Center Blog

by Andy Cataldo

On Friday, October 19, mere hours before Chelsea Clearview’s midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, a coalition of marriage equality activists gathered for the East Coast premiere of Question One, a film about Maine’s road to marriage equality through 2009.

Attendees “shivered with anticipation” of the upcoming election, during which equality would be voted on by the state for a second time. Now knowing the outcome of this month’s pro-marriage equality vote solidifies Question One as an historic account of the personal struggles of marriage supporters including facing fear and intolerance from the opposition.

The event, co-hosted by Gay City News and the Center’s Cultural Programs Department, began with remarks from US Congressman Jerrold Nadler, sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which is designed to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. He spoke of the national climate with respect to marriage equality, how it has become less an issue of “if” but rather of “when.”

The film’s directors Joe Fox and James Nubile were also in attendance. Joe spoke about the filmmaking process in general, comparing it to the five stages of grief: anger, denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance. This analogy particularly rings true when thinking of the citizens of Maine who experienced the joy and relief of a state legislature passing marriage equality then having to accept the loss of it after the 2009 ballot initiative at the center of Question One. Thankfully we now know that the grief has been replaced with joy and accomplishment, as the state voted on November 6 to pass same sex marriage.

The film began with an overview of how Question One became a ballot initiative in 2009: the state legislature passed marriage equality, followed quickly by the efforts of opposition led by religious groups petitioning for a ballot initiative to overturn the law in November 2009.

Viewers are introduced to key players from the Yes on 1 side working against marriage equality, including Linda Seavy, a campaign volunteer and canvasser who believes that gay marriage is not an issue of civil rights. She declares that she doesn’t hate “their people,” speaking of the other side. The film shows meetings of Yes on 1 in churches where preachers speak of the familiar, specious statistics about Dutch gay marriages that “last an average of 1.5 years and involve up to 8 extra partners per year.” The other recurring argument we hear on Yes on 1’s side is about the exposure of children in schools to curricula describing how gays have sex.

We also meet same-sex families, including Darlene Huntress, Grassroots Director of the No on 1 initiative and her partner, as well as Sarah Dowling, a volunteer who was present at the screening. She and her family – partner Linda and daughter Maya – attended the election night headquarters in 2009 to be together as a family when the results were announced.

The most surprising element of this story comes from Marc Mutty, co-chair of the Yes on 1 campaign. In interviews, it’s clear that he’s deeply conflicted with his position as well as envious of Frank Schubert, a political consultant hired by the campaign for his success in other state campaigns against gay marriage, for stealing the spotlight. Mutty spells out his own internal struggle, claiming to be doing what he’s told only because it is his job (he’s the Director of Public Affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland) as well as his power struggle with handing authority over to Schubert. Mutty represents the first leak in the dam of opposition not just in Maine, but the nation as a whole, as Maryland, Washington and Minnesota also cast votes in favor of equality this month

While the larger story continued beyond the scope of this film on November 6, Question One remains a relevant profile of what each state must face along the country’s path to equality. For more information about Question One visit www.Q1-themovie.com.

by David Webb

I should confess a couple of things. First, until recently, I hadn’t heard of Alan Turing. Second, I vacillate between the notions that nothing is merely coincidence and that everything is random. Right now, I’m more convinced of the former. It was in that mindset that I saw the New York premiere of Codebreaker, a docudrama on the life of Alan Turing.

As I watched Codebreaker, the sense of connection I felt with Turing, his on-screen psychotherapist and the other people in the cinema was strong. We were all together for a purpose. I didn’t know what it was at the time, and more likely will be revealed in days ahead, but purpose did show itself.

If you, like me, also haven’t heard of Alan Turning, you should know that he was a brilliant British mathematician whose thesis laid the groundwork for modern computers. During World War II, he cracked the Germans’ Enigma machine, a device they used to send coded messages; the most difficult to crack were the codes coordinating U-boat attacks on British vessels. Without Turing, the Nazis either would have won or, at the very least, would have fought longer. Oh, another important detail – Turing was gay.

A few years after the war, Turing reported the theft of a family heirloom to the police, along with the name of the man he suspected, the friend of a lover. Instead of investigating the theft, authorities charged Turing with “gross indecency,” the legal term for sodomy laws in the UK. To avoid jail time, he pled guilty and was sentenced to be “treated” for his homosexuality. For two years, he was forced to take synthetic estrogen, effectively causing chemical castration. After his body failed to return to normal, he committed suicide.

Before the movie, I told a friend what I was doing, along with the movie’s synopsis. She remarked, “Sometimes people just absolutely disgust me.” I felt her frustration. Here was a man who recorded the theories of mechanical computation, developed binary code and played an integral role in defeating the Nazis. But egad! He loved men. Punish him! Cure him!

What a terrible waste. Everyone in the audience expressed disgust at the film’s end when it was revealed that, in September 2009, the British government finally apologized for Turing’s treatment. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s official statement included this: “Sorry. We should have treated you better.” Seems a bit too little too late, doesn’t it?

Ah, but back to the purpose. During the Q&A with the film’s Executive Producer, Patrick Sammon, a young gentleman behind me shared in a quaking voice that he had been sent to reparative therapy in California to be “cured” of his homosexuality and how grateful he was that Governor Jerry Brown recently signed legislation banning this barbaric treatment in his state. He concluded with the determination that New York must follow suit and that it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere. When he finished, everyone applauded.

Alan Turing solved one enigma and was done in by another. As his story is told, heard and shared by more and more, perhaps his example will solve the enigma of ignorant, mean-spirited homophobia by those who would rather “cure” what’s not broken than break the code of living in harmony.