This Day In Gay Utah History July 7th

7 July 7-

George Cukor

1899-George Cukor, gay film director born. Cukor was a "homosexual gentleman of the old school". The courtly and prolific film director who died in 1983, leaving behind more than 50 movies, among them such quintessential gems of Hollywood's golden age as "Camille," "The Philadelphia Story" and "Adam's Rib," did his best to play straight by the rules, even when the rules didn't play straight by him. Though his homosexuality was a virtually open secret, Cukor, always mindful that any public violation of the studios' standard "moral turpitude" clause could cost him his career, didn't question the prevailing rules of his day. Dropping his guard only in the company of a circle of trusted friends he nicknamed "the chief unit," Cukor held private Sunday afternoon pool parties that were unabashed all-boy affairs; the rest of the week, he reverted to the role of "extra man," a congenial dinner partner always seated beside either a mogul's wife or one of his celebrated actresses. Yet, when push came to shove, a lifetime of discretion could not protect him from what today would be recognized as blatant homophobia. Cukor was fired from "Gone with the Wind," the most famous movie ever made, because its star, Clark Gable, exploded on the set, "I won't be directed by a fairy! I have to work with a real man!" The story had long circulated within Cukor's social circle that as a young man Gable had once had a drunken sexual encounter with silent screen actor-turned-decorator William Haines, one of Cukor's pals. When another of Cukor's intimates began indiscreetly joking that "George is directing one of Billy's old tricks," Gable, who already feared that Cukor might tilt the movie in favor of Vivien Leigh, flew into a rage. Coming of age in a distant era when "dropping a hanky" served as a camp euphemism for being gay, Cukor simply compartmentalized his life. His six-acre estate above Sunset Plaza was famous throughout the 1930s and '40s for the glittering lists of celebrities, ranging from Greta Garbo and Aldous Huxley to Simone Signoret and Henry Miller, whom Cukor entertained. But once the guests left his formal Sunday brunches, the director would then set up a buffet of leftovers poolside and a constantly changing parade of young men would begin to arrive. As the Baroness d'Erlanger once teased him, "Mr. Cukor has all these wonderful parties for ladies in the afternoon. Then in the evening naughty men come around to eat the crumbs!"

1900 Ogden Standard Examiner In the Second District Court page 4 IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT SIX CRIMINALS UP AND PLEAD NOT GUILTY in the second district court this morning before judge Rolapp six criminal cases were called and each of the defendants plead not guilty. They were Jno Caine charged with larceny, John Saunders charged with robbery, Mike McCormick, Geo Powers and Fred Wilson, sodomy, and Ed James larceny.

Rudger Clawson

1903 - Apostle Rudger Clawson tells other apostles "that the practice of self-abuse existed to an alarming extent among the boys in our community who attended the district schools, and also, he doubted not, the church schools. He felt that the boys and girls should be properly instructed in regard to this evil."

1977-"The Killing of Georgie" by Rod Stewart entered the Billboard "The Killing of Georgie (Part I and II)" is a song written and recorded by Rod Stewart and released as a track on his 1976 album A Night on the Town. The song tells the story of a gay man who was killed in New York City. A two-part song, Part I was the more popular hit and was blended into the more melancholy and sombre Part II. In the May 1995 issue of Mojo, Stewart explained: "That was a true story about a gay friend of The Faces. He was especially close to me and Mac. But he was knifed or shot, I can't remember which. That was a song I wrote totally on me own over the chord of open E." The switchblade knife in the song's lyrics implies that Georgie was stabbed to death.  When he was asked about writing a song with a gay theme, Stewart said, "It's probably because I was surrounded by gay people at that stage. I had a gay PR man, a gay manager. Everyone around me was gay. I don't know whether that prompted me into it or not. I think it was a brave step, but it wasn't a risk. You can't write a song like that unless you've experienced it. But it was a subject that no one had approached before. And I think it still stands up today." Part I covers terrain similar to "Walk on the Wild Side" by Lou Reed and also uses sampling of melody and backing vocals. Part II provides a coda to the song and employs a melody identical to The Beatles' "Don't Let Me Down". In a 1980 interview, John Lennon said, "the lawyers never noticed".

Top 40. The song was about a teenager killed in a gay bashing.

1986: The United States Supreme Court denies certiorari in the case of Baker v. Wade, thereby refusing to review a constitutional challenge to the sodomy law of Texas.

Ed Buck 

1987-Ed Buck, an Arizona gay activist, began his effort to recall Arizona Gov. Evan Mecham. Mecham dismissed it as an attack by militant homosexuals, but the recall succeeded and he was removed from office. Mecham-known for his fiercely antigay rhetoric- was ousted from office although Mecham publicly attacks the campaign as the work of the “homosexual lobby,” it turns out to have huge support among Arizona’s voters.

1987- Salt Lake Affirmation discussed Sports, Being Gay, and Male Bonding.

1988 -In the evening I went to The Gay and Lesbian Community Council of Utah. It was announced that the Vice Squad is active in the parks again busting people at Liberty Park, Jordan Park, Memory Grove, Sunnyside Park, and Ox Bow Park as well as the nude beaches along the Great Salt Lake. The Judges are ordering mandatory AIDS testing for people convicted of “sex crimes”. The ACLU is fighting these judges and Ben Barr is on television condemning it. I announced at Community Council that Dr. Patty Reagan will be the Friday night keynote speaker at Beyond Stonewall. I tried calling Larry White, Emperor of the Royal Court up to discuss supporting the retreat with him but we never connected up. Just played phone tag. [Journal of Ben Williams]

1990-Testing on tissue samples from a 25-year-old British sailor who died in 1959 was said to have revealed he was HIV positive. His wife and daughter died after exhibiting similar symptoms including night sweats, weight loss, CMV and PCP. Soon after, a blood sample from Zaire taken in 1959 also tested positive.  However in 1996 Scientists admit error on 'first' Aids case. Claims that the world's first Aids case was a sailor from Manchester who died in 1959 were wrong, two of the scientists who did the original research have admitted. The scientists say the mistake arose because tissue samples from the patient probably became contaminated with a modern strain of HIV. Doubts over the validity of the claim were first revealed in the Independent last year. Subsequent tests show that David Carr, a 25-year-old who died of a mysterious illness in Manchester Royal Infirmary, was not infected with the virus.  In a letter published in tomorrow's issue of the Lancet, two of the scientists, Andrew Bailey and Gerald Corbitt admit "we can find no evidence . . . to suggest that the 1959 Manchester patient carried [HIV]."

Kathy Worthington

1999 Kathy Worthington initiated a campaign to get Gay and Gay-friendly Mormons to renounce their membership in the LDS Church in response to blatant anti-Gay efforts by the church hierarchy.

1999 Mark Leno, a San Francisco Supervisor, asked both local and state officials to investigate ending the Mormon Church's tax exempt status following an  article in the San Francisco Examiner detailing church activities supporting the Knight initiative.

2000 The Salt Lake Tribune Page: B5 Gay Conference Tackles Dynamics of Racism Workshop scenarios explore ways to recognize oppression, improve race relations personally  BY PEGGY FLETCHER STACK   THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE It was a conference on Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered issues, but the workshop topic on Saturday was racism. A non-sequitur? Hardly.    "You cannot address one form of oppression without looking at all of them," Christa Kriesel, who helped facilitate the session, told the 12 participants gathered for the workshop at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Salt Lake City. They were among about 50 youths from Utah, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona and California who were attending the first western regional conference of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition of Washington, D.C., to be held in Utah.  In the session on racism, facilitator Kriesel, director of Open and Affirming Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity Support (OASOS) in Boulder, Col., was joined by Stan Skonik, co-chair for EQUAL (Empowered Queers United for Absolute Liberation) -- a group at Colorado College in Colorado Springs -- and also by Shae Brennon, of OASOS. It was a workshop specifically aimed at "white folks," organizers said, who enjoy "white privilege," defined as: "advantages, rewards and benefits given to those in the dominant group [white people]. These advantages are bestowed unintentionally, unconsciously and automatically and are often invisible to the receiver." The participants (all white) were given a list of ways in which they might be oppressors or oppressed -- gender, race, ethnicity, ability, religion, sexual orientation, class, age, sex, or language -- and asked to find themselves on one or the other lists. Then they were paired up and, in two-minute sequences, asked to consider the following questions: How does it feel to be in an oppressed group? How does it feel to be an oppressor? What would you like to tell people who oppress you to do in order to become your ally?   Then the entire group was asked to consider how they could help people of color to see them as allies. The group had a wide-ranging conversation about how to improve race relations personally and institutionally. Some said it would never happen until all white people acknowledge their own racism and that it is a racist society in every way. "We have to own our own racism," one man said. A woman argued that sometimes such "owning" only produces guilt and guilt can be immobilizing.  The group discussed extending circles of friendship to include more people of color, rather than simply going out to find "one black friend," since such a move is offensive and dehumanizing to the person. The 90-minute workshop did not produce unanimity or even general consensus, but all seemed to agree that racism -- like homophobia -- would never be eliminated until all "oppressors" (those people who hold power) fully examine their motives and try to understand the feelings and life experiences of the "oppressed."

 2003 Ream's Wilderness Park. Provo "I visited at approximately 8:30 pm on a Saturday. Another fellow cruiser and I noted three gentlemen who were acting like they should not be there -- available to be cruised but not cruising that is. We believed that these gentlemen were undercover police waiting to make a bust. As my new friend and I drove away, a cop car was pulling in. I have found action to be good in this park in the late afternoon, but will probably not be visiting again later in the evening." [Anonymous]

2003 Newsweek's Cover story "Is Gay Marriage Next?
In 2003 Andrew Berg and Dominic Pisciotta appeared on the cover of Newsweek under the headline “Is Gay Marriage Next?” In 2011 on the first possible day that gay New Yorkers could wed, Berg and Piscotta were legally married. This was the couple’s third ceremony. The first, in 2001, was a civil union. The second, in 2002, was a city domestic partnership. In 2003 the couple was recruited to appear on the cover of Newsweek, in a story about the Supreme Court and gay rights—under the headline “Is Gay Marriage Next?” At the time, they weren’t entirely convinced—at least not in New York.“We had our civil-union ceremony, what we considered the big day,” says Berg. “We have twins, we own an apartment, we just paid off our station wagon, we set up powers of attorney. We kind of moved on with our lives.” But when marriage became a reality in their home state—on the eve of Gay Pride weekend—there was no time to waste. “Since we already did a big wedding, I wanted to do a cocktail party in the fall,” says Berg. “But the kids were like, ‘Are we getting married tomorrow?’”

2003 Lesbian couple challenging gay adoption ban in Utah;  Gay adoption ban in Utah faces challenge By Rebecca Walsh The Salt Lake Tribune  A 1 Photo Caption: Like Everyone Else  Kari Fuller, left, and Sonia Kaufman fear their family could be split because under Utah law Kaufman cannot adopt 7-month-old daughter Karson. Gay rights groups plan to use a recent Supreme Court decision to challenge the law.;  Jump page A6: Sonja Kaufman holds son Angus, 6, whom she adopted before a Utah law passed forbidding adoption by unmarried couples. Kari Fuller, left, would like Kaufman to also adopt daughter Karson. "I worry what would happen if something happened to me," she says. Sonia Kaufman and Kari Fuller's lives are cluttered with the accessories, the decisions, the sweet angst of family. Baby pictures hang in a cluster on the wall. An Elmo doll is tucked into a corner. Children's stories and board games fill the bookshelves. Agonized by sending the baby to day care every day, 38-year-old Fuller decided to stay home to take care of the kids. And Kaufman and Fuller are beginning to realize their two-bedroom townhome is too small for four. Just like any other family. But Kaufman and Fuller are no ordinary family. As lesbians in Utah, they face the prospect of having their household split if they separate or one of them dies. Utah law does not recognize their relationship or Kaufman's connection to one of their two children -- 7-month-old Karson. Although she formally adopted 6-year-old Angus, legislation added to state code in 2000 specifically prohibits her from becoming the legal parent of the daughter she is raising. The women are willing to upend their anonymous existence to become plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the adoption statute.  "The law doesn't make sense to me," says 46-year-old Kaufman. "They find me fit to parent one child and then say I can't parent the other one. I'm parenting Karson anyway. But there's that little bit of anxiety, knowing that, in a way, you're living on the edge." It's not that they are gay rights activists. The women say they just want what is fair. And in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision to strike down sodomy laws, they figure now is the time to challenge Utah's ban on gay adoption. Human rights groups nationwide claim the ruling will be a catalyst to overturn state statutes that treat gay families differently, from restrictions on medical benefits to some states' refusal to recognize marriages between gay couples. Utah's gay community is more restrained, quietly strategizing. "All of the laws that discriminate against homosexuals in Utah have the same underpinnings -- the sodomy law,"

Laura Gray

says attorney Laura Milliken Gray, who keeps a list of potential plaintiffs like Kaufman and Fuller. "They've always tried to use that as a sledgehammer to pound us over the head. That's gone now. The implications are huge." Utah advocates are not talking about the emotionally charged issues of partner benefits and same-sex marriage yet. Instead, they are focusing on the sympathetic instances of adoptions thwarted -- cases where their legal footing is well-grounded and political opposition is weaker. Two weeks ago, a split court determined a Texas sodomy law specifically aimed at homosexuals violated the right of consenting adults to choose what they do in their bedrooms, effectively nullifying similar laws in 13 other states, including Utah. Most of the justices concluded the law violated the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection provisions by singling out gays. Utah gay and lesbian advocates say the state's adoption law does the same thing. "Sodomy has been used to deny equal rights and equal protection to a group of people," wrote Paula Wolfe, director of the Gay & Lesbian Community Center of Utah in an opinion column for The Salt Lake Tribune. "Lesbians are more likely to lose custody of their natural-born children, and men and women without any criminal conviction are denied the right to adopt a child."  Three years ago, lawmakers debated a bill drafted by Brigham Young University Law School professor Lynn Wardle to prohibit co-habiting adults,

Lynn Wardle

heterosexual or homosexual, from adopting children in state foster care or their partner's children. State Rep. Jackie Biskupski, the only openly gay member of the Legislature, says the adoption ban and Utah's sodomy law are carefully written to make it appear they do not target gays, but the effect is the same. "The laws are connected," the Salt Lake City Democrat says. "Clearly the laws are discriminatory." At the time, gay rights groups protested loudly, pointing to the sodomy law as lawmakers' justification. Their complaints did no good. Scott Clark, an attorney on the Division of Child and Family Services board when it adopted administrative rules on which the law was based, says state leaders simply were looking out for the welfare of children. "The state has a compelling reason to protect children," Clark says. "Some relationships are sanctioned and people in those relationships can adopt. I'm not trying to criticize any other nonstandard relationship, but I think it is a legitimate interest of the state to prefer families with a mother and father."

Paul Mero

Sutherland Institute President Paul Mero backs up Clark. "A family is more than love," he says. "There is a structure involved. There are complementary roles between a male and a female in a family that a homosexual couple just does not have. "It doesn't matter whether we're talking about homosexual couples or a single woman who decides she needs to have a child in her life. Those children are at risk." Kaufman and Fuller defy Mero and Clark to prove that. Together for 10 years, the women say they are as committed as any heterosexual married couple. Although raised outside Utah -- Fuller in Illinois and Kaufman in Idaho -- both come from LDS backgrounds. They served missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Kaufman works for an insurance company. Fuller is a full-time mom.   They were preparing to become foster parents when Fuller learned she was pregnant after the eighth round of artificial insemination. Kaufman managed to adopt Angus after he was born. But Karson was born after the adoption ban passed. Kaufman and Fuller share legal guardianship of the little girl so Kaufman's health benefits can cover her. But Karson still falls into a limbo that scares her mothers.  "I worry what would happen if something happened to me," Fuller says. "I have family members who think it might be the right thing for them to do to get custody of my children. That's scary. I'm a little nervous." Before lawmakers changed the statute, Gray says, Utah judges reviewed gay adoptions as a matter of course. Only one of her cases was denied by a Davis County judge. Since the ban was adopted, DCFS records show even single-parent adoptions have dropped. In 1999, the year before the adoption ban went into effect, 30 single parents adopted foster children. The next year, that number dropped to 14. And last year, 12 single men and women adopted. Second-parent adoptions have been sanctioned by the highest courts of four states: Vermont, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. Courts in 21 other states have allowed second-parent adoptions for same-sex couples. And internationally, gay couples are allowed to adopt in Ontario, Canada; London and Manchester, England; and in the Netherlands. Two other states -- Florida and Mississippi -- block gay couples from adopting. And Arkansas restricts gays and lesbians from being foster parents. Two gay couples who are foster parents have challenged Florida's 16-year-old law. That case is pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gray has 40 families -- families where the nonbiological parent adopted the first child, but Utah's ban blocked adoption of the second -- on her list of potential clients. "In those families, the second child is a second-class citizen in their own home," Gray says. "One child gets two legal parents with all the benefits that includes -- Social Security, inheritance, health insurance. The other child doesn't get any of that. "Whenever you have a law that has no rational basis except discrimination, you get bizarre and irrational results like this. I've been waiting since that ban was passed to challenge it. I can't wait." While Gray anticipates the legal battle, some state lawmakers say she has her work cut out for her connecting the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy laws and the ban on gay adoptions. They question a lawsuit's chances. "In my mind, they're two separate and distinct issues," says state Sen. John Valentine. "The sodomy law applies equally to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. And the adoption law was a public policy decision that homosexual relationships are not a proper place for the raising of children.  "People who want to foster an agenda will try to argue the connection," the Orem Republican says. "But I find nothing in the words of the Supreme Court's ruling." But Mero figures the high court's decision might give gay rights groups a basis for litigation.  "The Supreme Court punted and is going to allow a multiplicity of lawsuits," he says.  walsh@sltrib.com ---- Tribune reporter Elizabeth Neff contributed to this story.

2003 Is U.S. Congress being led by grand old gay bashers? By Harold Meyerson Special to The Washington Post Antonin Scalia is raging against the coming of the light. Scalia's dissent from the epochal Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy statute confirms Ayatollah Antonin's standing as the intellectual leader of the forces arrayed against equality and modernity in the United States.  In establishing the deep historical roots of anti-gay sentiment in America, for instance, Scalia took pains to note the 20 prosecutions and four executions for consensual gay sex conducted in colonial times. He noted, approvingly,

Antonin Scalia

that even today, "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders in their home." Actually, back in 1978, a California electorate far more conservative than today's massively repudiated an initiative seeking to ban gays from teaching school, but this inconvenient fact -- and other evidence of a massive shift in public sentiment on gay rights -- doesn't have quite the legal majesty of those four colonial executions. (Scalia is uncharacteristically short on detail here. Were they hangings or burnings?) Scalia's justifications for discriminatory conduct sound terribly familiar. Change "homosexual" to "Negro" and Scalia is at one with the authors of Plessy v. Ferguson's mandate for "separate but equal" schools, and the judges who upheld anti-miscegenation statutes. Indeed, of the 13 states whose anti-sodomy statutes were struck down in the court's decision, 10 were once slave states of the South. In what has always been the main event in American history -- the battle to expand the definition of "men" in Jefferson's mighty line on who's created equal -- these are the states that have had to be dragged along kicking and screaming. More immediately, 12 of the 13 states with sodomy laws were states that George W. Bush carried in the 2000 election, and the 13th -- Florida -- was the one that Scalia and company handed to him. The culture wars over legal equality for gays -- save on the question of gay marriage -- are pretty much settled within the Democratic Party. It's the Republicans who are split on the question of equal rights for gays.  And in this battle, Scalia has no shortage of allies -- the recent and current Republican congressional leadership first and foremost. From Dick Armey, who referred to gay Democratic Rep. Barney Frank as "Barney Fag," to Rick Santorum, who equated consensual gay sex to "man-on-dog"

Rick Sartorum 

fornication, to Tom DeLay, who's declared that the United States is and ought to remain a "Christian nation," to Trent Lott, who pined for segregation, the recent and current leaders of the Republican Party in Congress have compiled an impressive record of industrial-strength prejudice. So where's the outrage? Lott, to be sure, had to step down, but for the rest, it looks as if gay-bashing is not only accepted in the highest Republican circles but actually a prerequisite for leadership. Just a week ago, Bill Frist took to the airwaves to tout a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Frist looked mighty uncomfortable in the part, conveying the sense that he was speaking less from personal passion than from partisan duty. Of course, plenty of Republicans welcomed the Supreme Court's decision. Plenty of Republicans are appalled when the United States votes in international bodies with Saudi Arabia and a handful of fundamentalist states against women's rights, reproductive freedoms and contraception distribution programs. Plenty of Republicans sicken at the hatreds expressed by their legislative leaders. But, plenty or not, try to find a national Republican who speaks out for equality of sexual orientation or condemns the expressions of bias.  It's way past time for a prominent Republican to give a Sister Souljah speech. In a period when the United States finds itself threatened by an international network of religious intolerants fuming at modernity and equality, you would think some GOP notables might step up to condemn the like-minded intolerants in their own ranks -- indeed, atop them.  Is there no decent Republican with the guts to note that his party could do better than be led by a rats' nest of bigots?   Harold Meyerson is editor at large of the American Prospect.

Deborah Rosenberg

2003 Deborah Rosenberg to Ben Williams-Ben,  I'm so glad to have run into you at the celebratory rally after the decision by the US Supreme Court to de-criminalize me (and most of my friends.)  I just read this whole thing on July 1991, and wish I had seen the June one. Kinda takes me back, if you know what I mean.  Those were the days when we NEEDED to be soooo radical- and when it didn't take much to be "radical" in the eyes of others.  Thank you for keeping the collective memory. Deb Rosenberg

2003 Chad Keller to USHS: I invite those members of the Utah Historical Society or any other interested parties to join me on Monday July 7 at 7:00 pm at the City Library in the Atrium Reading area above the Atrium Shops. This will be a preliminary planning meeting to determine what our direction will be and to make assignments. Members of the board are encouraged attend, and everyone looking for assignments. We will review the Milestone honors guiding rules that Ben has written that will be voted on by the board of directors, discuss location, and make recommendations to the Historical Chair on what subjects we see that would generate interest for people to attend.  We may also have conceptual drawings for the Milestone Award from our great Artist in Ogden! Mark Swonson has a great letter that we will need the help of those participating to see gets out to the community so that the History Fair portion is focused and a nice compliment to the Historic Presentations. In review, if anyone is specifically interested on a Kids segment or Kids track those ideas would be appreciated.  As we have many parents in the group, if you have kids, bring them along, the meeting will be kept to a minimum of 2 hours, and I just bought some great new coloring books for the "keep em busy box."  Thanks! Chad Keller Co-Chair

Karl Bennion

2003 Karl Bennion  to Chad Keller -Chad, I hope you and I can repair our working relationship.  I apologize for any hurt that I caused you.  The work that we are doing as a guild is very important and it is imperative that you and I work through our personal problems.  I assure you that I did not mean to offend you and I sincerely want to apologize for any offense that I caused.  Please let's talk and work through these issues. At our last meeting you talked to me about making some introductions to people in the community and I would love to have us work together to build the image of the Guild and promote the Guild.  These are areas where you are invaluable to the Guild.  I hope that we can count on you for the things  that you do so well. Our next meeting is scheduled for July 18th at Club Splash.  Are you still working on that event?  Please let me know ASAP. We should already  have our announcement out promoting it. I appreciate very much all the work you have done for the Guild and  Hope that we can still work together for the good of the community. Ciao', Karl cell wkbennion@hotmail.com

• Chad Keller to Karl Bennion- Karl, I'm not sure what to say.  I will be happy to have a discussion.  But need to get through this month first as life is kinda needing some attention so that I don't crumble. Too often in our community people rush to judgment on others as to who they are, what's their motives, or through innuendo determine through some odd formula where they will fit in the structure of the community.  Then there is this movement to make everything in our community “acceptable" to the outside world.  This is something that I have faced time and time again, and it was more I guess more than a little ouch at the time, as it was the frosting on the cake so to speak on several other issues where it was that I was too 'gay' or had too strong of a personality.  That strength has come from a lot of soul searching, and a lot of being told 'no' or just plain used to fill others agendas or pocket books. Don’t get me wrong I want equal rights.  I just don’t want to get them if it means sacrificing the brilliant color and diversity of who I, friends, colleagues, or the community is.  I don’t want to see us or those close to us short sell ourselves.  We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that other communities have made when they sacrificed part of their identity.  The Far Right is getting wise, and they will soon find ways to put up more roadblocks.  Reclaiming our identity will be as, if not more difficult. Every business owner is welcome to the Guild, and if they choose to participate, should be welcome as a leader.  With that I do accept your apology, but let’s still sit down and talk. As for the 18th I have been very busy here at work, and under the gun so to speak.  As it was just a social, I figured that the booking was all taken care of, and would find something to compliment it by getting a few people from other professional groups to come to share information.  As I need to focus here, I hope that you or whoever booked it with Rob Blackhurst could confirm that they will be open and ready.  The advertising would fall under Michael Aaron.  I have been working on something for August, but need to get with the rest of he board. Call me later tonight. CK

 

Larry Craig

2004 Craig Appeals Guilty Plea Ruling  Written by Cathy Martinez    Wednesday, 07 July 2004 04:54  Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho, in his mug shot after being arrested at the Minneapolis Airport Minneapolis — Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, filed a notice the morning of Monday, Oct. 15 with the Minnesota Court of Appeals that he will appeal a lower court decision that upheld his guilty plea to disorderly conduct. Craig pleaded guilty to the crime after his June 11 arrest in the Minneapolis airport on charges he solicited sex from an undercover police officer. Later, he filed an appeal, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. On Oct. 4, a Minnesota judge turned down Craig’s attempt to overturn the plea, saying that Craig’s claim that he didn’t know what he was doing when he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct was “illogical.” Craig’s filing with the Minnesota Court of Appeals is the first step in a lengthy legal process. Craig’s appeal was filed at the court in St. Paul less than two weeks after Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter refused to overturn the guilty plea, saying it “was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and ... supported by the evidence.” The four-page filing did not detail the basis for the appeal. Craig’s lawyers must first order and file a transcript of his Sept. 26 hearing. Once that has been filed, his lawyers have 60 days to file a brief outlining his appeal. Then, prosecutors have 45 days to file their response to his appeal. Once those are filed, the court sets a date for oral arguments — which often occurs about six to eight months later. Ninety days after the oral arguments, the judge will issue a decision. Billy Martin, the lead attorney representing Craig told the Idaho Statesman the senator has maintained his innocence from the outset. "Senator Craig has a right to appeal and we believe that it was a manifest injustice not to allow Senator Craig to withdraw his guilty plea entered in August," Martin said. “Like every other citizen, Senator Craig has the constitutional right to make every effort to clear his name. Senator Craig is hopeful that the Court of Appeals, after reviewing our arguments, will reverse or vacate Judge Porter’s decision denying his motion.”  In an interview Oct. 14 with KTVB-TV in Boise, Idaho, Craig repeated that he will not resign his post in the Senate and said he had the right to pursue his legal options. “It is my right to do what I’m doing,” said Craig. “I’ve already provided for Idaho certainty that Idaho needed — I’m not running for re-election. I’m no longer in the way. I am pursuing my constitutional rights.” "What’s the likelihood of success? Even less likely of prevailing in the appeal than he had in prevailing before Porter,” Steve Simon, a legal defense expert at the University of Minnesota Law School, told the Associated Press. The appeals court must find there’s been an “abuse of discretion” by the trial judge before overturning a ruling — in other words, that some aspect of the ruling was decided improperly. Ron Meshbesher, a longtime Minneapolis defense attorney, said earlier this month that the standard for an abuse of discretion is vague but that such a ruling is fairly rare. “It’s not frequent, let’s put it that way,” Meshbesher said. “It certainly is a steep hill to climb.”It would most likely be well into 2008 before the Court of Appeals rules on the case. The process by which both sides prepare their legal briefs alone usually stretches to more than 100 days. A heavy caseload at the Court of Appeals has slowed down both the scheduling of oral arguments and the release of rulings, according to court spokesman John Kostouros. It has been taking at least three months after briefs are filed for arguments to be scheduled, he said, and at least another three months before a decision is reached. Craig’s Senate term ends at the end of 2008.

2010 Gay Students vs. BYU Honor Code Dishonor Code: Despite a 2007 gay-friendly update

John Kovalenko

to BYU’s honor code, some students claim the discipline goes too far. By Eric S. Peterson Salt Lake City Weekly Like many faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, John Kovalenko felt a strong desire to attend Brigham Young University. The move to BYU seemed an important step in his spiritual evolution, one that he took with the zeal of a missionary. Unlike many of the church faithful, however, Kovalenko entered BYU as a gay student. He didn’t attend BYU with an expectation that he would change his sexual orientation, but simply with the goal of serving as an emissary to other gay members of the faith, to let them and the world know that his religion and his school would never turn away from gay members who were faithful. “I was fallaciously trying to live in two worlds at once. Especially after Proposition 8, I wanted to prove everyone wrong,” Kovalenko says of the tensions between the gay community and the LDS Church caused by the church’s lobbying efforts to repeal gay marriage in California in 2008. In his precarious position of being gay and Mormon, Kovalenko intended to change the attitude of his fellow members by staying the same person he always was: committed churchgoer, exemplary student and ambassador for BYU’s music program. As a violinist, Kovalenko helped set up institutional relationships with the prestigious Chautauqua Institution in New York state. He also taught violin to undergrads in the school. He also fell in love with another man at BYU. That’s how Kovalenko changed—even if BYU didn’t. “I felt like I was allowed to honor myself and allow myself to experience love when it came into my life,” he says. “I listened to my heart and that’s something I learned, in part, from my religion.”  In 2007, BYU changed its honor code, the policy that regulates student conduct, so that simply being gay would not be prohibited. Acting on those impulses with inappropriate sexual contact, however, would still be prohibited, as would advocating “homosexual behavior.” Kovalenko knew by the time he was called into the Honor Code Office in the summer of 2009 that his commitment to another man would be discussed. Presented with allegations—but no evidence—of living an unchaste life, Kovalenko, only one credit away from graduation, was offered the opportunity to complete his degree after a year of suspension, which would include frequent visits with an Honor Code Office counselor, essay assignments based on church talks, and agreeing not to associate with any gay individual. It wasn’t the terms of this honor code arrangement that caused him to walk away from the university, but the rationale they used to find him guilty. “I decided not to lie in the interview,” Kovalenko says. “But I didn’t verify whether or not my relationship was sexual—I refused to give that information because I didn’t feel that was any of [their] business and I [had] talked to my bishop about it.” That’s what finally pushed him from BYU. Since he had admitted to being in love with his boyfriend, Kovalenko was told that any contact with him—even a handshake or a hug—would be inappropriate. Any sign of affection would be just as inappropriate as sexual relations and be seen by the honor code as “advocating” for “homosexual behavior.” (Representatives of BYU who handle honor code discipline deny they would make such claims but also refused to comment on Kovalenko’s case, citing the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act.) For an institution that purports to encourage “honor,” some students worry that the bureaucracy tasked with enforcing an honor code seems inconsistent and unfair in its approach. They also see an office that is not seeking to foster honor among college students but rather to mass-produce the next generation of conservative, young Mormon professionals. “It’s so nebulous,” says Ashley Sanders (pictured at left), a former BYU student, about the honor code. “They can use it to enforce whatever they want and to control any behavior.” As a student activist, Sanders and some fellow students were once denied permits to protest the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because “it was against the honor code for us to question our country.” People can change, but can institutions change without the persistence of the people in them? For a church-owned institution dedicated to preserving family values while struggling to define the role for the members who don’t fit in—especially gay members—BYU seems to have changed little in the way it uses the honor code. Since the turbulent ’60s, when school President Ernest Wilkinson used the honor code to squash rabble-rousers, long hairs and beatniks, BYU has budged little on its policies regarding students who just don’t fit the mold. The Honor Court- BYU is perhaps Utah’s most well known university. Nestled against the Wasatch Mountains in Provo, the college, named after the Mormon faith’s second prophet, is home to more than 33,000 students. Most students are LDS and flock to the institution known for its prestigious programs, such as its business and law schools. It’s also a school that attracts students seeking to uphold a standard of clean and righteous living, to stand in sober contrast to the typical American college student. According to Steve Baker, director of the Honor Code Office, the code creates a unique culture of academic and spiritual flourishing. “We also believe students, who honor their commitment to live by the standards they agreed to, do in fact create a very unique environment where service and learning flourish,” Baker writes via e-mail. The campus is still a typical college setting, with students playing Frisbee on the open grounds or cramming for finals in the library. Except that, inside the library, simple placards next to each check-out booth and info desk read: “Please respect the Honor Code so that we may serve you better.” But the code is not just a recommendation. While commonly meant for upholding dress and grooming standards, it’s also a way to regulate behavior. Baker says the office interacts with written warnings, meetings and discipline hearings with about 1 to 3 percent of the student body annually. Prior to 2007, those interactions included punishment for gay students who simply admitted to being gay, a policy revisited only after student protests. Considered a victory for gay students and activists when it was changed, many now see the application of that rule and the honor code process as still too punitive. The exercise of the new policy is one many say actually contradicts the decisions of the church leaders and even the school’s own policies. Being a student in good standing at BYU has required, since the 1980s, an “ecclesiastical endorsement” from the student’s religious leader. For LDS students, this is a form approved by their bishop to verify the student is worthy to attend BYU. Two days after Brian Clement

Brian Clement

(pictured at left) finished the law school admissions test in October of 2008, he was called into the Honor Code Office. Clement knew immediately that the administrators had learned of a brief relationship he had had with another male student the previous summer, one he now regrets. (The brief relationship, he admits, was consensual, but he also says that the other man was the one who pushed him into an intimate relationship.) Apparently, word of the relationship reached BYU, which swiftly took action. Being one semester away from graduation, Clement was now following two different discipline tracks—one through BYU and one through his local ward. Through his own ward, Clement faced probation, a loss of privileges or even excommunication. At BYU, he faced probation, suspension or even expulsion from the university. Clement was relieved to find that his own bishop chose leniency. “They didn’t pull my endorsement, so according to the church, I was worthy enough to stay at BYU.” BYU disagreed and suspended him.- “It was really odd that I didn’t get kicked out through church,” Clement says. “Which is, technically, supposed to be the higher authority.” Clement appealed the decision and thought he had a fighting chance, since his own bishop felt finishing his education would be better for him as a student and as a member of the church. That was until Clement discovered that the same person who handled his first hearing—Vern Heperi, dean of student life—would also be the sole decision maker in his appeal. Baker says that the Honor Code Office’s policy is that the person who hears the appeal is not anyone involved in the initial decision. While this was not Clement’s experience, Baker would not discuss specific incidents with students because of federal education privacy guidelines. Clement made his appeal, backed up by a teacher and a character witness. Again, the suspension was upheld. Clement, evicted from his student housing, lived life in limbo. While the issue of gay marriage consumed the nation during the Proposition 8 debate in California, Clement was meeting with the Honor Code Office every two months to complete essay assignments and learn whether or not he would be readmitted. For eight months he remained suspended. After finishing an assignment on how the honor code made him a better person, Clement was re-admitted in the fall of 2009. Looking back at the process, Clement bristles at an investigation he felt was concluded before he could ever present his side. He says Heperi never seemed to believe his account that he was not the one pushing the relationship. He also was told he could not have any legal representation during his appeal or initial hearing. Baker, who responded for this story on behalf of Heperi and BYU, said in his statement that “attorneys are not invited to participate, unless one is a parent of the student involved.” “I didn’t know what I was allowed,” Clement says. “But it’s not like they read me my Miranda rights or anything.”  Not all gay students, however, have shared Clement and Kovalenko’s (pictured at left) experience. Brent Kerby, a current student

Brent Kerby

, came out as gay to the Honor Code Office. While he was not in violation of the code, Kerby simply wanted to inform the office about his orientation and ask for clarification about the honor code expectations. “The counselor expressed sympathy for my situation and said, ‘Well, maybe the day will come when the church will say, ‘Get married: whether to a guy or a girl, it doesn’t matter.’ Sounds weird, but who knows?’” Kerby writes via e-mail. “I was impressed by the kindness and sensitivity that was shown by this honor code counselor,” Kerby writes. “I asked many questions about the honor code and was given some helpful answers; while these answers didn’t entirely make clear what was expected of me as a gay BYU student, they did at least alleviate fears of being kicked out over some small perceived violation.” For Clement, however, his experience with BYU was all he needed to walk away from the church entirely. Clement admits he was losing faith in the church before he was sanctioned but feels BYU sealed the deal; especially now that he has to explain the notice of suspension BYU gave him to every law school he applies to. “[It] really pissed me off,” Clement says. “Considering my bishop just wanted me to finish school and get on with my life and not make me angry at the church. I really hate BYU. They really made me feel like crap.” Court Procedure - Certainly, an office regulating student life isn’t a court, but what is troubling for some students is inconsistency from the office. One student, who asked that his name not be used, was brought before the Honor Code Office but was never told he could bring character witnesses to the hearing. But in his situation, the office may have felt they had all the evidence they needed—a photo taken of him dancing at a gay nightclub in Salt Lake City. He doesn’t deny the photo was of him but defending against the allegation of living an unchaste life or even “advocacy” through dancing, was difficult, since the identity of whoever took the photo was never disclosed. “They never tell you who it was,” he says, although he suspects it was another gay student who felt jilted by him and got payback by turning him in. BYU’s Baker notes that it’s exactly because the office isn’t a court that they can rely on anonymous tips. “Because the process is meant to be an educational experience and not an adversarial occurrence, students do not face their accusers in most cases.” Baker also denies that students are encouraged to follow or stake out other students to see if they violate the code, on or off campus. “I try not to associate the church with BYU,” the student says. “It’s just frustrating because BYU and the honor code are actually stricter than the church.” He also feels that the code is not creating honorable students but a system that encourages ratting on one another and one that encourages students lying to avoid punishment. “It fosters an environment that is just out of touch with reality. They don’t call it the ‘Provo bubble’ for nothing.” Exterminators - People can change, but institutions seem to change only because of those who run them—not by those subject to them. In the ’60s, BYU’s honor code was finally coming into formation as an office regulating behavior, thanks to University President Ernest Wilkinson. With outrage over the Vietnam War leading to campus protests across the country Wilkinson was determined to make BYU an “island of calm” during a turbulent time. Wilkinson explained just how he would do this in a 1965 address to the student body, where he proclaimed, “We do not want on our campus any beetles, beatniks or buzzards. We have, on this campus, scientists who are specialists in the control of insects. Usually, we use chemical or biological means to experiment on them. But often we just step on them. [For] students, we usually send them to the dean of students for the same kind of treatment.”  Can BYU be Sued? While a number of students disciplined by Brigham Young University feel that the school’s application of the honor code is inconsistent and unethical, most students realize making a legal claim against a private religious institution is a long shot. Joseph Lambson, a St. Louis attorney contacted by Kovalenko’s boyfriend to consider the case, says that it is possible to sue a private religious institution, but not easy. Thanks to the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, homosexual acts are protected by the First and 14th amendments of the Constitution. Lambson also points out that those institutions that accept federal money are subject to action for violating constitutional rights. One possible avenue for suit against BYU, among several, Lambson says, is under the Higher Education Act—contained in 20 U.S.C. 1011(a)—as BYU's policy arguably violated Kovalenko's protected right to freedom of association, which is forbidden under the Act. However, the obstacle in suing under this section is that the only entity with standing to bring suit under the provisions of the Act is the Secretary of Education. “One other possible avenue would be not simply to get the Secretary of Education to file a suit, but to get the IRS to look at unexempting [BYU’s] 501(c)(3), to revoke their tax-exempt status.” In 1983, the IRS successfully revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, a religious school that denied admission to students in an interracial marriage. The IRS determined the institution’s mission was contrary to good public policy that guided the creation of 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Still, Lambson says the momentum behind the gay-rights movement is picking up in comparison to the rights already afforded individuals based on race. With time and further pressure from individuals, though, the tide can turn, he says. “The day might not be far off,” Lambson says. “Today is not the day where sexual orientation is seen as being on par legally with race, but there’s a very strong and growing movement, [and] I think it will get there. You’re going to see some drastic changes soon, even with private religious schools.”  According to The Lord’s University—a book on the history of academic freedom at BYU, written by Bryan Waterman and Brian Kagle, a former editor of BYU’s Student Review magazine and a former editor of student newspaper the Daily Universe, respectively—Wilkinson, at the time, had just returned to his position after failing his bid for the Senate bid. Wilkinson had also received a special blessing from then-prophet of the LDS Church David O. McKay to protect the faithful against the evils of communism. Wilkinson returned to his beloved school with renewed fervor to root out undesirable students. His claim to fame was specifically targeting radicals and activists, but also instigating a war for the sake of modesty against the miniskirt. While Wilkinson was openly hostile to the idea of gay students on campus, it wasn’t until after his term ended in the ’70s that school presidents made rooting out homosexuals a priority, at times even tasking campus police with noting license plate numbers at gay bars and then cross referencing those numbers with student and teacher records. Those who have gone to BYU in the years before and after the church’s involvement in the repeal of California’s gay marriage laws feel BYU has exercised a similar political agenda with its students. Ashley Sanders, a Salt Lake City native, went to BYU as an activist, where she organized protests against the honor code and its treatment of gay students, the invasion of Iraq and even the university’s decision to host then-Vice President Dick Cheney as the 2007 commencement speaker. She says the honor code was used as a threat to censor protests against conservative issues. “College is a time when people start going places that push the boundaries of whatever they’ve been told,” she says. “Its cliché, but it’s true. So, they really have to regulate [students’] lifestyles so they don’t encourage the kind of thinking that would threaten the church’s power structures and the school’s power structures.” The strongest tool Sanders says BYU has for protecting itself and controlling students is the surveillance culture that the honor code creates. Since students can be in violation of the code if they don’t “encourage” other students to keep the code, Sanders says students never know who might be watching. “You never know when they’re surveilling you, so what happens is, people surveilled themselves more ferociously and effectively than they ever would even if [BYU] had armed guards [enforcing the code].” In 2007, as the editor of a student magazine, The Collegiate Post, Sanders decided to write a lengthy editorial lambasting the honor code for being a tool of enforcing political ideology. Shortly after the article ran, the magazine’s funding was cut and shut down. Not long after, Sanders left BYU with her diploma, and she soon also left the church. Having never been sanctioned by the office herself, she still felt suffocated under the honor code. “I genuinely felt like I went insane at BYU,” she says. Despite feeling like a good person in search of the truth, she felt BYU stood in the way of that search. “It’s really not about [finding] the truth,” she says of the code. “It’s about hitting a boundary and bouncing back to the inside.” This code-enforced formula for honor, Sanders says, was ultimately “too demoralizing and frustrating and hypocritical for me.” “It’s not about not cheating on your tests—it’s about controlling the production of the next generation of Mormons.” Reinterpretation- People can change, even if some parts of them don’t. Kovalenko, looking back, doesn’t regret going to BYU or the fact that, despite friends, teachers and even local religious leaders advising him to lie to BYU, he told the truth—especially since he had talked about his boyfriend with his bishop and had even taken him to church with him. Kovalenko now is a student of music at the University of Utah and near graduation. But, he still believes his time at BYU was a part of his personal destiny. If his spiritual foundation cracked when he left BYU and then the church, it’s only now become stronger. As a musician, Kovalenko’s surest measure of his own fortitude is contained in his music. Kovalenko’s own music has been enriched by his experience. New opportunities have arisen for him: He currently is using, on loan, a $400,000 Pressenda violin, an old Italian instrument made in 1834, the year after Brahms was born. Brahms’ Violin Concerto in D major, Op. 77, the only concerto Brahms composed for violin, is dear to Kovalenko. “It’s just the most bad-ass, epic, passionate piece—it has tremendous range.” It’s a piece Kovalenko’s worked on his whole life, and one that he even performed for the BYU Philharmonic. “You have a piece, and you perform it, it becomes a part of you. It’s like you tell your own story with the music,” he says. The story he tells now, with the same notes and composition as it was written in 1878, has deepened tremendously for Kovalenko. “It’s almost like I came back around full circle with this piece of music,” he says. “I’m twice the musician I was two years ago.” While Kovalenko is no longer a member of the LDS Church, he still has strong roots in the culture. He marvels at the Book of Mormon, and would rank Joseph Smith as one of the top two figures he would love to meet, maybe even more so than Leonardo da Vinci. Despite these ties to the culture of his former faith, he will continue to speak out against BYU’s Honor Code, for the process that he will never forget—but can forgive. “I don’t think we as human beings, Americans, Utahns or whatever—I don’t think in any micro- or macrocosm can we afford to be divided when we can be unified.” Photos By Chad Kirkland 2007 North Star interview with John Kolvanko

Seth Anderson

2014 The second of a five part history series was sponsored by the Utah Stonewall Historical Society with historian Seth Anderson as lecturer.  The Summer series was held at the Salt Lake City library.