Compassion and Choices
By Nicole Belle Friday May 29, 2009 4:00pm
Phyllis and Del on their wedding day
Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were issued a marriage license in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered that same-sex couples could apply for them. Sadly, it was voided by the courts just a few months later. Phyllis implored the courts to reconsider:
Del is 83 years old and I am 79. After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time.
When the California Supreme Court did legalize gay marriage in June of 2008, Del and Phyllis were the very first gay couple married by Mayor Newsom.
Martin and Lyon had already been together for 55 years at the time of their marriage.
Del Martin died just two months later from complications from a bone fracture. Del was 87 years old and had been in failing health for some time. Because Del and Phyllis were legally married, when critical choices had to be made about Del's condition, Phyllis had the right to act in the best interests and wishes of her wife.
Unfortunately, there are now thousands and thousands of same sex couples in California who do not have that same right--one of the more than 1000 denied to them and which seems to get lost in the hysteria and just bizarre logic of those fighting against equal protection for all citizens.
There is now a site designed to help couples--both gay and straight--discuss the uncomfortable subject of end-of-life issues: Compassion & Choices:
Most Compassion & Choices supporters would eagerly bargain away a few days of extended life in an intensive care unit in exchange for final days spent at home, in relative comfort and meaningful communion with those they love. Such folks don’t adhere to the doctrine of redemptive suffering and would rather slip away peacefully if imminent dying would be otherwise prolonged and agonized.
Well, the evidence is in. Recent studies indicate the single most powerful thing a person can do to improve the chance for gentle dying is — simply and courageously — to talk about it.
Talk to whom? First and foremost, talk to your personal physician. It’s never too early for this conversation. This March an important study appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine. A large, multi-institutional study, it evaluated the quality of life at the end of life for people with advanced cancer.Lo and behold! Those individuals who had discussed end-of-life values and preferences with their doctors experienced significantly less suffering in their final week of life. A significant reduction in intensive care hospitalizations and high technology interventions accounted for this desirable outcome. Not too surprising, the patients who had talked with their doctors, and who experienced a more peaceful, pain-free end of life, also received less costly care than those tethered to the tubes and machines meant to extend their lives.
But one finding is stunning enough to be a game-changer in end-of-life care. For all the suffering they inflicted and all the cost they incurred, the tubes and machines actually bought no life extension. None.
It's never an easy discussion to have, and it's more difficult when you must make clear to your doctor that you wish your partner (who has no legal status) to speak for you. C&C offers forms that gay couples may use to designate each other surrogate decision-makers as well.
At risk of being a downer, it's a conversation that you should have sooner than later, because not all of us are as lucky as to have 55 years with the love of our life.
Login or Register to post comments.
Mayor Gavin Newsom is pretty cool.
Nowhere in the constitution does it mention (or define) marriage!
So, why the endless laws on top of laws trying to define it.
(It's like Microsoft trying to put endless patches on their misfiring software.)
The Government has NO BUSINESS or RIGHT to our private personal lives.
Why our representatives, leaders feel it is their place to discuss it, baffles me completely.
...and PS; my marriage is not threatened by same sex marriage, so please, someone tell me what is their f#@king point? You can not (and should not) try to legislate morals, anyway. Can they not expend their efforts trying to solve the real problems of the world?
"The Government has NO BUSINESS or RIGHT to our private personal lives."
---stay out of peoples' bedrooms, uteruses; phones, computers, etc.
edit: better that govt maintains its practice twd granting citizens' rights/freedoms rather than limiting
However, since marriage is an enforceable contract, the government does have some business overseeing that. Now, one can go to a lawyer and draw up a (nearly) identical contract but at a much greater expense (and lacking some of the government enforced perks, like forcing businesses to let you share health benefits). This is precisely why gay marriage is a constitutional question—equal protection under the law.
It's not a downer. It is important for your soul. Ideally, souls should feel restful and loved before they pass.
When I was in Phnom Penh, I stayed right across the street from Toul Sleng prison, but I could not enter. I could feel the restless souls and they disturbed me. I could barely sleep. It was unmistakable, their presence. I was rather freaked out by it all and had to get away.
It might sound crazy, but there was a restless energy in the air, all around that place. I imagine you'd get that same feeling around ground zero too. Anyone??? Ever felt that before??
A negative and restless energy, right? I am sorry you had to be there, Edwin, but happy you made it back.
No need to be sorry (but thanks, anyway.) I was there by choice. My intention was to visit the prison in the morning, but I just couldn't. I wanted to get out of there, pronto!!!! I've never been freaked out like that in my life.
I wondered afterward if I was cowardly, but decided not. I'll spare you the lengthy yoga explanation about vritti and samskara, and how the soul works (in my beliefs.)
I love Phnom Penh. Very groovy place. But the vibes, right there, were unmistakable.
PS "A negative and restless energy, right?" Yes, exactly!!!!!
What's so funny about Peace, Love and Understanding?
Now, I do.
What they're doing is wrong. No one should be denied any rights that the rest of the people of this country enjoy.
It's that simple.
As always with stories about Del and Phyllis, we get the very valid victimization angle. We don't get the bigger picture of two brave, smart people who gave a lot to this society. If you have a domestic abuse shelter in your community --and you do - it's because of a revolutionary push that Del Martin was one of the leaders of. When she started, not that long ago, battering wives was considered normal behavior, and those women had no place to guy and no support. Look it up. And that's just one thing that these two were part of.
It's not necessary that people be as heroic as these two to deserve their rights. Any human deserves human rights. But it does point to the shamefulness of denying human rights, when two people who have given so much over such long lives to us get not respect but this kind of despicable treatment.
del and phyllis and the contrast of terri schiavo's sad situation stands as a stark reminder of the importance of having a living will with a right to die clause. importance of stating your wishes to family, friends, doctors. the presence or absence of this document will have dynamic impact on all concerned, needless to say.
thanks for this helpful and kindly reminder, nicole.
First off, I believe that anybody ought to be able to marry whomever they want. I fully support gay marriage. But if someone could tell me why it's so important, that would be great.
Is it just because some can't and others can? Is it money? I'm pretty sure it doesn't make you love the other person more than you did previously. People keep mentioning human rights; how is marriage a human right? However, it's definitely a human rite.
I don't understand why people who have been denied their proper place in civilized humanity would find it necessary to adhere to a doctrine that is based upon the very fact that they were denied in the first place.
If I'm not expressing myself properly than I apologize. I want to know why getting married is such a big deal.
I would love to answer that question for you, but as a 70 year old gay man, I don't know the answer to that either. I had a partner for 25 years and the word "marriage" never came up........not once!!
I really don't understand it either........never have.......I never wanted to be like "married" people.........I enjoyed being gay I guess. Somehow the idea of "marriage" just didn't appeal to me at all. Gay people used to pride themselves on being "different" than the "norm", whatever the heck that would be. At my age, I'm quite sure I'll never understand it. Sorry I couldn't give you an answer....not sure there is one......:)
That's the answer I was expecting, I think. Thank you for responding.
I'm 62 dear and have enjoyed every nanosecond. 38 of those years have been spent with my boyfriend (I LOATHE "partner" -- we are not a law firm) and marriage is a contract.
Apparently the heart of gay life is the hospital rooms where we die.
Nothing else -- as far as breeders can see.
There are rights conferred to married couples that are denied to gay couples. Marriage--in addition to the wine and roses, true love stuff--is a legally binding contract and gives a legal status to your partner that you do not get even under domestic partnership laws.
If, for example, BeamMeUpScottyBoy's partner dies, BMUSB has no rights to his pensions (as I have with my husband), no rights to visit in the hospital nor make end-of-life decisions, as I may with my husband. Any property will go into his estate and the accompanying taxes, rather than just being his, as my house is.
Fundamentally, it's a violation of Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law. It's as simple as that.
If it's only a constitutional right, then why do thousands of people come to Vancouver (where I live) each year to get married? I'm pretty sure these marriages aren't recognized in the U.S. Constitutional rights can and ought to be argued in court. From what I have read, the biggest argument against gay marriage is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. So, forgo getting married. Argue for laws that recognize a person as a life partner.
That's a really big deal, I'm not sure why you devalue it as you have.
People get married for a variety of reasons--gay or straight. It's immaterial as to why gay couples choose to get married in Vancouver. Maybe it's a statement to one another that they are committed. Maybe it's because they want the validation that is denied to them in their home country. Maybe they were just vacationing and felt the urge, kinda like Britney Spears did when visiting Las Vegas with some childhood friend. Their individual and collective motives have nothing to do with the conversation.
However, that said, there is no reason that the government should step in and say that one class of people are acceptable and may have 1000+ more rights and legal status and another class of people should not. That's why we have an Equal Protection amendment to our Constitution.
The argument that marriage is between a man and a woman is ahistoric at best. If you want to look at the history of marriage, it was not that long ago that marriages were legal arrangements between families, not between a man and a woman, because women had no legal standing. She went from being the property of her father to the property of her husband. Inter-racial marriages were illegal in some states during my lifetime. The definition of marriage has evolved and changed as our understanding of personhood has changed. There is no reason we cannot continue to hope that our society evolved to be less bigoted.
Finally, I concede (reluctantly) that the term "marriage" may be a sticking point. However, the answer isn't to have two different statuses depending on your sexual orientation. Separate but equal is not equal. That's been on the books for a while.
So the only answer is for states to step back from issuing marriage licenses for EVERYBODY, and register any adult couple for civil unions and leave the marriage ceremonies to churches as per the tenets of their teachings.
The only answer is for religions to give up their co-opted use of the word marriage and go about doing whatever "religious unions" they desire and leave marriage to the states.
You typed it: "it's a violation of Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law." Fine, I accept that. I certainly never said that marriage ought to be solely between a man and a woman. This is the argument that I've heard from the right to dismiss gay marriage. Did you not read my original post? I state quite clearly that "I believe that anybody ought to be able to marry whomever they want." What's more I state "I fully support gay marriage."
I fully agree that society should be more evolved and less bigoted. Once again I quote myself: "I don't understand why people who have been denied their proper place in civilized humanity would find it necessary to adhere to a doctrine that is based upon the very fact that they were denied in the first place." Crikey, it's like you never read my post at all.
Tell me why marriage is so important, without being pedantic or just simply shooting from the hip.
Cheers
There are over 1000 rights that go along with the marriage contract. http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm
That's a good point, but is that actually true in California? I'm only working on what the Cal Sup Ct said but, both in their decision to legalize gay marriage and the one upholding Prop 8, the court went to lengths to say that the only issue was whether or not to call same sex unions "marriage". They said that the rights and responsibilities created in marriage and in civil unions were otherwise identical in California.
Your piece suggests this couple would have been screwed had the Supreme Court not legalized gay marriage in 2008. Was the court wrong in saying they weren't ruling on any substantive rights, or were you not talking about California there?
The issue was not over the word "marriage."
The very narrow issue in upholding Prop 8 was whether the state could prove an overwhelming reason why they should not respect the will of the voters. Frankly, it was not argued well, and even the Justices (who had previously agreed that gay marriages were legal, mind you) could not show that Prop 8 wasn't a legal amendment to the California constitution.
Couples who weren't part of the 18,000 married before Prop 8 *are* screwed. They have no rights nor legal status as a couple. We do not have civil unions currently in California (although that has been floated as a compromise between the two sides), only domestic partnerships, and domestic partners do not have the same rights or responsibilities as a married couple.
Gays and lesbians get bupkis.
The story tells you what the big deal is: denial of more than 1000 federal rights tied to being "married". Thus, the equal protection clause should ping and this whole thing should have been settled long ago.
As for marriage being a rite, that's only because religion co-opted it from the state (starting by "blessings" then growing from that). I think religious ought to get out of the marriage business and simply go back to blessing their own "religious unions".
I'm a lesbian and a feminist and a political radical. I have been opposed to the Judeo-Christian institution of marriage for as long as I can remember. As a radical, I believe that society & its institutions must be remade and marriage is no exception. Far from being the sort of queer who tries to fit in or conform, I'm of the firm belief that the straight world could learn a lot from us freaks. For example, monogamy is not necessarily ideal & it isn't for everyone.
I completely agree with how Nicole stated it in her reply to you:
"the only answer is for states to step back from issuing marriage licenses for EVERYBODY, and register any adult couple for civil unions and leave the marriage ceremonies to churches as per the tenets of their teachings."
That said, I believe first & foremost in justice and equal protection under the law. While I cannot personally imagine getting married for any reason other than citizenship, that doesn't preclude me from recognizing the injustice in the law. Marriage has been structured as a civil right in most Western countries, and as such, should be open to all without regard to race, religion, creed or gender. Tax dollars are drawn from all of us to fund the benefits that married couples enjoy, so marriage should be open to all. It's that simple.
So, as a radical, for me there are two options:
1. No civil marriage for anyone & civil unions for all - or -
2. No separate class of civil unions for anyone & civil marriage for all.
Do straight couples want to get married because they can and others can't? Is it about money? It probably doesn't make them love each other more, does it?
Is there anything that a straight couple NEEDS marriage for? I mean, if there's nothing a gay couple can't do without getting married, then there's nothing a straight couple can't do either, right?
Straight couples sometimes go to incredible lengths to get married. They spend obscene amounts of money, invite huge crowds of people to witness it. They send announcements to their friends and loved ones, they throw big celebrations of the event, and then celebrate that event every year.
But no one ever asks straight couples WHY this is so important. It's just taken for granted that it IS important.
So, why ask gay couples why it's important? It's important to a same-sex couple for the same reasons that it's important to straight couples.
... I didn't really understand the attempt to merge same-sex marriages into end of life decisions.
However, speaking to the end of life situations, I would like to specify in my living will that in the event my condition is deemed to be terminal, as determined by the deciders chosen by me, as well as what is generally accepted in medicine, then, a Jack Kevorkian shall be hired to terminate the patient's life. This whole idea that a patient's life should end through an act of omission versus an act of commission is contrary to my views on a persons responsibility respecting another persons loss of life. In either circumstance, I consider it morally equivalent.
In other words, if my care givers decide to pull the plug, I'm not interested in dying of starvation, or dehydration, even if I only have the intelligence of a turnip. Get Dr. Jack in there and finish the job. Yet another example of a government out of control, interfering with the personal decisions best reserved to the individual.
If you get to the point where someone needs to pull the plug, Kevorkian couldn't help you. Kevorkian specializes in helping people kill themselves, not doing it for them.
Marriage, as a legal contract, carries enormous weight in our society. Beyond all the financial benefits & perks there are countless other advantages that are taken for granted until they're denied. Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another in most courts, for example.
It's pretty simple - think Terry Schiavo. Schiavo's parents & husband disagreed about whether she should be kept on life support. Her husband believed that she would not have wanted to remain alive in her condition, while her parents disagreed.
Marriage laws meant that her husband's decision trumped that of her parents. Ms. Schiavo would have had to take proactive steps (such as a living will), if she had wanted to grant her parents the right to make that decision rather than her husband. On the other hand, if the Schiavos had never gotten married, or had lived together for less than the time required for a Common Law marriage, her parents most likely could have prevented their son-in-law from removing her from life support.
The reality is that very few people have living wills or any other contractual agreement with regard to their personal relationships. For some, a marriage certificate suffices, but for many others, that option is unavailable.
Homophobia and religious extremism. When one studies civilization and finds that the Irish people are 60,000 years old; 54,000 years older than the Jews/Palestinians; Egypt or Greece and that the myth of Catholicism or Christianity is a mere 2009 years old; one soon realises that there is little evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of that cult. In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate Christianity - a fantasy - which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world. The Vatican supported Hitler and religion is responsible for more corruption and violence in the world. Pope Ratzinger was involved in the Nazi youth. The Pope & Vatican with its blatant witchcraft related to the bible and its hateful beliefs; tries to rule with extreme prejudices against the world … that may fall victim to religions' absolute evil. To think of Matthew Sheppard choking on his own blood after being savagely beaten; virtually sanctioned by the church ... is beyond comprehension … yet is the same as boys being bullied into suicide; most likely being supported by their parents’ religious beliefs. What ever happened to … "Love Your Fellowman?” Perhaps the evil preachers should be told to take their cult out of America. Didn't Thomas Jefferson say that church and state should be separated by a wall and it's written in the Constitution that there must be separation of church and state. Bigotry and hatemongering against gays should be banned. Tell them to take that cross and shove it where the sun don't shine ... and pay their taxes along the way before they take that cross down forever ... with its final station; extinction. It is written; so therefore it shall be? We are the chosen people? Who wrote that crap? United States is supposedly fighting for democracy? It is suppressing gay rights and following an extremist religious & bigoted family values path according to a basic cult riding roughshod over the rights of gay people. Canada and Britain are more civilized with its military and basic dignity. We must respect that these fine dignified gentlemen … His Excellency Governor Schwarzenegger, The Honorable Attorney General Jerry Brown, His Excellency Mayor Gavin Newson, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano & The Honorable Rep. Barney Frank (D) who is personally openly gay … are trying to guarantee equal rights and reflect the respect shown to all; as stated in the American Constitution. To see the religious lunatics manipulate government and our lives … is shameful.
This bogus religious filth should be banned. It exists as a tax exempt structure which discriminates against human rights. The pope, bishops and mormons are cult members promoting discrimination against minorities. That bogus black book called the bible should be banned. Religion and the churches should now be exposed as a bigoted structure that gets away with hate mongering. Love between two guys or girls existed long before these cults existed. By enjoying their tax exempt status and benefits from the state ... it also puts them at the mercy of America; to be forced to adhere to the human rights laws. Religion is thriving like a cancerous growth on society that should be stopped in its tracks; outlawed & banned. Interesting global occurrence … Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien told the Vatican that there was to be no cross erected over the Canadian Parliament buildings … figuratively speaking; when the Pope demanded the Prime Minister go against gay rights. An Alberta bishop had the audacity to say that The Canadian Prime Minister would go to hell for going against the church. Such outrageous evil threats; the religious extremists force upon us trying to multiply … with their control over birthing like animals at the pulpit. With reference to protecting the children. The Right Honourable Prime Minister … in return; basically told the Pope to go to Hell. The Honourable Hedy Fry, member of the Canadian Liberal Parliament, who happens to be a doctor spoke eloquently to defend the rights of babies being born and stated that she was in fact defending their rights by speaking on behalf of equal rights for the children and youth of the future; defending their integrity and dignity.
Many theologians state quite correctly that the birth; crucifixion; resurrection and other elements of christianity actually didn’t even happen! Today’s evangelical extremists are like the nazis who cast others into ovens & are actually supremacists - who practice their bogus hocus pocus - and are trying to suppress and deprive others of their happiness and their legal rights in an open and proud society. Liberty College, Oral Roberts University and others should be looked at as tax exempt terroristic training grounds for evangelical lunatics. It was refreshing in his final weeks; to hear President Bush acknowledge that he didn’t believe in any of that religious bunk.
I am the son of a catholic father who never went to church and a protestant mother who took us to church and Sunday school. Although we as young children would sneak out the side door and play by the cannon from World War One where my grand-father fought for freedom as a Sgt Mgr at Vimy and father who fought at Normandy on D-Day for freedom. Onward christian soldiers ... I think not. Such drivel. To be manipulated by a santa claus; an easter bunny and worst of all a bogus cross. One should appreciate each day of life and not expect another ... and if there is it will be given by a God of Love. Pat Robertson should be taken to task for his grandstanding filth. Einstein stated in a letter recently auctioned that the bible was collection of primitive legends. He said believing in God was childish and he as a Jew is no different than another person … not chosen by God. Do you want to be lambs at the slaughter or be wise and reject religious cultist manipulation? Mean & nasty; run by evil and bogus religious cults from Rome or wherever. Is this the world you want? The pope talks about ending prejudice and hate; what a hypocrite!
A great story … pertains to a boy at a catholic school in Oshawa, Ontario … who wanted to take his boyfriend to his school prom. The nasty catholic school forbid this. The boy’s father is an employee with General Motors Canada and the courageous union leader … Buzz Hargrove stood up for the boys’ rights. The boy took his case through the courts and because the school was benefiting from government funding which demands equal rights void of discrimination; the judge ordered the school to allow the boys to attend together. Their limo arrived at their prom with adoring onlookers … there wasn’t a dry eye to be found.
This is what the CA Supreme's had to say on the subject:
"Accordingly, although the wording of the new constitutional provision reasonably is understood as limiting use of the designation of "marriage" under California *37 law to opposite-sex couples, and thereby modifying the decision in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, insofar as the majority opinion in that case holds that limiting the designation of "marriage" to the relationship entered into by opposite-sex couples constitutes an impermissible impingement upon the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process, the language of article I, section 7.5, on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship. Because, as a general matter, the repeal of constitutional provisions by implication is disfavored (see, e.g., In re Thiery S. (1979) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744; Warne v. Harkness (1963) 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588), Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship." (Italics mine)
For the couples who have a compelling medical, social, or emotional need to establish a legal relationship with your partner it seems to me the court made it clear that such a right exists and can be claimed under the law. No, you can't call it a marriage, though it doesn't seem that barrier will last for long and if the court doesn't do it, then demographics surely will. But you are entitled to any other benefits, or problems, that such an arrangement will provide.
"For the couples who have a compelling medical, social, or emotional need to establish a legal relationship with your partner it seems to me the court made it clear that such a right exists and can be claimed under the law."
Yes, if you have TONS of money. And even if you do there's no guarantee that some evil relative can't undo everything you've created in a snap.
Whereas for the price of a mariage liceunse striaghts eget everything.
Separate and WILDLY unequal -- though the lying scumbags on the California State Supreme Court pretend otherwise.
Why would it take "TONS of money"? If you understood the quote above, the "lying scumbags" on the Cal Sup Ct seem to have made sure that civil unions in California is identical to marriage in all but name. The voters in California decided they didn't want same sex couples to be able to use the word marriage, but the court again found that Prop 8 only affected what same sex unions are called, not the rights conferred.
That's my reading of the cases as well. In fairness, the cases are all I know, so please tell me if I'm wrong. But I'm guessing a civil union doesn't cost too much more than a marriage license in California. And if, as the Supreme Court says, the rights are the same, whatever it's called, I see no reason why an evil relative would be an more likely succeed in thwarting a gay union than a straight one. The Anna Nicole Smith standard would be the same in either. As with the original post, while it's fun to be righteously indignant, does it really make sense to convince people to fight battles that may have already been won?
We don't have civil unions in California. We have domestic partnerships (for which gay and straight couples may apply), but they do not give full rights as given to married couples.
Gay couples, even with a registered domestic partnership, have no rights to pensions, Social Security, end of life issues, medical choices, etc.
The battle is far from won.
(as nicole already stated) medical insurance and pensions dependent on employer's choice/practice.
no federal rights (as in hetero marriage contracts)
also, may need to provide papers to medical caregivers prove to legal status (not usual procedure for hetero) and for stepchildren (not a consistent reqmt for heteros, ie, dealing w/same org's people).
assumes gays always have legal paperwork with them and that they're dealing with people who can/will understand/comply.
My partner of 25 yrs. & I took care of all of this legally. We both have wills & we got both Medical & Legal Powers of Attorney over each other. We are buying a house & have a "right of survivorship" included. We did all of this so that neither of our families can butt in. I have MS & have been hospitilized several times. Were it not for my Medical Power of Attorney Suzan would have had no say in my care. But, because of it she was treated like my spouse & all went beautifully. We may not be able to get such things as each others Social Security benefits but we've done what we can & it works.
I hope your families don't butt in. But as you point out when it comes to Social Security it's no go.
That's one of the many things we're fighting for.
Yes it is only part of it but what we did is better than nothing. Until full rights are granted I advise all couples to do what we did. We live in NM & things are much easier here. We moved here from TX & I shudder to think of what we would go through there. The 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots is this June. What we've accomplished in the last 40 yrs. is amazing & Del & Phyllis were at the forefront. They had been working on gay rights for years. Never give up!
Login or Register to post comments.