Category Archives: opinion

ROUND HOLE SQUARE PEG 4—- International LGBTQ Photography Competition

ROUND HOLE SQUARE PEG 4—- International LGBTQ Photography Competition

A Biennial International Survey of the Queer Photographic Gaze

Masculine, feminine, non-binary, gender-fluid – all perspectives tell our story.

ROUND HOLE SQUARE PEG 4 is a juried photography exhibition and competition conceived to discover a new LGBTQ visual culture for the 21st century. A special focus is on transgender awareness, people of color and underrepresented minorities in this biennial exhibition.

The exhibition is the only queer presentation at any of the major art fairs. Round Hole Square Peg first debuted at Photo LA in 2013. Curated by director Phil Tarley and associate curator Ruben Esparza, the exhibition is judged by a panel of five prominent jurors, and the director of Photo LA. As Stonewall 50 passes, LGBTQ persecution intensifies in Trump’s America. Art exhibitions enable LGBTQ photographers to voice their activism, proclaim their visibility and create a new wave of queer art and soul. Having a strong presence in front of a large audience helps the LGBTQ community defy and resist negative stereotypes.

This year, after debuting at Photo LA, 2020 January 30—February 2, 2020, through the support of the City of West Hollywood, the exhibition will move to the city’s gallery for a four-week run. Opening night in West Hollywood will feature a celebrity-driven, live art auction to benefit The Trevor Project: the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to LGBTQ youth and the ONE Archives Foundation: a vital resource for showcasing the trailblazing history and rich culture of LGBTQ communities through exhibitions that pull from the largest collection of LGBTQ archival materials in the world. The West Hollywood exhibition will run from February 8 – March 4, 2020.

Ruben Esparza, associate curator, said Phil Tarley organized the show in 2013, to dialog with the Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles’ exhibition of the erotic work of Bob Mizer and Tom of Finland. Round Hole Square Peg is meant to tackle the paradigm of 21st LGBT visibility—to contrast the white male-centric presentation of the Mizer-Tom of Finland show. RHPS’s exhibition manifesto tackles the demanded visibility of female, people of color, and transgender LGBT identifiers.

Participating artist Stuart Sandford feels that his work is innately queer. “The queerness of my work, other than simply being produced by a self-identifying gay man, comes from the intention to question the prevailing norm,” he says. “The taboo, the (gay) male gaze on the (gay) male body in an unbridled manner, something once lost and now reclaimed. But will this, or any art, help save us in 2020? No, of course not, the artist’s role is to ask questions and provoke debate.”

RHSP Competition Judge, Paul Bridgewater, shares “Queer identity is not simply a sexual one. Queer artists have a perspective and an experience to contribute to society that is wholly our own and it’s a rich and worldly one. Having been marginalized and alienated for so long has helped us develop a unique view of self-worth, self-image, spirituality, and companionship. We can look at the world and mirror it back to the human condition with insight, style, glamour, and fun.”

“The world is changing for LGBTQ people,” Tarley says “In 2019, dark Trumpian clouds are forming and threatening to roll back hard-won civil rights. The religious right is ramping up its homophobic and transphobic attacks. By showing positive, sincere images that reflect our true queer lives, we can stay visible in a world that wants us to disappear,” said Tarley, who is also a fellow of the American Film Institute, a member of the Photographic Arts Council, and writes a critical photography blog for Fabrik Magazine.

Check out some of the photography for the 2020 Exhibition, or photos from the Past Exhibitions. Visit the website to get entry details, read more about the exhibition and the history of LGBTQ photography.


“NEVER AGAIN IS NOW”— Antisemitism Today


Antisemitism Today

Amos Lassen

It is impossible for any thinking person not to realize that once again antisemitism has raised its ugly head both in the United States and in Europe. I am sure that other places are feeling it as well. “Never Again Is Now” shows us the present day influences of Right, Left and religious influences on rising antisemitism. Evelyn Markus, a Dutch lesbian Jew and co-founder of the non-profit “Network on Antisemitism”, came to the US with her partner Rosa Zeegers because they found pink star graffiti on their door at home. They were eager to get away from the present day rise of antisemitism. That escape became a journey during which Markus met with “globally renowned experts, Parliamentarians, religious leaders, authors, activists, playwrights and political commentators including Ben Shapiro, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and devout Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed.”

 Even here in Boston, where peace between Bostonians reigns supreme, we have felt the new rise antisemitism. I usually find out early about new films of interest to the LGBT and/or Jewish communities but I had no idea that this was coming and it is quite powerful. We see

archival films of Hitler and the war combined with films of life in Europe today. The term “Never Again” became mouthed and heard all over the world after the deaths of six millions Jews 1941-45 during the Holocaust. In my own naivete, like other Jews and those affected by the mass murders, I thought we had heard the last of “Never Again”.  We now know we were wrong.

We see that France has experienced a new wave of extremely hateful behaviors and antisemitism. There have been beatings, places where Jews congregate have been bombed Surprisingly enough, the Netherlands has also witnessed antisemitism and there has been a great deal of violence from the large numbers of Muslims that are now in Europe but there have also been problems from regular citizens who have allowed themselves to become caught up in today’s wave of hatred. There are far right politicians in Europe who are anti-Semites.

I have studied antisemitism for a good part of my life and I have never become hardened by it. Each time I hear about it, I become extremely upset and often become enraged. Watching “Never Again is Now” once again made me realize how much I am affected by racism and hatred for hatred’s sake especially when the Jews are targeted even though they have made such important and powerful contributions to the way we live today. Hannah Arendt stated, “The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” What me must add is that once ones tastes what it is to be evil, it is not difficult to remain that way.

Markus chroncles her personal journey to becoming heroic in the fight against the rise of antisemitism in the world.  Her parents were Holocaust survivors in Holland but because of her own personal experiences with antisemitism, she left Europe to come to America at a time when European Jews were being beaten, stabbed and even murdered and where it became necessary to have military protection for Jewish schools and synagogues. On a personal level, I attended three different sessions on security for the High Holidays in Boston and I have remained shocked since 9/11 that we mist have police both inside and outside of our synagogues during significant holiday celebrations.

 Yes, we have had antisemitic incidents and we can only wonder if history is repeating itself. Markus interviewed global thought leaders for her documentary that lets us see the situation as it is and presents a warning and a call to action.

There are those who feel that the creation of the State of Israel has led to a rise of hatred against the Jews. Markus interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Muslim born in Somalia who had left for Europe and ultimately the United States and asked him this very question to which he replied that “anti-Semitic sentiment lies buried in some people, with Israel serving merely as an excuse to demonstrate.” He reminds us that not  everything was good for the Jews before the creation of Israel. It seems to be human nature to need scapegoats and we are well-aware that these scapegoats have come from “minority groups like the Armenians in Turkey, the Rohinga in Myanmar, the Romani in Europe, the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the Hutus against the Tutsis in Rwanda,” many against the Jews and this is just to name a few.

Markus shares that she is not only Jewish but gay and she and her partner are often dismayed that often demonstrations against Jews (“not Zionists, necessarily, not Israelis, but diaspora Jews”) have caused the Netherlands to become unrecognizable because of demonstrations by Muslims who yell “Kill the Jews wherever they live.” Even non-Jews are marked for assassination if they are critical of Islam. But we also learn that most Muslims who live in Europe and the U.S. conduct regular businesses and are not political, and that a few share that violent demonstrators are not in the spirit of Islam and are caused by political Islamists.

Anti-Nazi Dietrich Bonhoeffer said “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil” thus letting us know that Markus wants us to speak out and up against evil. People are doing so but without much result in Europe. In the U.S. Jews can still walk with kipot on heads and draped in a prayer shawl yet the present political administration does not think that neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville are “fine people.” 

While we are called to action with this documentary, we are not informed about what we can do to end the divisions in our society that grow and grow since free speech allows for that. I do not think abolishing free speech is an answer but I am sure that there exists an answer that we must find together. By watching this incredible movie, you just might get an idea as to what you can do. Even if you do not, you certainly become more aware.

Stonewall 50 Manifesto: Gay Men Are Not Queers! by John Lauritsen

Stonewall 50 Manifesto: Gay Men Are Not Queers!

John Lauritsen 30 June 2019

Fifty years ago a meeting changed my life. It was in early July 1969, shortly after Stonewall. I don’t remember the exact date or where it was held, only that a heated debate was taking place over whether the newly forming group should ally with the antiwar movement. Since I’d been involved in the movement against the Vietnam war since 1965, I joined the radicals, and we prevailed. The new group would be named the Gay Liberation Front, deliberately echoing the National Liberation Front of Vietnam.

Before this I had read the few positive books on “homosexuality” and had attended homophile meetings in Boston and New York City. But GLF was a quantum leap forward. No more apologies or pleading for toleration. GLF was ready to fight militantly for our freedom, and had the political savvy from the antiwar movement to do it. For the next few months every spare moment of mine was spent on GLF. I passed out leaflets, helped build demonstrations, and worked on the dances. I was top editor, under Managing Editor Rosalyn Bramms, of the first Gay Liberation newspaper, GLF’s Come Out!.

We in GLF experienced intense camaraderie. But there was also conflict. Some people, deliberately or not, acted in ways that were harmful, and in 1971 GLF died from its own contradictions. I went on to other groups, and became known as a gay historian.

The years after Stonewall promised a new freedom. Gay publications sprang up: Gay in New York City, Gay Liberator in Detroit, Body Politic in Toronto, Gay Sunshine in California, and Gay Information: A Journal of Gay Studies in Australia. Millions of men and women accepted their homoerotic desires.

Then things began to get ugly. A commercial sex industry promoted drug abuse and distorted and self-hating forms of sex. Gay men began to get sick. The calamity that was named “AIDS” led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of gay men and the demise of Gay Liberation.

Now, fifty years from Stonewall, our main goal has been accomplished, getting rid of sodomy statutes. There have been many strides forward, especially a burgeoning of gay scholarship. In 2017 I spoke at an international conference, Outing The Past, in Liverpool, talking on underground gay scholarship. There I found that gay history is alive and well.

There have also been steps backward. None of the mainstream “LGBTQ” organizations have any of the spirit and vision of Gay Liberation. The goal of sexual freedom for all has been supplanted by identity politics, as in the metastasizing alphabetism: “LBGTQ…”. Rather than defending and celebrating a kind of love, the LGBTQ… movement focuses on kinds of persons, preferably marginal. The vaunted “inclusiveness” of the alphabetism (and “rainbow coalition” and “queer”) is deceitful: a movement for everybody is a movement for nobody. Gay men are being erased. Gay history courses and seminars, which flourished in the seventies, have been supplanted by “gender studies”.

The worst step backward is the use of the word “queer”. Here we have a word

that was and still is one of the most hateful in the American language. “Dirty queer” is what gay men heard as they were being beaten to death. Although “queer theorists” talk of “reclaiming” the word, this is dishonest, since it never belonged to us in the first place; it was always the word of our enemies. As Larry Kramer said in an interview, calling gay men queers “is like calling blacks ‘niggers’.”

In GLF we felt that “gay” — whose hidden meaning was still unknown to most people — should be the word to be used by others, as well as ourselves. It was our word and it was positive, not clinical like “homosexual”, nor timid like “homophile”, nor hateful like “faggot” or “queer”.

Although queer, like “faggot”, is understood as referring to men, some women were the earliest to use and advocate it, including Eve Kosovsky Sedgwick and Judith Butler. In addition to its inherent hatefulness, queer is unacceptable because of its core, dictionary meanings: queer, odd, spurious, worthless, deviant. Gay men are not worthless. Sex between males is not deviant or spurious.

I am not alone in opposing queer. Most gay men also strongly object to it. There is a section in my personal website, with critiques of queer by John Rechy, Wayne R. Dynes, Stephen O. Murray, Arthur Evans, and myself.

Since queer is so blatantly wrong, I’m amazed that any gay men have acquiesced in it. I can only attribute their acquiescence to self-hatred, low self- esteem, or a misguided conformity to perceived political correctness.

Queer was covertly foisted on us by our worst enemies, aided and abetted by muddle-headed academics. We should oppose its use in every way possible.

The evidence of history and anthropology confirms that human males are powerfully attracted to each other, emotionally and erotically. Male love is an ordinary and healthy part of the human sexual repertoire. The core of the problem: A powerful human drive is put down by a powerful theological taboo, a taboo shared by all three Abrahamic religions. Our task is to destroy that taboo.

My good friend, the late L. Craig Schoonmaker (founder of the pre-Stonewall group, Homosexuals Intransigent) said: “I always understood that the most important thing for gay men was to understand and assert their manhood, which was always under attack.”

The time has come for gay men to reclaim our movement — to restore and honor our heritage — to fight against our continued oppression.


John Lauritsen (AB Harvard 1963) was one of the earliest members of the New York Gay Liberation Front GLF) and later the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), the Gay Academic Union, the New York Scholarship Committee, and the Columbia University Seminar on Homosexualities. He has fifteen books to his credit. The first (co-authored with David Thorstad) was The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864-1935), published in 1974. He is proprietor of Pagan Press, founded in 1982 to publish books for gay men.

Gay Liberation section: <> contact: [email protected]

“How a Gay Boy Became a Straight Man: My Story” by David Robinson— Garbage

Robinson, David. “How a Gay Boy Became a Straight Man: My Story”. Independently Published, 2018.


Amos Lassen

I received a tip today that Amazon was still carrying anti-LGBT books and this was one if the titles. I immediately went to Amazon to see this book and found this notice:

“Effective July 2, 2018, this book has been rewritten, updated, and re-titled. Its new title is Orientation and Choice: One Man’s Sexual Journey.” However the remarks and reviews were still on the book’s Amazon page and the notice that the book is available exclusively on Amazon as is this plea: “Please buy the new title. Type the new title in the Search box. Thank you.”

Author-lawyer David Robinson, is now 66-years-old and admits that he had homosexual urges from ages 14 to 16. At 16 he had to choose: date girls or boys. He chose girls. It wasn’t always easy for him. Eventually he married a woman and is very happy with her.  Then we have these questions: “Did his sexual orientation change from gay to straight? Or did he deceive himself? Does it matter? Is it possible to satisfy homosexual urges with heterosexual behavior? What, exactly, is the difference between homosexual and heterosexual urge?” This book is  (as he says) and a look inside his sexual mind every step of the way from age 14 (1967) to today. He says, “that religion had nothing to do with it.” He tells about his college years (B.A. 1974, George Washington University) and law school years (J.D. 1977, Washington University in St. Louis). And then he says, “many people say sexual orientation isn’t a “choice.” But everyone must make a choice: date a male or female. David discusses laws banning conversion therapy. He tells about an impromptu conversion therapy session he experienced in a gym locker room when he was 15 or 16. Did the therapy work? Read his book and decide for yourself. It is a lively, true memoir. If you want to contact David, his email address is [email protected].” And he dares to give his email.

David A. Robinson is a lawyer in Connecticut. He was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1953. and practiced law in Springfield from 1977 to 2008. He was a general practitioner from 1977 to 1991. From 1992 to 2008, he practiced exclusively in the area of labor and employment law, usually on the side of the employer. In 2002 he became a resident of Connecticut. In 2006 he was admitted to the Connecticut Bar. He gradually closed his Massachusetts law practice and now practices in Connecticut. He was an adjunct professor at Western New England University (WNEU) School of Law from 1979 to 1982, WNEU School of Business from 2001-2005, and the University of New Haven (UNH) School of Business from 2005 to 2014. At UNH he taught business law, business ethics, human resource management, criminal justice procedure, and law of communications. He lives in the New Haven area with his wife. 

Amazon tells authors, “The Author Page is your chance to tell readers something interesting about yourself.” Here are two interesting–not very interesting, but somewhat interesting–things about David. He is one of a small handful of people, and probably the youngest, alive today who attended a Beatles concert, an Elvis Presley concert, and a Frank Sinatra concert. A number of people alive today saw one or two of those legendary musical acts. David saw all three. He attended a Beatles concert in Boston in 1966, when he was 13 years old; a Sinatra concert in Washington, D.C. (actually, Landover, Maryland, a D.C. suburb) in 1974; and an Elvis concert in Springfield, Mass., in 1976. The other interesting thing about David is he is probably the youngest lawyer alive today whose name appears as counsel in published appellate cases (e.g., N.E.2d, F.3d) in each of five decades: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.

All that is fine but what about his claims? Why did he feel he had to pull his book back, rewrite it and rename it. Let’s hear from his readers:

David Robinson’s views are very much a product of their time. But like many products of their time, they are perishable and have since rotted.”
“When I read the description, I was fully expecting to read about the author’s struggles with homosexual urges throughout his life and his attempts to rid himself of them or deal with them. Instead, the concept is glossed over, downplayed, and not even linked. Spoiler alert, homosexual urges don’t play an active part of his life per the lack of mention in his book. Instead, his book has focused on his views on the LGBT community. Actually, in his young adult and adult lives, he seems to be more afflicted by pornography (Playboy skewing his perception of women to the point of him breaking off relationships with women because they didn’t look a certain way) and his issues relating to the “chase” of women (At one point claiming that he wanted what he couldn’t have and didn’t want once he had). If anything, that whole part of the book felt completely unnecessary, and offensive, to his point about conversion therapy.” Are you able to follow this?

“Going back to that idea of being a product of its time, Robinson’s overall attitude toward the LGBT community is misguided and detestable. “Homosexual urges” are compared to drinking, smoking and overeating and are labelled as “vices.” Though Robinson points out that he doesn’t want to call them “evil” (He “doesn’t know if he would”) but still uses a word that has a negative connotation to it (Since semantics is another theme). At certain points, such as in the first few pages (Accessible through the preview), he repeats the same talking points about homosexuality being linked to HIV/AIDS, religious disparity, unnatural reproduction (Remember, if your mother had a c-section, she had you or that particular child unnaturally) which support conversion therapy. The problem is his understanding of conversion therapy in the book, stating that an impromptu encounter with, presumably (Because he doesn’t remember), an authority figure reminds him of where his erect penis is supposed to go. Even though this doesn’t even compare actual conversion therapy as a pseudoscientific construct, Robinson uses it as a means to qualify him to discuss conversion therapy. His argument falls apart, though, when he highlights more so about the language of the law and that it would prevent teaching heteronormative sex education. Jumping between that, comparing homosexuality to vices such as smoking (And then linking his smoking habit to homosexual urges), and his idea that he’s pointing out some conspiracy (Though not directly labelled as such), we have a dangerous ignorance on LGBT people and their struggles regarding different sexualities (And gender identity. Though, this book doesn’t discuss transgender people or gender identity).”

“As for the writing itself, it leaves much to be desired and Robinson spends much time talking about a combination of his love life in his early years, his stance on conversion therapy, and the fact that this is just his opinion and that he’s not an expert, but it’s how he sees it. And that’s what ends up diluting the writing with him reminding his readers that he isn’t qualified to talk about this short of anecdotal evidence and pulling hairs on semantics. He tries to reduce people to semantics, to simplify an argument that is as complicated as it is, and then plays it off as it just being an opinion or that he isn’t qualified, while speaking with authority on the subject. There’s a reason why conversion therapy support tends to be anecdotal, because there is nothing to back it up. Bonus points for giving an unattributed quote to an unnamed therapist who practices as well as citing old law dictionaries to define sexual intercourse (Which gets debunked by simple search on Merriam-Webster’s Online dictionary which provides two definitions so as to include non-vaginal intercourse), or using Freud, who has been debunked and is viewed as somewhat laughable in terms of sexual development, to back his notion up. Other than that, it’s really easy to get lost in the constant use of short sentences and clarification. It’s a written conversation with someone obsessed with his own voice.

Robinson’s sexuality then and now is something I am personally not concerned with, nor should his readers be concerned with. It’s his dangerous ignorance that is echoed by many others who support conversion therapy that is problematic. Though he doesn’t directly say it (And he doesn’t have to), his claims strongly suggest a fear of the LGBT community and attitudes related to that. The fear is unfounded as the community wants to create an environment for his hypothetical 15 year old boy to actually think about what is going on in his head rather than being told point blank about what is “natural” and him thinking there is something dearly wrong with him. After submitting this review, I’ll have put the book on my shelf to collect dust, maybe pulling it off the shelf to remind me that this way of thinking is still prevalent, and that ignorance isn’t necessarily religious bound either (Though it’s evoked a couple times in Robinson’s book). Personally, if you’re someone struggling with your sexuality, this book is not the answer. It’s not even a response. There are much better resources to peruse and people to hear from.”

“ Robinson claims he experienced same-gender attraction as a teenager and is now in a happy opposite-gender marriage. That’s great, I am, too! It’s called being bisexual – and by some accounts half the LGBTQ+ community identifies as bi. Robinson has every right to share his own personal experiences. However, he is a lawyer – not a psychologist, therapist or social worker – and when he starts to use his experience to justify conversion “therapy” of any kind he is advocating hate. This book is showing up in my queer and queer-friendly friends’ Facebook feeds as a sponsored post. I shudder to think that it may be appearing in gay and questioning teens feeds, too. Any message to queer youth that is not based in acceptance, pride and love is morally and ethically wrong.”

“This book makes it seem as if a person’s orientation or attraction can be changed, however, it is a matter of semantics. One would think a lawyer would know better. This is a man who is attracted to men and women and has found happiness in a monogamous marriage with a woman. How is that any different than a person attracted to many women who makes a monogamous commitment to one woman? Yes- that is a choice in behavior- not attraction or orientation. If someone is attracted to men and women, one could certainly choose to identify as straight rather than bisexual. But this entire book is clickbait for the idea that it is a choice over attraction and orientation (identity). If this man had only experienced attraction to men and had zero attraction to his wife, would he have lived a full happy life with his choices?”

“Possibly the most ridiculous and harmful thing I’ve ever read.”

“The title of the book and synopsis on its Facebook ad leads you to believe that this book might have some psychosocial/research backing in its nature/nurture claims, but it does not. It’s merely a first person account. I find the title and the marketing misleading.”

“This author has no credentials to write about this subject other than his own anecdotal evidence of denying his own sexuality. This is irresponsible and dangerous garbage. Amazon should not be giving this author a platform to spread his bigotry. Conversion therapy is nothing short of mental and emotional abuse against children, and David Robinson is promoting it.”

“Shame on Amazon for selling this book. Shame on David Robinson for continuing this abuse.”

“What a fantastic piece of garbage!”

“…feels less autobiographical and more like propaganda. The author writes as if he was still trying to prove he is a happy heterosexual. Don’t bother.”


“Disgusting that you are selling this bigoted garbage.”

“This is a dangerous book for people that have questions about their sexuality. Furthermore, this is not based in accepted science. Based on the description, the author has to force himself to be intimate with a woman to this day. Imagine if your mate had to force themselves to be intimate with you. It sure would ruin the mood, if you ask me.
I am sad this author has made the decision to not live his best life and will never experience TRUE love.”

“Irresponsible, dishonest garbage. It isn’t worthy of even one star.”

“This is a bunch of trite. How our ‘parts fit together’ is not a measure of anything. The same faulty logic could be used to justify bestiality, cause ‘ hey it fits’, It would fit in a honey dew mellow too David.”
“barely deserves one star for the graphic masturbation sequences.”

I can’t believe I wasted my time dealing with this.


Theater for the New City

Crystal Field, Executive Artistic Director



by Douglas Lackey

directed by Alexander Harrington

world premiere

September 27 to October 14, 2018

Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt were leading intellectuals of the twentieth century. In the 1920s, they had a passionate affair. In the 1930s, Heidegger became an ardent Nazi while Arendt became an ardent Zionist. Nevertheless, after the war, they still continued to correspond and to meet. Douglas Lackey dramatizes their relationship. The dialogue and action of the play go beyond known facts, but everything in the play is consistent with them.

 Alyssa Simon* as Hannah Arendt 
Joris Stuyck* as Martin Heidegger 
Stan Buturla* as Ernst Cassirer
 Alexandra O’Daly* as Elfride Heidegger and Students

Stage Manager Marsh Shugart 
Set and projection design by Lianne Arnold
Costume design by Sidney Fortner
Lighting Design by Joyce Liao
Co-Video Designer/Associate Scenic Designer Asa Lipton

Associate Producer Courtney Fenwick

September 27 to October 14, 2018
Theater for the New City
155 First Ave (between 9th and 10th Sts.) 
Thurs – Sat at 8:00 PM, Sun at 3:00 PM
$15 general admission, $10 seniors and students
Box office: (212) 254-1109 
Smarttix (212) 868-4444




We are deeply disturbed by the exclusion of A Wider Bridge Midwest Manager Laurie Grauer and her friends from the Chicago Dyke March, an annual event attended by 1,500 queer women and allies in Chicago. Laurie was proud to carry a rainbow Jewish flag in the march, as has been tradition for her and her friends for a decade.

Organizers of the march identified the flag, confronted Laurie and her friends, and informed them the flag was “triggering marchers,” and demanded they fold up the flag and promptly leave the March, as the event was an “anti-Zionist, pro-Palestine event.”

The Chicago Dyke March’s Mission statement includes the following:

“[The Dyke March] is an anti-racist, anti-violent, volunteer-led, grassroots effort with a goal to bridge together communities across race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, size, gender identity, gender expression, sexuality, culture, immigrant status, spirituality, and ability.”

The Dyke March has failed to live up to their goal of “bridging together communities.” That the organizers would choose to dismiss long-time community members for choosing to express their Jewish identity or spirituality runs counter to the very values the Dyke March claims to uphold, and veers down a dangerous path toward anti-semitism.

At A Wider Bridge, we believe in the intrinsic value of being in conversation, even in cases of disagreement; of sharing, empathy, building relationships, and finding common ground. Automatically dismissing Jews and any LGBTQ person or ally who cares about Israel out of hand only builds walls between members of our diverse community.

We call on the Dyke March to issue a full public apology for dismissing LGBTQ Jews from the March, and affirm the Dyke March hold to their own values as a safe place for all LGBTQ people, including the Jewish Community.

We also invite the leadership of the Dyke March to meet with A Wider Bridge to discuss the events that took place yesterday, and to have a constructive dialogue about how anti-Semitism and calls for the disappearance of the Jewish State are creating an unsafe environment for LGBTQ Jews and allies.

Finally, we call on all of our community partners and allies in the Jewish community and the LGBTQ community who care about the advancement human rights and inclusion to join us in condemning this act of hate.

Petition to the Chicago Dyke March
Call on the Chicago Dyke March for Full Apology and Affirmation of Inclusion
We, concerned LGBTQ people and allies, Jews and non-Jews, from Chicago and across the world, call on the Chicago Dyke March Collective:

1. To issue a written formal apology to:

Laurel Grauer, Midwest Manager of A Wider Bridge, and the LGBTQ Jewish marchers who were singled out and dismissed for carrying rainbow Jewish flags.
LGBTQ Jews and allies in Chicago and across the country who feel threatened and alienated by the Chicago Dyke March collective for their actions;
And the broader LGBTQ and Jewish communities for failing to live up to our shared values of diversity, inclusivity, and freedom of expression.

2. To issue a written statement affirming the inclusion of all LGBTQ Jews, without any pledge or loyalty oath to a political agenda related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or any other issues, in future Chicago Dyke Marches.

3. To make a commitment to meet with A Wider Bridge and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to learn about the ugly manifestations of anti-Semitism against the Jewish community; historically against global Jewry, and today inside the LGBTQ community and in broader 21st Century America and Europe.

For questions and media inquiries, please email us at [email protected]

[email protected]


“Angels In America”—Another Look Almost 25 Years Later

“Angels In America”

Another Look Almost 25 Years Later

Amos Lassen

“Angels in America” is almost 25 years old now and I thought it would be interesting to take another look at it to see how it fits into today’s world. It has just been revived al at London’s National Theater, and is due in American movie theaters this July. Undoubtedly, everyone notices the play’s apocalyptic aspects and how it lets us know that , catastrophe is on its way. The title of the first part of the two part “gay fantasia on national themes” is appropriately “Millennium Approaches.” The angel comes forth near the end of part one and tells us that in the 20th century the world has become very old.

Playwright Tony Kushner set his drama in the 1980s and sees the period from a few years later. America is dealing with the AIDS epidemic and the disease had the ability and the power to bring death to young people at the prime of their lives and to destroy what were once stable relationships. While we see the destruction of love, we also see so much more. We face anger as if we had never done so before and for the seven-and-a-half hour duration of the drama, we become very angry ourselves.


AIDS is just the beginning of disasters to come— the environment is being destroyed, the American people are moving to the right, racial politics reemerge, there is a split within the gay community both gender-wise and regarding race and nationality and we see the beginning of a revolution that is moving ahead very quickly. It is as if the sense of freedom that this country was built upon is lost.

Roy Cohen is the true embodiment of all that is evil and he stands at the center of American life as a symbol of the marginalization and demonization of gay men by the right and by himself, a totally conflicted gay male who was ashamed of who he was. He feels that labels have destroyed the individual since they tell us who a person is thought to be and not who he is. The labels determine where a person fits in the larger scheme. One is not identified by ideology or by sexual orientation but by clout, by the power he has to be where he is. Cohn goes on to say that gay men and not men who have sex with other men rather they are men who do not know anyone and whom no one knows. They have no clout and since he himself has clout he cannot fit into such a definition. I have thought about this for hours on end and remember that yet it was that way just twenty-five years ago but it changed when we stood up and were counted. Today, looking at America in the time of Trump, we have lost the ability to be counted and have reverted back to where we were when America was just finding her angels.

In trying to understand the plot of “Angels in America” we become as lost as those angels did in the early 90s. It is impossible to summarize the play because, in effect, there is no real plot. We have a little bit of everything as Christopher Hitchens wrote when the play opened on Broadway in 1993— “Mormon pioneers, Bolsheviks, Reagan-era mendacities and heavenly intercessions” and there are only in the first half of it.

Kushner examines human relationships when we see Louis dying from AIDS and his partner, Prior, walks out on him, we see the tension between Prior and his ex-lover Belize, we watch the marriage of Harper and Joe fall apart, we see Joe’s sexual adventures with Louis and we witness the father-son relationship between Joe, as a legal clerk, and Cohn, his mentor. It is these relationships that are the foundations and life of “Angels in America”. They all come to a climax at the end of Act 2 of “Millennium Approaches,” when Harper leaves Joe, and Louis abandons Prior to die in a hospital bed.

“Millennium Approaches” is about politics, faith and ideas and it is focused and human. In When the angels arrive in the second part, “Perestroika”, the human element becomes temporarily lost as if to abandon reality. As acclaimed as it is, there are problems in the play. In the characters of Harper and Prior we get the feeling that because they are sick, they are more lucid than the characters who are healthy. They seem to be closer to the truth. The ending almost seemed forced to me— the remaining characters address the audience.

.After sitting through two plays, six acts, and seven hours and 40 minutes of theater, which I didon one day when I saw the play on Broadway years ago, we wonder what are we left with? In Perestroika’s opening monologue, we are asked if we are doomed; even as things fall apart, all hope is not lost. “The world only spins forward,” Prior, living with AIDS for five years by the play’s end, tells us this directly, while Harper, on her night flight to San Francisco on a quest for a fresh beginning, tells us that “Nothing’s lost forever. We often longing for what we’ve left behind as we dream ahead.

Remembering Zalman Shoshi (“Zlotta”)


I knew Zalman Shoshi fairly well. I lived in Israel when it was against the law to be gay and the police preyed on us nightly wherever we met. Shoshi never let it bother her—she was in and out of jail all of the time and always had great stories and we would see with her what was then Kikar Malchi Yisrael now renamed Rabin Square and laugh WITH her for hours. She was “Zlotta” to us—she loved that Yiddish name and loved to be the center of attention. She died last week at age 60 and I tried to find a way to memorialize her but could not find the words. Then I saw this and it said all I wanted to say so I am copying it just as it was printed.


Author: Amit Alexander Lev

Source: GoGay

Published: July 18, 2016


Everybody knew “Zalman Shoshi,” but no one wanted to be near him. Amit Alexander Lev eulogizes the man who changed LGBT life in Israel forever, and paid the price of isolation from society.

Almost everyone who grew up in Israel in the 1990s knew the name “Zalman Shoshi.” Zalman Winder, known as Zalman Shoshi, “this transvestite” was a generic name for almost any gay or transgender person, and not for nothing. Zalman, who was born shortly after the founding of the state of Israel, was a household name, but never in a positive way. He represented in our household the other, the different, the grotesque. This man wanted to wear women’s clothes, to be the transvestite who sells his body in Tel Baruch.

Even when I grew up, even before I realized I was gay, his name has represented the forbidden. He represented who we don’t want to be. You do not want to be effeminate and ridiculous like Zalman Shoshi, God forbid you don’t want to find yourself on Tel Baruch beach, pressing against men, dressed and made up as a woman.

But Zalman didn’t have an easy life. If today, in 2016, it’s not easy to be LGBT in Israel, living in the ’50s and’ 60s was probably much worse. If today we can come out easily, it is because Zalman Shoshi, and several others more anonymous than he was, paved the a way with their bodies, literally. The body which he sold in order to finance the renovation of the Aguda house, back in the day, on Nahmani Street in Tel Aviv, for example. The body that suffered humiliation because he dared to be who he wanted to be, despite being told it was forbidden.

Perhaps the word “dare” is too big. Perhaps Zalman didn’t dare – he just had no choice. And perhaps he had a choice, and he chose to be the vertex point so that we can all stand behind it and say we’re okay, we’re normal. Either way, the change that Zalman brought, willingly or not, is impossible to ignore.

I didn’t know him personally, but his life circumstances were plastered in newspapers all the time, and did not reflect a particularly beautiful reality. From a difficult childhood, sexual exploitation, living in prostitution, and isolation – a lot of living in solitude. “It’s not so hard to be a prostitute, it’s not so hard to be a transvestite and it’s not so hard for me to be gay – it’s the loneliness that’s hard. Solitude is the most difficult thing for a man,” he once said in an interview.

Today, in 2016, I want to be naive and say that no one should suffer loneliness, certainly not in light of being LGBT. But I know this is naive, and I know we are not there yet. So all that remains for me is to hope that we have the sense to not miss people, that we can help those who need help and that we should not let anyone drown in life’s circumstances”.

“Hannah Arendt and Theology” by John Kiess— Theology and Thought

hannah arend and theology

Kiess, John. “Hannah Arendt and Theology”, (Philosophy and Theology), Bloomsbury, 2016.

Theology and Thought

Amos Lassen

Hannah Arendt is regarded as one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century and she has kept that standing even with the controversy that came as a result of her coverage of the trial of Adolph Eichmann for “The New Yorker” magazine. She is famous for her work on totalitarianism and her book about it is still required reading in history degree programs on many campuses. However, her real came with her coinage of the term “the banality of evil” and I am sure there are those who are familiar with the concept without knowing that this came from Arendt who is found at number 38 on the list of women read today in academia. She is also noted for her work regarding the Holocaust, statelessness and human rights, revolutions and democratic movements as well as for her studies on the various challenges of modern technological society. She went through a period in which the world seemed to be angry at her but in recent years, we have seen a growing appreciation of her work especially concerning the complex relationship to theological sources, namely Augustine, the subject of her doctoral dissertation and a thinker with whom she contended throughout her life.

This new book explores how Arendt’s critical and constructive engagements with theology inform her broader thought, as well as the on-going debates that her work brings about in contemporary Christian theology on such topics as evil, tradition, love, political action, and the life of the mind. What we see is a very unique interdisciplinary investigation that brings together Arendt studies, political philosophy, and Christian theology. “Hannah Arendt and Theology” looks at how the insights and provocations of this public intellectual aid in setting a constructive theological agenda for the twenty-first century.

Although I have not always agreed with her, I must state that there is no doubt in my mind that Arendt was a brilliant mind that certainly advanced philosophical thought. She was gifted with the ability to be able to reframe questions about how we should live and thus pushed us into rethinking that which we thought we knew. I cannot even begin to think about how many discussions I have had in my life about Arendt and I see her work as essential. One would probably suppose that if her work is so essential, then she must be easy to understand and that is simply not true.
This is where the value of this book comes in. Writer John Kiess gives us clear understandings of Arendt’s theological thought and leads us clearly to understand the interrelation between Arendt and the importance of her work in the fields of religion and theology.

Just a year old ago I taught a course on Arendt and her banality of evil as it affects and effect the Jewish community and had I had this book then, my class preparation would have been so much easier. However, one of the pleasures of dealing with Arendt is the ideological arguments I would have with myself about what she had to say. One thing I learned years ago is that contrary to what some members of the Jewish community have said— that she was an anti-Semitic Jew is most definitely not true. She never left her Judaism and she acknowledged it especially with the brouhaha that came into being with the publications in the New Yorker about the Eichmann and trial and later with the publication of “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. And do not think that I have not been chided by members of my own Jewish community for standing up for Arendt when few others dared to.

In looking at theology, Arendt is difficult to stay away from and it is very easy to distort what she had to say. She was complicated and she was implicit when it came to traditional matters and concerns. A book like this has been needed for a long time and Kiess gives us a comprehensive, well integrated, and dialogical reading of Arendt and theology and I sure that is especially welcome for readers of Christian theology. There is a lot to think about and to me that is what makes a book worthwhile. Below is the table of contents:




Ch. 1 A Public Philosopher: The Life and Thought of Hannah Arendt

Ch. 2 The Problem of Evil Reconsidered

Ch. 3 Amor Mundi: Worldliness, Love, and Citizenship

Ch. 4 “That a Beginning Be Made”: Natality, Action, and the Politics of Gratitude

Ch. 5 In the Region of the Spirit: Thinking Between Past and Future