Leonard Link

A Brief Remembrance of Steven W. Siegel

This morning I attended the funeral service for Steven W. Siegel, a friend of more than thirty years whose premature death at 65 is much to be deplored.  Although I thought the remembrances spoken at the service evoked this wonderful man very well, I wanted to add a few comments to help memorialize him in cyberspace.

When I first met Steve after joining Congregation Beth Simchat Torah (as it was then named), NYC's gay synagogue, in 1977, he was also a relatively new member but I believe had already claimed the synagogue's newsletter as his domain.  And this was fairly typical of Steve, who was a devoted historian and archivist.  He pushed the 92nd Street Y to develop an appropriately-organized archive of its sound recordings of musical and other cultural events, winning himself a job as an Archivist at a time when few such institutions employed people in such a capacity, and ultimately becoming Director of the Y's library as well, until that organization made the lamentable decision in 2009 to disperse its collection and convert the library space into offices, precipitating his early partial retirement.  (Steve continued to consult with the Y on its archives and to undertake private research jobs as a historian-genealogist until he became too ill to continue.)

When my Cornell classmate Mark Schwartz and I resolved after attending our 5th reunion event in 1979 to start an LGBT alumni association, Steve was an early recruit, being already very active in Cornell alumni activities, and played a major role in getting the Cornell University Gay and Lesbian Alumni Association (CUGALA) off the ground and sustaining it through difficult times. (He was a member of the class of 1968 in the College of Engineering.) 

Those were also the days when Steve was present and participating in the creation of the emerging field of Jewish genealogy, one of his lifetime passions.  Up to his death, he had served continuously as a board member of the Jewish Genealogical Society in New York City, had been a co-editor of its newsletter (after having co-edited an independent Jewish genealogy publication, Toledot, for several years), and had also served as the organization's president.  He was also very active in the NY archivist community.

Steve was very active in Cornell alumni affairs in addition to CUGALA - whose main coordinator he was for several decades.  He was active on the board of Cornell University Hillel and the Cornell Alumni Association, participated in interviewing high school students in the NYC metro area who were interested in learning about Cornell, was a president of his Cornell class, and frequently attended Cornell events in New York and Ithaca. 

But all this organizational involvement, while typical of Steve, who was a persistent and valued volunteer, hardly begins to say everything about him. 

For almost 30 years, he was partnered as soulmates with Rob Selden, who passed away a few years ago.  They were absolutely devoted to each other, despite maintaining separate residences.  At almost any public event you could imagine, they were together, traveling, going to organizational events, and were frequent patrons of opera, symphony concerts, vocal recitals and theater.  (My most frequent surprise encounters with them were in the intermissions at NYC Opera at Lincoln Center.)  Rob was sometimes a difficult person to get along with, being very argumentative, while Steve, although also a perfectionist, was much more accommodating to the quirks of others.  As a result, they worked very well as a couple, complementing each other, and sharing great enthusiasm and curiosity about everything going on.

Steve only confided about his battle with cancer with a relatively small circle of acquaintances he wanted to know what was going on.  I was privileged to be part of that group.  When Cornell University announced that Steve would be honored with a special alumni service award named after former CU President Frank Rhodes in a ceremony in Ithaca, I immediately contacted him about my husband Tim and I going to the ceremony.  As it turned out, we were able to facilitate Steve's last visit to Cornell for the September 16, 2011, event.  Tim rented a car and drove us, which was easier on Steve than taking the Cornell bus.  He put off by a week the start of a new regimen of chemotherapy in order to be able to make this trip, which was exhausting for him but I think very important for his morale. 

Although we continued to exchange email, I last saw Steve when we had dinner on October 22.  I had originally invited him to join me for the NY Philharmonic concert that night, but he had declined because he hoped to be in Ithaca that weekend for an alumni association board meeting.  But in the event he didn't feel well enough to make the trip, so we had dinner before I went to the concert, having previously exchanged my other ticket.  As per his usual request, we had Chinese food, of which Steve was a particular fan!  Although we continued to have email contact until mid-December and were planning another get-together, it was not to be.

I will really miss him, and I think so many people and organizations  he was affecting on a regular basis will miss him.  He was part of the glue holding CUGALA together for many years, and I hope some of the younger alumni who have shown interest will be able to fill that gap, but it will be difficult, given how much his personal energy and diligence meant to the organzation.  Farewell, friend!

A Suggested Paradigm Shift in the Health Care Debate

The current issue (cover date June 9, 2011) of The New Republic includes one of the most important pieces I've read about the issue of health care reform.  It is by Daniel Callahan (President Emeritus of the Hastings Center) and Sherwin Nuland (Retired Clinical Professor of Surgery from Yale University), and is titled "The Quagmire."   Callahan and Nuland succinctly and effectively make the argument that a basic reorientation of philosophy is necessary for U.S. health care if we are not to bankrupt ourselves with increasing health care costs.

As they see it, the essence of the problem is that advances in medical technology (very expensive advances, in terms of cost to patients and government) have produced incremental improvements in survival rates without curing any of the things that eventually kill most of us.  The result is that people are living much longer than they did a few generations ago, but their last few years are imposing backbreaking expenses on themselves, their families, and our broader society, without a significant pay-off in terms of quality of life. 

The ideal would be for modern medicine to allow all of us to live healthy and productive lives for 90+ years and then to die suddenly without any prolonged or painful illneses.  But that's not what our system has produced.  Instead, we are keeping people alive to die slowly from various degenerative conditions, and a vastly disproportionate amount of the money we are spending on health care is concentrated on those last few years of life.  For example, with rare exceptions of a few kinds of cancer that can be cured or put into permanent remission if caught very early (for example, some kinds of prostate cancer and breast cancer), most of the time people diagnosed with cancer will die from it, frequently after lengthy, painful and exhausting courses of expensive chemotherapy.  Nobody has found a cure for heart attack or stroke, just various forms of preventive care and palliative care.  Alzheimer's remains largely a mystery, but our health care system, if paid to do it, can keep people with Alzheimers alive for years after their active mental life has essentially ceased.

What Callahan and Nuland propose is a reorientation of our health care system to focus most of the expenditures where they can do the most good - child health, nutrition, sanitation, prevention (vaccinations, for example), and to help people to the extent we can do so to maintain a productive life through their working years, but that we should pretty much abandon high tech efforts to extend life into extreme and painful old age.  This means rationing of health care.  It isn't exactly "death panels" but some people will scream that slogan as soon as they read it.  (Ironically, these will be largely the same people who are demanding massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as a partial solution to government deficits, and who opposed the public option as part of health care reform, so that private insurance companies -- which in a very real sense do ration care and operate the virtual equivalent of death panels by denying treatment coverage -- can continue to take their cut, unnecessarily inflating overall health care costs.  People like Paul Ryan, for example....)

Anyway, agree or disagree either in broad outline or as to particular details, I think one must read and think about what Callahan and Nuland, men with excellent credentials and knowledge to bring to this policy debate, have to say.  I found much of it convincing. 

What to Call the New Year?

The first decade of this century presented a bit of a challenge in terms of deciding how to refer to any given year.  What seems to have emerged as a sort of consensus was to use the word "thousand" in the name.  Thus, "Two thousand, Two thousand one, Two thousand two..."  Perhaps part of this is due to the success of the old sci-fi movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey, since everybody pronounced that title as "Two thousand one, a space odyssey."  So using the word "thousand" became ingrained in the general consciousness.  In addition, omitting the thousand and using 20th century naming conventions could lead to a word with ambiguous meanings.  Thus, saying "twenty-one" suggests 21, not 2001, and "twenty-oh-one" sounds odd.

But once we're past 2009, saying "twenty ten" sounds just find. 

Note that we didn't have this problem with the last century's first decade.  "Nineteen-one" does not produce any ambiguity, although I'm not certain whether the convention during that decade was to say "nineteen one" or "nineteen-oh-one." 

In any event, I vote for "twenty-ten" as the name of the New Year.... and a Happy New Year to all readers of this blog.

What Ever Happened to Elementary Rules of Journalism at the NY Times?

I just have to wonder.  When I was a high-schooler writing for and eventually editing my school newspaper, we were taught that the questions "who, what, when, where and how" should be addressed in the lead paragraph of a news story.  Well, maybe in the first few paragraphs?

But in this morning's NY Times, on page A32 of the Late Edition, there is an article titled "Former Prosecutor Appointed to Investigate Corruption in Crane Operator's Union."  The story was judged by editors to merit 19 paragraphs.  The name of the former prosecutor appointed to investigate corruption in the crane operator's union is a well-kept secret until paragraph 12, buried in the fourth column of type out of 6. 

Copy Desk?  Asleep at the switch?  The identity of the man appointed to undertake this investigation, thought significant enough to merit a headline, is only incidental to the story and thus need not be revealed until more than half way through the story?  C'mon, guys.  Journalism 101.

What the doctors think about the health care reform bill

My brother Dave posted this on facebook.  I don't know where it originates, but it seems genuine enough:

The American Medical Association debated their response to Obama's new health care package.

The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!", while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"...

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter".

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those softy Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

Missing in Action at the "Meet Market"

I hvaen't posted anything for a few days since I've been otherwise occupied.  As co-chair of the Faculty Appointments Committee for NY Law School, I have been attending the Annual Faculty Recruitment Conference sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools in Washington, D.C.  Aspiring law teachers and recruitment teams from law schools take over a big Washington convention hotel for a few days to facilitate an efficient process of interviewing large numbers of people in a short period of time.

As part of the NYLS team, I participated in interviews beginning early Thursday afternoon, continuing into the evening, all day yesterday, and continuing this morning until midday.  Then I hope onto the Amtrak ACELA back to NYC, in time -- I hope -- to attend the opening of the New York City Opera's revivial of Hugo Weisgal's opera "Esther."  So I will be back to substantive posting soon.

I haven't posted anything about the election and LGBT rights.  On Tuesday we were 2 for 3. 

There has been a lot of whining and moaning about the loss in Maine, where a "voter's veto" repealed the same-sex marriage law passed earlier this year.  There are a few things to remember about this vote.  Unfortunate as it was, it was NOT the enactment of a constitutional amendment or a statute banning same-sex marriage.  It has no substantive effect going forward.  All it does is to repeal the marriage law passed earlier this year.  It does not preclude the legislature from revisiting the issue, either with an interim civil union measure or another attempt at marriage.  There is a history of this in Maine.  It took several tries to get a law banning sexual orientation discrimination solidly on the books, but after several legislative actions and a few referenda, we finally got the law.  So although it was discouraging that the measure was repealed, the margin of the voting gives room for hope.  (After all, just a few short years ago national polling tended to show public opposition to same-sex marriage at 2/3 or higher, but the margin of defeat on this measure was substantially lower than that, although not much different form the measure by with California Prop 8 passed last year.

On the other hand, we had wins in Washington State -- where the public voted affirmatively to ratify the legislature's action earlier this year in expanding the domestic partnership law to be the legal equivalent of the DP laws in neighboring Oregon and California.  So registered domestic partners in Washington State will have almost all of the same legal rights and responsibilities under state law that married couples have.  The rate of approval was not as high as one would have liked, but it was high enough to be decisive - no recounts needed.  And, in Kalamazoo, Michigan, voters overwhelming supported the action by local legislators earlier this year to pass a law banning discrimination, so we can count that one a major victory, albeit solely local.

So it was not all gloom and doom on election day.  Could we have won Maine with a stronger campaign?  Perhaps, but it was no certainty, and indeed a win would have been historic, since I don't think there is anywhere in the world where a general public ballot has affirmatively enacted same-sex marriage.  It is a defeat, but determination to go back and win it is the appropriate response, not recriminations and nitpicking over this or that commercial.

A Letter to Tim Kaine - Why I Won't Join the Presidential Partners

By an interesting quirk of timing, supporters of the DNC and the Obama campaign are receiving in the mail just now solicitations to join "President Obama's Presidential Partners."  The package includes a membership certificate, and copy of the president's inaugural address in a handsome folder with the image of the White House gold-stamped on the cover, and a form letter from DNC Chair Tim Kaine urging participation for a minimum donation of $1,000 to join at the "Community Organizer" level.

What lousy timing on their part, in light of the past few weeks.  The package also includes a stamped return envelope, which I decided to use to send Mr. Kaine a letter explaining why, as a gay Democrat, I'm not going to join the Presidential Partners at this time.  And, I figured, why not make it an "open letter" on my blog, so here is the text of what I wrote:

Dear Chairman Kaine:

Your invitation to join the Presidential Partners donor group came at the worst possible time, not just because expendable cash for this purpose is tight just now, but because I am one of the many gay Democrats who is suffering quite a bit of disillusionment about the President and our Congressional leaders just now, and thus disinclined to make this financial commitment to a party that takes my support for granted and breaks its promises to me.

I decided to support Barack Obama’s campaign at an early point during the Democratic primaries. I read both of his books, looked at the positions on his website, and I decided he was my candidate for a whole host of reasons. I signed up to make a small monthly donation automatically charged to my credit card, and I also sent occasional larger donations by check. I talked up his candidacy among family and friends, and voted for him in the New York primary as well as the general election. One of the important reasons for my support was his promise that equality for LGBT Americans would be an important goal of his administration.

I noted with excitement that the full range of promises was reiterated on the White House website on day one, then noticed uneasily that they were subsequently withdrawn and rephrased to be less specific. I noted with some alarm that President Obama invited Rick Perry, a famous homophobe, to speak at his inauguration. I noted with more alarm the retention of Secretary Gates - a man not committed in any way to end the embarrassing and discriminatory "don’t ask don’t tell"policy - was retained in charge of the Defense Department. I watched and waited as there was no action from the White House on repealing DOMA, repealing DADT, or even making a minimal start on dealing with other aspects of inequality embedded in federal law.

But, as a close observer of LGBT law (I write a monthly newsletter and a blog, and am co-author of a law school casebook on Sexuality Law), the most alarming thing was to read the Justice Department’s filing with the Supreme Court on the Pietrangelo cert. petition, and the filing with the district court in California in the Smelt DOMA challenge. Despite the President’s strongly worded promises to repeal DADT and DOMA, the Justice Department argued, in rather insulting language, that both policies are rational and meet the test of constitutionality. They also argue that sexual orientation discrimination merits only the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, and articulate specious and insulting justifications for the two laws.

A fuzzily worded Gay Pride Month proclamation, and yesterday’s "memorandum" tossing a few scraps to same-sex partners of federal employees, do little to counter the conclusion that, contrary to his campaign promises, President Obama places a low priority on addressing his promises to the LGBT community. It is clear that he has decided to expend as little political capital as possible on LGBT issues, and that the most we will get from this administration is likely to be lip service. The President talks a good game, but seems disinclined to exert any leadership on these issues in a concrete sense.

Since that is the case, I hardly think it is a worthwhile investment on my part to direct whatever funds I have for political activity to the DNC at this time. It makes more sense for me to support individual candidates as recommended by the LGBT Victory Fund, and local candidates who are supporting gay rights in New York. I married my same-sex partner in Connecticut in March (a marriage the President opposes, by the way, because of his religious beliefs, which I find rather galling, since I didn’t vote for him to enact his religious beliefs), and to me the more immediate issue is doing what I can to see that our marriage is recognized by local, state and federal governments. Since the President does not seem serious about repealing DOMA, and is defending it in court with specious arguments, I can’t in good conscience respond with financial support at this time.

Sincerely,

Arthur S. Leonard

Former Vice President Richard Cheney and Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, the blogs were full of reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney had endorsed same-sex marriage during remarks at a press conference, and then the story was repeated in the newspapers today.  I looked at a video clip of his comments and I saw the same sort of dodging and shading that has always characterized his remarks on the issue.  After the press conference, he did a CNN interview, and here's what he had to say on the follow-up:

VAN SUSTEREN: You bring up sort of the social issues, and of course, today, I couldn't help but notice you were asked the question about -- of gay marriage, and you said that it wasn't -- that you weren't in favor, at least -- as I understand your answer, in favor of federal statute, but it should be state by state by state. Did that mean you're in favor of gay marriage within state by state?

D. CHENEY: Well, if that's what the people of the state want to do, that's fine by me. I mean, I don't, I ...

VAN SUSTEREN: How would you vote on it?

D. CHENEY: I made the announcement at the outset that I believe equal rights means equal rights for everybody and that people ought to be able to enter into any kind of relationship they want, but that the states ought to retain the ability to regulate and determine what's marriage and what the legal status of those unions are. It should not be a federal issue.

VAN SUSTEREN: President Obama is in favor of civil unions, not in favor of gay marriage. Are you saying you're in favor -- if you were, you know, hitting the button in the voting booth, that you would be for your state having gay marriage, or would be you be ...

D. CHENEY: Well, I look at it, obviously, in personal terms. And my daughter, Mary, is in a -- you know, I think a very commendable relationship with somebody she's known for a long time, and I'm strongly supportive of that.

-------

OK, so what's his position?  He's supportive of his daughter's relationship.  He's made that point many times.  And he thinks the states, not the federal government, should decide who can get married.  Nothing new there.   And, if a state decided to let same-sex couples marry, "that's fine with me."

But when he's pushed by an interviewer to answer the question directly, if he was in the voting booth and same-sex marriage was on the ballot, how would he vote.... he refuses a direct answer.  He just says he's "strongly supportive" of his daughter's relationship.

Where does that leave us?  Does Dick Cheney support allowing same-sex couples to marry?  Some might ask, who cares?  He's out of office, his party was defeated across the board in 2008, what he has to say about this makes no difference in terms of what the law is....

But it is important because Dick Cheney is part of a deeply conservative wing of the Republican Party that continues to retain some influence in the public debate.  He ducks and weaves on the issue, but the media seizes upon his somewhat ambiguous comments and turns him into a same-sex marriage advocate.  I'm not really convinced, until he gives a direct answer to the question how he would vote.  If he were a California citizen last fall, how would he have voted on Proposition 8?  That's the question he should be pushed to answer.  And, what does he think about Colorado's enactment of the Designated Beneficiary Act, or Maine's enactment of the Same-Sex Marriage Act, or Nevada's enactment this weekend over the governor's veto of the Domestic Partnership  Act?  Somebody ask this man the questions directly and see if we can get some answers.

President Obama's Gay Pride Proclamation

On June 1, President Barack Obama issued a Proclamation for LGBT Pride Month, June 2009.  The last such proclamation was issued by President Bill Clinton during his final year in office, in 2000.  No formal endorsement for Gay Pride emanated from the Bush White House.  Anybody surprised about that, please raise your hand....

At any rate, the full text of the President's Proclamation can be found on the White House website, in the Briefing Room section, under Presidential Actions, in the Proclamation list for June 1.  (You've got to scroll down to find the Proclamation list, as it is not the first thing under Presidential Actions.  After all, Executive Orders take priority over Proclamations....)

The important thing, for those trying to track the Obama Administration's handling of LGBT priorities, is the paragraph devoted to substantive policy, which states:

"My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives.  At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world.  Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans.  These measures including enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.  We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States."

One suspects that this paragraph was not intended to be exhaustive, but one glaring omission from my viewpoint is the Uniting American Families Act, which is intended to provide recognition under US immigration laws to same-sex couples.  Another is the repeal of DOMA, which was promised during the 2008 campaign as well.  And, of course, the President seems stuck on civil unions when the world is rapidly moving on to same-sex marriage.  It's past time for him to rethink his position on this, now that Dick Cheney has come out for same-sex marriage.  Let it not be said that conservative Republicans are out front of President Obama on this issue - although it will be said and has been said on gay blogs over the past day and I hope the message is getting back to the White House that patience is wearing thin on this front.

As to the other issues mentioned in the Proclamation, I wish somebody could get him to read Nathaniel Frank's book on gays in the military, because I think it would help him to see that taking action now rather than waiting for Congress to do something, probably next year, would be the better course for our national security.  How many Arabic-fluent gay military personnel and seasoned combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan with vital skills have to be dismissed before we get over this folly? 

As to the other legislative issues, I believe an inclusive version of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is scheduled for introduction in Congress this month, and it would be nice to see the Administration put some real advocacy behind it.  Public opinion polls show overwhelming support for banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, so this should be a popular cause for the President to back with more than a press release. We could use the "bully pulpit" on this one.  And it's time for him to show some enthusiasm about the rapid unfolding of legal recognition for same-sex partners, as such enthusiasm is a necessary prerequisite to redeeming his promise to repeal DOMA.

But after all this sniping, I have to say that it is a wonderful feeling that we now have a President who thinks it is a good idea to issue a Gay Pride Month Proclamation.  It's been 8 years since we've had such a President in the White House, and it signals an important change of heart in our national government.  Whenever musing about the failure of the Obama Administration to move decisively forward on LGBT rights, it is well to think comparatively about where our agenda stood under the prior administration.  At least our current president's rhetoric is in the correct place on our issues much of the time, which is a start.

Who Will Teach the Commencement Speaker?

Today I attended the Vassar College commencement, to observe the graduation of my niece, Caroline (Cari) Adele Leonard.  The commencement speaker was Dr. Matthew C. Spitzer, a medical doctor and president of the U.S. chapter of Doctors Without Borders, an organization that rushes health care assistance to trouble spots around the world. 

Dr. Spitzer is an impressive individual, with an interesting resume, an extraordinary record of service, and important experiences to share.  But as a commencement speaker today he was a real flop.  I imagine that it would be the rare medical doctor who would be an ideal public speaker, since their education is devoted to other things than public speaking.  But if somebody from a profession that does not normally include lots of public speaking is recruited to give a commencement address, somebody from the inviting institution would do well to offer some guidance and assistance to avoid the kind of scene we had today.

The commencement was taking place outdoors.  Despite a dodgy weather prediction, it ended up being sunny and hot.  The commencement speaker was placed well along in the ceremony, after the seniors, administrators and faculty had paraded in and there had already been 4 speeches.  People were hot and parched.  And Dr. Spitzer droned on for more than half an hour with a speech that seemed like a collection of anecdotes and truisms without any overall structure or theme.  Many of the individual vignettes were interesting, and I'm sure there were points he could make that would be valuable for the graduating class.  But the speech he gave was hard to follow, not well enough organized to be effective, and full of trivial side-excursions to try the patience of the listeners.  Among the people with whom I spoke afterward, almost everyone was asking "what was the point of that?"

This is not to detract from Dr. Spitzer's accomplishments, or the valuable work that his organization does.  I have been a donor for many years and intend to continue being a donor.  But anybody who invited Spitzer to speak at a graduation ceremony should exercise some common sense and help him out with putting together a well-structured speech of appropriate length.