A World War II love story...with a twist.  Yank! tells the story of Stu, an 18-year-old draftee who's never felt "that way" about women, and his best buddy Mitch.  Stu ends up becoming a photographer for Yank, the popular weekly magazine published during the war "for the GIs, by the GIs".  There's the other members of their squad -- the Professor, the glasses-wearing smart guy from Bahston; Tennessee, the redneck hick; Rotelli, the paisan with the thick accent; and Czechowski, the good-natured Brooklyn "polack".  There's also Artie, the Yank correspondent who takes Stu under his gay wing and teaches him how to get by in This Man's Army - and Navy, and Marine Corps - without getting caught for being a pervert; MacArthur's secretary, a tough lesbian looking to protect "her boys"; and the men of the steno pool - Scarlett, Melanie, and India - who are the queens of Camp Bliss.

How was it?  First off, the music is wonderful; bright and original, with beautiful harmonies and lyrics that can deliver a laugh or a sigh without calling attention to themselves.  The book takes a long time to get itself going; this could be because there's so much ground to cover in the show's first act, but there are some spots in the book that could stand some changing.  The show's framing device - a young man in San Francisco finds Stu's war journal in a second-hand store and starts reading to us from it (both the young man and Stu are played by the same actor) - makes sense, except that while we see the journal from time to time (and I won't be spoiling anything by saying that a recurring line is "Destroy that thing") we never see Stu writing in it.  We only see Stu, in a spotlight, looking out at the audience as he recites various entries.  Also, the show starts and ends with a beautiful ballad, "Remembering You", sung by Mitch.  The problem?  When it's sung at the start, we don't know who Mitch is; he's just a good-looking guy in a uniform.  We don't know why he would be singing the song, or what the song means to any of the characters.  In short, there's no reason for that song in that place.  Musically, the show gets going with the second song, the title tune, which gets us through the first weeks of basic training, and points out how uncomfortable the shy, scared Stu is with the enforced comradery of Army life - and lets us  glimpse his burgeoning sense of self.

The ensemble is a solid group, especially the squad members - who look like the "one of every kind" squads you'd see in every WWII war movie.  Bobby Steggert (Stu) and Jeffry Denman (Artie; also the show's choreographer) capture the essences of their characters - the shy boy unsure of his sexuality, and the experienced man who shows him the ropes - and show to us the kind of courage it took to be true to what you were.  In so doing, they both show a form of courage no less powerful than the kind needed to risk one's life on the front lines.  Denman is especially good in showing that Artie's no angel, and may be a tad too campy, but is probably the best mentor Stu will ever have.  Special credit goes to Nancy Anderson, who plays all the female roles in the show - mothers, girl friends, band singers, servicewomen - and gives each character her own personality.

The show's creators, Joseph and David Zellnik - two gay brothers - have stated in interviews that Yank! is both an homage to the patriotic entertainments of the WWII period and a tribute to the thousands of gay men and lesbians who served with honor during that campaign - and who managed to find each other in spite of impossible odds.  In both of these, I think they succeed.  But I have to say, while I liked Yank! a lot, I didn't love it - and I really wanted to love it.

My recommendations:  First, when they make the cast album (and I'm sure they will, the score is that good), buy it.  If you get the chance to see the show - especially if you can get tickets at a discount - by all means see it.  It may have its imperfections, but it's entertaining, touching, and relates to today's military without beating you over the head with its message.  You'll have a good time at Yank!


Yank! is playing until March 21st at the Theatre at St. Peter's Church, located in the Citicorp Center, Lexington Avenue at 54th Street.  Subway:  E, V, or 6 train to the 53rd Street/Lexington Avenue station (the E connects to Penn Station).  For more information, follow this link to the York Theatre Company.

What did you do in the snow yesterday?  Use the snowblower to get it out of the driveway and off the sidewalk, for one thing.  My guess is that we got eight inches of fluffy white stuff in terms of accumulation.  By the time Bill-the-Honeybear and I got outside to start clearing the snow, the sun came out and it stopped snowing.  Still, what with cleaning off the cars, sweeping the front porch and steps, and pounding snow off the trees (the ones that were bending under the weight, that is) it took about 90 minutes before we finished.

And then we took the train to New York.  We had theatre tickets for Friday night and didn't see a really good reason not to use them.  But we also didn't want to drive into NYC, for love or money.  So we did what we usually do - take the train - but a little differently this time.  Instead of taking the train from Somerville station, which is only a short walk from our house, we drove to New Brunswick and took the train from there.

I hear you asking "WHY?"  Two reasons, really.  First, financial:  Train fares have gone up, and a round trip from Somerville to New York costs $23 (up until recently, it cost $18.25).  Plus the Somerville ticket office, from where one can use credit cards to purchase tickets, was unstaffed yesterday (as in no one, nada, zip, buy your tickets on the train, cash only).  New Brunswick station has both staffers and ticket vending machines.  Second, schedule:  Trains from Somerville don't go directly to NYC - you have to change trains in Newark (same thing going back).  And there are more trains going into NYC from New Brunswick on any given day than there are from Somerville.

So we drive into New Brunswick - which, with the weather causing lots of closings, took only about 20 minutes of careful driving - park in the municipal deck, walk across the street to the station, buy our tickets, and hop on board.  An hour later, we're in Penn Station; 20 minutes after that and the subway has dropped us off near the theatre, and near where we ended up eating.

Goodburger lives up to its name.  Nicely done individual burgers, a variety of toppings, just-crisp-enough french fries - it's comfort food heaven, at least for me.  No mass-production or microwaving here; you can watch each burger get grilled from a nice pink patty to a juicy brown outside/pink inside delight.  And they're not humongo-burgers, either; they're just right, in every way.

Oh, the show we went to see?  A new off-Broadway musical, playing thru the end of March, called Yank! (yes, the exclamation point is part of the title).  More about that in my next post.

"How'm I doin'?"  That was the catchphrase used by Ed Koch back when he was Da Mayor of New Yawk.  I'm resurrecting it now, because of a post I made waaaaaaaaay back in November 2008, on what President Obama might reasonably be expected to do in return for the massive support he got from the gay and lesbian communities during the election.

In other words, it's report card time.  Here we go:

1.  Lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people.  This was started at the end of President Bush's second term in office, but left uncompleted.  It took nearly a year for President Obama to clear the final hurdles -- mainly, inaction on the part of the Department of Homeland Security -- but as of January 2010, people with HIV would no longer be turned back on arrival in this country.  This ban was a relic of the Jesse Helms era; with his death, lifting the ban was so politically inert even a staunch Republican could do it.  But...it really shouldn't have taken a full year to get this task completed.  It's one of those things where a memo from the President was all that was needed.  So I'll give Obama an A-minus/B-plus on this one.

2.  Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
3.  Repeal the military ban on open gay and lesbian servicemembers ("don't ask, don't tell" or DADT).  I'm taking these two at once, because there's substantial movement on both of them right now.

ENDA would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of conditions (like race, sex, religion, and national origin) that employers cannot use to refuse employment or terminate employment.  The importance of ENDA is not just that it would bar workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians; it would also bar workplace discrimination against transgendered people.  This latter is what is known as "an inclusive ENDA", and has been a major cause for the transgender community and their supporters.  As of right now, hearings in both the House and the Senate have been held, but the bill has not been voted out of committee.

DADT was the "compromise" accepted by President Clinton in an attempt to allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the armed forces.  The bill's biggest problem was that, in exchange for serving, gay and lesbian service members were forced to continue to closet themselves -- in effect, living a lie and keeping secrets from their comrades in arms.

The bill was also supposed to reduce the number of gay men and lesbians discharged from the service due to their homosexuality.  Unfortunately, from the beginning, the numbers of those discharged because of their sexuality increased, and remained high up until the September 11 attacks.  While this might not pose a problem in terms of combat readiness in peacetime, the country soon found itself fighting two wars -- in Iraq and in Afghanistan -- where not only numbers mattered, but also where having skilled Arabic-language speakers and translators also mattered.  Under DADT, the armed forces were losing such skilled linguists at precisely the time their services were needed most.

Senate hearings on ending the policy are currently being held, while House hearings have not currently been scheduled.  Growing public opinion in favor of allowing open gay men and lesbians serve in the military is being joined by opinions from both retired and active military officers, including the current head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the current Secretary of Defense.  It is considered extremely likely that DADT will be repealed as part of the next appropriations bill for the Defense Department.

So what grade does the President get on these?  He has voiced his support for both the passage of ENDA and the repeal of DADT.  His Defense Secretary and his Joint Chiefs head have been allowed to give testimony in favor of DADT repeal.  While his steps have not been bold ones, he has at least made them.  And at least both measures are on the Congressional radar.  I'll give Obama a C on this one.

4.  Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  All through his campaign, Obama said that while he personally favored civil unions, it should be left to the states to decide on legalizing same-sex marriage.  It's a wimpy response, to be sure, but not one that he is alone in making.  And while it's all well and good -- after all, defining what makes a legal marriage has always been a state power, not a federal one -- the big problem with DOMA is that it does define marriage on the federal level, as far as federal benefits are concerned.

I'm sure you've all heard the simplistic argument:  With a same-sex couple of 20 years' standing, should one partner die, the other is barred from Social Security survivor benefits, not to mention other federal pension benefits and tax breaks.  With an opposite-sex couple of one month's standing, in the same situation there is no question of the surviving partner receiving full benefits.

The logic is almost elegantly simple:  If your state says you are legally married, the federal government -- which does not have the power to define marriage -- has no right to say you are not.

This is, alas, not a priority item at any level right now.  Yet it's probably the most important item of them all -- repealing a gross federal overreach into the area of defining legal marriage, and assuring that all legally-married couples are treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Since there's no visible movement on this -- not even the hint of a rumor of a suggestion -- I have to give Obama an F on this one.

No Cash to Political Parties? It's About Time! The following was published in the March 2010 issue of Challenge.

On page 10 of this issue of Challenge you will find a press release from Garden State Equality (GSE) announcing a new policy for the state's largest GLBT rights organization. No longer, says GSE leader Steven Goldstein, will the group donate money to a political party. No longer, says Goldstein, will a party take money and volunteer effort from the GLBT community only to withhold full equality from us.

This is an encouraging sign that GSE, along with many GLBT activists in New Jersey, has realized that the struggle for equality is too valuable to be left to the mercies of any single political party.

I applaud Garden State Equality's decision.

It should have come much sooner than this.

From the start, GSE and New Jersey's other GLBT rights organizations should have kept themselves from appearing to be seen as extensions of political parties. Instead, they have made it appear that they are volunteer employment agencies for those parties, financial backers for the parties' activities, and deliverers of a guaranteed bloc of votes come election day. They became, for all intents and purposes, part of a political "machine", with all that implies.

There is nothing wrong with supporting a candidate who is on board with changes you want to see made. There is nothing wrong with opposing and removing candidates who oppose those changes. That is, after all, what representative democracy is all about: the election of that candidate who best represents your views.

There is nothing wrong with GLBT voters banding together to support one party's goals. Both the Stonewall Democrats and the Log Cabin Republicans have done admirable work in supporting and, in some cases, influencing the directions their respective parties have taken.

But for any organization dedicated to achieving civil rights, it is close to suicidal to appear as though the group is allied with one party to the exclusion of other parties. Doing so hurts the cause. It fosters the tendency to ignore the existence of supportive legislators from other parties, or to belittle their efforts. Of course, no party stays in power forever; once a "favored" party is out of power, we are left in a form of political exile until the balance of power shifts again.

The acceptance by New Jersey's GLBT leaders, no matter how reluctant, of the "lame-duck" strategy proposed by the state's Democrats proved to be a disastrous choice, as we saw to our dismay. By going along with this strategy, the state's GLBT rights organizations bound themselves to the fortunes of one party. This combined with the reluctant or abandoned efforts of those organizations to continue educational outreach to legislators in both parties on the need to ensure our rights. The result was enmity from state legislators and our defeat in the Senate this past January.

The leaders of New Jersey's GLBT rights organizations forgot that, in the struggle for equality under the law, justice delayed is justice denied. That struggle should never be adjusted to accommodate any party or candidate. These leaders failed in their task of making sure such delay did not happen. They forgot their responsibility to the members of their organizations.

For too long now, too many of the leaders of state GLBT rights groups have been practically self-appointed. They have been non-responsible to their members, who have given freely and generously of their time, their talents, and their money. Those members have trusted in their leaders to make the hard decisions in order to achieve such goals as marriage equality, inclusive employment non-discrimination, immigration reform, and the ability to serve openly in the military. Now, too many of those members feel betrayed by the leaders they most trusted. And too many of those leaders have gone scurrying for cover, deflecting attention away from close scrutiny of their leadership failures.

Too many questions remain unanswered. Why was the "lame duck" legislative strategy proposed? Why did the Democratic party in New Jersey think they could ask this of the GLBT communities? Whose decision was it to acquiesce to the Democrats' request? Whose decision was it to throw GLBT resources into the coffers of any party? In short, what was the reasoning behind all of these decisions?

These questions should never have had to be asked. But now, it is important that all of New Jersey's GLBT rights groups, from the largest to the smallest, answer these questions openly and honestly.

The time to stand by in muffled silence, to continue to buy into the myth that "they are the experts, they know what they're doing", is gone. I encourage everyone with a stake in a future of equality for New Jersey's GLBT community to let their voices be heard at the New Jersey Lesbian & Gay Coalition meeting on March 6^th. (See article, page 9.)

A Brief History of Marriage Equality in New Jersey. The following was printed in the February 2010 issue of Challenge.

It all began with a lawsuit. Lewis v. Harris was argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court in February 2006. Seven same-sex couples sued the state for the right to enter into civil marriages. In October 2006, the Court handed down two decisions. The first, which was a unanimous decision, stated that equal protection had to be granted to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The second, decided on a 4-3 vote, left the manner in which such protection was to be granted up to the Legislature.

The Legislature created a law granting civil unions to same-sex couples in December 2006. The law also set up an appointed civil union review commission, charged with examining the law to see if it was working. In 2008, the commission presented a report unanimously stating that civil unions had failed to provide equal protection to same-sex couples, and recommending the Legislature legalize civil marriages for same-sex couples.

Legislation to grant the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples (the Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act) was introduced in 2008 by Loretta Weinberg and Raymond Lesniak in the Senate and Reed Gusciora and Valeria Vainieri Huttle in the Assembly. The major lobbying groups involved were Garden State Equality (GSE) in favor of the bill and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the New Jersey Catholic Conference (the lobbying arm of the state's Catholic bishops) against the bill.

Reportedly, the Democratic Party in New Jersey decided not to take action on the bill during the Presidential election year of 2008 in order not to have marriage equality be a campaign issue. In early 2009 - an election year for both the governorship and the entire Assembly - Governor Jon Corzine, during a speech at a GSE fundraising dinner, stated publicly that he would sign a marriage equality bill if it came to his desk.

There is some dispute over another statement made privately by Corzine to the state's GLBT leadership. Corzine is said to have reached an agreement with the GLBT leadership where they would not push for marriage equality until after the November elections, so as not to make it an issue when the campaign's focus was to be on the economy. In return, the marriage equality bill would be passed during the "lame duck" session of the Legislature. In an article in the Star-Ledger, Steven Goldstein, head of GSE, was quoted as saying that by 2009, the GLBT leadership "had no choice," and that "[t]he party never gave us a choice" in terms of waiting until the lame-duck session for the bill to be considered.

The marriage equality bill initially faced four challenges: a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee; a vote in the Assembly Judiciary Committee; a vote of the full Senate; and a vote in the full Assembly. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote came first, on December 7^th; the bill passed on a 7-6 vote, with Republican Senator Bill Baroni voting for the bill and Democratic Senators Paul Sarlo and John Girgenti voting against it.

The next vote was expected to be in the full Senate, on December 10^th. However, the bill's sponsors requested and got a postponement of that vote until after the Assembly Judiciary Committee could meet and vote on it. The Speaker of the Assembly, Joseph Roberts Jr., decided that the testimony heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee was sufficient for the Assembly to decide on the bill and so would not schedule a hearing of the Assembly Committee. However, Roberts had stated before that the full Assembly would not vote on the bill until after the full Senate had voted on it.

The Senate vote was scheduled for January 7^th,with various Senators speaking for and against the bill on the Senate floor. When the time came, 14 Senators voted in favor (13 Democrats and 1 Republican), 20 Senators voted against (14 Republicans and 6 Democrats), two Republican Senators were absent, and three Democratic Senators did not cast a vote.

At the post-vote event, held at the Trenton Marriott, Steven Goldstein announced that GSE, assisted by a team from Lambda Legal, would be taking the fight for marriage equality back to the state Supreme Court. The argument will be that the Court's mandate from 2006 - to provide equal protection for same-sex and opposite-sex couples - had not been met by the civil union law; that Senators on both sides of the question have stated that the current civil union law does not work; and that the only way to meet the Court's mandate is by granting same-sex couples the right to obtain civil marriages.

There have also been several groups being formed to remove Senators who voted against marriage equality. Of the two most active groups to date, one is targeting Senators Sean Kean and Jennifer Beck, while the other is targeting the nine Democratic Senators who either voted 'no' or abstained from voting.

Well, I'm back. It seems like one's blog is linked to one's e-mail address at the time the blog was created. So if you decide to change your e-mail address, Blogger (that is, Google) does not know to allow you to access your blog from your new e-mail address. It's been a very low priority item for me until now, when there's things I want to say and, especially, that I want to get out in front of the blogosphere at large.

The Best Damn Newsletter in New Jersey is my phrase for Challenge, the newsletter of the Gay Activist Alliance in Morris County (GAAMC). I've been the editor for the last five years now, and I'm very proud of the work I do. Lately, part of the work I've been doing has been about the struggle for marriage equality in New Jersey, and GLBT politics in New Jersey in general. I'll be cross-posting articles I write for Challenge here at Toad Hall. You have been warned.