesday he didn’t ask leadership to take the vote. Instead,
Senate Majority Leader Ralph Okerlund, R-Monroe, said, given the debate on the
issue in the past week, leadership “wanted to make sure the caucus was still
with us, and that was very, very clear.” “Our
position stayed the same as it kind of has been from the start,” Okerlund said.
“If we get into that bill, then we get into religious freedom and those bills
and a whole debate that isn’t conducive to the Supreme Court case we have going
on.” Asked
if that means the demise of SB100 this session, a somber Urquhart replied:
“Yeah, barring some significant, unforeseen event.” Urquhart
said there is limited time in the session and leaders have to manage
accordingly. “When
the lawyers are saying that no bills should go forward because it might affect
the litigation,” Urquhart said, “that’s pretty determinative of what the
Legislature is going to do.” Attorney
General Sean Reyes and Gene Schaerr, the outside counsel hired to handle Utah’s
marriage appeals, told Republican lawmakers in closed caucuses in the House and
Senate that they shouldn’t consider any bills on same-sex marriage. The
concern, lawmakers have said, is that legislators may make comments during the
debate that would show “animus” toward gay and lesbian Utahns. Urquhart
said he disagrees with their assessment. “It’s
bad lawyering,” said Urquhart, who is an attorney. “The best thing to do to
show a lack of animus is pass a nondiscrimination law that is favored by 60
percent of the state.” A
poll conducted by The Salt Lake Tribune last month found that 60 percent of
Utahns support passing prohibitions against discrimination against lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender Utahns. Last
year, a Senate committee approved the measure, but the full body never voted on
it. Okerlund
said that he didn’t believe the caucus vote showed opposition to the bill.
“It’s more the strategy and dynamic of the session,” he said. Okerlund
said Senate leaders saw the “tip of the iceberg” of the debate with a flood of
social media and notes that were taped to the doors of the chambers, a show of
support for the bill that Urquhart kicked off last week in an effort to create
enough public pressure to make leaders give SB100 a hearing. Several
hundred of the blue notes were stuck to the doors demanding that senators “Hear
SB100.” “This
year, the discussion that would have gone along with the bill would distract
from what we’re focusing on.” Urquhart
said the notes were meant to illustrate the bill’s broad backing, because it
was evident that leaders didn’t want to consider it. “My job was to show some
support for it and move people away from that position.” Okerlund
said that by next session the appeal may be over and there may be time then to
consider the nondiscrimination bill. Nearly
20 local governments in Utah have adopted similar nondiscrimination ordinances.
The LDS Church endorsed Salt Lake City’s measure.
2015 An Evening with Tony Kushner at Kingsbury Hall in Salt Lake City, Utah The Tanner Humanities Center is proud to welcome playwright Tony Kushner as our 2015 Artist in Residence. Mr. Kushner will visit the University of Utah campus for a three-day residence.
2015 An Evening with Tony Kushner at Kingsbury Hall in Salt Lake City, Utah The Tanner Humanities Center is proud to welcome playwright Tony Kushner as our 2015 Artist in Residence. Mr. Kushner will visit the University of Utah campus for a three-day residence.
No comments:
Post a Comment