Recently in USA Category

Yesterday I decided to get out in the sun and sit and read.

I decided eventually to return to one of my favourite gems of this city: the National AIDS Memorial Grove. I hadn't been there in some months, maybe a year, but it always strikes me as a such a tranquil and centering place. And it was just as nice this time with beautiful flowers, the maple trees. I just have to remember this place more often than I do.

In these times when the California economy struggles and the Governator wants to slash the HIV preventive money and money for the medications (ADAP) to support the people that cannot afford their HIV medications, the urgency of this memorial grove feels even more important. To some of my close friends in this city the removal of ADAP is a potential death sentence.

Today, my thoughts go to friends and former patients that are living with the disease. I also get reminded of the men that I interviewed for my pilot study during the past year and the experience they had when HIV/AIDS hit the gay areas of San Francisco and New York City.

On a day like this I cannot help to think that HIV has been one "part" of my (sex) life from the age of 12 (well, 9 if one thinks of the first publications). From even starting thinking about other men, the reality of HIV has been around. The scare tactics have left me with an in-erasable awareness of a potential third party being involved.

In today's SF Chronicle there is an article about "Ward 86" that was the first ward for patients with AIDS in San Francisco that opened at the San Francisco General 25 years ago. It reminds me of the ward 53 at South Hospital in Stockholm that was closed after the introduction of the new, anti-retroviral combination treatments.

The treatments has allowed HIV/AIDS to be illnesses also for the older adult. Some of the problems regarding that was described in an article in the New York Times three weeks ago: "Speaking Out for a Group Once Unheard-Of: Aging With AIDS". That the medical community recognizes this - albeit gradually - is evident in that NIH has several research grants now that deal with the medical care for the older, HIV-infected adult.

Yesterday, it was 30 years ago since Harvey Milk, the Mayor of Castro Street was murdered together with San Francisco mayor George Moscone. Same day the movie MILK opened as a commercially available movie to go and see in your local cinema - if it isn't at a Cinemark movie. Cinemark's CEO donated $9,999 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

I have now seen the movie two times, and I really like it. Tuesday, when I saw it for the second time, Milk's nephew was in the audience. He said that he cried more and more for every time he saw the movie - and it is true.

Tonight there is a memorial march scheduled, from City Hall to Milk's store on Castro Street. It's held to commemorate the light vigil that happened after Milk's assassination.  To learn more, go to ManiWOG's site

In reviews in both New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle, the movie gets excellent reviews. Another review can be found in the Los Angeles Times.

Articles in the two papers describe how people see the movie as an important tool in the fight for LGBT rights today and an interview with Senator Dianne Feinstein about the events that day. The news clip where Feinstein announces the murder is the one of the grim scenes that starts the MILK movie.



    

Related articles by Zemanta

• The man who blew up America's closets

Last night I had the chance to go to the people's premiere of the Gus Van Sant movie about "The Mayor of Castro Street" Harvey Milk. I really liked this movie (8/10). The movie depicts Harvey's life from the age of 40 and onwards, till he was assassinated. It pictures the events of the making of what today is the Castro as  a gay neighborhood - something that was far from easy and smooth. Some of that is also found in the book "Gays and grays".

The movie had brutal relevance today. The arguments in the then fight against Proposition 6 - the Anita Bryant supported proposition to forbid homosexual teachers - are just as relevant in today's struggle in the Prop 8.

Milk's speech about: 'You got to give them hope' is just as painfully relevant today as it was then. It was amazing to hear and feel how people were energized last night in the Castro Theatre.



In a special commentary, Keith Olbermann gave a very eloquent and moving comment on the passing of Prop 8:

 

In the aftermath of the passing of Proposition 8, that defines marriage in California as the one between a man and a woman, still torments me and the LGBTQ community and our allies in. The blaming has in many cases focused on the role of the Mormons - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; the critique has focused on the involvement in another state's internal affairs, being involved in political issues (that an organization with their tax exemption shouldn't) - etc. Issues that have been raised is to question the tax exemption, boycott of business from Utah and a boycott of the Sundance film festival.

Today, the SF Chronicle - finally - brings out the role the Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, has played as the former Bishop of Salt Lake City: Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8 Salt Lake City in Utah is the headquarters of the Mormon church.

I am sickened, angered, frustrated by the role Niederauer may have has played in this. This time he stabbed the members of his diocese by "ecumenical work" with the Mormons. A year ago, he visited Most Holy Redeemer parish in the Castro. He was all happy and nice then - until it was leaked to the conservative media that two Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence had been present. He then turned around and was appalled.

It's time that the Roman Catholic Church and the California Catholic Conference starts paying for their involvement and being 'pleased' about the Prop 8 passing, and a definition of "traditional marriage".

I'm sorry, George, but your actions have denied me equality with a "separate but equal" decision, and you want me to support and respect you?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Catholics, Mormons defend support for same-sex ban
• Did Mormons provide California's Proposition 8 its margin of victory?
• Mormons And Catholics Upset At Being The Target Of Prop 8 Protests

The results finalized a lot during the day today, and Prop 8 passed with 52.2% against 47.8% - a difference by 400,000 votes.

The consequences of this are both hard to foresee and estimate. The immediate result was that no more same-sex marriages will be performed. The question about the more than 16,000 marriages that have been performed remains to be decided - from that they are valid to that they should bee annulled. At the same time, the opponents of Prop 8 have sued to block the measure to take effect [SF Chronicle].

Tonight, a crowd of 2,000 women and men of all ages, queer and straight gathered outside San Francisco City Hall to hold a vigil over the lost vote. But the fighting spirit was there: "Yes we will!". [SF Chronicle]

Today's the day - will the proposition 8 pass, or not..? I do hope it isn't! The so-called Prop 8 "eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry", and adding the definition of marriage as between man and woman in California.

I spent a few hours at noon today on the corner of 19th Ave and Noriega St with signs that said "Vote NO on PROP 8!". I volunteered with the No on 8 campaign. It was great funk have the cars driving by honking at or waving to us.

We also had people shouting less pleasant stuff; "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", faggots etc. The most charming though, was an older Asian woman that was supporting a yes for this initiative and used the argument that there wouldn't be any babies - and no sex (sic!) - if same-sex couples were allowed to marry.

I know, I have a black soul - no, not in the Bill Clinton way! - but I cannot help feeling a bit... No, make that VERY affected by schadenfreude. The lipstick bulldog's church is offering to convert gays into heterosexuals [SF Chronicle]. That is an evangelium in its truest sense - this is crazy! But on the other hand, just because I think so, doesn't mean that enough US voters feel the same way...

Today, Memorial day [wiki] is commemorated here in the United States - the remembrance of the women and men that have been killed in military service.

As a Swede, I am still forgetting/neglecting that the US is at war, and the huge role the military plays as an employer in all areas. I still remember the surprise I felt when I realized that I had nursing colleagues that had been employed by the US Navy as specialist nurses within the care for neonate children. The concept of having women and men stationed abroad, that procreated and had complicated deliveries.

This is not something the Swedish armed forces has had problems with. But we have not had that large of a military presence in society, and we have had peace since almost 200 years.

The largest US health institution - the Department of Veterans Affairs [homepage][wiki] - is getting some critique in editorials in both NYT and SF Chronicle, and the lives of female soldiers is stressed.

In a recent court decision a lesbian flight nurse was reinstated in her position after having been discharged according to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The court claims that it has to be proved that a lesbian or gay service member hurts a units morale. [SF Chronicle]

In an exciting decision, the California Supreme Court called the ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional:

"[We] determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. [---]

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court." (p 120f)

Their arguing on pages 11-12 about what it means to separate same- vs. opposite-sex couples is a strong affirmation! YAY!!

[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest. 

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion.  First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.  Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.  Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.  Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.  Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.  Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.