Connect with us

Opinions

Stonewall’s lessons for today

Selective use of militant tactics helped the movement to grow

Published

on

The Stonewall Inn in 1969 (Photo by Diana Davies; copyright owned by New York Public Library via Wikimedia Commons)

At the time of this significant anniversary it is natural to ask what lessons we can take from the Stonewall Uprising for our time. There is also a natural tendency to hesitate to answer because the Uprising was not only militant but violent, and violence cannot be a usual response to political and social problems in a democracy.

Of course one could focus on the Uprising’s broadest lesson, the value of LGBT people standing up for ourselves, but that is so broad that it is not very helpful in terms of specifics. So what lessons can we draw from this watershed event that are practical and relevant today?

As a historian, I feel that the meanings of Stonewall can be best understood if we look at the Uprising in the broadest context: Why is Stonewall historic and how did the Uprising change the movement?

Stonewall would be at best a footnote to history if it had not inspired a new wave of the gay movement, one that spread rapidly and created a mass movement. I say this since it was the creation of a mass movement by the new phase of the movement that made most of the gains of the last 50 years possible. I feel that the main reason the new movement—the gay liberation movement—spread is that it was militant, unapologetic, and it was very creative at getting in the press in a way that made the movement highly attractive.

For example, as a teenager in high school in Jesup, Ga., I heard about the zaps executed by New York’s Gay Activists Alliance, or GAA. When the city’s marriage bureau said that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, GAA’s members occupied the marriage bureau, chained themselves to the bureau’s desks, and answered the phones by saying that the bureau was only giving out licenses on that day to homosexuals, and then asked, “Are you a homosexual?” When Harper’s published a vicious article attacking gay people and refused to print a response written by gay people, GAA occupied their offices but brought along doughnuts and coffee. The activists approached Harper’s employees saying, “I’m a homosexual. Would you like a doughnut?”

And thus the selective use of militant tactics such as carefully and intelligently planned zaps, boycotts, and civil disobedience when ordinary lobbying has not worked has helped the movement to grow while protecting our community and the rights we have won. For example, when Anita Bryant and her imitators succeeded in overturning laws that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gay people and our supporters boycotted orange juice. Bryant subsequently lost her job as the spokeswoman for the orange juice industry. When the federal government did not respond to the AIDS crisis, ACT UP acted up, taking over the FDA headquarters, blocking traffic around Wall Street during rush hour, and conducting die-ins. To awaken the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to the effects of their classification of us as mentally ill, gay activists stormed the convocation during their 1971 national conference. Frank Kameny seized the microphone and declared, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.” Before 1973 came to an end, after an intense lobbying campaign, the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental illness.

Two suggestions for applying the lessons of the Uprising to our time:

1. A suggestion for our community on its issues. Donald Trump has been attacking our community. His attacks on us are too numerous to list here, but to mention a few, he wants to take away our right to marry, he has banned trans people from serving in the military, and has revoked the citizenship of the children of gay couples.

It would be appropriate to see a coordinated campaign to oppose all these actions by Trump using not only traditional lobbying and electoral methods, but also by working to gum up the Trump administration. Suppose LGBT people organized a phone-in time on the first day of each month to tie up all of the White House’s phone lines during lunch hour until Trump ended his ban on trans people serving in the military, for example? If Trump does not end the ban, the time could later be expanded to two days a month. And so forth.

I suggest these kinds of direct action tactics because I have been frustrated at the lack of a nationwide campaign that anyone can participate in to express his or her opposition to Trumpism. When I was young, for example, it meant a great deal to me to participate in the Moratorium events organized to oppose the war in Vietnam.

Could a number of LGBT state and national organizations come together and forget about their disagreements about how to oppose Trump, and instead focus on the goals they agree upon. With agreed upon goals, they could then determine what tactics — actions that any citizen could do on her or his own — could work toward meeting those goals. They could look at ACT UP and GAA, for example, for inspiration. Want to help block traffic this Friday? Want to tie up Senate Republican phone lines this coming Monday?

2. A suggestion for all Americans about our country’s future. Could national organizations of all stripes that oppose Trump’s policies meet and put aside their differences and focus instead on what they can agree upon? More specifically, could they focus on tactics for either changing Trump’s policies or removing Trump from office? I think that if the American people, the majority of whom disapprove of Trump, had a menu of actions they could take against the Trump administration that anyone could do, a great many would act. One reason I believe this is that it boosts one’s morale to feel that one is acting in concert with others toward a common goal. Also, such a broad campaign would garner significant media attention, which would then reach and energize more of Trump’s opponents.

For example, an anti-Trump coalition could announce a campaign that, on the first Monday of every month, citizens who oppose Trump would not spend any discretionary funds: no going to see a movie or buying oneself a new tie or a pair of earrings or a book on that day. Instead the money one would have spent for pleasure would be donated to the anti-Trump coalition. Or the coalition could suggest that people who drive tie up traffic by driving slowly on the way to work on the first Tuesday of each month. And what if Trump doesn’t change the policies the coalition is demanding that he change?  The traffic slow down could be moved to Friday to have more impact.

Of these two suggestions, I recommend the second one. I say this because I believe with many others that the Trump presidency constitutes an existential crisis for our republic. Moreover, the LGBT civil rights movement is strong enough now that we can afford to think beyond our own immediate needs. I would love for us to call for all anti-Trump organizations to send a delegate to a national meeting with  each delegate being empowered to vote. I envision such a national meeting’s purpose as being to set a common agenda with common tactics designed to remove Trump from the Oval Office: to draw up a list of grievances and a declaration about how to address those grievances through a common plan of action. Wait, isn’t this rather like the way in which our country was founded? Yes, it is. And I believe that it is time for revolutionary action to oppose the counter-revolution led by Trump.

(David Carter and the Washington Blade give universal permission to copy and reprint this editorial as long as Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office.)

 

David Carter is author of ‘Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution.’

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Commentary

Trump Judge: Christian public school teacher can out Trans kids

What do you do when you’re a trans teen & your teacher is the bully? Judge gives a religious-liberty nod to out students to parents

Published

on

'Help' Licensed Adobe stock photo

By James Finn | DETROIT – In an apparent fit of pique, Pamela Ricard, a math teacher at Fort Riley Middle School in Kansas, told her supervisors that if they made her use transgender students’ chosen names in class, she would use those names with parents too, even if the students fear for their safety and have requested privacy. She’s getting her way, arguing “religious liberty.”

Yes, you read that right.

A teacher takes it upon herself to out trans kids against their will, claiming a religious duty. She says that since she has to use their preferred names in class, using their legal names in correspondence with parents would be a lie, which would violate her “sincerely held religious beliefs.” So, she sues in federal court.

And she wins.

According to an article in yesterday’s Topeka Capital-Journal, “District Judge Holly Teeter issued a preliminary injunction on Monday blocking the school from disciplining [Ricard] if she reveals preferred names and pronouns of her transgender students when communicating with their parents.”

“Plaintiff believes that addressing students one way at school and a different way when speaking to their parents is dishonest,” wrote the the judge in her injunction opinion. “Being dishonest violates her sincere religious beliefs.”

Judge Teeter, a Trump appointee, declined to rule on Ricard’s main request — that the school be barred from disciplining her for refusing to use preferred names and pronouns, saying the school district had already reached an accommodation with her.

Pamela Ricard originally sued over using students’ preferred names and pronouns in class

This story first broke in March, when CNN reported that Ricard was suing the Geary County Schools Unified School District in Kansas after being briefly suspended for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred name and pronoun. She claimed that using a name for a student that differed from the student’s enrolled or legal name would force her to violate her “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

She claimed the same with respect to pronouns but later reached an accommodation: she would use a preferred name for any student expressing a name preference, and she would not use pronouns for any student, regardless of sex or gender.

Teeter ruled that the accommodation properly respects Ricard’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” and makes an injunction unnecessary.

But then the judge ruled in favor of Ricard’s second request — that if she used a preferred name in class for any student, she could not be disciplined for using that name (or the student’s preferred pronoun) to the student’s parents against the student’s wishes, even though district policy forbids outing students without their consent.

Let’s talk about religious liberty and lying, because Ricard is lying.

Ricard’s claim that she’s being forced to lie is disingenuous, logically tortuous. Taken together, her two separate arguments constitute a lie of her own. On one hand, she claims using a chosen name violates her sincere religious beliefs. She claims calling a transgender boy (assigned female at birth) by a name customarily reserved for boys would violate her religious freedom because God created male and female as distinct and different, and her speech must reflect that.

Remember, pronouns are not at issue; she’s okay not using them.

One wonders what she thinks about gender-neutral names like Stacey, Bellamy, Dakota, Denver, Emerson, Finley, Justice, or River. When names don’t carry gender, does she have a religious-liberty problem? Does she really believe God has dictated gendered names that people in 21st century United States must choose from?

So, after Ricard makes a literal federal case over refusing to use names in class that don’t communicate gender in a way she agrees with religiously, she turns around and claims she MUST use the same names to parents, for a different religious reason.

Huh, a judge bought this? Is your head spinning as fast as mine?

Ricard has to be lying about something in her lawsuit, and I suggest it’s her motivation for filing. I suggest she does not actually believe speaking a student’s chosen name harms her religiously. I suggest she’s religiously opposed to the existence of transgender people. I suggest that despite having accepted a reasonable accommodation over names and pronouns, she’s intent on crusading to force her religious beliefs on people who don’t share them. She’s determined to out transgender teenagers to their parents against their will, damn the consequences, however statistically likely they are to be severely harmful.

Ricard’s lawyers, the Alliance Defending Freedom, are also lying

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have a long track record as a certified anti-LGBTQ hate group. Here’s what the the Southern Poverty Law Center have to say about them, backed up by reams of documented examples:

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion.

The freedom that ADF lawyers defend has always meant freedom for extremist Christians to discriminate against and criminalize LGBTQ people. They’ve focused on those objectives for decades, increasingly successfully of late.

In their legal brief in the Ricard case, they claim they’re only “thinking of the well being of children,” arguing that gender dysphoria is a serious mental illness parents must be made aware of.

They aren’t being honest.

Yes, according to the APA, some (but not all) trans people suffer from gender dysphoria, “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.” But, the school district in this case is following best-practice mental-health guidelines, supporting students by allowing them to use names and pronouns they choose, and affording students the sole right to decide when or if they tell anyone, including parents, whether they identify as LGBTQ.

When the ADF say in their brief that Ricard is looking out for the best interests of her students, they are lying. They know what the data show — that trans teens outed to non-supportive parents are statistically at high risk of abuse, abandonment, homelessness, severe depression, and suicidal ideation. ADF lawyers know this because the school district included reams of objective data in their own legal briefs in defense of their student-privacy policies.

ADF lawyers know Ricard is not looking out for the best interests of her students. Maybe they should think about the religious implications of their dishonesty. Maybe Ricard should too.

The religious liberty “lying” claim in Ricard’s case is absurd and anti-Christian

First, I’m unaware of any Christian church or denomination that claims respecting privacy should be considered an act of lying. Exactly what constitutes a lie is hotly debated in religious and philosophical circles, but even relatively traditionalist denominations like the Presbyterians teach that failing to volunteer information usually does not count as a lie. Philosophers get into the weeds FAST when questions of lying come up, because the subject is very complex. (Anne Frank, German soldiers, knocks on doors… Ring any bells, philosophy and theology majors?)

If anyone has ever before made a legal claim that respecting privacy violates religious freedom guarantees because protecting privacy is lying, I can’t find evidence of it.

To claim that Ricard has a religious liberty interest at stake here is philosophically and theologically absurd. Using her students’ enrolled names when communicating with their parents is certainly not an act of lying. Christians protect privacy all the time in accordance with policy and law. Ricard certainly suffers no loss of liberty merely by minding her own business.

What else should Christians be exempt from?

Should Christian health care workers be allowed to violate HIPPA privacy law on the theory that not revealing certain private facts about patients constitutes lying?

Should Christian business leaders be exempt from insider trading laws because not revealing certain private business matters constitutes lying?

Should Christian human resources managers be exempt from privacy policies so they don’t have to “lie” by withholding information?

What would Jesus do? This isn’t even hard!

Esther Spurrill-Jones wrote about this case in Prism & Pen this morning from a Christian perspective. A devout Jesus follower, she writes movingly about millstones, love, legalism, and lies. She writes that no Christian should interpret the Bible in a way that they know will hurt people. I wish Ricard and her ADF lawyers could read Esther’s words with open minds.

Is Outing Transgender Students to Unsupportive Parents Christian?What would Jesus do?medium.com

This case sets no binding precedent, but the implications are disturbing.

Pamela Ricard won’t be teaching at Fort Riley after this school year. Her contract is ending, and she’s not reapplying. Even though she’s got her preliminary injunction, legal analysts say her case will probably end up dismissed because she suffered no harm and will no longer have standing.

The temporary injunction has no legal bearing on anyone but her, so no dangerous precedent has been formally set, but LGBTQ legal advocates are worried anyway. Most court watchers presumed Ricard’s religious freedom claim over lying would be ruled frivolous, that no judge would give it the time of day.

But we live in a brave new backlash, with federal courts stuffed with extremist judges appointed by Donald Trump. Absurd outcomes, like teachers being allowed to out trans kids to unsupportive parents, are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

All I know is this, if you value privacy for LGBTQ teens and real freedom for real people in the United States, you’d better get to the polls in November and vote Democratic like your life depends on it.

Somebody’s life probably does.

************************

James Finn is a columnist for the LA Blade, a former Air Force intelligence analyst, an alumnus of Queer Nation and Act Up NY, and an “agented” but unpublished novelist. Send questions, comments, and story ideas to [email protected]

********************

The preceding article was previously published by Prism & Pen– Amplifying LGBTQ voices through the art of storytelling and is republished by permission.

Continue Reading

Viewpoint

Jimmy Biblarz: Representation matters, why I’m running for LA City Council

Jimmy Biblarz is a candidate for LA City Council to represent District 5 which runs from Bel-Air, through Palms, and east to Hancock Park

Published

on

Photo courtesy of Jimmy Biblarz

By Jimmy Biblarz | BEVERLY GROVE – Angelenos routinely list homelessness and housing affordability as their top concerns. As a candidate for Los Angeles City Council’s Fifth District, I’ve heard the concerns of worried and frustrated residents and the impact both have had on their lives. They want real solutions to these seemingly intractable issues.  

Housing affordability has shaped my life. When I was 12, my family was evicted from our apartment and we moved all over the city due to housing costs. Compounding this was growing up gay under the cloud of Prop. 8, which temporarily enshrined state-sanctioned marriage as between a man or a woman. The scars from this confluence of events are very much still with me. 

People don’t usually associate the LGBTQ+ community with homelessness and housing affordability. But by every measure, the LGBTQ+ community fares far worse than the general population. According to Williams Institute research, up to 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ+. Half of all trans people experiencing homelessness nationally live in California, with Los Angeles city having the highest number, per the National Coalition to End Homelessness. LGBTQ+ folks are 15% more likely to be poor than their hetero and cisgender counterparts, especially queer people of color. Fewer than 50% of LGBTQ+ people own their homes, compared to 70% for non-LGBTQ+ people. And we know that LGBTQ+ still experience discrimination in the housing market; housing providers are less likely to respond to rental and mortgage inquiries from same-sex couples are more likely to charge same-sex couples higher rents.

This is why representation matters. Amidst calls for more permanent supportive housing, shelter beds, or tiny homes, the LGBTQ+ story is too often missed, especially trans voices. Temporary congregate shelters are poor fits for LGBTQ+ folks, typically offering few LGBTQ+-specific medical or mental health services, and often feeling quite unsafe to gender and sexuality minorities. That’s why queer people are much more likely to experience unsheltered homelessness, living on the streets, versus other forms of homelessness (“doubling up” with friends or family, living in a car). We need leaders who see issues through a queer lens.

Los Angeles has long been a haven for queer young people. That is a point of pride for our city. We must do everything we can to ensure it stays one. We must bring permanent supportive housing online with the urgency this crisis demands, by streamlining plan approvals and the location siting process, and supporting master lease agreements. And we must ensure new supportive housing includes the slate of medical and mental health services LGBTQ+ people need. Perhaps above all, we must invest in methodical and sustained street engagement teams led by well-compensated and highly trained experts with specific knowledge of the issues LGBTQ+ folks face. 

We need to elect leaders who are serious about new housing in LA, especially in the high-opportunity and job-rich areas of Council District 5 where I’m running. My plan focuses on building diverse, low-cost housing along under-utilized commercial transit corridors in high-opportunity areas in CD-5 (like Robertson, Westwood, Melrose, and L.A. Cienega) and holding developers’ feet to the fire on affordability requirements in market-rate units. Simultaneously, we must ensure wages rise in tandem with L.A.’s cost of living via indexed minimum wage increases that exceed increases in cost of living and investments in high-quality, unionized, green jobs. There is a growing gulf between real wages and the cost of housing. If we don’t act to reverse this trend, more and more LGBTQ+ people will be priced out of LA, and our thriving LGBTQ+ communities will disappear. 

With Ron Galperin’s departure, Mike Bonin’s retirement, and Mitch O’Farrell’s re-election far from a sure thing, we are at risk of losing LGBTQ+ representation on the Los Angeles City Council. Los Angeles has had nearly uninterrupted LGBTQ+ representation on the City Council since Joel Wachs was first elected in 1971, save a brief period in the mid-2000s. Come November, the nation’s second largest region could have no LGBTQ+ representation in the city or the county.  

Los Angeles needs LGBTQ+ leaders who understand the issues our community faces everyday. Queer people understand the importance of politics acutely; we can’t afford backsliding in representation, especially given the proliferation of anti-LGBTQ+ laws across the country, and growing hate in our own city. 

My life experience makes me uniquely qualified to meet this moment. I understand the major issues facing Angelenos because I’ve lived it. But it’s about more than my city council race. What’s at stake is a true representative democracy—a city that reflects its citizens. I urge all LGBTQ+ Angelenos to get informed, get involved and vote by June 7th. Our voice matters and we’ve come too far to let it slip away. 

********************

Jimmy Biblarz is a candidate for City Council in District 5, which runs from Bel-Air, through Palms, and east to Hancock Park, bordering most of West Hollywood.

Born and raised in West LA, Jimmy is an educator, policy expert, and housing advocate. Shaped by his own experience with housing insecurity and eviction, Jimmy centers empathy and compassion in his approach to the homelessness and housing crisis.

Jimmy attended K-12 LAUSD schools in the district, was at Harvard for college, graduate school, and law school and is now a professor at UCLA Law School. He lives with his partner Harry, in Beverly Grove. 

Continue Reading

Commentary

Appreciating lesbian thinker & activist Urvashi Vaid

“I remember her as a whip-smart lesbian of color who stood up and fought but also offered peace and hope when possible”

Published

on

Urvashi Vaid (Screenshot from The Charlie Rose Show/PBS)

By Karen Ocamb | WEST HOLLYWOOD – Urvashi Vaid was whip smart. She could look at you with some analysis spinning behind her eyes and then smile a deep broad smile and you could exhale as a shared vision started coursing through your veins — a warrior sisterhood striving and fighting for liberation.

And you didn’t even know liberation was on your wish-list. 

It’s hard to register that Urvashi Vaid is gone

Urvashi Vaid speaking at AB 101 protest (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

Urvashi could seduce your brain with elevated and clear-spoken common sense. And damn if she couldn’t rile you up and spur you to action as she did in Sacramento in 1991 after Republican Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed AB 101, the gay rights bill he promised to sign, and with her 1993 speech at the March on Washington.

Urvashi at March on Washington (Screenshot/CSPAN-2)

And we needed that. After years of excruciating pain losing lovers, family and friends while Ronald Reagan’s spokesperson laughed about the scourge of AIDS in the White House press room, a serious LGBTQ political movement was emerging in the late 1980s. And igniting those righteous flames of fury was this short, thin, proud lesbian of South Indian heritage who exuded the perfume of power. She knew her stuff. And she was at ease with powerbrokers, including Hollywood A+ types who made history attending an August 1991 benefit for the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, thrown by gay Hollywood manager Barry Krost, entertainment attorney Alan Hergott and Hergott’s lover, NGLTF Board co-chair Curt Shepard. Hollywood was finally showing up for AIDS benefits — but gay rights was still just too controversial. It was a very big deal. 

Urvashi Vaid with Curt Shepard, Alan Hergott, and Barry Diller in 1991 (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

Among our own, Urvashi would let fools yammer on with puffed-up opinions. But eventually she would halt us with a glance, a quick quip or a concise Marxist-ish dissertation on any situation and its connection to poverty, rendering you dumbstruck, agog – pick a synonym. 

Urvashi was a teacher, a mentor — though I don’t think she thought of herself that way. She was merely trying to help a brother or sister — especially younger folks — learn to think differently, think for themselves, and think of themselves as part of the larger movement for civil rights. 

One moment perfectly captures that for me. I was a freelancer covering the monumental 1992 Creating Change conference in Los Angeles. That was the year when esteemed gay author Paul Monette (Borrowed Time) ripped up a picture of the Pope, freaking out a lot of Catholic Latinos. I kept an eye on Urvashi and her pal Torie Osborn, head of the LA Gay & Lesbian Community Services Center, as they talked art with closeted LA City Councilmember Joel Wachs, as well as the usual leadership discussions, debates and skirmishes among activists in a heightened political year. 

I also covered breakout sessions and one proved to be particularly daunting. It was a discussion about race in the gay movement. A young fierce gay Asian artist named Joel B. Tan took over the discussion and challenged my press credentials, my commitment to the movement, and my ability to report ANYTHING accurately or fairly about that meeting because I’m white. He called for a vote on whether I should be allowed to stay or get kicked out. 

Some folks in the room, familiar with my reporting since the late 1980s, defended me. I was prepared to get shamefully kicked out when Joel went just a tad too far and started claiming the Task Force itself was a cauldron of white racism. In fact, the whole damn gay movement was basically a rich white gay conspiracy to get power and use everyone else as pawns. 

When Joel finally took a breath, a muffled sound came from just outside the room. We looked and there was Urvashi, casually leaning on the door jamb with Phill Wilson, then co-founder of the National Black Gay & Lesbian Leadership Forum and of the LA chapter of Black and White Men Together. “What about us?” Urv asked very simply. The tension evaporated, I was allowed to stay and racism within the gay community was discussed with passion but without grandstanding. (I called Joel later and he said my report was acceptable.) 

The tension eased so quickly because Urvashi had been fighting systemic racism at every level for a very long time, including within the gay community. Her power was smarts, compassion, humor — and credibility.    

Not to say Urvashi was perfect. In fact, I had a serious disagreement with her over an incident that happened in Los Angeles. There was a ballot initiative that called for a new statewide Insurance Commissioner to be appointed by the governor. APLA Board Chair Dr. Scott Hitt and political consultant David Mixner opposed the initiative, which drove some AIDS activists crazy. We were in the middle of the second wave of AIDS and we needed government help. Hitt and Mixner explained that they didn’t oppose the idea, just the method: the Insurance Commissioner should be elected, not appointed. Imagine if we had a governor more horrific than Pete Wilson?

I reported that and activist writer Stuart Timmons freaked out. He wrote a 7,000 word thesis in a treading-water alternative weekly bashing Hitt and Mixner. He also showed up at my apartment screaming about how I was afraid of these prominent politicos. I was pissed — so I did my own deep dive into his tome and found people who complained that he quoted them out of context or actually changed their quotes to fit his activist premise. Eventually, we all moved on, including me since Stuart was friends with my friend Harry Hay. 

But then Urvashi quoted extensively from Stuart’s disinformation piece in her book Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation.  I tried to reach her but failed. I later heard her cite Stuart’s story as an example of bad gays. I fumed for a moment, then let that go, too. 

Besides, Urvashi was doing so much good. And her relationship with Kate Clinton was so cool and extraordinary. I learned what a “soft butch” was — but that’s another story. 

Urvashi Vaid with Andrew Sullivan on The Charlie Rose Show 1993 (Screenshot/PBS)

Urvashi Vaid is appropriately being lauded as an exemplary warrior for justice and civil rights. I remember her as a whip-smart lesbian of color who stood up and fought but also offered peace and hope when possible — as she did appearing with conservative gay writer/editor Andrew Sullivan on the Charlie Rose show before the 1993 march.

Urvashi with friend Ann Northrop and David (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

Last July, Urvashi was the guest on Gay USA, anchored by her friends Ann Northrop and Andy Humm. She talked about the National LGBTQ+ Women’s Survey, an American LGBTQ+ Museum — and about fighting breast cancer. Urv seemed upbeat but a burdened aura of mortality cloaked her Zoom appearance. She seemed determined to approach death as she had lived — educating people about our ongoing fight for liberation and, with a deep, broad smile and thoughtful eyes, telling the truth about her own humanity. 

Thank you, Urvashi Vaid.

********************

Gay USA 7/7/2021- Free Speech TV:

********************

Karen Ocamb an award winning veteran journalist and former editor of the Los Angeles Blade has chronicled the lives of LGBTQ+ people in Southern California for over 30 plus years.

She lives in West Hollywood with her two beloved furry ‘kids’ and writes occasional commentary on issues of concern for the greater LGBTQ+ community.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular