Kerry Lobel: NGLTF's Beloved Leader Steps Down

I'm thankful to those women and men around this country who taught me about risk-taking and about patience. I'm thankful to those who lifted me up with their love.

I'm thankful for the wisdom of young people who have challenged my notions about sexual orientation, sexual expression, and gender identity. I'm thankful for the wisdom of my elders who have expanded my vision of the circle of our community that grows ever larger.

I'm thankful to those who have been fully and wholly themselves, even at great personal sacrifice. I'm thankful for the activists in small towns and large cities whose thirst for liberation will not be quenched until all of us are free.

I'm thankful to those who have challenged me and questioned me. I am thankful for those who in my darkest days held me close.

I'm thankful for living in this time when the success of our movement for liberation is inevitable.

Things can -- and sometimes will -- turn against us. But those who oppose us are building a sandcastle on the beach at low tide -- it will be swept away just as certainly as the next full moon.

Kerry Lobel

I think the roles of Ulrich and his successor Magnus Hirschfeld are even more profound than being gay pioneers. They were important initiators of the scientific study of sexuality. Sigmund Freud frequently cited Hirschfeld as the authority for parts of his psychoanalytic theory. He cites Hirschfeld in "Contributions to a Theory of Sex" (1905) as the a developer of one of the fundamental tenants of psychoanalysis, the bisexual potential of all human beings.

The scientific understanding of sexuality had to develop against the superstition surrounding sexuality. Much of this superstition continues today. This is evidenced in many historians characterization of Ulrich and Hirschfeld as being outside the mainstream of science. In fact, they were the initiators of what came to be called the sexual revolution in the last half of the twentieth century.

Ken Derstine

In a recent letter to Gay Today, Jim Fouratt announced he's changed his mind. After much bad-mouthing of the upcoming Millennium March on Washington, he now says he supports it. His reason: "While we in-fight, the real world crashes in."

Too bad Jim doesn't take his own advice. I've watched him at work for more than 30 years. I'll tell you what I've seen repeatedly: His words always call for unity in the fight against oppression. But his actions always divide and embitter people.

Jim is a house divided against itself. And he thrives on dividing other people's houses, too. If our movement really seeks to avoid in-fighting, it should shun his influence wherever possible.

Sincerely,
Arthur Evans San Francisco

I really enjoyed the Sex Positive Initiative interview with Jack Nichols I just read in Gay Today. I've been reading the site for some time; you have a strength and understanding of things I can't begin to comprehend. I thank you for sharing yourself with us. One thing though: in that article, concerning California's Proposition 22, you mentioned that people were surprised that "that nearly 40% of California's voters were for same-sex marriage." I live in California, and I spoke with many friends and co-workers about this initiative. To say all those who voted AGAINST Prop 22 were FOR same-sex marriage is inaccurate at best. Many are not necessarily for gay marriage, they are just not in favor of another intrusive law--no one came out and said, "while were at it, let's get rid of the California law that already bans same-sex marriage." I would venture to say that many of those who voted against Prop 22 were aware of the existing law, many who voted for it were not. I found it ironic that the same people who always spout that there are too many laws were the ones pushing this proposition.

Related Stories from the GayToday Archive: Kerry Lobel's First Anniversary The Riddle of 'Man-Manly' Love By Karl Heinrich Ulrichs Jim Fouratt Says Boycotting the March is Wrong California's Proposition 22: Unintended Consequences? Dr. Laura - Radio's Queen of Pop Psychology Related Sites: National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Millennium March on Washington Stop Dr. Laura.com GayToday does not endorse related sites.

My main disappointment in how No on 22 was handled was that very little was said about the existing law (certainly Yes on 22 was not going to mention this!). Instead, the venue "discrimination hurts everyone" was used. Sorry, I have the greatest faith in humanity, but many people will discriminate where they can get away with it--if they didn't we wouldn't need most of the anti-discrimination laws we have!

I agree with you that in the long run, we'll all look back at Prop 22 and realize how barbaric and discriminatory it is, but the same can be said for a number of propositions recently passed in California; the last decade or so has produced a number of referendums in California that have discriminated against one group or another.

On the bright side, the Yes on 22 folks may have shot themselves in the foot. This group insisted that the proposition was not meant to discriminate against "homosexuals"; now there is a movement to expand legal coverage for the GLBT community. Those sponsoring these have challenged the leadership of Yes on 22 to support these changes as proof that they are not discriminating. We shall see...

Thanks again for your work, at Gay Today and elsewhere. We have benefited in so many ways from your efforts over the years; we are a little further along thanks in part to your monumental efforts.

George Fox

Human events are often filled with questions that require choices in trying to find answers: yes/no, pro/con, either/or, fundamental/progressive.

Sometimes these choices are not clear cut but dimmed with shades of gray. Does the following question have a clear-cutanswer or is it of the non-white/non-black variety?

Does the media personality Laura Schlessinger have an absolute First Amendment freedom to write and say whatever she wants in her newspaper column, radio program, and possibly, television talk show?

The title of doctor which Ms. Schlessinger can properly use is in the field of human physiology. Yet the opinions she publicizes in her media outlets are about psychology, personal counselling, and religion.

In late 1999, Ms. Schlessinger castigated a young teenage girl in Connecticut who had won first prize in a First Amendment essay contest.

Schlessinger read parts of the winning essay to her radio audience and offered that if the girl had been her daughter, Schlessinger would consider putting her up for adoption and further claimed that the writer needed to be sacrificed for the views expressed in her essay.

The Attorney-general of Connecticut defended the writer and made public a letter he wrote to Schlessinger severely chastising her for publicly using the girl as a vehicle for Schlessinger's vehement rhetoric. Did Schlessinger use her media opportunities to promote a sincerely-held opinion or instead to make a public relations splash to attract a larger audience which results in higher ratings and increased advertising revenues?

The current gathering storm concerns her characterizing of gay men as biological errors and sexual predators. The American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association, have published research stating that there is no scientific basis that same-sex affinities are indicative of disease, physically or psychologically.

Being largely unprotected legally, gay men and women are subjected to unwarranted social, religious, and employment discrimination, as well as criminal violence, shown by rising United States Department of Justice statistics. If Schlessisnger's inflammatory and misleading public opinions increase the anti-social behavior toward a minority, is she protected by the First Amendment?

If Schlessinger began referring to African-Americans, a minority that has received opprobrium in the past and now enjoys legal protection, as being of low moral character and sexual licentiousness, would her media sponsors and audience support remain? If her widely proliferated thoughts led to an increase in racial violence, would she still be protected by the First Amendment?

By using media outlets to disperse her vehement and unsubstantiated opinions is Schlessinger doing the electronic equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

The First Amendment has been called a great shield in the marketplace of ideas, protecting the flow of thought and information. Is Schlessinger using her freely-chosen public position in a reputable way or is she gun-running with Saturday-night specials of disproved information for quick profit and notoriety gained at the expense of minorities?

As children we have many privileges which go unbalanced by responsibilities. With increasing maturity our responsibilities unite with privileges as growth rings add to the strength of trees, and we make our individual stand in the forest of constructive citizenship. Is it not incumbent on each of us to contribute to the strength of this forest by refuting the destructive erosion of responsibility provoked by Ms. Schlessisnger?

I have heard and now believe that the best rebuff to malicious speech is ever more responsible speech. This is clearly the situation regarding Ms. Schlessinger and her attempt at dehumanizing citizens of this country for her personal enrichment.

In 1964, Dr. M. L. King said, "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."