26 June 26
 |
| Jay Brennan and Bert Savoy |
1923 Bert Savoy, celebrated
female impersonated died after being struck by lightening in Long Beach New
York Bert Savoy was an influential early American drag performer. Bert Savoy -
born Everett McKenzie - began his drag act 'doing a hootchie-kootchie dance at
freak shows in Boston and polished it in the wilds of Alaska'. He nearly hit
the big time in 1914 while understudying for James Russell of the Russell
Brothers (known for their 'bitch' act: a pair of Irish servant girls) in Maids
to Order when Russell dropped dead. Savoy found greater success in 1915 when he
begun a partnership as comedic partner to 'straight man', Jay Brennan
(allegedly after Savoy had picked up Brennan on a streetcar). The team was a
huge success; they headlined in the Ziegfeld Follies of 1918. Savoy was one of
the first of such acts to clearly be associated in the minds of the viewing
audience as being overtly homosexual in theme and content. Most other female
impersonators of the day, such as the international sensation, Julian Eltinge,
went to great lengths to let you know that they were engaged in painstaking
artifice. Eltinge's career was accompanied by a pull out the stops public
relations effort to show him in any number of traditional 'virile male'
activities, when off stage. Although drag had always been a main staple of
vaudeville, it was not really performed as or perceived as 'gay' until the
appearance of Savoy, who was pure camp on and off the stage. The two routines
which gave rise to Savoy's catchphrases 'You Don't Know The Half Of It, Dearie'
and 'You Mussst Come Over' were preserved for posterity on a rare 1923 Vocalion
recording made shortly before Savoy's untimely demise. The story of Bert
Savoy's death is legendary and, by all accounts, absolutely true: on June 26,
1923 Savoy, his half-brother and two friends were walking along the shore at
Long Beach watching an upcoming storm when a thunderclap prompted Savoy to
squeal, 'Ain't Miss God cuttin' up somethin' awful?' or something similar. He
was immediately struck dead by a bolt of lightning. How camp is that? In fact,
the lighting focused on a bath house locker key around Savoy's neck. One
friend, whose hand was resting on Savoy's shouder, was also killed and the
other left paralysed. His half-brother survived. Brennan continued the act
quite successfully for a while with Stanley Rogers, owing much to the fact that
Rogers copied Savoy's mannerisms and catchphrases to a tee. Brennan later
became a scriptwriter in the movies and died in 1961 at the age of 78. Mae West
is alleged to have based much of her act on Bert Savoy
1964-Life magazine did a 14-page article titled
"Homosexuality in America." It referred to the "gay world"
as sad and sordid, and presented promiscuity, leather bars, and S & M as
typical of the gay experience. HOMOSEXUALITY
IN AMERICA A
secret world grows open and bolder. Society is forced to look at it -- and try
to understand it These
brawny young men in their leather caps, shirts, jackets and pants are
practicing homosexuals, men who turn to other men for affection and
satisfaction. They are part of what they call the "gay world," which
is actually a sad and often sordid world. On these pages, LIFE reports on
homosexuality in America, on its locale and habits and sums up what science
knows and seeks to know about it."
1969 Thursday- The official ruling of Judy Garland’s death was
accidental death through “an incautious self overdose of sleeping pills.” She
died in Chelsea, London, England.
Dr. Pocock, a pathologist said they was no sign of cirrhosis of the liver as
suggested by Dr. Philip Lobon. Judy Garland’s oldest daughter Liza Minelli said
her mother’s body would be in a glass covered coffin for public viewing on
Thursday from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. followed by a
private funeral. “Judy Garland made the last of her great New York come backs-Thursday-forever a star
to the thousands who came to bid goodbye.
21,000 person single filed past her glass enclosed coffin trimmed in
baby blue and blanketed with yellow roses. She was dressed in the silver lame
wedding dress in which she was married to her fifth husband just 3 months
earlier. Silver slippers were on her
feet. Floral tributes included a rainbow shaped funeral piece. Youthful fans
played Judy Garland records as they waited behind police barricades outside the
Madison Avenue funeral chapel. The picture showed just young males sitting on
the side walk with their phonograph players. One of the mourning visitors was
an elderly man who identified himself as “Feathers” a chorus boy in Judy’s
early career. He said he was wearing an
old show business costume, red suit, red checkered shirt and a red tie.
(Historically red ties were associated with being Gay) (06/26/69 SLTribune
page16A) (06/27/69 SLTribune page A15)
1972 Steve Carl Byers, 30, of 810 Monroe has pleaded guilty
in Second District Court to a misdemeanor charge of sodomy and been placed on
probation by Judge F Walquist who also ordered two days in jail and directed
Byers to cooperation with mental health programs Ogden Standard Examiner
.jpg) |
| David Chipman |
1980 Salt Lake City: David Chipman, 24, has been found
guilty of attempted sexual abuse, but cleared of carrying out the crime.
Chipman was arrested by Brigham Young University Security police for soliciting
an undercover agent off campus. Judge
David Sam denied the defense attorneys contention that Chipman was entrapped by
the BYU undercover agent. [The Advocate
pg 11 6.26.80] In the midst of this lengthy legal battle, Paul Mortensen, Los
Angeles Chapter Director of Affirmation/GMU, sent out an undated (circa 1979)
letter "To All Members and Friends of Affirmation" soliciting
donations to pay for Chipman's legal defense. As Mortensen affirmed, many
Affirmation members were "familiar with BYU security tactics in dealing
with gay people and are also aware that such incidents happened regularly in
the BYU area. This time, however, the entrapped person has come forward and is
willing to fight it....We have all heard the horror stories at BYU regarding
the treatment of gay people. Here is a wonderful opportunity to bring an end to
some of the their deplorable activities." Mortensen also indicated that
Stanger ("a good Mormon") took on Chipman's case "because he
feels that such activities by the BYU police is legally and morally wrong and
the Church has no business being involved in such activities." Mortensen
ended the letter by confirming his "strong testimony of the Church",
and because he loved it, he wanted "so desperately for it to follow
Christian principles in their dealing with our gay brothers and sisters"
and passionately insisted that "when any brother is being treated badly by
the Church we are all diminished." David Chipman appealed the decision to
the Utah State Supreme Court, where BYU President Dallin Oaks had a seat as a
Supreme Court Judge. He eventually dismissed himself from the case for conflict
of interest. Still, the State Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision.
Chipman, financially ruined from court costs and mentally exhausted, gave up
his fight against a corrupt, theocratic legal system and paid his $500 for the
misdemeanor charge. A brief announcement regarding Chipman's court loss
appeared in The Advocate in June, 1980. Impoverished and homeless, Chipman
stayed briefly with Donald Attridge, the Gay former BYU student who had been so
instrumental in the purge of 1965, and they even contemplated a relationship
but nothing came of it. Attridge later learned that despite all that he had
been through at the hands of church and school, Chipman had gone to LDS General
Authority Vaughn J. Featherstone, who told him to change his last name to Kennedy
and get married, which he did. (Connell O’Donovan)
1982 4th Annual Gay Day at Lagoon Day was sponsored
by Salt Lake Chapter of Affirmation as
part of Pride Week celebrations held in Salt Lake City. Over 2,500 Gay and
Lesbians attended. Tavern Guild
sponsored events at city’s Gay bars to celebrate Gay Pride.
.jpg) |
| Joe Redburn |
1982 Members of the Gay community in Salt Lake
area responded to the inclusion in the state GOP platform of a plank denying
homosexuals political, civil, economic, and social rights. A statement which
appeared on stationary of the Sun Tavern, said the Gay community as a united
group, both Republican and Democrats protest the GOP anti-Gay plank “concerning
the denial of rights to homosexuals.” The statement was prepared by Gay
activists Larry Pacheco and Joe Redburn. The statement referring to the
guarantees of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness“ as outlined in the
Declaration of Independence. The statement said “the Constitution of the United States
is for all citizens and does not mention sexual orientation.” The statement
also lodged a protest against the Republican Party of Utah holding a meeting on
public grounds, the Salt Palace, and voting a plank against some of the tax
payers who support the existence of the Salt Place “We urge all voting citizens
to reject the Republican Party at the polls in November in the name of the
Constitution of the United States of America.” the statement said. (06/27/1982
SLTribune B2)
1983-San Francisco General Hospital opened a special ward
for patients with AIDS, the first ward of its kind in the US.
1988 Sunday- John Reeves took me to KRCL so I could
interview him about Beyond Stonewall. After his interview, Becky Moss and I did
another show for Gay Pride Day which will air this week. We did two shows so we wouldn’t have to come
back over the 4th of July next weekend.
 |
| Marlin Criddle |
1992 The 2nd Annual Utah Gay and Lesbian Film
Festival was held at the Salt Lake Art Center. The two day Festival featured
six films. Festival coordinator was Marlin Criddle. “I tried to represent the diversity in the Gay and Lesbian communities”
said Criddle. Films included “Salut Viktor” “fighting Chance” “Before
Stonewall”, “Diana’s Hair Ego: AIDS
Info Up Front”, “Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit” and “heart Exposed” The
event was part of Gay and Lesbian Pride Week. (SLTribune B2 6/5/92)(SLTribune
E1 6/12/92)
1994-The Stonewall 25 march took place in New York City,
coinciding with the Gay Games. The most visible feature was the world's longest
rainbow flag. ACT-UP held an alternative march on the same day.
1998-The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that a child must be
removed from the custody of her mother, who is a lesbian. The ruling stated
that she was exposing her child to homosexual activities which are illegal in Alabama.
1999 The Australian Lesbian band FRUIT performed at the
Utah Arts Festival in Salt Lake City.
 |
| Chad Keller |
2003 Hello Chad,
I'm Marke Bieschke, the content coordinator of gay.com and PlanetOut.com. I'm writing this to inform you that you've
been recognized as a PlanetOut/gay.com Local Hero. Readers wrote to us
commending your dedication to the gay community through local action and
support, and we'd love to recognize you on the site as part of our "Local Heroes" feature. The
feature will consist of a slide show of pictures of our winners, and a short
paragraph on each.
2003 Section: Utah Page: B1 salt Lake Tribune Rocky aide gets
an earful Forum: Ethnic leaders question whether a white lesbian should be a
minority affairs director; Panel discusses minorities By Shinika A. Sykes The Salt Lake Tribune It was supposed to be
a forum aimed at finding common ground and bridging the divide among Utah's
growing ethnic minorities and the lesbian and gay community. But what occurred
Wednesday on the
 |
| Mayor Anderson |
University of Utah campus was a litany of heated comments
directed at Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson's selection of a white lesbian
as the city's minority affairs and communications coordinator. About 75 people attended a panel discussion billed
as "Defining Minority: A Process of Inclusion," sponsored by the U.'s
Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender Resource
Center and the Hinckley
Institute of Politics. The event was billed as a discussion over whether
lesbians and gays should be considered a minority and fall under
antidiscrimination and equal protection policies. On the panel: Blythe Nobleman, appointed in
April as minority affairs and communications coordinator for the Salt Lake City
mayor's office; Tony Yapias, director of the state Office of Hispanic Affairs;
Brenda Lyshaug, professor of political science and gender studies at the U.;
and Teresa Martinez, an associate professor of sociology and assistant to the
U.'s
 |
| Blythe Nobleman |
senior vice president for academic affairs. Several people said that with
few if any ethnic minority representatives on school boards, the Board of
Regents or in the Legislature, the mayor's selection of a white woman to
represent ethnic minorities because she is a lesbian is an insult. "Yours
is a lifestyle choice," said Carol Goode to Nobleman. "I am a black
woman. You do not represent me." Said Frank Cordova, "Bald-headed
white men can be a minority." Nobleman, clearly taken aback by the tone of
the comments, said she did not anticipate the amount of "hostility"
that was directed at her. "I thought there might be concerns, but I am not
an ethnic minority representative. I got the job because I am a qualified
applicant," said Nobleman. "I was appointed because of my unique
strengths as a technical writer and my living in diverse cities like Miami and Los
Angeles."
Goode said she had applied for the minority affairs position, but
received a letter saying it would not be filled due to budget constraints. A
few weeks later, she learned that Nobleman has been appointed. Goode said she
would have been satisfied if Anderson had interviewed various people for the
job, whether she was selected or not. "If she [Nobleman] does not
represent the ethnic minorities, then what minorities does she represent?"
asked Goode. "That just does not fit right." Nobleman pointed out, again, that her title
is "minority affairs and communications coordinator," adding that she
works at the discretion of Anderson on
behalf of the city's minority constituents but not as their
representative. Yapias, too, said his
appointment was criticized by many in the Latino community. He is native of Peru and a
member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The majority of the
state's Latino population are of Mexican descent and Catholic. Lyshaug said she
looks at minority issues from the perspective of a "political theorist."
She noted that once one group has been successful in overcoming a history of
discrimination, others will use their example to say they have suffered as
well. "Some of the divisiveness even in the minorities groups themselves
are real," said Lyshaug, adding that many religious groups reject carving out any special rights for gay
and lesbians. "We got a little off [the planned] topic but lots of people
got to express their feelings and concerns about minority issues that are going
on throughout the city," said Charles Milne, director of the U.'s Lesbian
Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center. "I did not want to silence anyone's voice."
- 2003 26 LGBT Discussion Puts
Gay/Lesbian Status in Question By Jake Gundersen Daily Chronicle U of U It was
a very important topic of discussion, according to Charles Milne, interim
adviser of the LGBT center. Milne was talking about the panel which met in the
OSH
 |
| Charles Milne |
building on June 25 to discuss minorities and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender community. The panel consisted of government representatives Blythe
Nobleman, minority affairs and communications coordinator for the Mayor of Salt
Lake, and Tony Yapias, director of the Office of Hispanic Affairs for the state
of Utah, and U professors Brenda Lyshaug, assistant professor in political
science, and Theresa Martinez, associate professor in the sociology department.
The panel was mediated by Tim Chambless, intern coordinator for the Hinckley
Institute of Politics. The purpose of the meeting was to open a dialogue about
the LGBT community and its claim to minority status. "There are multiple
definitions of minorities," Nobleman said. For example, some define
minority status as those subject to unjust discrimination. Lyshaug defined
unjust discrimination as "systematic and formal discrimination under the
law or a legacy of discrimination." Milne says he considers members of the
LGBT community minorities "when you define minorities as those who have
undergone systematic forms of discrimination. Historically, they have been just
as discriminated against [as ethnic minorities]."After the panel discussed a
number of predetermined questions, the floor was open to audience
participation. One participant, who identified himself as Chicano, said,
"What advantages we've gained, we've worked for," referring to the
programs offered to minorities. However, the discussion portion of the panel
deviated significantly from the original title, "Defining Minorities:
Process of Inclusion." A number of participants from the audience called
into question Nobleman's-who is a white lesbian-ability to "represent
their community." In response, she said, "I am not in this position
as a representative of minority communities." One participant in
particular, a black woman, said she had applied for the position that Nobleman
fills and hadn't even received an interview. In response to the idea of whether
minorities would eventually disappear and become absorbed into the majority,
Martinez said if there was equality among opportunity, such as education,
perhaps it was possible. However, "As long as people are treated
differently, they will have a sense of peoplehood," she said. Many U
students say they don't consider gays and lesbians minorities. English major
Katrine Miner said, "I think that it should be a nationality thing, not a
choice thing."
2003 The Chronicle's View: Minority Groups Must Work Together to
Succeed The panel that should have focused on issues affecting the
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community Wednesday never got to its
point because the audience didn't come to listen, they came to complain. The
panel, titled "Defining Minorities: Process of Inclusion," featured
members from both LGBT and ethnic communities. While both groups should have
supported one another, many of the ethnic minority audience members brought their
own gripes to the table instead of listening to what could have been a fruitful
conversation. The LGBT community has suffered through much of the same
alienation and discrimination many ethnic minorities have felt. As Charles
Milne, director of the LGBT
Resource Center
defined, minorities are those who have undergone systematic forms of
discrimination. The LGBT community falls well within this definition. Organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign strive to
bring equal rights-such as marital rights and tax benefits-to homosexuals. The
U's LGBT Resource Center
has done a commendable job partnering with other minority groups on campus to
promote all minority issues. That same respect should have been shown in
Wednesday's panel by many of the ethnic minorities in attendance. Blythe Nobleman, the woman who serves as the minority
affairs director for Rocky Anderson, came under attack for being a sexual
minority instead of an ethnic minority. Many said they didn't feel represented
by her. Nobleman's response is that it isn't her responsibility to represent,
but rather coordinate. Instead of being berated, audience members should have
supported having a diversity of minorities in places of authority. Squabbling over the title of minority is
something best left to academia. Why does the U's Women's Resource Center
exist when women make up the majority of campus? Because women are
discriminated against more often than men, and need a place to turn when in
need. In any situation where there is a large majority and many smaller
minority groups, the minorities must come together to stand up for each other.
The panel organizers need to be commended for trying to open up an honest
dialogue, but those who attended need to rethink the chips on their own
shoulders, and realize that uniting is the only way to making the situation
better for everyone.
 |
| Tyron Gardner and John Lawrence |
2003 Supreme Court strikes down
Texas sodomy law Thursday, June 26, 2003 Posted: 12:48 PM EDT (1648 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court struck down a Texas ban on gay sex
Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy. The
justices voted 6-3 in striking down the Texas law, saying it violated due
process guarantees. "The
petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean
their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct
a crime." Gay rights advocates
immediately hailed the decision, while religious conservatives condemned it. In a blistering
dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court "has largely signed on to
the so-called homosexual agenda."
"It is clear from this that the court has taken sides in the
culture war, departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the
democratic rules of engagement are observed," wrote Scalia, joined by
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. The ruling stemmed
from the 1998 arrest of two Houston men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner,
under a 28-year-old Texas law making same-sex intercourse a crime. The court
found that law and others like it violated the due process clause of the 14th
Amendment. "It's an historic day for gay Americans," said Ruth Harlow
of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay-rights group representing
the two Texas men. "I think Americans will be celebratory about this
decision." Lawrence told reporters
Thursday that he and Garner were happy with the outcome, but "never chose
to be public figures or to take on this fight." "Not only does this ruling let us get on
with our lives, but it opens the door for gay people all over the country to be
treated equally," he said. The ruling reverses a 1986 high court ruling
upholding state anti-sodomy laws. Kennedy wrote that homosexuals have "the
full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the
government." The case stemmed from the 1998 arrest of a gay Houston couple
under a 28-year-old Texas law making it
a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse. A Texas state appeals court found
the law "advances a legitimate state interest, namely, preserving public
morals." Gay rights advocates argued the law legitimized discrimination
against homosexuals in everyday life. "This is a very strong ruling that
we all, as individuals -- whether gay or straight -- have the liberty to choose
who we'll love and how we'll do that in the privacy of our own homes,"
Harlow said. In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution of two gay men
under a Georgia anti-sodomy law in a 5-4 decision that focused on the right to
privacy. In Thursday's ruling, Kennedy said that decision "was not correct
when it was decided, and it is not correct today." "The court is just
catching up with American society, which has already recognized gay people's
equal liberty, equal humanity," Harlow said. "And the court issued a very powerful decision itself
recognizing that humanity." But the ruling immediately drew fire from a
spokesman for a religious conservative group, the National Clergy Council.
"The court has said today that morality -- matters of right and wrong
behavior -- do not matter in the law," said the Rev. Rob Shenck, one of
the group's founders. "That is an undermining of our concept of justice in
this country." The Texas case already has entered the national political
debate, stirred by May
 |
| Rick Santorum |
comments from Sen. Rick Santorum, a member of the
Senate's Republican leadership. In an interview with The Associated Press,
Santorum said if the justices overturned the Texas law, "then you have the
right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest,
you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything." Santorum
defended his remarks, but some fellow Republicans distanced themselves from
them. The majority opinion appears to cover similar laws in 12 other states and
reverses a 1986 high court ruling upholding sodomy laws. Kennedy wrote that
homosexuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without
government intervention." Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not
 |
| Antonin Scalia |
all of Kennedy's
rationale. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas dissented. "The court has largely signed on to the
so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three, according to the
AP. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. "The
court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has
"nothing against homosexuals." The case is Lawrence and Garner v.
Texas, case no. 02-0102).
- Ben
Williams to Chad Keller “I am going
to the Capital rally at 6:oo pm”
- Brandon
Burt to Ben Williams “Woohoo! I'm going to celebrate by
"sodomizing" my brains out!”
- Ben Williams
To Brandon Burt, “Got to have a partner first LOL”
- Brandon
Burt to Ben Williams, “Damn, there's always a catch!”
- Ben Williams
to Marlin Criddle “Has anyone contacted Brian Barnard the Civil rights
atty whose been working on abolishing Sodomy laws in Utah for years?
Wondering, Ben”
2003 SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS GAY
RIGHTS Celebrations to Break Out Nationwide Tonight Today's Supreme Court
decision striking down Texas's anti- gay "Homosexual Conduct
Law" will cause celebrations by Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgendered
people in at least 36 cities tonight, as activists plan to promote the full
pro-gay implications of the court's decision.
Except for the protests around the death of Matthew Shepard, never
before in the history of the gay movement have so many cities organized in so
short of a time to do events around an issue.
The 36 cities holding celebratory rallies tonight include Atlanta,
Austin, Boston, Charleston-SC, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbia-MO, Columbia-SC,
Dallas, Detroit, Fairbanks, Ft. Lauderdale, Galveston-TX, Greenville- SC,
Houston, Kansas City-MO, Lawrence-KS, Los Angeles/West Hollywood- CA,
Madison-WI, Miami, Milwaukee, Myrtle Beach-SC, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Palm Springs-CA, Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh, Richmond-VA, St. Louis-MO,
Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle,
Springfield-MO, Tucson, and Washington, DC. Activists organizing the
rallies say the events are critical to making sure the positive decisions of
the Court are actually implemented.
"We will take this pro-gay decision as the foot in the door with
which we'll fight for our full equal rights - equal marriage rights as they have in Canada, equal
employment rights in every state, equal
access to health care, housing - total equality
under the law," said Robin Tyler, a national co-coordinator of
the celebrations. "We will take this victory and remain
active in the streets to make sure the Court's ruling doesn't remain just a piece
of paper." Activists point to the lessons of the 1954 Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, Kansas as a cautionary tale on what comes next. "In '54 we had a brilliant decision, but
it remained a dead letter because the racists in all levels of government
stymied it," said Andy Thayer, another
co-coordinator of the national protests.
"It was not the Court's decision which ultimately forced the
desegregation of the nation's schools, it was the courageous activists in the
Civil Rights Movement who began forcing the implementation of that decision in
the early 1960s as their movement gained strength. We will not
remain complacent in the face of today's victory. If anything, our work has just begun."
Besides being "one of the most important cases in the history of civil rights for lesbian and gay
Americans," according to the San Francisco
Chronicle, activists are gratified that today's decision goes beyond protecting
the rights of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered people. "By striking down the Texas law on
privacy grounds, the court has also provided an important buttress to
pro-choice rights, which are increasingly under threat by the fundamentalist
right," said Tyler.
- 2003 The US Supreme Court ruled
today 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas that the Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional.
The court ruled on privacy grounds. This means that the sodomy laws in all 13
remaining states, including Utah, are unconstitutional. The opinion was written
by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and it was joined by four other justices. Justice
O'Connor wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and
Thomas dissented. The full opinion should be available online soon at
To understand why Lawrence was so important, you need to understand two things – the problems it solved and the foundation it provided for future progress. As to the former, what Lawrence did was overrule Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court case holding, by a vote of 5-4, that there was nothing unconstitutional about making same-sex sodomy a criminal offense. The sodomy laws were a very effective mechanism for keeping lesbians, gays and bisexuals in the closet and in a kind of second-class citizenship status. They meant that to be out and open about a same-sex relationship was to be admitting a crime. And while they were only rarely enforced directly against persons who engaged in private, adult, consensual sexual conduct, they were very often used to do things like deny people public employment or take away custody of their children. At the time of Bowers, about half the states still had such laws on the books, and Bowers of course left those laws in place. But it did more: it erected a barrier to progress toward LGBT equality because it made it nearly impossible to argue for any sort of federal constitutional protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The story of how a small group of committed activists planned for and ultimately achieved the overruling of Bowers is a template for how to run a civil rights movement. The litigation side of the movement (Lambda Legal, ACLU, NCLR and GLAD) met regularly, forming what was known as the Ad Hoc Sodomy Law Task Force. They adopted a strategy of going state to state and seeking the repeal of sodomy laws or their invalidation under state constitutions by state courts (a strategy that was repeated when it came time to demand marriage equality). The theory was that when the right time came, the Supreme Court would be much more likely to change course on sodomy laws if they were perceived as relics that had been rejected by most of the states. This effort was remarkably effective. By 2003, there were only 13 states left with sodomy laws in effect. In the meantime, huge cultural changes were taking place. The AIDS crisis galvanized a popular movement and made the gay community much more visible. Media portrayals of LGBT characters were becoming more sympathetic. The legal profession was changing its attitudes dramatically. And the Supreme Court encouraged all of these changes with its 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans invalidating Colorado’s odious Amendment 2 that barred any form of legal protection for LGBT people. Then came the right case at the right time – a prosecution by Texas of two men (John Lawrence and Tyrone Garner) for violation in private of the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. When the courts of Texas upheld their convictions in 2002, the stage was set for asking the Supreme Court to revisit Bowers. Fortunately, the Court proved ready to address the issue again, and then to eliminate Bowers. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion made clear that Bowers was wrong when it was decided, remained wrong, and should no longer remain the law of the land. So a huge barrier to progress was washed away. But as I noted at the outset, there is another important aspect of Lawrence – the foundation it laid for further progress. Partly because of the way Lambda Legal approached and argued the case, Justice Kennedy’s Lawrence opinion was much less about sex than it was about same-sex relationships. The Court recognized that these relationships are both common and just as important as long-term different-sex relationships, whether marital or otherwise. It also held that the choice of a life partner, whether of the same sex or not, is a matter for individuals to control. The state has no basis for adopting and imposing a moral judgment opposing the formation of same-sex relationships by gay men and lesbians. As Justice Scalia recognized in the nasty dissent he read from the bench that morning of June 26, 2003, once you make those two moves – recognizing the value of same-sex relationships and denying the state the power to block them based on its contrary moral intuitions – you have undercut any rationale for denying marriage equality to same-sex couples. And while it was a long hard slog from 2003 to 2015, Scalia was right. The arguments for defenders of laws barring same-sex couples from marrying always sounded hollow once they were deprived of morality as a basis for this discrimination. Eventually, that hollowness became clearer and clearer to more and more people, and the momentum toward marriage equality could not be stopped.
 |
| Kathy Worthinton Sara Hamblin |
2003 Kathy Worthington from
Kathy's List- First of all, Sara and I have decided to go to Toronto Canada to
get married next week, so I won't be doing the list from July 2 to July 6.
We're excited about getting married and we plan to NOT get SARS. If you ever want off of Kathy's List, either
permanently or for a short time, just write to me and let me know. If anyone
you know wants to be ON the list, just have them write to me. I'll be doing the
list right up to July 1st, then I'll be back on the 7th. Kathy Worthington Salt
Lake City
2005 Salt Lake Men's Choir Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat Salt Lake Men's
Choir Adds to new matinee performances: All evening performances of Joseph and
the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat have SOLD OUT, so we have added TWO matinee
performances! Saturday, June 25, 3pm Sunday, June 26, 3pm TICKETS for these
shows are only $15/adults, $10 students/seniors All shows are
performed at the Studio Theatre/Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center 138 West Broadway,
Salt Lake City Thanks so much for the overwhelming response to this production!
2009 Michael James Dunkley (1989-2009 ) committed suicide Dunkley began his life in Romania
in the city of Buzoa.
At the age of three, James finally came to his home in Pleasant View, Utah and became
acquainted with his true family. James was a member of the Pleasant View 6th
Ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He graduated from high
school in the spring of 2008. James was
an artist. In high school he excelled in jewelry making for which he received a
number of awards placing second in State for his designs. He also loved music.
Singing was a part of life verified through his involvement in A cappella and All State
choir. James was happy; quick to smile and relate his tale of the day, he would
talk for hours with anyone. His family will miss his characteristic smile and
loving personality. He was quick to give a helping hand and loved to play with
his nieces and nephews. He will be greatly missed. James committed suicide on June 26, 2009,
after spending about 2 years going to a church-endorsed counselor who obviously
was unable to help him. Funeral services were held June 30 at 11 a.m. at the Pleasant
View 6th Ward Chapel, 900 West Pleasant
View Drive, and he is interred at Ben Lomond Cemetery.
2009 A Mission of Reconciliation By William McGuinness Advocate
With the passing of Proposition 8 weighing heavily on their minds, current and
former members of the Mormon Church thought of a new message to bring
door-to-door and monitor-to-monitor.
LDSapology.org hosts the names of homosexual Mormons who have committed
suicide and a petition with the names of others who ask the church to revise
its paradigm and to stop
 |
| Connell O'Donovan |
fundraising for bans on same-sex marriage. Connell
O’Donovan, who helps site creator Cheryl Nunn, said, “LDS people and others
often asked me, ‘Well, what do you want the church to do?’ After much prayer
and thought about this question, I realized that really my only response could
be for the church officials to repent of the wrongdoing that had been done in
the name of God.” He cited exorcisms,
“bizarre and torturous” experiments on LGBT members at Brigham Young
University, coerced
mixed-orientation marriages, sexual reorientation therapies and the church’s
alleged climate “where suicide can feel like a welcome escape.” Founding
members of the site include Mormons, former Mormons and non-Mormons -- women
and men both gay and heterosexual. Their common message is self-described as a
proud resistance to church leaders who took a stance and asked congregants to
support them and remain unquestioning. Clark Pingree, an advocate for LGBT
issues in the Mormon community, said The Church of Latter Day Saints was once
open to a dialogue on homosexuality, albeit limited. He said Prop. 8 killed
it. After Prop. 8 passed, the site’s
founders experienced varied degrees of despair, betrayal and resolve. “I really
felt that once the state Supreme Court had affirmed that same-sex marriage is a
guaranteed right in our state constitution
 |
| Clark Pingree |
that the Mormons and evangelical
Christians would back off and not punch a hole in that dike. Once one group is
legally discriminated against, the floodgates are open to do the same to any
other group.” O’Donovan said. “But watching the tyranny of the majority
eliminate the constitutionally guaranteed rights of a minority was horrendous
in itself.” He felt the church’s approach was illogical and immoral. “LDS
leaders and members often criticize the LGBT community for our ‘promiscuity’
and lack of stable, long-term relationships. Yet when we try to solemnize our
relationships and have them civilly, politically recognized, they deny us that
right,” he said. “This amounts to putting out our eyes and then making a parade
of our blindness.” In response, the site is pushing against long-held beliefs
on homosexuality to make room for themselves or people they know. Peter Danzing, who signed the site’s
petition, said, “from a historical perspective all successful religions manage
to evolve and improve.” He said while African-Americans were once excluded from
holding the priesthood and are now accepted, “the acceptance of homosexual
unions clearly presents a more challenging reworking of perspectives toward the
Church’s core doctrines, and shakes the root of deeply ingrained prejudices,
however I believe that someday, once it becomes clear in society at large that
there is no danger to society presented by such unions that it will be
accepted,” he said. “The doctrinal challenges in the LDS church may make it
impossible for them to accord homosexual unions the same status as heterosexual
unions, but I see no doctrinal reason why they could not accept homosexual
unions as an earthly necessity for members who are homosexually oriented and
wish to commit to a monogamous relationship with each other.” In The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, all young, unmarried men between the ages of
19-25 years old must volunteer as missionaries. Young and older women and
retired couples are required to do the same.
LDSapolgy.org is in many ways a new mission for these other
activists. Danzing said that if his
started tomorrow, it would be a door-to-door apology. “I would apologize for my
church’s stance on the issue and tell them I am working from within to make
changes to my church so it is more Christ like and accepting. I would apologize
for any harm my church had done to them or others in the name of God, and I
would probably get called in by my mission president after this and sent home
unless I recanted. That is the sad truth of it.”
 |
| Thea Spyer Edith Windsor |
2013 United States v. Windsor is
a landmark civil rights case in which the United
States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal
interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to
opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute
is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to
protect in personhood and dignity." Edith Windsor (born 1929) and Thea Spyer (October
8, 1931 – February 5, 2009), a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. Later in 2008, New York
recognized their marriage following a court decision. Spyer died at the age of
77 in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the
federal estate tax exemption for surviving
spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA ,
which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages
between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue
Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex
marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053
in estate taxes. On
November 9, 2010, Windsor sued the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
seeking a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for
"differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples
without justification." On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder announced that the Department
of Justice would not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 in Windsor.
On April 18, 2011, Paul Clement,
representing the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), intervened to defend the law. On June
6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones
ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to
issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in
a 2–1 decision, affirmed the district court's judgment
on October 18, 2012. BLAG
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court
to review the decision, and the Court issued a writ of certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013,
the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued
a 5–4 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a
deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth
Amendment." On
the same day, the court also issued a separate 5–4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry—a
case related to California's
constitutional amendment initiative barring same-sex marriage. The
decision effectively allowed same-sex
marriages in that state to resume after the court ruled that the
proponents of the initiative lacked Article III standing to appeal in federal court based on its
established interpretation of the case or controversy
clause.
 |
| Mark Lawrence |
2014 Mark Lawrence wrote-Restore
Our Humanity started as an informal discussion group with a handful of
participants on social media. Without support from any other organization,
Restore Our Humanity approached James Magelby and Peggy Tomsic of Magelby and
Greenwood P.C. and helped recruit six courageous Plaintiffs. The teamwork of
Restore Our Humanity, the Plaintiffs, and Magelby and Greenwood P.C. resulted
in Judge Robert J. Shelby’s historic ruling to bring marriage equality to Utah. We
are proud and humbled to be a part of Kitchen v. Herbert. Nevertheless, we
recognize our limitations and finite resources. Restore Our Humanity is a tiny,
volunteer, grass-roots organization which has never sought the national
spotlight. Our focus as an organization always has been to serve the diverse
communities of, and effect real, lasting, positive change here in Utah. As
Kitchen v. Herbert moves forward into the national arena, Restore Our Humanity
is confident that the attorneys at Magleby & Greenwood, together with
national organizations dedicated to marriage equality will successfully pursue
the case with dedication and skill. Restore Our Humanity is honored to pass the
torch of Kitchen v. Herbert to these organizations. This
starts a new chapter for Restore Our Humanity. Restore Our Humanity will
continue to promote awareness of Kitchen v. Herbert and coordinate fundraising
activities to assist in financing the costs of the case. In the near future,
Restore Our Humanity will continue to focus most of its resources and efforts
to this end, while, at the same time, beginning to grow and develop its mission
as a broader human rights organization. Thank
you for your continued support, Restore
Our Humanity
 |
| Jim Obergefell |
2015 James "Jim" Obergefell and John
Arthur decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their
relationship. After learning that their state of residence, Ohio, would not
recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western
Division, Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminates
against same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state. Because one
partner, John Arthur, was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS), they wanted the Ohio Registrar to identify the other partner,
James Obergefell, as his surviving spouse on his death certificate, based on
their marriage in Maryland. The local Ohio Registrar agreed that discriminating
against the same-sex married couple was unconstitutional, but the state
attorney general's office announced plans to defend Ohio's same-sex marriage
ban. Justice Kennedy announced one more victory for LGBT equality in Obergefell vs Hodges. In a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeals court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be constitutional. This created a split between circuits and led to an almost inevitable Supreme Court review. Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. This legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and its possessions and territories. The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker. Prior to Obergefell, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.The governor of Puerto Rico announced on June 26 that same-sex marriage would begin in that territory within 15 days, and on June 29 and June 30, the governors of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands (respectively) made similar announcements.
- 2015 Homophobe Has Bad Day Everybody else
celebrates! Posted By
 |
| Brandon Burt |
Brandon Burt According to Brad
Dacus—yes, the Brad Dacus, president of
the Pacific Justice Institute, if you please—today's glorious decision by
SCOTUS is nothing less than an outrage: “Today’s decision is an unmitigated
disaster for democracy and constitutional interpretation. Justice Kennedy did
not even attempt to explain what level of scrutiny he was relying upon to
invalidate state laws that reflect the millennia-old marriage tradition.”
[Emphasis added for ridicule.] Sounds like Dacus is
having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Well, I can relate. I was reminded of the way
I felt every time the gay-marriage issue reared its ugly head back in the bad
old days before we had nationwide marriage equality (woot-woot!). The issue
seemed to come in waves, and whenever it did, LGBT folk were hit with a
stunning barrage of blame, shame and complaints that made it sometimes
difficult to get out of bed in the morning. For instance, when the issue came
up during the 2010 midterms, I wrote: So, for about a week, I
become one of those pathetic characters in a Cymbalta commercial. ("Where
does depression hurt? It hurts right here, motherfucker!") Each day I'm
reluctant to read the Public Forum sections in the dailies — which are normally
my favorite — because I just know they will contain two anti-gay letters
denigrating homos in the most contemptible terms, four pro-gay letters
explaining again why the Constitution protects minorities, and one letter
lambasting the paper for its bias in failing to include more anti-gay than
pro-gay letters in its Public Forum section. Not to gloat, but now the
shoe's on the other foot, homophobes. Today is a great day. For
the past several weeks, I've been pretending that I didn't really care about
the outcome of the Supreme Court case, because the future seemed so uncertain,
and I half suspected that the court would rule against my family and others
like mine. But, when I heard the
news of the 5-4 decision as I was driving to work, I had to pull over for
several minutes because ... well, we'll just say it became difficult for me to
see. I leaked about a quart of eye fluid. It's a rare victory, and
nothing less than a defining moment in our nation's history.
No comments:
Post a Comment