Equal Marriage Supporters

[Goofyluver]

Did anyone post a link to this video?
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/divorce

It's so bittersweet, to see the joy of these couples and their families and friends on their wedding day, and to think of how the ignorant and judgmental are setting out to destroy that happiness.

Such a great link.

Snatched it and passed it along.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Good morning everyone! I hope there are many conversations between those on this thread and other folks regarding the legitimacy of same gendered marriage today!

Don't forget that those little white ribbons with the knots in the center can be a way to draw attention to the issue and open up discussion.

 

[Uncle Remus]

This was posted yesterday at HRC:

2/10/2009

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights group, today praised reports that Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-Utah) supports civil unions, which would provide equal rights for gay and lesbian couples under state law. A spokeswoman announced the governor’s position, saying that he also supports many of the ideas presented in Equality Utah’s Common Ground Initiative, a slate of pro-equality legislation for LGBT people in Utah.

“This is hopeful and inspiring news, and emphasizes the reality that, as we saw in Wyoming last week, equality is not a partisan issue,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “We’re thrilled that Gov. Huntsman recognizes that it’s simply the right thing to do to support equality. We hope that his support will help Equality Utah and fair-minded legislators advance the Common Ground Initiative, which is simply aimed at advancing equal rights for all Utahns by providing important anti-discrimination protections and other rights currently denied to LGBT people in the state.”

Last Friday, February 6, Wyoming’s House of Representatives voted 35-25 against a proposed amendment to the state constitution seeking to define marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union recognized in the state. A number of Republican legislators spoke against, and voted against, the measure.

In the wake of the vote last November on Proposition 8, a measure purporting to amend California’s constitution to eliminate marriage by gay and lesbian couples, Equality Utah and pro-equality legislators in Utah proposed the Common Ground Initiative, a set of measures aimed at advancing equal rights for LGBT people in Utah. The Common Ground Initiative was designed as a response to statements by leaders of the LDS Church that it does not oppose civil unions or other measures aimed at moving LGBT people toward equality under the law. The LDS Church had urged Mormons to do all they could to support passage of Prop 8, and donated staff time and other resources to efforts to pass the amendment.

The Common Ground Initiative includes measures designed to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment and housing, provide benefits for State of Utah employees and their adult designees, provide inheritance rights and other protections to adults who enter into a declaration of joint support, and repeal part of an amendment to the state constitution that prohibits civil unions.

No, equality is not a partisan issue, it's a civil rights issue and most of all, a human rights' issue.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Good information!

It is a civil liberties isssue. I still struggle very much with the reality that some people in this country are not equal to others.

It makes absolutely no sense to me, and I do not understand how it is allowed to continue.

 

[Goofyluver]

This was posted yesterday at HRC:



No, equality is not a partisan issue, it's a civil rights issue and most of all, a human rights' issue.

Thanks. Good info.

Unfortunately, some in this country see the fight for equality in the LGBTQ community as a partisan issue.

And I agree with DVC~OKW~96. It's beyond my realm of reasoning why the denial of civil liberties is acceptable in regards to the gay community. Although I see several reasons why this discrimination is allowed to continue.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

No, equality is not a partisan issue, it's a civil rights issue and most of all, a human rights' issue.

No, it's not a partisan issue for some of us. I'm a life-long Republican. The way I see it, marriage equality means less government, which used to be a conservative ideal, right?

 

[ChrizJen]

I would like to share my story. OUR story. The story of my family…
It’s a story I’ve shared here before on various threads, but I feel it bears repeating here.

Mostly, it’s just your typical, run of the mill story of two people who fell in love and created a life together. We did what most people madly in love do. We made a commitment to one another and a promise to always be there for each other. It wasn’t recognized by the state, but we knew that in God’s eyes and in the eyes of those around us, it was as real as it could be. And we said that, for the time being, that was enough. We’d wait for the rest.

Well, that was 10 years ago. And over the course of these ten years, we’ve seen amendments made to constitutions in our state and many other states to erase the dream of our union being recognized one day. Over the course of these ten years, we’ve also done what many couples do. We’ve pursued parenthood. After many painful failed attempts at conceiving a child, we decided to turn to Foster/Adoption through the state.

We contacted an agency and inquired about what we would need to do to become licensed. We were told that due to a law that had just passed, it was necessary for our case worker to ask us about our sexual orientation. Prior to this law passing, it was more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” sort of policy. We were more than willing to disclose to our worker that we were lesbians. We weren’t trying to hide it. We knew that it might make things a little bit trickier, but we were in this thing together. We were then told that we would both have to take all of the classes, both have the psych evaluations, and the background checks, just like any married couple. Fine with us, all of it. We were willing to do whatever it took. Then they came back and said that even though our homestudy would be written as a “couple” seeking foster/adoptive placements, only one of us would be allowed by the state to become licensed. Our worker explained that if we were a married couple, we would be licensed together at the end of the classes. But since we’re not married, we would just be looked upon as two single people living under the same roof.

So then we had the task of deciding which of us would be the actual “parent”, and which of us would just go through the motions. We based our decision on several factors, but ultimately we decided that Jen would get the license.

We currently have our first foster placement. Do you know how difficult it is to have a foster child in your home, give her all of the love in your heart, feed her, clothe her, rock her to sleep at night, kiss away her boo boo’s, and have her call you “Mama”, and then be told that you’re not allowed at any of the court hearings, support team meetings, or any of the proceedings regarding her well being? I love that baby girl so much my heart hurts. But I’m not her licensed foster mother. I’m just another person who happens to live in the same house with her. If things proceeded with the case, and we were able to move towards adoption, I wouldn’t be a part of that either. I’d just have to sit on the sidelines. All because of a little piece of paper that some voters thought Jen and I don’t deserve to have. All because our state does not (and will not) recognize our union.

Many people speak of the rights that are denied a same sex couple when it comes to marriage. And those are all legitimate issues. We face the issues of hospital visitation in the event of an emergency. We face the scary reality that if (God forbid) something should happen to one of us, the other could stand to lose everything we’ve worked so hard to build. We face the many, many hardships that all same sex couples face daily in regards to denial of equal marriage rights.

But we face many of the same issues all over again when it comes to our family. If (again, God forbid) something were to happen to Jen, our foster daughter would be taken back into state custody and placed into another foster home. I’m not licensed, so she couldn’t stay with me. If our foster daughter needed to be hospitalized for some reason, I could be denied visitation with her.

I know this is a super long post, and I’m sorry. But consider this my contribution in support of equal marriage rights. It’s WAY more than what we do in our bedrooms. It’s about love and it’s about real people who live, and breathe, and work, and play, and laugh and cry. And we just want to be able to do that as a family. Just like anyone else.

-Christal

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

I honestly thought that, Mrs. Toad. Less government, but we have intrusive legislation that does seem to be supported by those very folks who claim to want less government. Guess it might depend upon what the "less" is focused on?

I was reading the thread on the holocaust and there are some very uncomfortable parallels to the power behind Nazi Germany and the legislation and laws of today here in this country that oppress and diminish the gay community. I am comparing the philosophy, not the acts of the power, be clear on that.

People who support the country, pay their taxes, contribute to society in many gainful ways, seemingly a part of society, yet are turned on by that very society that benefits from their contributions, when it comes to sharing all the rights and benefits of the majority.

Make no mistake, again I am not comparing the heinous acts committed under Nazi reign to the oppression that exists today in this country, rather the governmental thinking that lead to those acts.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Never, ever apologize for sharing your story!

It is a true life experience of the damage the inequality is doing to you, your partner and your precious foster child.

Another aspect that puts a face on the reality of hate based laws that promote intolerance.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I would like to share my story. OUR story. The story of my family…
It’s a story I’ve shared here before on various threads, but I feel it bears repeating here.

Mostly, it’s just your typical, run of the mill story of two people who fell in love and created a life together. We did what most people madly in love do. We made a commitment to one another and a promise to always be there for each other. It wasn’t recognized by the state, but we knew that in God’s eyes and in the eyes of those around us, it was as real as it could be. And we said that, for the time being, that was enough. We’d wait for the rest.

Well, that was 10 years ago. And over the course of these ten years, we’ve seen amendments made to constitutions in our state and many other states to erase the dream of our union being recognized one day. Over the course of these ten years, we’ve also done what many couples do. We’ve pursued parenthood. After many painful failed attempts at conceiving a child, we decided to turn to Foster/Adoption through the state.

We contacted an agency and inquired about what we would need to do to become licensed. We were told that due to a law that had just passed, it was necessary for our case worker to ask us about our sexual orientation. Prior to this law passing, it was more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” sort of policy. We were more than willing to disclose to our worker that we were lesbians. We weren’t trying to hide it. We knew that it might make things a little bit trickier, but we were in this thing together. We were then told that we would both have to take all of the classes, both have the psych evaluations, and the background checks, just like any married couple. Fine with us, all of it. We were willing to do whatever it took. Then they came back and said that even though our homestudy would be written as a “couple” seeking foster/adoptive placements, only one of us would be allowed by the state to become licensed. Our worker explained that if we were a married couple, we would be licensed together at the end of the classes. But since we’re not married, we would just be looked upon as two single people living under the same roof.

So then we had the task of deciding which of us would be the actual “parent”, and which of us would just go through the motions. We based our decision on several factors, but ultimately we decided that Jen would get the license.

We currently have our first foster placement. Do you know how difficult it is to have a foster child in your home, give her all of the love in your heart, feed her, clothe her, rock her to sleep at night, kiss away her boo boo’s, and have her call you “Mama”, and then be told that you’re not allowed at any of the court hearings, support team meetings, or any of the proceedings regarding her well being? I love that baby girl so much my heart hurts. But I’m not her licensed foster mother. I’m just another person who happens to live in the same house with her. If things proceeded with the case, and we were able to move towards adoption, I wouldn’t be a part of that either. I’d just have to sit on the sidelines. All because of a little piece of paper that some voters thought Jen and I don’t deserve to have. All because our state does not (and will not) recognize our union.

Many people speak of the rights that are denied a same sex couple when it comes to marriage. And those are all legitimate issues. We face the issues of hospital visitation in the event of an emergency. We face the scary reality that if (God forbid) something should happen to one of us, the other could stand to lose everything we’ve worked so hard to build. We face the many, many hardships that all same sex couples face daily in regards to denial of equal marriage rights.

But we face many of the same issues all over again when it comes to our family. If (again, God forbid) something were to happen to Jen, our foster daughter would be taken back into state custody and placed into another foster home. I’m not licensed, so she couldn’t stay with me. If our foster daughter needed to be hospitalized for some reason, I could be denied visitation with her.

I know this is a super long post, and I’m sorry. But consider this my contribution in support of equal marriage rights. It’s WAY more than what we do in our bedrooms. It’s about love and it’s about real people who live, and breathe, and work, and play, and laugh and cry. And we just want to be able to do that as a family. Just like anyone else.

-Christal

I myself have been known to tell a long story, in fact, I always have
to tell a story before I can tell the one I was originally gonna tell.

Thanks for tellin' yours, Christal, it appears you have some additional
child rearin' problems that heterosexual couples don't experience.

This is a great source of info regarding children of gays and lesbians:

In 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board of Directors commissioned the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, the Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, the Committee on Adolescence, the Committee on State Government Affairs, the Committee on Federal Government Affairs, and the Section on Adoption and Foster Care to develop an analysis examining the effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership statutes and amendments on the legal, financial, and psychosocial health and well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children

 

[Kath2003]

I of course support same-sex marriage but I come from a country where I don't NEED to support it - same-sex couples are afforded the same legal right to marry as heterosexual couples.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I wanna post this in case someone doesn't have time to research this:

It is important to note at the outset the distinction in the types of marriages that exist in the United States and throughout the world, namely civil marriage and religious marriage. In addition, there are significant legal distinctions among civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership, although these terms are often incorrectly used interchangeably.

Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage
Civil marriage is a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners.

Depending on the faith, religious marriage is considered to be a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage. Civil government entities in the United States have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy.

In the United States, couples may choose to marry in a civil ceremony, a religious ceremony, or both. In the United States, state governments grant priests, rabbis, clerics, ministers, and other clergy presiding over a religious marriage the authority of the state to endorse the marriage license and establish a civil marriage. Certain public officials in the United States, such as judges, justices of the peace, and others, also have the authority to establish civil marriage.

By contrast, in many European countries and elsewhere in the world, religious officials have no authority to establish civil marriages. If couples in these countries wish to participate in the marriage ceremony of a faith tradition, religious ceremonies are often held once a civil ceremony has taken place. However, a marriage is considered legal only by means of issuance and endorsement of a marriage license by civil authorities.

Source

Or the youtube version:
Gay Marriage vs Civil Unions

There's a difference.

 

[dcentity2000]

I of course support same-sex marriage but I come from a country where I don't NEED to support it - same-sex couples are afforded the same legal right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Snap



Rich::

 

[Goofyluver]

I would like to share my story. OUR story. The story of my family…
It’s a story I’ve shared here before on various threads, but I feel it bears repeating here.

Mostly, it’s just your typical, run of the mill story of two people who fell in love and created a life together. We did what most people madly in love do. We made a commitment to one another and a promise to always be there for each other. It wasn’t recognized by the state, but we knew that in God’s eyes and in the eyes of those around us, it was as real as it could be. And we said that, for the time being, that was enough. We’d wait for the rest.

Well, that was 10 years ago. And over the course of these ten years, we’ve seen amendments made to constitutions in our state and many other states to erase the dream of our union being recognized one day. Over the course of these ten years, we’ve also done what many couples do. We’ve pursued parenthood. After many painful failed attempts at conceiving a child, we decided to turn to Foster/Adoption through the state.

We contacted an agency and inquired about what we would need to do to become licensed. We were told that due to a law that had just passed, it was necessary for our case worker to ask us about our sexual orientation. Prior to this law passing, it was more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” sort of policy. We were more than willing to disclose to our worker that we were lesbians. We weren’t trying to hide it. We knew that it might make things a little bit trickier, but we were in this thing together. We were then told that we would both have to take all of the classes, both have the psych evaluations, and the background checks, just like any married couple. Fine with us, all of it. We were willing to do whatever it took. Then they came back and said that even though our homestudy would be written as a “couple” seeking foster/adoptive placements, only one of us would be allowed by the state to become licensed. Our worker explained that if we were a married couple, we would be licensed together at the end of the classes. But since we’re not married, we would just be looked upon as two single people living under the same roof.

So then we had the task of deciding which of us would be the actual “parent”, and which of us would just go through the motions. We based our decision on several factors, but ultimately we decided that Jen would get the license.

We currently have our first foster placement. Do you know how difficult it is to have a foster child in your home, give her all of the love in your heart, feed her, clothe her, rock her to sleep at night, kiss away her boo boo’s, and have her call you “Mama”, and then be told that you’re not allowed at any of the court hearings, support team meetings, or any of the proceedings regarding her well being? I love that baby girl so much my heart hurts. But I’m not her licensed foster mother. I’m just another person who happens to live in the same house with her. If things proceeded with the case, and we were able to move towards adoption, I wouldn’t be a part of that either. I’d just have to sit on the sidelines. All because of a little piece of paper that some voters thought Jen and I don’t deserve to have. All because our state does not (and will not) recognize our union.

Many people speak of the rights that are denied a same sex couple when it comes to marriage. And those are all legitimate issues. We face the issues of hospital visitation in the event of an emergency. We face the scary reality that if (God forbid) something should happen to one of us, the other could stand to lose everything we’ve worked so hard to build. We face the many, many hardships that all same sex couples face daily in regards to denial of equal marriage rights.

But we face many of the same issues all over again when it comes to our family. If (again, God forbid) something were to happen to Jen, our foster daughter would be taken back into state custody and placed into another foster home. I’m not licensed, so she couldn’t stay with me. If our foster daughter needed to be hospitalized for some reason, I could be denied visitation with her.

I know this is a super long post, and I’m sorry. But consider this my contribution in support of equal marriage rights. It’s WAY more than what we do in our bedrooms. It’s about love and it’s about real people who live, and breathe, and work, and play, and laugh and cry. And we just want to be able to do that as a family. Just like anyone else.

-Christal

Thanks for sharing your story, darlin'.

Never apologize for tellin' the truth and allowing others to gain insight into the everyday lives and experiences of families who deal with these issues on a daily basis.

honey. Thanks for sharin'.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

ChrizJen, I don't remember reading your story before, and it brought tears to my eyes.

It is an absolute travesty that children like yours aren't able to enjoy the benefits of having two legally recognized parents, and brings me back to my other comment about marriage equality fitting in with conservative values. Let's protect the children of same-sex couples by allowing their parents to marry and adopt or foster jointly. A legal recognition of the emotional relationship a child has with both his parents is absolutely in the child's best interests.

 

[Uncle Remus]

And from The Miami Herald Feb 6, 2009:

As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with doctors and anyone who would listen to let her into the woman's hospital room.

Eight anguishing hours passed before Langbehn would be allowed into Jackson Memorial Hospital's Ryder Trauma Center. By then, she could only say her final farewell as a priest performed the last rites on 39-year-old Lisa Marie Pond.

Jackson staffers advised Langbehn that she could not see Pond earlier because the hospital's visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses -- not partners. In Florida, same-sex marriages or partnerships are not recognized. On Friday, two years after her partner's death, Langbehn and her attorneys were in federal court, claiming emotional distress and negligence in a suit they filed last June.

Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients' visitors.

Following a hearing lasting more than an hour Friday, U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan said he would try to decide soon whether the case could proceed to trial. He gave no specific date.

The suit is winding its way through federal court only months after voters approved the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The statewide amendment garnered more than 62 percent of voters -- surpassing the 60 percent threshold required for ratification.

Supporters of Florida's Amendment 2 -- mostly conservatives and Christian groups -- argued it was needed to protect families and the traditional institution of marriage by promoting homes with a mom and a dad.

Opponents argued that gay and straight, unmarried Floridians risked losing domestic partner benefits, such as health insurance, hospital visitation rights and the ability to make end-of-life decisions.

At Friday's hearing, Langbehn's lawyers argued the case should be tried because Langbehn had the proper documentation to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and was not consulted about Pond's condition for hours despite seeking answers every 20 minutes.

''This is not just about same-sex couples,'' said attorney Donald Hayden, who is also representing the Langbehn family. ``This is about protecting the legal access that a parent has to see a child, or an essential loved ones right to be aware of what is going on with their loved one.''

Attorneys for Jackson argued that hospital staff did not purposely try to harm the family or cause emotional stress.

''There's just not enough there to say that these doctors intentionally tried to cause distress,'' attorney Andrew Boese told the judge.

Pond's medical problems began in February 2007 when she, Langbehn and their three adopted children were aboard a cruise ship docked in Miami. The Washington state couple and their children were on vacation.

Pond suddenly collapsed from a heart attack and was rushed to the trauma center.

Though Langbehn had documents declaring her Pond's legal guardian and giving her the medical ''power of attorney,'' Jackson officials refused to recognize her or the kids as family.

Langbehn, who still lives in Washington, was not available for comment Friday, but in a 2007 interview with The Miami Herald she said, ``Any family should have the right to hold their loved one's hand in the last moments of life, and we were denied that.''

Langbehn's supporters are livid about the hospital's actions.

''We are here to ensure that families get the respect they deserve at Jackson Memorial Hospital and to prevent Janice's tragedy from happening to anyone else,'' said Beth Littrell, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a national group that fights for the civil rights of gays. ``This family deserves to have its day in court.''

 

[smartestnumber5]

I honestly thought that, Mrs. Toad. Less government, but we have intrusive legislation that does seem to be supported by those very folks who claim to want less government. Guess it might depend upon what the "less" is focused on?

I was reading the thread on the holocaust and there are some very uncomfortable parallels to the power behind Nazi Germany and the legislation and laws of today here in this country that oppress and diminish the gay community. I am comparing the philosophy, not the acts of the power, be clear on that.

People who support the country, pay their taxes, contribute to society in many gainful ways, seemingly a part of society, yet are turned on by that very society that benefits from their contributions, when it comes to sharing all the rights and benefits of the majority.

Make no mistake, again I am not comparing the heinous acts committed under Nazi reign to the oppression that exists today in this country, rather the governmental thinking that lead to those acts.

That's interesting. It's my GF who started the Holocaust thread and we were discussing it a lot yesterday. I actually went searching through our tons of book cases and found a few of the sources I had read for a college course on the Holocaust six years ago. (Wow it's scary what you manage to forget over time!)

But one of the interesting tidbits of info I came across that is mentioned at the Holocaust Museum (I've been there too and have no memory of this. What's wrong with my brain?) was that many of the gay men who were in concentration camps when the Allied forces liberated the camps were not themselves liberated. Some were forced to keep serving the "prison term" they were "serving." Others were retried and convicted again of the crime of homosexuality and sent to actual prisons under the watchful and approving eye of the Allied forces.

It's just amazing. I believe in the Holocaust museum where this fact is mentioned it is pointed out that the legal prohibition on homosexuality was not lifted in Germany until the 1960s. Apparently though it is not mentioned that the same legal prohibition existed in the U.S. until 2003! (In fact, the first time I visited the museum was in 2003, and it may very well have been at a time when gays were still being jailed for sexual conduct in the U.S.)

One of the books I found on the shelf and skimmed through again was called "Preserving Memory" and it was an account of how the Holocaust Museum in D.C. was conceived and executed. There is a lot of talk about the idea of remembering and how choosing to remember some things can also be a way of ignoring or forgetting other things. I think that's a really interesting idea when you think about the exhibit that explains that gays continued to suffer at the hands of the Allied forces and into the 60s in Germany, but it is not mentioned that the U.S. itself was still putting gays in jail for their sexual orientation for the majority of the time the museum existed.

 

[Uncle Remus]

One more time:

Civil Unions Don't Work

 

[ChrizJen]

Thanks for your comments!
Hopefully one day things will be made better for us all.

In all fairness, and for the sake of full disclosure, I should add that there are legal steps that we can take to ensure that we are granted some of the rights that marriage would offer. But the point here is that these same rights and protections that we have to pay attorneys for are all things that married people enjoy automatically. They don't even have to think about it. All they have to do is say, "I do."

 

[Uncle Remus]

I of course support same-sex marriage but I come from a country where I don't NEED to support it - same-sex couples are afforded the same legal right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Snap



Rich::

No son, this is a SNAP:

That's interesting. It's my GF who started the Holocaust thread and we were discussing it a lot yesterday. I actually went searching through our tons of book cases and found a few of the sources I had read for a college course on the Holocaust six years ago. (Wow it's scary what you manage to forget over time!)

But one of the interesting tidbits of info I came across that is mentioned at the Holocaust Museum (I've been there too and have no memory of this. What's wrong with my brain?) was that many of the gay men who were in concentration camps when the Allied forces liberated the camps were not themselves liberated. Some were forced to keep serving the "prison term" they were "serving." Others were retried and convicted again of the crime of homosexuality and sent to actual prisons under the watchful and approving eye of the Allied forces.

It's just amazing. I believe in the Holocaust museum where this fact is mentioned it is pointed out that the legal prohibition on homosexuality was not lifted in Germany until the 1960s. Apparently though it is not mentioned that the same legal prohibition existed in the U.S. until 2003! (In fact, the first time I visited the museum was in 2003, and it may very well have been at a time when gays were still being jailed for sexual conduct in the U.S.)

One of the books I found on the shelf and skimmed through again was called "Preserving Memory" and it was an account of how the Holocaust Museum in D.C. was conceived and executed. There is a lot of talk about the idea of remembering and how choosing to remember some things can also be a way of ignoring or forgetting other things. I think that's a really interesting idea when you think about the exhibit that explains that gays continued to suffer at the hands of the Allied forces and into the 60s in Germany, but it is not mentioned that the U.S. itself was still putting gays in jail for their sexual orientation for the majority of the time the museum existed.

Good to see ya, Rich.

And smartestnumber.