Clue to the Mystery American Pioneers in Advancing Same-gender Couples and Marriage
STTPML CONTEST: IDENTIFY THIS PIONEERING AMERICAN SAME-GENDER COUPLE
Introduction to a Thought Experiment and Exercise: NAME THIS MYSTERY SAME-GENDER COUPLE
Welcome to one of STTPML’s many experiments in various venues, approaches, sources and perspectives for exposing, presenting, discussing and hopefully acting on the critical issues of our times to diverse audiences from diverse cultures.
STTPML Collective’s Member Backgrounds Influencing The Exercise
Some of us at STTPML were veterans during the early Vietnam-era and before and saw segregation formally in the Southern states of the U.S. and supposedly hidden, but not really, in the North. Some of us saw “Men Women and Colored” Signs personally, and some of us actually sat in at a lunch-counter desegregation protest in Atlanta in 1963, and thus saw both some of the depth and scope of racism against African-Americans and many of the changes that have occurred since. We remember the evolution in common terms used inside and outside of the African-American communities from “Negro” to “Colored” to “Black” to “African American” and not always a unidirectional or linear process with some steps back and others more than one step ahead in different communities. But the changes in terms reflected some paradigm shifts inside and outside of the African-American communities.
In the case of American Indians, most Rez-based Indians do not use “Native Americans”– a term often used by Eurocentrically-schooled Indians working for the BIA or in some “Native Studies” program, and by some solicitous and often patronizing non-Indians (“they feel our pain”, their hearts bleed, and love to say so publicly with a lot of cameras around) but not used often by Rez-based Indians.
There is not one single treaty called a “Native American” treaty and there is no BNAA or Bureau of Native American Affairs. Nor is there any BCA or Bureau of Causcasian Affairs with perhaps using the 1935 and 1933 Nazi “Race Hygiene” Laws, inspired by Canadian and American “Eugenics” laws and movments, to determine “blood-quantum” degrees to be officially certified as a “real caucasian”. Even today, there is a NFL team called the “Washington Redskins” which is no different than having a Polish football team (the kind of football no NFL player would likely have the stamina for) called the “Auschwitz Lampskins”? https://sttpml.org/redskins-the-origin-of-the-word-and-genocide-behind-it/ In the case of Latinos, there has been some change from “Hispanic” to “Latino” and/or different uses in different venues but again, those not from these groups purport to designate who from the communities they consider “leaders” whose opinions represent the asserted “majorities” of those communities (and others too) and of course those opinions just happen to be the positions of those certifying these community “leaders” as the only real ones they will negotiate with.
The same applies with respect to Homosexuality. Some of us remember that the word “Queer” was an ugly and potentially dangerous slur; you would never once find anyone out in public saying “We’re here, we’re Queer and we’ proud of it and you can just get over it” We could never imagine then, in the early 1960s, something like open associations, books, public figures, politicians or any private citizen openly proclaiming themselves part of the overall “LGBTQ” (“Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) a term that itself has evolved with paradigm shifts as with African-Americans (but not with Indians). And we most certainly would never expect then, to see not only a movement for same-gender marriage or even civil union (which is what all partnerships with legal implications should be as the state has no business in religious disputes over terms and theological differences in meanings) with the term “marriage” left for those who do or do not want to use it.
We do not believe that anyone can achieve any real form of liberation, freedom, respect, equality or equitable treatment by oppressing others. Those who seek and gain power to dominate, will inevitably run into and be eaten up by their own kind and any freedoms they attain or material comforts are illusory and never sustainable. We do not consider seeking an equal opportunity to become an oppressor is any kind of serious kind of struggle for real justice: to have an equal opportunity to kill and maime for U.S. imperialism or to become a CIA “interrogation specialist”? For women to become just as narcissistic, brutal and megalomaniacal as the males when they become CEOs of big corporations is any kind of liberation? For LGBTQ communities to support participation and “thank you for your service”in illegal wars founded on lies and of the kind Nazis were hanged for at Nuremberg under the banner of “acceptance”, “mainstreaming” and the “right” to be a tool of reckless imperial power projections is to argue that liberation is some kind of equal right to be an oppressor or that one just cause trumps another and thus justifies some unconscionable positions on or sabotaging that “lesser cause”.
While we at STTPML represent a very diverse group, with differences in politics, some traditional in various expressions Indigenous Spirituality, some of different faiths and denominations, some secular, we do not have a unified opinion on the question of same-gender marriage or civil unions under the present contexts. For example, what are the real politics, rhetorical and other intentions and actors for and against it, etc?
But we are unified against the notion that any prejudices of the past still alive and well in the present, by anyone, and thus likely to trigger resistance (censure) by some, is ever some or any kind of argument for “not yet, wait till those opposed die off” or is any kind of argument against imperative social change or any kind of change. We do not accept the right or power of veto based on power, wealth, connections, narrow and dominating “sensibilities”, or whatever; the case argues for or against an assertion itself from its own quantity and quality of evidence, reason, law and implications on others and society as a whole.
We pose for your thought, critical thinking and amusement this exercise. Name this couple that was arguably the first open, openly-recognized by many as, same-gender couple in the U.S.
We will give clues based on known facts (witnessed by multiple witnesses in varied venues and times with no nexuses between some of the witnesses, scholarship from diverse perspectives) with the standard “two-source” rule used in standard journalism.
By the way, we at STTPML are well aware that what appears as two sources is really only one. Take the infamous case of CURVEBALL, the supposed German source on WMDs being built by Saddam that was fed to various newspapers that did not know he was a source also for the U.S. Government; further the U.S. government leaked to those papers also not telling them he was their only source; voila, one source looks like two to the media. And when the media prints it, thinking they had two independent sources (“our source a former Iraqi Lt. Col in Saddam’s WMD program told us stuff confirmed by our sources in Government we have the two necessary sources”), those who leaked to that media, now cite the story as another “third”source and the deception and conspiracy to engineer mass support for illegal wars spirals out of control. Out of that deception, we have the present carnage in Iraq and elsewhere going on and that will continue to go on to where?
THE EXERCISE: This Same-gender Couple (each clue worth 5 points, lowest score, fewest clues it takes before finding the answer, wins. You are on your honor):
1. Were an open couple and very affectionate couple in some circles, during a long period when homophobia in America was at its most extreme; when there were few women or minorities in government, and there were very few people openly homosexual and being identified as or called homosexual, if publicly, would spell total ruin.
2. Both held very high-level positions in government. Neither ever was in military service, USO or any civilian support positions for the military.
3. Did not live openly in the same house, but their own houses were next door to each other. Their hotel rooms were always adjoining. Their vacations always taken together. They ate lunch and dinner together every day without fail.
4, Were buried after death very near each other, per their requests, in a prestigious burial park, with many luminaries of U.S. history buried near them. When one of the couple died, the other was given the ceremonial flag as would a husband or wife of the deceased.
5. They were both the only beneficiaries of all property in the will of the other.
6. They were both open practitioners of the essence of any marriage or civil union of a same gender couple, but not open or even private advocates of same-gender marriage or even of homosexuality. Both openly portrayed themselves as dedicated, hence unmarried, heterosexual government employees. Both were openly homophobic, even feared by other homosexuals of the times. And one of them was witnessed, in various venues by multiple witnesses as having a kind of iconic “brand” or preference for provocative and suggestive low-cut red dresses, very high spiked heels, and outrageous wigs to change hair color.
7. They both might have been ruined in their workplaces, in their professional associations, friendships, security clearances and employment and the like had their homosexuality, often acknowledged by those in their presence as “the elephant in the room”, had been documented by photographs or credible eye witnesses to homosexual conduct.
8. Both were hypocritical in that they openly professed homophobia while openly acting as a same-gender couple would and being recognized as such by many witnesses.
9. Traveled to and from work together, ate together, came to their homes together, took vacations together, went to social clubs of the rich and powerful together, openly and exclusively.
10. Both provincial, narrow, not traveled, left the U.S. only once and to a nation on the U.S. border, elitist, ambitious, anti-Semitic, American Exceptionalists and racists. Both had close ties with a domineering and over-protective mother
11. Both expressed and engaged in contempt for the law selectively, often and covertly, while publicly, profusely and piously demanding more resources for more enforcement of the very laws that were being broken by those with the same “mutuality of interests”
12. Both were openly obsessed with fashion, only the latest and most elegant and expensive styles would do at costs far beyond the means of the government salaries they earned.
13. While clearly a couple, and recognized by many as such, no one could identify which might be playing which role analogous to “husband” or “wife” in a heterosexual marriage or civil union.
14. Only one of the couple was truly famous and a celebrity, the other spent their whole time together as in the shadow and “partner” of the one with fame, celebrity and power.
15. One of the couple had the power to have hired the other in government at a time when all government jobs were like gold, and even had the power to jump the other partner to the number 2 position in a powerful government agency after only being hired to at entry level to that agency one year previously.
16. One of the couple got a full state funeral with many attending, one did not.
17. One of the couple was more openly homophobic as a cover than the other. Both openly and physically showed affection for the other in several places in front of several witnesses yet neither would or could be openly called, or even suggested to be acting like, homosexuals involved in a kind of same-gender marriage or union. They always registered in separate rooms in hotels but that were always adjoining and one of the rooms was always found unused.
18. Neither of the couple was publicly involved, or known or suspected to be involved, with a member of the opposite gender.
19. Very few people, even with a lot of wealth and power, would openly oppose either of this couple and doing so could be very costly at least to career and status as well as income. They both had access to very powerful people and one of them directly to the ear of many presidents who feared one of them.
20. This couple held different positions in the same agency in government, yet traveled together even when the issues being dealt with did not require both of them in attendance and/or even within the expertise of both. One was promoted to Number two position after less than 18 months in the government agency.
21. Both were both openly narcissistic, power-hungry and seeking public exposure and fame in many ways, one more so than the other even, yet they were also ultra-secretive and really trusted only each other and possibly one or two others.
22. One was more literate and experienced in writing than the other and acted as a ghostwriter for the other whose books and articles became best sellers.
23. Both of them had held childhood jobs, but their adult jobs were only in government and each basically had only one real job, with only one agency, while in government. One became himself an “institution within an institution”.
24. One of them has had many books, from many perspectives, written about the life and controversies of that person while the other had little of anything, certainly no full books written as with the other partner.
25. One of them is suspected to have recruited the other into a first encounter with homosexuality and into open same-gender relationship. Both openly, profusely and often expressed disgust and railed against what they themselves were doing in private as well as in some closed circles and venues also partly public with others–orgies.
Any guesses?
Edgar and Clyde: A Love Story
