Harvey is coming to the big screen, and I'm not talking about a very big, very invisible rabbit.
I'm talking about Harvey Milk. Sean Penn is set to play the gay icon, while Matt Damon will probably play his murderer, Dan White. I'm surprised a feature film about Milk took so long to make, because his life and death were packed with cinematic qualities--triumph, tragedy, and a disco soundtrack.
The latter is because Milk came to prominence in the 1970s. The self-proclaimed "Mayor of Castro Street" was elected to San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in 1977, making him the first openly gay elected official of any large American city.
That's the triumphant part of the story.
While in office, he sponsored a pooper-scooper ordinance. That's the story's comic relief.
Milk clashed with conservative Supervisor Dan White, a former cop and fire fighter. Unhappy with city politics and financially hurting, White resigned the supervisor position. His supporters convinced him to withdraw his resignation and seek re-appointment from Mayor George Moscone. Milk and others lobbied Moscone not to re-appoint White.
There. If you spend twenty minutes of the movie in line for Junior Mints you'll still know what's going on.
On Nov. 27, 1978, White placed his loaded policeman's revolver and ten extra rounds of ammunition into his coat pocket. He avoided City Hall's metal detectors by entering through a basement window. White went straight to the mayor and asked again for his position back. Moscone declined, they argued, and White shot him four times.
Whoever plays Mayor Moscone gets to pack a lot of emotion in limited screen minutes. A scene-stealer's dream.
White reloaded his gun and headed for Milk's office, where he shot him six times. He turned himself in to detectives who were his former co-workers.
Milk had recorded audiotapes to be played in the event of his assassination. At a candlelight memorial vigil for him, thousands heard him say, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door."
If there's a dry eye in the movie theater at that moment, I'll eat a director's chair.
Now comes the part that's both tragedy and comedy. During White's trial, his lawyers argued for diminished capacity due to depression. They claimed White was mentally not up to the task of premeditated first-degree murder. One of the arguments they used to prove his depression was that in the months before the killings, White, normally a health food fan, had been downing junk food, including Twinkies. Thus was the "Twinkie defense" born.
When this movie comes out, there might be a suitable "Rocky Horror"-like moment during the trial when White's looking at the jury with puppy-dog eyes, and the audience yells with gusto, "Twinkie defense!"
White's jury accepted his lawyers' claims, and he was found guilty of just voluntary manslaughter, with a sentence of seven years.
A lot of gay people were infuriated by the trial results—I can't imagine why—and some 3,000 of them marched to City Hall. There violence erupted in what's known as the White Night Riots.
Before the film credits roll, and we read that no gays were harmed in the filming of this movie, I bet words on the screen will note that general disgust for the case's outcome led to the end of California's diminished capacity law.
Also, Dan White served five years, was paroled, and killed himself less than two years later. And many in the gay community today see Harvey Milk as a martyr.
Somehow, some way, I hope the filmmakers show White during his campaign for supervisor saying "crime is No. 1 with me." He wasn't lying—turned out he was very fond of it.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Raising the Bar
A few months ago, Stephen Dunne filed a lawsuit claiming his refusal to answer a question about gay marriage caused him to fail the Massachusetts bar exam. Now Dunne is dropping his suit, because "the patently offensive and morally repugnant question" wasn't included in the July exam.
Dunne characterized this change as a "corrective action" by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners. The board characterized this analysis as hooey.
Dunne's lawsuit was comprehensive, as it claimed that answering the essay question about married lesbians would've violated his Catholic beliefs and First Amendment rights, and it also challenged the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision supporting gay marriage.
The guy couldn't pass the bar, but when it comes to whiney, self-serving litigiousness, Dunne zooms to the head of the class.
Having read the essay question, I think that Dunne simply missed an opportunity. He might've passed the exam and now be getting paid to lob lawsuits at same-sex marriage if he had adopted a more practical approach.
I'm putting the real exam question in italics, and following with what Dunne should've written.
Mary and Jane, both attorneys, were married two years ago in Massachusetts. There's your first problem—two attorneys under the same roof. It doesn't bear thinking about.
The day before their marriage, Mary and Jane each fully disclosed their assets to the other . . . Fools!
. . . and signed an antenuptial agreement in which each of them agreed that if they were ever divorced (i) they would divide any joint marital property evenly, (ii) they would not seek or accept any property that the other brought into the marriage, and (iii) they would not seek or accept child support or alimony from the other. Oh sure. And cows will give Pepsi.
The Agreement was drafted and reviewed by an attorney representing Jane. Mary did not hire an attorney to review the Agreement as she "trusted Jane." Remind me never, never to hire Mary as my attorney.
At the time of the marriage Jane had a two year old adopted child, Philip, and Mary was three months pregnant. It astonishes me how these lesbians manage to become mothers. They're more creative than novelists.
When Mary gave birth in Boston six months later to Charles, . . . Named for the river? How Bostonian.
. . . Mary and Jane were listed on his birth certificate as his parents. Mary has treated and referred to Philip as her son, although she did not adopt him. Are you sure Mary is a lawyer?
Mary, Jane, Philip and Charles lived in a house in Boston owned by both Mary and Jane. The down payment for this house came only from Mary. And a sizeable payment it must've been. If you don’t pass me, I'll never be able to buy a house and raise a family in this town.
Jane was the sole supporter of the family, while Mary stayed at home taking care of Philip and Charles. Mary had no savings, while Jane had over a million dollars in savings from an inheritance that she received when her mother died three years ago. What are the chances I could lure wealthy Jane from her wicked lesbian ways? I could save her and myself at the same time!
Yesterday Jane got drunk and hit Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary's leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa. Our wedding's off. I value my legs.
As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles, and Lisa. Lisa's moving in already? The hussy.
What are the rights of Mary and Jane? I shudder to think.
Dunne characterized this change as a "corrective action" by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners. The board characterized this analysis as hooey.
Dunne's lawsuit was comprehensive, as it claimed that answering the essay question about married lesbians would've violated his Catholic beliefs and First Amendment rights, and it also challenged the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision supporting gay marriage.
The guy couldn't pass the bar, but when it comes to whiney, self-serving litigiousness, Dunne zooms to the head of the class.
Having read the essay question, I think that Dunne simply missed an opportunity. He might've passed the exam and now be getting paid to lob lawsuits at same-sex marriage if he had adopted a more practical approach.
I'm putting the real exam question in italics, and following with what Dunne should've written.
Mary and Jane, both attorneys, were married two years ago in Massachusetts. There's your first problem—two attorneys under the same roof. It doesn't bear thinking about.
The day before their marriage, Mary and Jane each fully disclosed their assets to the other . . . Fools!
. . . and signed an antenuptial agreement in which each of them agreed that if they were ever divorced (i) they would divide any joint marital property evenly, (ii) they would not seek or accept any property that the other brought into the marriage, and (iii) they would not seek or accept child support or alimony from the other. Oh sure. And cows will give Pepsi.
The Agreement was drafted and reviewed by an attorney representing Jane. Mary did not hire an attorney to review the Agreement as she "trusted Jane." Remind me never, never to hire Mary as my attorney.
At the time of the marriage Jane had a two year old adopted child, Philip, and Mary was three months pregnant. It astonishes me how these lesbians manage to become mothers. They're more creative than novelists.
When Mary gave birth in Boston six months later to Charles, . . . Named for the river? How Bostonian.
. . . Mary and Jane were listed on his birth certificate as his parents. Mary has treated and referred to Philip as her son, although she did not adopt him. Are you sure Mary is a lawyer?
Mary, Jane, Philip and Charles lived in a house in Boston owned by both Mary and Jane. The down payment for this house came only from Mary. And a sizeable payment it must've been. If you don’t pass me, I'll never be able to buy a house and raise a family in this town.
Jane was the sole supporter of the family, while Mary stayed at home taking care of Philip and Charles. Mary had no savings, while Jane had over a million dollars in savings from an inheritance that she received when her mother died three years ago. What are the chances I could lure wealthy Jane from her wicked lesbian ways? I could save her and myself at the same time!
Yesterday Jane got drunk and hit Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary's leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa. Our wedding's off. I value my legs.
As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles, and Lisa. Lisa's moving in already? The hussy.
What are the rights of Mary and Jane? I shudder to think.
Monday, September 3, 2007
The Nerve of Them
It's just one scandal after another, isn't it? All over the country during the last year and a half prominent social conservatives have been caught angling for gay sex. Some of us in the GLBT community view these closet cases with pity; others of us are in danger of rupturing something if we don't stop laughing.
Personally, I'm fascinated by the audacity of a number of these fellows. They have more nerve than a battered bicuspid.
Consider Lonnie Latham, an Oklahoma minister. He was a Baptist bigwig, serving on the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Latham had his anti-gay credentials in order, speaking against gay marriage and in support of a Baptist directive urging gays and lesbians to abandon their "sinful, destructive lifestyle."
In January of 2006, in an area of Oklahoma City known for male prostitution, Latham asked a male undercover police officer to have oral sex with him in his hotel room. He offered no money, suggesting either he has some sense of morality, or he's a cheap so-and-so.
After being booked for lewdness, he told TV reporters, "I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police."
His claims of innocence lasted about as long as a church picnic.
The next month, Latham's lawyer filed a motion to have the lewdness charge thrown out. Mack Martin said the Supreme Court determined in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that consenting adults may engage in private homosexual acts.
"Now, my client's being prosecuted basically for having offered to engage in such an act, which basically makes it a crime to ask someone to do something that's legal," argued Martin.
Lonnie Latham claimed after his arrest that he had been doing holy work; during his trial he admitted he had been doing horny work.
In a twinkle, Latham traveled from being a card-carrying homophobe to seeking the protection of a Supreme Court decision gays had to crusade for. He went from fighting gay rights to hiding behind them. For more than one reason, I'd call that ballsy.
Now to Glenn Murphy, who on July 7, 2007, was elected chairman of the Young Republican National Foundation. Weeks later he quit, citing a "life-altering" business opportunity. The truth was indeed life altering, but a very bad business.
According to a police report from the Clark County Sheriff's office in Indiana, Murphy, 33, and another man had been drinking at a Young Republican party. They crashed at the house of the man's sister, with Murphy taking a top bunk and the other guy the bottom bunk. The guy awoke to find Murphy "holding my dick with one hand and sucking my dick with his mouth."
Perhaps this is what Murphy meant when he said after his election, "I will essentially be the mouthpiece . . . for tens of thousands of Young Republicans."
Later Murphy offered the man an explanation. Fearing he'd be sick, Murphy lay down on the floor next to the man's bunk. The man, in his sleep, stroked Murphy's hair, which Murphy interpreted as an invitation. The victim didn't buy this creative recital.
It turns out this wasn't Murphy's first go at a sleeping man. In 1998, according to another Indiana police report, an acquaintance slumbering on the floor awoke to find Murphy performing oral sex on him. Rise and shine!
Somehow this incident didn't prevent Murphy's ascension in the party—nor did it suggest to him a different career path. I don't know whether Murphy genuinely gets a thrill from sex with an unconscious person, or he so represses his gayness that he only does it in the dark. Either way, he's got a problem.
And, like Lonnie Latham, a nerve.
Personally, I'm fascinated by the audacity of a number of these fellows. They have more nerve than a battered bicuspid.
Consider Lonnie Latham, an Oklahoma minister. He was a Baptist bigwig, serving on the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Latham had his anti-gay credentials in order, speaking against gay marriage and in support of a Baptist directive urging gays and lesbians to abandon their "sinful, destructive lifestyle."
In January of 2006, in an area of Oklahoma City known for male prostitution, Latham asked a male undercover police officer to have oral sex with him in his hotel room. He offered no money, suggesting either he has some sense of morality, or he's a cheap so-and-so.
After being booked for lewdness, he told TV reporters, "I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police."
His claims of innocence lasted about as long as a church picnic.
The next month, Latham's lawyer filed a motion to have the lewdness charge thrown out. Mack Martin said the Supreme Court determined in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that consenting adults may engage in private homosexual acts.
"Now, my client's being prosecuted basically for having offered to engage in such an act, which basically makes it a crime to ask someone to do something that's legal," argued Martin.
Lonnie Latham claimed after his arrest that he had been doing holy work; during his trial he admitted he had been doing horny work.
In a twinkle, Latham traveled from being a card-carrying homophobe to seeking the protection of a Supreme Court decision gays had to crusade for. He went from fighting gay rights to hiding behind them. For more than one reason, I'd call that ballsy.
Now to Glenn Murphy, who on July 7, 2007, was elected chairman of the Young Republican National Foundation. Weeks later he quit, citing a "life-altering" business opportunity. The truth was indeed life altering, but a very bad business.
According to a police report from the Clark County Sheriff's office in Indiana, Murphy, 33, and another man had been drinking at a Young Republican party. They crashed at the house of the man's sister, with Murphy taking a top bunk and the other guy the bottom bunk. The guy awoke to find Murphy "holding my dick with one hand and sucking my dick with his mouth."
Perhaps this is what Murphy meant when he said after his election, "I will essentially be the mouthpiece . . . for tens of thousands of Young Republicans."
Later Murphy offered the man an explanation. Fearing he'd be sick, Murphy lay down on the floor next to the man's bunk. The man, in his sleep, stroked Murphy's hair, which Murphy interpreted as an invitation. The victim didn't buy this creative recital.
It turns out this wasn't Murphy's first go at a sleeping man. In 1998, according to another Indiana police report, an acquaintance slumbering on the floor awoke to find Murphy performing oral sex on him. Rise and shine!
Somehow this incident didn't prevent Murphy's ascension in the party—nor did it suggest to him a different career path. I don't know whether Murphy genuinely gets a thrill from sex with an unconscious person, or he so represses his gayness that he only does it in the dark. Either way, he's got a problem.
And, like Lonnie Latham, a nerve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)