Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

More Monday Male Beauty

An Open Letter to Justice Anthony Kennedy

If one looks at Donald Trump's picks for cabinet positions, most have been frightening and have involved ideologues and those not competent for their positions.  A number of his would be judicial appointments have been labeled "unfit" by the American Bar Associations.  Thus, nothing is more frightening than the prospects of Donald Trump nominating a second justice to the United States Supreme Court should Justice Anthony Kennedy retire as some rumors have suggested might occur.  This would be a tragedy for the rule of law and would literally threaten the rights of minorities of all stripes and invite an impermissible intertwining of right wing Christian hate and bigotry into the nation's laws.  An open letter by the Editorial Board of the New York Times pleads with Kennedy to remain in his post through next January to save the country and the court.   I hope Kennedy listens to this plea.  Here are  highlights of that letter:

Dear Justice Kennedy,

As you have no doubt heard, rumors of your impending retirement are, for the second year in a row, echoing around Washington and across America. While you and your colleagues on the Supreme Court were listening to the final oral arguments of the term in recent days, those rumors were only growing more insistent.

How can we put this the right way? Please don’t go.

Sitting between the four liberal justices and the four conservatives, you are the most powerful member of the most powerful court in the country, as you have been for at least a decade. Your vote, more than that of any other justice, has delivered landmark legal victories for Americans of all political stripes, from gays and lesbians seeking equal rights to African-American college students seeking a better education to deep-pocketed corporations seeking to spend more money influencing politics.

You have sent mixed signals about your intentions, but that hasn’t stopped Republicans in Congress from referring to your departure as a done deal.

[T]his moment is about so much more than partisan jockeying. We can’t know what is in your heart, Your Honor, but we do know what your departure right now would mean for the court, and for the nation. It would not be good. [H]ere are two ways to think about this decision: The safeguarding of your legacy, and the safeguarding of the Supreme Court itself.

Start with the legacy. Across your 30 years on the court, your most important opinions — and there are many — have altered not just the lives of millions of Americans but the course of the nation’s history. A sampling: Protecting reproductive rights, and saving Roe v. Wade from being essentially overturned, in 1992. Recognizing the equality and dignity of gays and lesbians multiple times since 1996 and, in 2015, granting same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry.  . . . You’ve also recognized the continuing travesty of the nation’s broken criminal justice system, voting to strike down excessive sentences for juveniles and the intellectually disabled and forcing states to shrink their overcrowded prisons.

Your record is more conservative than liberal, but there’s no question that you are less of an ideologue than anyone President Trump would pick. How do we know? Look at his first nominee, Justice Gorsuch. Perhaps you were comforted by this choice — a well-qualified judge who clerked for you, and who would have been on any Republican’s short list. But Justice Gorsuch has already made it clear that while he’s a fan of individual liberty, at least in some cases, he is unlikely to go to great pains to protect your most cherished values — equality and human dignity.

Justice Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia, a move that didn’t disrupt the balance of the court. Replacing you with a hard-line conservative, in contrast, would have enormous consequences for the nation’s laws and Constitution for decades to come. Just ask Sandra Day O’Connor, your onetime fellow swing justice who left the court in 2006 and now watches helplessly as her replacement, the arch-conservative Samuel Alito Jr., votes to tear down her legacy.

[D]id you spend a lifetime honoring and upholding the Constitution and the values of civility and decency in American public life only to have your replacement chosen by Donald Trump?

Do you want to give your seat to a president whose campaign and administration are under criminal investigation, whose closest aides have been indicted or have pleaded guilty to federal crimes?

There is also the institutional legitimacy of and public respect for the nation’s highest court, which we know you cherish even beyond your own legacy. Right now that legitimacy is eroding. The audacious decision by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, to hold a court seat hostage and use it as an electoral tool “places the court in a position of real institutional peril, . . . . You know as well as anyone that the Supreme Court’s authority depends on public confidence. When that fails, the consequences can be dire.

This is where you come in, Justice Kennedy. You’re a conservative from a time when conservatism was a more or less coherent political philosophy, not a tribal identity. You’re a believer in free markets and individual liberty, and also in human rights and equal justice. A defender of the rule of law, of civility and decorum — those time-honored values now desecrated daily by the current inhabitant of the Oval Office.

The American people are desperate for someone who is not polarizing, and your continued service would be an encouraging sign to them that the court can still operate outside politics. It could also be a model for future justices, though we’re not holding our breath. If you leave, the dam breaks. We realize this isn’t an entirely fair request. Every 81-year-old, especially those who have devoted their lives to the service of their country, should have the freedom to retire without worrying that the nation’s future may hang in the balance. But this is the world we live in. By stealing the seat [of Merrick Garland] for short-term political advantage, Mr. McConnell has inflicted institutional damage from which the court, and the Senate, may never fully recover. This is your court, Justice Kennedy. It is facing an institutional crisis, and it needs you.

John Kasich: The Republican Party left Me

While his record on LGBT rights is abysmal, Ohio Governor John Kasich is one of the few Republicans who did not rush to prostitute himself to Donald Trump and betray everything the Republican Party once stood for.  Like myself, most of my extended family and many friend who are former Republicans, Kasich says that he did not leave the GOP.  Rather, the GOP left him.  Just like it left so many others who reject religious extremism, racism, defunding public education and a rapacious economic structure that benefits the wealthy while harming the less fortunate.   CNN has excerpts from Kasich's comments on "State of the Union":

Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich expressed frustration with the current state of the Republican and Democratic parties Sunday amid rumors that he could pursue a 2020 presidential run.

"I'm still a Republican. I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me," Kasich said on CNN's "State of the Union." "In my state we have balanced budgets, surplus, we're up half a million jobs and then people say, 'Well Kasich's not a conservative.' What does that mean?"

"Come home to where we basically live," the 2016 presidential candidate added. "We should care about people from top to bottom, not just those at the top, but everybody. I can bring that party back. That's what I'm going to do in one way or another."

Kasich hasn't ruled out a presidential run in 2020, saying that he's keeping his options open. And though he's been rumored to be pursuing an independent candidacy, he told CNN earlier this month that it was unlikely.

The governor also said Republicans face a tough fight in this year's midterm elections because of voters' distaste for President Donald Trump's "harsh language" and "division." Kasich said he foresees "a big ocean of people in the middle who are up for grabs in November.  "These are people who are objective. These are people who are rational," Kasich said.

Sadly, "objective" and "rational" more or less exclude those who now comprise the core of the Republican Party.  I will not be holding my breath for Kasich to pull ff his restoration of the GOP.  

Monday Morning Male Beauty

Hawaii Becomes 12th State to Ban Bogus "Ex-Gay" Therapy

Among the many exceedingly dishonest things self-style Christian "family values" organizations do is to peddle the discredited myth that sexual orientation is a "choice" and can be "cured" by appropriate "therapy."  Every legitimate mental health and medical association in America has condemned the practice and labeled it unethical for licensed therapists.  It's a topic in which I am well versed.  One of my first efforts at LGBT activism was when I helped to expose Michael Johnston, the poster boy for a campaign backed who's who of the misnamed Christian Right, as a fraud complete fraud and anything but "ex-gay."  Making matters worse, Johnston who was HIV+ was sleeping around the Hampton Roads area of Virginia in gay hook ups without disclosing his HIV status.  For years after Johnston went into hiding at a right wing Christian "ministry" many "family values" organizations continued to sell videos featuring him and touting the ex-gay myth even though they knew full well that Johnston and conversion therapy were both complete frauds.  Why?  Money and to perpetuate the "choice myth" to oppose civil rights fro LGBT individuals.   

Now, Hawaii joins eleven other states which have banned so-called "conversion therapy" for those under age 18.  Virginia and other states need to follow suit.   Here are highlights from Hawaii News Now on the development in Hawaii:

State lawmakers on Friday approved a ban on so-called 'gay conversion therapy' treatments conducted on minors.

Gay rights advocates say the practice, which is largely discredited by healthcare professionals, does more harm than good to those who are subjected to it.

"This has been a priority of the caucus for years," said Michael Golojuch, chair of the LGBT Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. "(The measure) ensures that LGQTB youth will not be tortured by mental health professionals."

Several states, including California, Oregon and New Jersey, have already passed similar laws. Maryland passed legislation banning the practice earlier this month. 

The bill was opposed by religious groups who consider sexual orientation a choice.
 

The full list of states (prior to Hawaii's vote) banning ex-gay conversion therapy is as follows: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia.  In addition, several dozen cities and counties have enacted bans on the practice. 

More Sunday Male Beauty

Trump Could be a Huge Asset for Democrats This Fall

Donald Trump's defining characteristic - even more than his pathological lying - is his malignant narcissism.  Everything is ALWAYS about him and he simply cannot accept anything or anyone that doesn't support his "Sun King" vision of himself.  The good news is that this characteristic may help Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives - and with luck, the U.S. Senate.  Trump forgets that a huge number of voters failed to vote in the 2016 presidential election and that his win traces to only about 27% of voters and a 70,000 vote spread across three states.  If those who stayed home (or those who feel they made a huge mistake) turn out in disgust with Trump and/or the GOP's reverse Robin Hood policies, things could be brutal for Republicans.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at how Trump may further wound the GOP.  Here are highlights:

One of President Trump’s most bedrock character traits is his refusal to truly reckon with any piece of information that reflects poorly on him. This self-aggrandizing, reality-denying flavor of egotism has defined Trump for decades, through his roller-coaster business career and into political life. In recent months, it has sometimes veered into the straight-up delusional, as when he reportedly claimed last year that it wasn’t actually his voice on the Access Hollywood tape.

Trump’s insistence that everything is going great was validated in unprecedented fashion when he won the presidency despite some of the strongest headwinds imaginable, shocking almost everyone — possibly including, on some deep level, himself.

But now, finally, [Trump's] the president’s unwavering confidence may finally be about to take a serious electoral toll.  The New York Times reported on Saturday that in the runup to the midterm elections this fall, President Trump is simply not listening to advisers and lawmakers who tell him what anyone can plainly see: Republicans are in deep trouble:

Congressional and party leaders and even some Trump aides are concerned that [Trump's] the president’s boundless self-assurance about politics will cause him to ignore or undermine their midterm strategy. In battleground states like Arizona, Florida and Nevada, Mr. Trump’s proclivity to be a loose cannon could endanger the Republican incumbents and challengers who are already facing ferocious Democratic headwinds. In election after election over the last year and a half, Democrats have vastly over performed their expected vote share, largely thanks to animus toward the president. They have triumphed in a Pennsylvania Congressional district where Trump won by more than 20 points, picked up a Senate seat in ruby-red Alabama, dominated state races in Virginia, and made close several contests that almost certainly would have been Republican landslides in previous years. . . . Republicans have been sounding the alarm for months.

Trump’s reaction to all this: everything will be just fine.

The Times piece also reports that, as his fellow Republicans fret, Brad Parscale, [Trump's] the president’s pollster, is feeding him inaccurate, Trump-friendly poll numbers, which [Trump] the president is more than happy to parade on Twitter.

Why does this matter? Most presidents, even if they claim not to be obsessed with polls the way Trump is, have a pretty good idea of their own political currency, and adjust their alignment with their parties accordingly.

Something different is going on this time around. President Trump remains enormously popular within the Republican Party; most Republican members of Congress have made the calculation that even if Trump is underwater in their state, defying Trump the president would be a political loser, since it leave them without any reliable constituency.

The problem is not only that Trump refuses to believe that Republicans will lose, but that, even if he were sufficiently worried, he doesn’t care enough about his own party to bother helping.

Establishment Republicans reportedly want Trump to flog the GOP’s unpopular tax law on the campaign trail. [Trump] The president is pushing back on this directive — which he is right to do, since the unpopular law probably isn’t galvanizing anyone to vote.

But [Trump's] the president’s own, predictably unpredictable routine is unlikely to work much better. He might attack vulnerable Republican Senators he disagrees with; he might serve more as a distraction than a cheerleader, . . . This routine won’t turn off voters who already love [Trump] the president. But it’s more likely to spark another Trump news cycle than rally much-needed enthusiasm for Republican candidates.

The GOP’s best hope may be to invent reasons that red-state Democrats are hurting Trump personally, then watch him go wild on Twitter and the campaign trail.

Republicans seem to have grasped the lesson that Trump needs to be personally invested in their election results. They are trying to make the stakes of the election startlingly personal, reportedly telling Trump that if he doesn’t help them out this fall, they may not have his back if and when Democrats initiate impeachment proceedings next year. That stark warning may perk Trump’s ears up, but it’s just as likely to be perceived as an unacceptable intramural threat, not as motivation to work for the party.

[Trump] will continue living in a bubble of his own making. Because Trump was right to dismiss the concerns of the many, many people who insisted he couldn’t win in 2016, he can now perennially point to that shocking election result as proof that his instincts, not some politico egghead’s, are always correct. And if Republicans lose big this year, he’ll just say they didn’t stick by him closely enough.

It’s a dishonest, solipsitic approach to life. But it’s one that has worked shockingly well for Donald Trump.

The Extinction of Gay Identity

I will be sailing today at the Hampton Yacht Club where I am a member. 

I "came out" about 16 and a half years ago in mid-life (hence the name of this blog).  During that period the world has changed much for the better:  the nation's remaining sodomy laws, including Virginia's were struck down in 2003, thereby removing would be felon status for even otherwise law abiding gays, public acceptance of LGBT individuals has soared - even in relatively conservative Tidewater Virginia gay couples are now welcomed as members of yacht clubs and country clubs - and in 2015 sames sex couples finally won the right to be married.  In Norfolk, where gays were once treated as somewhat radioactive and the pride event was a small event hidden in the back of a city park, Pride Fest is now the second largest festival of the year and the City of Norfolk provides significant funding and support because of the tourism and spending the event brings with it.  (Sadly, thanks to Republicans in Richmond all too willing to prostitute themselves to Christofascists, LGBT Virginians lack employment and housing non-discrimination protections).

Along the way, however, some things were lost.  At least half of the gay bars have closed and younger LGBT residents mix freely with their straight friends with no need to seek refuge in a gay bar where they can feel safe. On a Friday night now, the husband and I are more likely to dine with friends at the Hampton Yacht Club than go to one of the remaining gays bars with restaurant facilities.  In many ways - at least in Virginia's urban crescent - gays and lesbians have become mainstream.  All of this is a positive, yet a one time sense of belonging to a special tribe is gone.  When I first came out, I felt a certain level of safety walking into "The Wave" in Norfolk on a Saturday night.  I knew I could simply be myself.  Last night, the husband and I attended a wonderful wedding at the Ford's Colony country club and not a soul batted an eye at a gay couple in attendance.   

A column in the New York Times looks at this sense of lost that at times I suspect that many of us in the LGBT community nonetheless feel.  Here are column highlights:

Mart Crowley, the author of the groundbreaking gay play “The Boys in the Band,” lives in a Manhattan apartment building that he used to visit frequently, for parties, in the late 1960s, when “Boys” had its theatrical debut. It’s on East 54th Street, No. 405, and its nickname, he told me, used to be “four of five,” because that was supposedly the ratio of gay residents.

That is not the ratio now. “It’s all yuppies and kids in strollers and all of that — and a few old codgers,” Crowley, 82, said over a recent lunch. The gays have scattered, not just from that building but from others, and we’ve distributed ourselves throughout the city — and throughout society. Gay sanctuaries are vanishing.

Is that true of gay culture and gay identity, too? I increasingly get the sense that gayness itself has scattered, becoming something more various and harder to define. “Gay” tells you about a person’s lusts and loves, but it used to tell you more — about his or her boldness, irreverence, independence. It connoted a particular journey and pronounced struggle, and had its own soundtrack, sartorial flourishes and short list of celebrity icons. Not so anymore. These thoughts came to mind as “Boys” comes back into view. For its 50th anniversary, it’s getting its first-ever Broadway production, with an all-gay, all-star cast including Jim Parsons, Matt Bomer and Zachary Quinto. The play is a postcard from an era that we have thankfully moved past, a point of reference for our hard-won success over the last half-century and our arrival in an infinitely better place. But it’s also a reminder of a glue that has gone missing among many gay men. Among many lesbians, too, . . . . We were tribes in a way that we no longer are, with rituals that we no longer have, and with a shared story. [T]he gay theatrical canon — or, rather, the gay male theatrical canon — ends in 1993, with Tony Kushner’s “Angels in America.” That play followed “The Normal Heart,” “Torch Song Trilogy” and, decades earlier, “Boys.” All were born of the bigotry that gays endured and the grace that they forged in the face of it. . . . . Sometimes, to judge from what’s onstage, I have to conclude that Crate & Barrel is sponsoring the new gay agenda,” Green writes . . . . "Boys"  . . . captures the flair for melodrama, appetite for mischief and exaggerated sense of humor — alternately self-lacerating and self-lionizing — that constituted a gay armor, worn because we lived in a sort of exile. I donned it myself in the 1980s, from my late teens through my mid-20s, as I took the temperature of the country around me, wondering exactly how cold to me it would be. Crowley said that if someone had told him then that the United States Supreme Court would someday legalize same-sex marriage, he would have responded, “That’s rather insane.” It happened in 2015. But there had been enough progress toward the acceptance and integration of gays by 2005 that Andrew Sullivan wrote an essay in The New Republic titled “The End of Gay Culture,” which he imagined would “expand into such a diverse set of subcultures that ‘gayness’ alone will cease to tell you very much about any individual.” We’re there.

Gays aren’t yet on an equal legal footing with straight people. We’re frequently derided (I’m looking at you, Mike Pompeo) and assaulted. How gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people are treated hinges on where we live, what color we are, how much money we have and whom we work for.

I’m 53, I came out a few years later than she did, and I remember that simply telling someone that I was gay made me interesting at a time when most gay people weren’t forthcoming about that. I remember that visiting a gay bar or resort had an electric charge, because I was traversing forbidden ground. No matter how open I was about it, being gay felt a bit like belonging to a secret society.

“Everything costs something,” Crowley told me. “Gay culture is so diffuse now, where it was once so cloistered and clandestine. It was like our own world — the world was inside out.”

“I wouldn’t trade any of the progress,” I said to him. “And yet.”  “And yet,” he agreed. But, he added, with no equivocation, “You wouldn’t want that world back.”

“Boys in the Band” makes that clear, while also making sure that a lost world is remembered.

All of this said, I am thrilled that things have changed for the better.  Growing up in the closet and desperately suppressing who I was, I could never have dreamed of the life I can now live.  It's wonderful that young gays can grow up knowing that they can marry, have families, and not be haunted by a sense of being "other."  Hopefully, the Trump/Pence regime does not take that away. 

Sunday Morning Male Beauty