From the collection of Harold T. O'Neal, a gay home movie buff who made many films of gay life in California from 1939 to 1989. This one begins with a well-dressed but rather dull garden party, followed by scenes of several beautiful young men splashing about in various states of undress somewhere along the American River. A lovely glimpse of what seems a much more innocent time.
Double-click the screen to go full size; hit escape to exit.
Once again, I state what M.P. says, and he ought to know: if they're only swimming, it's not porn.
I don't know why this popped up on my YouTube page yesterday, but it's well worth a listen. Jackie Goldberg, past president of the Los Angeles School Board, sounds off vehemently against the homophobes in this speech from June 2023. Ms. Goldberg retired last December after a lifetime of political and social service.
I wonder if this speech would get her sent to Alcatraz today.
It might be old news to the rest of the world, but we just discovered this 2008 documentary about the Los Angeles studio musicians who created the sounds we all loved in the 1960s. As Dick Clark says in here, "They played for so many people in so many styles. . . . They had the magic touch." Though rarely credited for their work back then, this show honors their contributions to the "West Coast Sound" that was heard 'round the world on radio, records, TV themes, and movie soundtracks. Fascinating.
An extra interview with delightful Carol Kaye, the only woman in the group, and a fabulous bassist:
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo: "Who are we? Where are we? How did we get to this place?
Cuomo lays out a plan for police reform, and the necessity of avoiding false dilemmas.
This is the clearest, most intelligent response to the current crisis I've heard yet. Damn, why is Cuomo not President?
I should also tell you that when I first saw the video of 75-year-old Martin Gugino being violently knocked down by bully-boy police, I thought, "That could be me." I'm not all that much younger than he, and subject to stumble and fall on my own without any help from others. Though I must also say that your Head Trucker would not have the temerity to step in front of a marching phalanx of armed men as he did.
This, of course, is just one of many stories of egregious,sickening police savagery occurring, with most grievous irony, during this week of nationwide protests against police brutality. Unfortunately, I can't find videos of all of them in a format I can post here. But likely you have seen some on TV or the internet already. Police reform must be the first step of reformation and healing in this country. I can tell you, even from my very mild, infrequent brushes as an old white man with traffic cops in the last two decades, police in Texas have gotten very heavy handed and mighty damn arrogant. Who taught them to behave like that? I shudder to think what they have been like with blacks and other minorities, here and across the nation. No more!
The experts maintain that their messages are consistent—that they were always flexible on Americans going outside, that they want protesters to take precautions and that they're prioritizing public health by demanding an urgent fix to systemic racism.
But their messages are also confounding to many who spent the spring strictly isolated on the advice of health officials, only to hear that the need might not be so absolute after all. It’s particularly nettlesome to conservative skeptics of the all-or-nothing approach to lockdown, who point out that many of those same public health experts—a group that tends to skew liberal—widely criticized activists who held largely outdoor protests against lockdowns in April and May, accusing demonstrators of posing a public health danger. Conservatives, who felt their own concerns about long-term economic damage or even mental health costs of lockdown were brushed aside just days or weeks ago, are increasingly asking whether these public health experts are letting their politics sway their health care recommendations.
The WHO’s emergencies director Michael Ryan stressed that putting on a fabric mask is primarily about preventing the wearer from possibly infecting others, rather than self-protection.
Lester Holt of NBC News summarizes the day's events:
Your Head Trucker is not a fan - can we talk? - of homemade wedding vows; the tender sentiments of two people in love are best kept sacred and unseen, like the marriage bed, in my view. Nevertheless, I know that millions of couples, straight and gay, are all into that kind of thing nowadays, and since this video is so beautifully edited and professionally produced, I thought you fellas might enjoy it. It happened in Los Angeles, earlier this year.
The important thing here is not so much the sentiment on display, but the visible creation of a union, drawing together not merely two individuals, but two families, and all generations. That is what knits us firmly into the the greater society around us as nothing else can, linking us to many more people than just one. It makes us part of the family - and beyond all the laws and all the courts and legislatures of the world, that is the greatest guarantee of our right to exist, to live and love freely, as the gay people we really are.
In 2009, David Kaufman, M.D., and his wife Cathy both realized they were gay about the same time. About six months later, David realized he was not only gay, but trans, and he is now Danielle. The couple have since written a book about their experience, entitled Untying the Knot. CBS Sacramento reports:
Well, your Head Trucker wishes them all the luck in the world. Still, it's hard to understand how someone can not realize they are gay until middle age - it certainly was very clear to me when I was 14. Some folks are just late bloomers, I guess, or came from very rigid, mind-controlling families perhaps. I don't know.
The Veterans Home in Chula Vista, San Diego, saw a historic moment on Thursday with its first gay wedding. WWII veteran John Banvard, 95, and Vietnam veteran Gerard Nadeau, 68, have been together for 20 years. They told Fox5 that they'd been waiting on the Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex unions in California before tying the knot.
"It was something we wanted to do for a long time," Banvard told ABC10.
The couple wanted to have the ceremony amongst friends, so on Thursday they were married outside the V.A. Home, where they've lived together for the last three and a half years. According to an ABC10 report, some of the residents who objected to a gay wedding notified Westboro Baptist Church who called in to protest to the V.A. Home.
"They used language I don't want to repeat," staff member Jim Karellas told ABC10.
But when time for the wedding came, none of the objecting residents and no one from the church came to protest, and the simple, yet historic, ceremony was only filled with love.
See the unembeddable video at the link, also the ABC10 news report here.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to revive Proposition 8, ending the last remaining legal challenge to same-sex marriage in the state.
Meeting in closed session, the state high court rejected arguments by ProtectMarriage, Proposition 8’s sponsors, that only an appellate court could overturn a statewide law.
A federal judge in San Francisco declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2010, and state officials refused to appeal. ProtectMarriage did appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that initiative sponsors have no right to defend their measures in federal court. The decision left in place the ruling by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
In its challenge before the state’s highest court, ProtectMarriage argued that a single judge lacked the authority to overturn a state constitutional amendment. The group also contended that Walker’s injunction applied to two counties at most and that state officials had overstepped their authority by ordering county clerks throughout California to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
State officials countered that the challenge was a veiled attempt to persuade a state court to interfere with a federal judge’s order in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
I think that's settled it, boys. It was a long, weary road - not paved with yellow bricks - that started with Mayor Gavin Newsom allowing gay weddings in San Francisco, beginning on Valentine's Day in 2004 - and after many, many steps and stages in the state and federal courts, here we are, nine and a half years later, almost to the day, with wedding bells free to keep ringing in California - forever, I hope - for the gays. And that can only encourage other states to do the same.
For the record, here's attorney David Boies recounting the history and outcome of the marriage cases last month:
Sandy Stier and Kris Perry are wed by the California Attorney General
Jeff Zarillo and Paul Katami are wed by the Mayor of Los Angeles
What a difference a day makes! While your Head Trucker slept Friday afternoon and evening, at around 3 p.m. California time the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay in the Prop 8 case and allowed same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the Golden State. This surprise development caught everyone off guard, since it had been expected that the appeals court would wait out the 25-day period before the Supreme Court's ruling became effective. However, legal experts say the appeals court was well within its rights, and the law, to lift its own stay on its own ruling.
The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case lost no time in getting hitched. In San Francisco, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier were wed by Kamala Harris, California Attorney General, at San Francisco City Hall, and likewise down in Los Angeles, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarillo were wed at City Hall by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The timing is doubly delicious since it is Pride weekend in those cities, and Friday was the 44th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in 1969 that sparked the gay-rights movement.
The Supreme Court this morning overturned Section 3 of DOMA in a 5-4 vote as being an unconstitutional violation of due process and equal protection - meaning the federal government has to recognize same-sex marriage in those states where it is legal; text of the ruling is here. Commentary from SCOTUSblog editors:
In response to some questions about Windsor: Only Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines the words "marriage" and "spouse," for federal purposes, as referring only to marriages between opposite-sex couples -- has been struck down. Consequently, any federal statute that refers to a "marriage" or a "spouse" should be interpreted as applying with equal force to same-sex married couples.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage," for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.
The Court also in a roundabout way sent Prop 8 to the garbage can, also by a 5-4 vote; text of the ruling is here. Comment from Amy Howe at Scotusblog:
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.
Photos of plaintiff Edie Windsor, at the home of her attorney in New York City, as she heard that she won her case this morning, in the New Yorker.
Report on the rulings from NBC News, with some jubilant crowd reactions in the background:
Update, 12 noon: The ACLU has issued a FAQ on "Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in California," discussing the implications of the Court's ruling on Prop 8; a couple of notable excerpts:
A few final, legal steps must be completed before same-sex couples can once again marry in California, which should take only about a month. First, the Supreme Court’s ruling must become final, which will happen 25 days after the ruling. Under the Supreme Court’s rules, the party who loses a case has a right to ask the Court to re-hear the case within 25 days of the decision’s release. Petitions for re-hearing are very rarely granted, so it is unlikely that anything will change during this 25 days. Once the ruling is final, the Ninth Circuit will issue a “mandate” that will send the case back to the District Court. When the mandate is issued, the injunction against the enforcement of Prop 8 will take effect, and same-sex couples in California will once again have the freedom to marry. We expect that the State of California will issue guidance to all County Clerk offices in the state about when the decision becomes final and when those offices must resume issuing licenses on an equal basis to same-sex couples. Please note that couples should wait until the Supreme Court ruling is final and the Ninth Circuit issues a mandate to the District Court before attempting to obtain a marriage license or to marry, to ensure that your marriage is valid. . . .
Yes. The legal order (or injunction) that stops the State of California from enforcing Prop 8 applies to state officials throughout the state. This means that Prop 8 cannot be enforced anywhere in the state. There may be efforts to try to limit the effect of the injunction to apply to only some parts of the State but we strongly believe that those efforts are futile and will not succeed. . . .
If you live in another state and get married in California you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor striking down Section 3 of DOMA concerns only the federal government’s treatment of marriages. The ruling does not require states to recognize a valid marriage of a same-sex couple performed in another state. Thus, if you marry in California but live elsewhere, it is still possible that your home state will not recognize your marriage.
Update, 12:30 p.m.: In California, Governor Jerry Brown has issued the following statement:
After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted.
Update, 12:45 p.m.: At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has issued this statement:
The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- as soon as possible. That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do. The department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court's decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies.
Update, 1:00 p.m.: From aboard Air Force One en route to Africa, President Obama has issued the following statement:
I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal - and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.
So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.
On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision - which applies only to civil marriages - changes that.
The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.
And in New York City, Edie Windsor, plaintiff in the DOMA case, had this to say, according to the Washington Post:
After learning of the Supreme Court ruling, Windsor broke into tears. “If I had to survive Thea, what a glorious way to do it, and she would be so pleased,” she said at a news conference. She thanked her lawyers and her allies, gay and straight: “We won all the way, so thank you from the bottom of my heart.”
Asked what Spyer would say to her if she were alive, Windsor replied, “‘You did it, honey.’”
And that's about as far as your Head Trucker can go today, I have to get some sleep now. But I'll have more reactions and analyses in my next post, sometime tonight.
Odd sensation, looking out my window at the green grass and the rose bushes and the sycamore tree and corners of the blue summer sky above: all is just as it was yesterday and all the days before, yet now there's something different about this plot of ground I live on, this green earth, this land of ours. A quick, sly thought whistles up from my heart to my eyes: we belong here, we are kindred, we are of the tribe - we are truly, fully Americans, and strangers no more.
It's that ol' Radical Homosexual Agenda that's already wiped out religious liberty, parental controls, and fundamental freedoms everywhere in Europe that same-sex "marriages" exist. And now they're coming to crush America!
Listen carefully to what Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline megachurch in Rancho San Diego warns about the advancing threat - Christians will die!
The fundies and rightwing nuts have whipped themselves into such a frenzy, they really do believe we're planning to murder them all in their beds.
How do you resolve a conflict of values when it's completely out of hand and totally irrational?
In a memorandum sent to all its branches this year, the Defense Department said it was making the allowance for the San Diego event even though its policy generally bars troops from marching in uniform in parades.
The Defense Department said Thursday it did so because organizers had encouraged military personnel to march in their uniform and the parade was getting national attention.
Cmdr. Kent Blade, who will retire this fall after 26 years in the Navy, said being able to march in uniform was a perfect culmination of his career. The 47-year-old said that since last year's repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, he has received unconditional support from his fellow officers.
"We've all been able to talk more freely about our lives. Nobody's leading a second life," he said. "And now that I can march freely in uniform, I think it's a great display for the Navy."
About 200 active-duty troops participated in last year's San Diego gay pride parade, but they wore T-shirts with their branch's name, not military dress.
Just so you know, Save California, an anti-gay group, has put out this bucket of hate to mark the occasion (parental discretion advised - so call your mom and get her OK before you watch):
See also the updates I just posted to yesterday's story about the North Carolina preacher who wants to put us all "queers and homosexuals" in concentration camps until we die out, behind the electrified fences.
By way of contrast, here is California State Senator Leno explaining the day to his colleagues three years ago, when the state senate first authorized it:
Also, give a listen to the moving testimony of Dustin Lance Black before the state senate education committee:
And President Obama's remarks upon awarding Milk a posthumous Medal of Freedom in 2009:
Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.
A three-judge panel of the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today struck down California's gay-marriage ban as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Consitution. The court's opinion was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.
Judge N. Randy Smith dissented, saying there were "legitimate governmental interests" in restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman.
Proposition 8 backers can now ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, or proceed directly to the Supreme Court. Smith's dissent could be a strong indicator there will be some support within the court to take a second look at the case.
The appeals court also rejected the argument that Walker's ruling should be scrapped because he did not disclose he was in a long-term same-sex relationship while he was handling the case. Smith joined in that part of the ruling.
As a result of the continued legal wrangling, same-sex marriages are not expected to resume in California any time soon, with further appeals likely to stretch at least into next year.
In the ruling, Reinhardt, considered one of the nation's most liberal judges, relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision striking down a Colorado law that stripped gays and lesbians of protections against discrimination there.
The ruling, however, was focused on California's circumstances, notably the fact Proposition 8 took away the right of same-sex couples to marry that had been established in a 2008 California Supreme Court decision.
The 9th Circuit did not declare a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry, a broader definition that could have undercut bans on gay marriage in four other western states.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have limited effect outside California because it is based on voter repeal of a right a minority already enjoyed.
"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry," the court said.
Santa Clara University constitutional law Professor Margaret M. Russell said the ruling overturned Proposition 8 on “the narrowest grounds possible,” which makes it less likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would review it.
“It is very much anchored in the role of Proposition 8 in California’s history,” the professor said, adding that it would have little effect outside of California.
The court will not allow same-sex marriages to begin again in California until the deadline has passed for proponents of Prop 8 to appeal today's ruling or an appeal has been denied, a process that could take months, according to the folks at Prop 8 Trial Tracker.
About 200 gay active-duty troops from every branch of the military said to hell with it and marched in the San Diego Pride parade today - probably the first time this has ever happened. Your Head Trucker admits that he couldn't help losing it over this little cellphone video. USA! USA! USA!
Update: Veteran gay reporter Rex Wockner counted more like 300 gay troops, and has another video of the march:
I came across this story just an hour ago, and I'm speechless with wonder at the apparent total fucking ineptitude of not merely our government's military surveillance, but also of Washington's public-relations ability as well:
Hello? Is anybody minding the goddamn store? Somebody launches a big-ass missile 35 miles from downtown L.A., and nobody knows what the fuck it was? Nobody in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force even noticed it? Even NORAD has no clue, for chrissake??
Jesus mercy. It's 24 hours now, and still a mystery. This is not the way to run the fucking country. What, are you shitheads partying while the Boss is out of town? We need some reassurance out here, if not defense. You guys in the West Wing need to put the bong down and do your fucking job. Or rightly get your collective asses kicked by the Republicans.
As a commenter on this YouTube video remarked:
We strip-search grandma at the airport and make sure that my shampoo is in an approved container, but our Pentagon can't tell who's firing missiles around our country.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Update: There's a lot of chatter being spread around now on various news sites and blogs about its being just a jet airliner contrail. And your Head Trucker says bullshit. I've never seen a rocket launch in person, but I've been seeing them on TV ever since John Glenn went into orbit, and I've also seen uncountable jet contrails living here in North Texas, with hundreds of planes flying into or out of DFW every day of the year. None of that makes me any kind of expert, of course, and I don't have a degree in anything relevant to rocket science or optics; but I still say bullshit. That's not a goddamn plane, it's some kind of missile.
If it was merely an airliner, then why the hell hasn't somebody identified it yet for the public? You know the FAA tracks every single plane into and out of L.A., and NORAD tracks everything in the skies over the U.S. If it was a plane, they could easily tell the public exactly which flight it was, judging by the time of day and the direction of travel.
But they aren't doing that, are they? Instead, they are saying they saw nothing at all on their radars in that time and place. Now why would they withhold that very elementary piece of information - unless it wasn't an airliner at all?
Besides, if you look at the video, it seems very clear to me that the object is moving away from the camera, and I think I see the flame of a rocket exhaust, a pinpoint of flickering light. Maybe I'm wrong, sure. But the cameraman who took the video says the object was moving with a spiraling motion. So it was no plane.
Notice also the photos of a similar phenomenon last Dec. 31 in the same area, and the extended discussion in the comments section there about the plane vs. missile theories. Notice also the links in those same comments to official sources about the U.S. Navy's missile tests on San Nicholas Island, out beyond Catalina.
Using Occam's Razor, then, it seems pretty much a sure thing to your Head Trucker that this was a missile launch for some unknown purpose by our own military. Which if so, that's fine; no doubt there's a good reason for it. But why do this in broad daylight, and then pretend that our own military - which is supposed to be protecting us 24/7 from all enemies foreign and domestic, as the phrase goes - that the military is so inept and so clueless?
Instead of inspiring public confidence, that does just the opposite. A damn piss-poor way to run a country, if you ask me, whoever is in office.
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, harmony; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Grant that I may seek not so much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.
.
We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.
and welcome to the Blue Truck, a blog for mature gay men with news and views on gay rights, history, art, humor, and whatever comes to mind. Plus a few hot men. The truck's all washed and gassed up, so hop in buddy, let's go.
CAUTION: For mature gay men only beyond this point. Some posts and links may not be suitable for children or the unco guid. You have been warned.
Insert valid picture ID with date of birth now, or click here.
My Story
click photograph to read
Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?
It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society.
If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God.
