Kennedy a gay rights champion

[kallipolis]

This is all news to me. But much appreciated. Thanks, for the post.

 

[NickCole]

He was there for us in the early days of AIDS, when it was called GRID, when nobody would touch the gay community with a ten-foot pole.

Wait a minute.

Please let's not make up stuff.

How was Ted Kennedy "there for us" back when AIDS was called GRID, which was 1982?

It wasn't until 1988 that Orrin Hatch and Kennedy got the first major AIDS legislation passed, $1 billion for research, education and treatment as I recall.

 

[NickCole]

NickCole was suggesting that his support for AIDS legislation occured only in 1988 when a bill was passed, when in reality it had been around for a long time. It's as if to say support for legislation only materializes the year a bill is passed, rediculous! Similarly, there is no anti-discrimination law for us on a federal level, yet Kennedy has supported one since at least 1996 and probably well before that since Massachusetts has had one since 1989. Individual senators don't pass bills, it often takes years of groundwork which Kennedy dutifully accomplished.

I asked a simple straightforward question, which you haven't answered.

You stated: "He was there for us in the early days of AIDS, when it was called GRID, when nobody would touch the gay community with a ten-foot pole."

And I asked how was Ted Kennedy "there for us" back when AIDS was called GRID.

That's a great thing you attribute to Ted Kennedy. If he was there for us when nobody else would touch the gay community, it should be easy to cite specifics.

There WERE some elected officials there for us back when AIDS was called GRID and they deserve recognition, but let's please not make up stuff to suit something you want to be true.

I was there and I remember Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman in California and the wonderful Ted Weiss in New York responded to our requests, met with us and publicly called for a substantive government response to AIDS. THEY were there for us when most wouldn't touch us with a ten foot pole. And there was some money allocated to AIDS research through tricky manuvers that Reagan didn't dare veto, but I don't recall Kennedy leading those efforts. So I'm curious, how, specifically, you claim he was "there for us" in 1982 when AIDS was called GRID.

 

[NickCole]

Actually Toriko answered it for me.

He did not answer the question.

And neither have you.

Cite specifics.

If Senator Kennedy did as you claim, there'd be cites for it all over the place.

There were elected officials who actually were there for us in 1982, but on this issue with Ted Kennedy you're just making up "achievement."

Pretty egotistical of you, out of tens of thousands of people who have similar stories, to expect special personal treatment by a US Senator.

I wasn't expecting special personal treatment, I was asking on behalf of my friends and all gays who were sick or would be sick. I didn't have AIDS, it wasn't for me.

But before you posted that, I deleted that part of my post because I knew you'd use it to attack me. At the time, when I was 25, it took some courage to resist Security Guards and stand in the very large and imposing Senator Kennedy's way in the lobby of an auditorium and ask for his help in dealing with the growing AIDS crisis. I'm glad I did that, I'm proud of it, there was nothing egotistical about it, and in fact I did it out of concern about something much larger than my self and my own ego.

 

[NickCole]

Amusing ^^^

You think gratuitously denigrating someone is amusing?

But I didn't make it up. I'm only following the word of gay rights leaders who say he was there for us since the "early days of AIDS."

This is a perfect example of how Obama got elected.

"Following the word" of others is no substitute for independent investigation.

 

[NickCole]

If you were really expecting follow up, yeah you were. You aren't the only one after a senator's attention. There are countless people with heartbreaking personal stories, and even more just representing important issues, senators can't address every single one.



The egotistical part is thinking you were important enough for a senator to get back to you.

Wow.

Just wow.

Yeah, I and many others who fought for AIDS funding for research, education and treatment thought our concerns were important enough for a Senator to get back to us.

You see it as egotistical. I see it as a representative Democracy.

 

[opinterph]

How was Ted Kennedy "there for us" back when AIDS was called GRID, which was 1982?

It wasn't until 1988 that Orrin Hatch and Kennedy got the first major AIDS legislation passed, $1 billion for research, education and treatment as I recall.

And that 1988 legislation was the first substantial federal initiative related to AIDS treatment. Note also that the HTLV-III virus was initially identified in 1983, with confirmation in 1984. The first commercial antibody test was established in 1985. [Link]

Senator Kennedy sponsored legislation in 1986 to establish a network of education and outpatient services for individuals infected with the AIDS virus. Two years later, he successfully secured funding for the first substantial federal initiative related to AIDS treatment. Included in a catch-all health spending measure, Kennedy’s provisions expanded home and community care of victims, made for easier access to experimental drugs, and created a new national commission to establish AIDS policy. [Link]

 

[NickCole]

Your activism is irrelevant to your egotistical expectation of personal correspondence from a senator, something that myriads of people are after on a daily basis.

Senators are people, NickCole, they couldn't possibly handle everybody! Geez man.

I've received correspondence from many Senators and Representatives over the years, as have many other Americans, especially in the days before automatic E-mail replies.

And I didn't care about receiving a personal letter from Kennedy about AIDS. What I cared about was him taking action, as Barbara Boxer had in California and Ted Weiss had in New York. Nobody in Massachusetts was doing anything, and since it was, like CA and NY, a state with a significant gay population, it was one of the states we were after. When I read Kennedy was speaking in NY, I figured since Kennedy had been pushing for health care reform he'd be a good one to approach.

If you have any doubts about Kennedy's activism on AIDS, look at the HRC website where they have enumerated an inexhaustible list of his accomplishments on AIDS. Getting feedback from the senator to NickCole isn't one of them, and you should not be upset that it isn't.

Why can't you list the ways Kennedy was "there for us" in 1982 when "nobody else would touch gays with a ten foot pole" to support your claim? Very few were there for us in 1982 when AIDS was still called GRID and if someone with a name as important as Kennedy HAD been there for us it would have been a big deal. Why isn't it documented?

 

[NickCole]

You should be asking Joe Solmonese.

Why would I ask Joe? He didn't say Kennedy was "there for us" in 1982 when "nobody would touch gays with a ten foot pole." You said it. Why can't you back it up?

That kind of information would likely be available to academics since, as it was the early 80s it wouldn't be something you could just research in a few minutes or take a cursory look at exactly what Kennedy was doing back then. But I take Solmonese at his word since he is both older and more aware of past events than I am.

There's all kinds of information, in mainstream books and the Internet, about AIDS in the 80s. It was kind of a big deal and if a heavyweight like Kennedy had been there for us believe me it would be written about. No heavyweight was there for us in 1982, and that's a vital part of the AIDS story. Every time this comes up at JUB I'm amazed at how some gay men here understand so little about what it was to be gay in the 80s, and about AIDS back then.

Look, Ted Kennedy was more available and open to gays and gay rights than most politicians were back then. When he ran against Carter he actually met with gays and (if memory serves) mentioned us in his speech. And he was approachable about AIDS earlier than many elected officials. That was good, it was helpful, it was something worth remembering. But he was NOT there for us in 1982. You made that up. And it's important because if he HAD been there for us the history of AIDS would be different.

 

[opinterph]

I didn't make it up because in the "early days" AIDS was called GRID.

To be fair, back then it was called lots of different things ...

1982 History

The disease still did not have a name, with different groups referring to it in different ways. The CDC generally referred to it by reference to the diseases that were occurring, for example lymphadenopathy (swollen glands), although on some occasions they referred to it as KSOI [Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections], the name already given to the CDC task force.

In contrast some still linked the disease to its initial occurrence in gay men, with a letter in The Lancet calling it "gay compromise syndrome". Others called it GRID (gay-related immune deficiency), AID (acquired immunodeficiency disease), "gay cancer" or "community-acquired immune dysfunction". [Avert]

 

[NickCole]

As much as I despise B Boxer she has done far more for gay people than Kennedy.
Lets face it. Kennedy supported AIDS funding after it hit kids like Ryan White and heterosexual people. Understandable, more straight people vote than gay people but lets not be delusioned. His support of gays was political, not out of love for the community. As much of a bitch as I think she is, I think Boxer actually cares about gay people.

As far as some of these teenagers on here that are arguing with you. They weren't there in the '80s. They have no clue what was going on. I was a kid and I don't really know. But what is clear to me now is that Libs and Cons support AIDS funding now because the disease effects far more straight people than gay and that they started caring when it started to effect the hetero population. TK was a weak man, plaqued with personal demons. A selfish playboy only concerned with his own pleasure and glory. I don't believe for one second he cared about any gay man dying of AIDS.

I don't know Kennedy's motives but he was instrumental in including gay rights in the 1980 Democratic Platform, forcing Carter to accept it. Kennedy meeting with gays and including us in the Platform was a monumental event at the time. And although I'd have to check a transcript to be sure, I'm almost certain he was the first to say "gay" in a speech at a Democratic Convention.

Maybe because of who I learned under or maybe because of my own disappointments with public officials during the 80s, I don't care if Kennedy or Boxer or Clinton or Obama or anybody else cares about gays. I care about what they do or don't do. I don't love them or hate them and I don't care if they love or hate or are indifferent about me. I want equal rights. And ultimately Kennedy did do more than most. His insistence that gay rights be included in the 80 Democratic Platform, whatever his reason, was very important. He provided something we desperately needed, a nod of respect and legitimacy, it was part of a gay liberation/gay rights trajectory that was moving along at a good pace before AIDS. Kennedy was there and he lent us the weight of his name. He deserves recognition for that; he earned appreciation from all gays.

 

[NickCole]

Ooo he met with gays, what a hero. I care about action not meetings and political posturing. When you're known as the liberal lion of the Senate and when you represent a liberal state like Mass. you meet with gays, you go to inner cities and pretend to care. But rest assured the only thing this guy cared about was drinking and power.

Not before 1980. Not before Ted Kennedy did it.

We can only understand the value of what people do, of their actions, by placing them in the context of the time.

 

[NickCole]

^^ I understand that GRID was not used by the CDC for long. How long into the 80s was GRID used as a cultural reference?

My friends and I used GRID for about three minutes. It was just barely better than "gay cancer," which infuriated us because the whole idea that there'd be a "gay disease" was absurd and destructive.

More widely, I'm not sure. 1982 and maybe into the early months of 83 but doubt it lasted that long.

 

[opinterph]

How long into the 80s was GRID used as a cultural reference?

Not very. Documentation of the epidemic didn’t begin to come into evidence until June 1981. [Link]

The name “AIDS” was adopted on July 27, 1982. [NIH]

 

[NickCole]

^^ Thank you for sharing some knowledge about Kennedy's history of gay rights advocacy. Your experience and first hand accounts of the 80s are something that I can never have. As much as I know about gay rights advocacy in the early 80s, gay rights was not a political winner. By 1990, only two states had gay rights laws protecting us from discrimination, Wisconsin in 1982, and Massachusetts in 1989. If Kennedy supported gays in the 80s, I don't see the political benefit from that, as even Massachusetts didn't pass an ENDA until 1989.

I was pretty gay-centric back then so I'm not sure how much mainstream support there was for gays in 1980. It was a time of liberation, African-American rights and women's rights and gay rights, and the Democratic Party was liberal, not centrist. I also remember Kennedy faced a tough fight against Carter (I still don't know what he was thinking, challenging a sitting Democratic President) and gay men had become a good source of votes, and a big portion of us (out gays) by then were Kennedy supporters. So he no doubt was trying to strenghten our support and get more gays. I don't know, the Kennedys are political animals so I doubt they can think without considering political benefit, but that doesn't mean he wasn't concerned about doing the right thing. Still, as I said, in 1982 when AIDS first appeared, he was not, as you claimed, there for us.

 

[NickCole]

I think if they care they will want to do something even if the political tide is against it. I have an issue with politicans who support a cause because it is an expectation. If you can find the transcript that would be great. I give a lot more credit to gay activists who fought to get recognition than some politican who said the word 'gay'. People in the media like Oprah and shows like Roseanne, Ricky Lake, Will and Grace did a lot more to advance acceptance for gays than any politician saying the word 'gay' in a speech. But as I was a young child in 1980 I claim to be no authority. However, I stand by my claim that real funding came to the AIDS crisis only when it began to effect straight people. And that is when TK really became concerned. But ofcourse all of us here are stating opinion. Did I know TK? Nope.

If TK was as concerned for gay rights as some on here claim, you would have more rights. Gays have been handed scraps to keep them voting Democrat but not enough to alienate the hetero majority.

We each have different things to contribute, and the value has to be measured within the context of the time.

Senator Kennedy, JFK's and RFK's brother, calling for equal rights for gays in a 1980 Democratic Convention Speech was a big deal. I know today it doesn't seem like much but it was an important step forward, then.

 

[NickCole]

I'm not saying Kennedy started his AIDS advocacy in 1982. I broke down our debate pretty well in my last post.

Well 1982 is when AIDS was called GRID.


And Kennedy didn't begin his "AIDS advocacy" until at least a few years later.


But this discussion is too typical here.

 

[Apollo]

We each have different things to contribute, and the value has to be measured within the context of the time.

Senator Kennedy, JFK's and RFK's brother, calling for equal rights for gays in a 1980 Democratic Convention Speech was a big deal. I know today it doesn't seem like much but it was an important step forward, then.

I would imagine if they weren't Kennedy's, calling for such a thing would have been political suicide back then.

 

[NickCole]

Institutionally yes, but I still would like to see what the colloquial term for it was, or how far GRID was actually used. Opinterph mentioned "gay cancer," and then as now I'm sure many people referred to as just the "gay disease."

What do you mean you "would like to see"?

Why don't you research it?

What do you usually do when you don't know something that you'd like to know?

 

[NickCole]

Ok I have been trying to find this speech and can only find clips. Do you by chance have a link? Thanks!!

And not to pour salt in the Kool Aid but did he speak out for gays during his campaign or just at the convention when it was clear he had lost? If he spoke out for gays during his campaign when he was a contender I might alter my opinion of him somewhat.

Oh gosh.

Everything I'm saying here, I'm pulling from my own memory. I don't remember anything specific Kennedy said on the campaign trail.

I have to take the dogs for a walk but I'll see if I can find a transcript later.