Jump to content
  • Join Gay Authors

    Join us for free and follow your favorite authors and stories.

    AC Benus
  • Author
  • 647 Words
  • 392 Views
  • 7 Comments
Stories posted in this category are works of fiction. Names, places, characters, events, and incidents are created by the authors' imaginations or are used fictitiously. Any resemblances to actual persons (living or dead), organizations, companies, events, or locales are entirely coincidental.
Note: While authors are asked to place warnings on their stories for some moderated content, everyone has different thresholds, and it is your responsibility as a reader to avoid stories or stop reading if something bothers you. 

The Great Mirror of Same-Sex Love - Prose - 97. James Hormel, Junior "My Dad v. the Senate"

.

Gops' state sponsorship of discrimination IS a family issue

 

When I was 11 years old, my Dad, James Hormel, told me he was Gay.

I didn’t find this an easy bit of information to digest, but I heard my father’s great concern for how this disclosure would affect me. This was not a ‘lifestyle choice.’ Being Gay was part of his personal makeup; something he had struggled with greatly his whole life.

President Clinton recently nominated my father to be US ambassador to Luxembourg. This made us, as a family, quite proud. When my father sat before the Senate at his confirmation hearing, the entire family – including my mother and stepfather – attended to show our unified support. After hearing nothing but high praise from committee members and other senators, we felt sure that a vote of approval would follow. The Foreign Relations Committee approved his nomination by a 16-2 vote.

A week later, we learned several senators had placed “holds” on the nomination, allowing other senators to launch a smear campaign.

The reason, they said, was that they thought my father would use his position as ambassador to further a "gay” agenda. As press reports have noted, these senators objected, among other things, to my father’s financial donations to a Gay and Lesbian collection at the San Francisco Public Library, and to the fact that his partner Timothy Wu would be considered an “ambassadorial spouse.”

In response to these objections, the San Francisco Chronicle reported my father said he would resign from boards of Gay organizations if he was confirmed, and that Timothy would not accompany him to Luxembourg. [Appeasement is never the answer!!!! – Ed.]

Despite support from such conservative senators as Orrin Hatch of Utah, others continue their hold on the nomination. They include Sens. Bob Smith (R-New Hampshire), Tim Hutchinson (R-Arkansas) and James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). Senator Inhofe recently equated my Dad with a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has rejected pleas from 42 senators – nearly half of the Senate – to lift the holds. Without Lott’s goahead, my father’s nomination will not reach the floor, where it is guaranteed to receive overwhelming approval.

My father has dedicated a majority of his work throughout his life to philanthropy and diplomacy. He is committed to helping others. His qualifications as a diplomat have never been disputed. For these reasons, I have concluded that those senators blocking his nomination do so as a simple matter of discrimination.

Those who oppose my father’s nomination on the premise that orientation affects “family values” are not familiar with the strength of our family. While I was growing up, my father never tried to influence my orientation in any way. What he did teach me was kindness, acceptance of others, honesty, self-esteem and standing up for what you believe.

I have just returned to California from Washington with my father, three of my sisters, my brother, two brothers-in-law, my wife, two nieces, one nephew and my father’s partner. We were in Washington for a meeting about our family’s foundation, which my father established to encourage us to participate in philanthropy.

He has taught us through his own giving, to organizations such as Swarthmore College, the Holocaust Museum, [the] Virginia Institute of Autism, [the] University of Chicago, [the] American Foundation for AIDS Research, [the] Breast Cancer Action network and the San Francisco Symphony, that to give as a family is one more way to strengthen our ties.

My father’s agenda for our family is to encourage closeness and integrity. His agenda as ambassador to Luxembourg is to represent our country. It just so happens that he is Gay. The Senate deserves the opportunity to act on the American agenda – to deliberate and vote on my father’s nomination.

—James Hormel, Junior,

July, 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 _

as noted
  • Like 1
  • Love 4
Stories posted in this category are works of fiction. Names, places, characters, events, and incidents are created by the authors' imaginations or are used fictitiously. Any resemblances to actual persons (living or dead), organizations, companies, events, or locales are entirely coincidental.
Note: While authors are asked to place warnings on their stories for some moderated content, everyone has different thresholds, and it is your responsibility as a reader to avoid stories or stop reading if something bothers you. 
You are not currently following this story. Be sure to follow to keep up to date with new chapters.

Recommended Comments

Chapter Comments

Unfortunately, these type of discriminations still exists today.

I see that Hormel did become ambassador, thanks to a recess appointment by President Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, who took the last name of his stepfather, Mr. Clinton, instead of his biological father, Mr. Blythe).  Hormel became the first openly gay US Ambassador.

  • Love 4

The letter was a brilliant tribute to Hormel's father.  I am happy that his father did become the ambassador to Luxembourg.  It did highlight the fact that although things were improving for gays at the time, that a large segment of the Congress was still composed of bigoted and ignorant Representatives and Senators.  Unfortunately, in spite of gains, that fact has not changed and threatens to roll back many advances in human rights.

  • Love 2
  • Fingers Crossed 1
11 hours ago, raven1 said:

The letter was a brilliant tribute to Hormel's father.  I am happy that his father did become the ambassador to Luxembourg.  It did highlight the fact that although things were improving for gays at the time, that a large segment of the Congress was still composed of bigoted and ignorant Representatives and Senators.  Unfortunately, in spite of gains, that fact has not changed and threatens to roll back many advances in human rights.

Thanks, Terry. It's hard to be gushy about a time when things were bottoming out for Gay Rights. In 1998, the Gop's Defenseless Marriage Act was less than 18 months old -- signed by turncoat Clinton -- and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell pogrom in the military was bagging more honorable Gay and Lesbian service members to 'dishonorably' discharge than any time in its past. Discrimination was used by both parties, as only one major member of Congress was bold enough to stand opposed to the marriage segregation Act of 1996, and both Clinton and Gore had campaigned in the same year as total champions of Gay-hate in the legal codes. Yay, which, the 'law' even bothered to point out that "gay" as an adjatiave was an "act" they found disgusting. It was something actually enshrined in their Defenseless Marriage Act, only overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003 as blatantly discriminatory.  

But even worse times were ahead from 1998 forward, as remember, both Obama and Biden also ran in 2008 as stanch Gay-haters (Gay as in the proper name of a Minority group; not "gay" as a stupid adjatiave of oppression and self-negation), and Black groups in America were totally, officially appalled that the Gay Rights Movement (every bit as old as the Civil Rights Movement) equated itself with them, as they too -- via a change in NAACP document-wording -- only officially declared Gay people not disgusting in 2012 when Obama and Biden switched to the right side of the Marriage Equality issue and forced Black groups to act decently to Queer people. Only, and only then, under force, did it happen -- lest we forget.

So, "roll back" seems a cruel term when there has hardly ever been a roll out. And now, the Gops are so rabid they as a party are officially (in writing) Holocaust deniers, woman-haters, Transphobes -- in addition to using "gay" as a slur and self-discriminatory term. It's our reality now; we must first accept it to even begin changing it, imo 

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
On 7/16/2023 at 9:55 AM, Parker Owens said:

This piece reminds us that four decades have changed nothing on the political right. Your kind can’t serve and we don’t serve your kind are privileges some are keen to enshrine and defend. The custom of senatorial holds is not in the constitution, nor anywhere written in law. 

You're so right, Parker. And this is the very summer the Gop-addled Supreme Court confused the guarantees the Supreme Court had already said LGBTI2S+ people were entitled to as a protected minority group. The same system which years ago threw out the old bugaboo of "No shirt, No service -- we reverse the right to refuse transactions with anyone we don't like" is now back, but ONLY for Queer people. What have people voted for when they voted Gop? Nineteen century legal standards, that's what  

Edited by AC Benus
  • Like 1
  • Love 3
23 hours ago, ReaderPaul said:

Unfortunately, these type of discriminations still exists today.

I see that Hormel did become ambassador, thanks to a recess appointment by President Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, who took the last name of his stepfather, Mr. Clinton, instead of his biological father, Mr. Blythe).  Hormel became the first out US Ambassador.

You've said a cotten-pickin' mouthful there. Still exists; only more so than ever. The Gops assert State and Congressional politicians have the 'right' now to decide family healthcare matters. Big Brother in the exam rooms; that's our reality in 2023.

The so-called freedom caucus in the House should immediately rename itself to something more accurate. Like, the Oppression Consensus. That works ;) 

Edited by AC Benus
  • Like 1
  • Love 3
2 hours ago, AC Benus said:

You're so right, Parker. And this is the very summer the Gop-addled Supreme Court confused the guarantees the Supreme Court had already said LGBTI2S+ people were entitled to as a protected minority group. The same system which years ago threw out the old bugaboo of "No shirt, No service -- we reverse the right to refuse transactions with anyone we don't like" is now back, but ONLY for Queer people. What have people voted for when they voted Gop? Nineteen century legal standards, that's what  

Absolutely right 

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
View Guidelines

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Newsletter

    Sign Up and get an occasional Newsletter.  Fill out your profile with favorite genres and say yes to genre news to get the monthly update for your favorite genres.

    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...