Tony Sanders Tribute Page
Since January 2000
When Allah made
The Sun
He had
You in mind.
- Malia Kai |
This site maintained by Kathleen Antonia.
TM
Display Schedule
July 17, 2005
AIDS Walk - Sharon Meadow or across from the Rose Garden, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA
June 25-27, 2004 ---- Washington, DC
In observance of National H.I.V. Testing Day, 1,000 Blocks of The AIDS Memorial Quilt will be on display on the Ellipse.
Spring 2002 ---- Washington, DC
White House AIDS Policy Office
August 31-September 2, 2001 ---- Chicago, Il
Chicago's Navy Pier, 800 Grand Avenue
| ||||
August 16, 1951 - June 29, 1995
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||
Panel No. 5207
| ||||||
| ||||
AIDS Emergency Fund
1540 Market Street, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 558-6980
Names Project Foundation
Please look for Tony's Quilt Panel on the cover of the Names Project's Year 2000 Calendar.
by Kathleen Antonia
In a flurry life will pass.
You never hurry. You pace yourself.
You say, "Next time it'll come to me.
Next time I'll do it right. You'll see.
Next time. It'll have to be next time."
Baby, don't wait for your life to end.
Baby, don't wait. It won't begin again.
Baby, don't wait for days that just won't come.
Baby, don't wait. This moment's the only one.
"In the morning" your dreams begin.
Come the dawning they fade again.
You say, "Next time it'll come to me.
Next time I'll do it right. You'll see.
Next time. It'll have to be next time."
Baby, don't wait for paths to simply change.
Baby, don't wait for life to rearrange.
Don't you wait for fate to see you through.
Baby, don't wait. All you need is a part of you.
Baby, don't wait for your life to end.
Baby, don't wait. It won't begin again.
Don't you wait for fate to see you through.
Baby, don't wait. All you need is a part of you.
Copyright 1999, 2000 by Kathleen Antonia. All rights reserved.
**Written as a tribute to Tony Sanders, a brilliant life cut short from AIDS,
a reminder that time is a precious resource not to be wasted.
THE OTHER SIDE OF ANTHONY
[from the July 5, 1995 Memorial program]
This is the time to hear, tell and remember stories about the "other side" of our friend. Even though each of us felt close to him, there is a side we don't know.
In Schenectady, he was called "Anthony". His mother, sister, and brothers all called him Anthony, and he was introduced to me as "Anthony" when I met him. On his regular visits from California, we shared meals, we talked, he helped me get married, and I felt I knew him pretty well.
That changed a few months ago, when a bubbly voice on the other end of a long distance call said "Hi, I'm Kathy, and I'm calling to find out how Tony is." (Tony?, my mind searched, do I know a Tony?) "Oh, you mean Anthony, my brother-in-law!", I finally responded. "Yes" she said, "but we all call him Tony." Kathy came to visit and told me the other side of Anthony (Tony) she knew. Other friends and coworkers did the same.
He knew all about herbs and holistic medicine. He was conversant in Japanese gardening, Italian Operas and French cuisine. He was an excellent cook, and even had a cookbook for salads. He had been to Europe, Russia, Hawaii, Scandinavia and the Caribbean. From his many friends, I learned of the fabulous things he had done and seen, and the many principles and ideals that he promulgated.
In summary, there were so many sides of Anthony, that all of them could not be known by one person alone. If we tried to put them together, we'd wind up with a sphere - something like the mirrored ball, which revolves above a dance floor. Each piece an other side; each side a facet; each facet sparkling for each of us at different times. The sphere, as a whole, is exciting and delightful, and just like our brother and friend, stays in our memory forever.
- Hombach
| ||||||
I love you and miss you every day, Tony. I hope you can see how you've changed my life for the better. Your "little Shirley Temple" is on her way!
I will never forget you. How I hope that you are somewhere waiting for me and that we will know each other again.
- Antonia
| ||||||
© 1996 Kathleen Antonia Tarr
When I woke up this morning,
I knew I would
lose
something important to me
Some piece of jewelry
I thought
so
I left my sister's earring at home
and put on another
not nearly as
valuable
but I left my ring on
Tony's wedding band
and it disappeared
forever
and I think it means
Tony is really dead and
I will not
ever
get him back
| ||||||
From the Names Project Quilt Panel biography:
"Tony's trust and affection remain worth any cost. They are gifts that shield me through every struggle of my life."
Caregiver and Quilt-maker- Kathy Tarr
| ||||
February 14, 2004
The Gender of Same-Sex Marriage
by Kathleen Antonia Tarr, J.D.
Nobody cares if a gay man marries a lesbian. Nobody. So why are we pretending that the case against same-sex marriage has anything to do with sexual orientation? It's about gender, and last I remember, gender discrimination violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Given that marriage has long been held to be a Fundamental Right, it is beyond me with what authority marriage licenses are denied same-sex couples. What possible compelling interest could there be in doing so?
The social drama about same-sex marriage certainly elevates the issue of homophobia, but the legal question need not. As important as freedom of choice and sexual privacy are, they are satellites, platforms of a civil rights movement that are not surprisingly countered with cries of "tradition". The Founding Fathers meant to address these cries by establishing a Constitution not subject to certain American traditions, specifically those that prejudice certain groups and deny essential rights. All governance was not meant to be left to the People. Freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, etc., were never meant to alter by vote, the whimsy of the populace. They were freedoms meant to remain firm, static. So, too, equal protection of the law and due process. That the enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause in and of itself denies equal protection - such that the gender of sexual orientation discrimination is blurred between tiers of constitutional scrutiny - is further evidence that freedoms must given strict legal protection, uninfluenced by popularity polls.
While same-sex marriage is inextricably linked to homosexuality, the designation of gender on marriage licenses was never intended to exclude gays and lesbians (due notice given the fact that many laws regarding the contract of marriage do not designate gender at all). Just as it was never imagined that Blacks and Whites would one day marry each other, when marriage applications were first drafted it was never imagined men would marry men or women marry women. We are, in fact, at the same metaphorical place in history when anti-miscegenation laws were being enacted. "One man, one woman" laws are those anti-miscegenation laws being established for the first time.
The popular prejudices of this Nation should not blind governments or courts to the truths of equality. Our Constitution is meant to protect us - equally - before such protection is popular. The much neglected Preamble serves as Foundation: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, mean to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The intent motivating the establishment of the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union, to secure Liberty for all generations. Liberty. Freedom. Freedom is meant to expand as much as possible, not narrow.
In last year's Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision - disallowing Texas' criminalization of Homosexual Conduct - Justice Scalia in his Dissent compared same-sex relations to miscegenation, marriage between Blacks and Whites. Although he did not well address the issue, the comparison is perfectly on point. My mother is African-American. Today, should I choose to marry a White man, I can do so without (legal) penalty. However, in 1967, sixteen states - having classified me as "Negro" - would have denied my application to marry the man who today could be my husband. Today, if thirty-five years ago I had been born a man - White or Black - thirty-seven states (at last count) would intentionally deny my application to marry the very same man whom as a woman I am permitted to marry. What more obvious form of gender discrimination could there be? But for my gender, my choice is unlimited.
Same-sex marriage is about the fundamental freedom to marry. This freedom should not be denied based upon such an immutable characteristic as gender. Nobody cares if a gay man marries a lesbian. No one should stop them from marrying, instead, for love.
###
The Inequality of Equal Protection (letter to Newsweek editor) (07/09/2003)
I, like Anna Quindlen [Justice Rip Van Winkle - July 14, 2003], am relieved to learn that the Supreme Court
disallowed Texas' criminalization of Homosexual Conduct, but I cannot share her view that the Decision was "hugely revolutionary" or join much of our Nation in the enthusiastic celebration of Lawrence v. Texas. While Quindlen focuses on Justice Scalia's Dissent (joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas), the Opinion and Justice O'Connor's Concurrence also err, each withholding the constitutional protection due homosexuals, that which is equally due all persons regardless of gender or race.
The Court limits the Lawrence discussion to privacy concerns, intentionally disregarding Equal Protection by stating that Due Process "advances both interests". It does not. To his credit, Justice Scalia addresses Equal Protection, specifically the similarities between the Texas statute and since invalidated antimiscegenation laws (see Loving v. Virginia). However, Justice Scalia fails to make an adequate analogy.
There is no significant difference between men loving men (or women loving women) and Blacks and Whites loving each other. Justice Scalia reduces Loving to the issue of "White Supremacy" but the unEqual Protection of antimiscegenation laws is obvious on their face: but for the race of one of the spouses, no law is violated. Antimiscegenation laws discriminated against individuals charged with their violation because those persons were not a preferred race just as the Texas statute discriminated against individuals for not being a preferred gender. This glaringly obvious and simple truth is lost on what is fabled to be a Bench of brilliant legal minds. Sexual orientation discrimination is gender discrimination, and Equal Protection of law may only be denied with "compelling" justification. There is no compelling justification for the criminal prosecution of private Homosexual Conduct.
Justice O'Connor concurs that the Texas statute fails scrutiny under Equal Protection analysis but only because she concludes there was no "legitimate" reason for Texas to exclude Heterosexual Conduct from its law. The difference between "legitimate" and "compelling" is crucial. Justice O'Connor applies proper scrutiny to the Texas statute no better than any other member of the Court.
Lawrence correctly invalidated a discriminatory law, and that is to be applauded. However, while I wish I could be as hopeful as Quindlan and only take issue with Justice Scalia's Dissent, I see too well that the Court will continue to enforce laws unEqually. I, for one, am not inspired by the inequality of Equal Protection.
- Kathleen Antonia Tarr, J.D.
###
Subject: The Inequality of Equal Protection (07/07/2003)
While I am happy to learn that the Supreme Court disallowed Texas' criminalization of Homosexual Conduct, I cannot share the enthusiasm with which much of our Nation celebrates Lawrence v. Texas. The Opinion, Concurrence, and Dissents each withhold the constitutional protection due homosexuals, that which is equally due all persons.
In applying the "rational basis" test rather than "heightened scrutiny" to the Texas statute, the Court concludes that laws distinguishing homosexuality require less examination than those distinguishing gender which in turn require less examination than those distinguishing race. (Note: the Court ignores that laws about homosexuality are necessarily laws about gender. For example, in Lawrence, but for the gender of one of the persons involved, no crime would have been committed.)
Justice Scalia in his Dissent makes special note of the since invalidated antimiscegenation laws, but he fails to make an adequate analogy to the case at hand. There is no significant difference between men loving men (or women loving women) and Blacks and Whites loving each other. The expression of love - through marriage, sex, etc. - is fundamental for each person and should be protected as such.
That this Nation is full of bigots should not blind the Court to the truths of equality. Our Constitution is meant to protect us - equally - before such protection is popular. The much neglected Preamble serves as Foundation: We the People of the United States, endeavoring to form a more perfect Union, mean to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Those who wrote the Constitution expected that every Person would retain Liberty. But there's the problem. We are not agreed as to whom among us is actually a Person.
Our laws once regarded some of us as three-fifths of a Person and many of us as property. Some of us - many more than we seem to comfortably admit - still don't believe that someone of a different race or gender is actually a complete Person. Luckily, a few People whose delusions are not so obscene make it to the Bench and protect us as best they can from racism and, to lesser extent, sexism. The effect is to take judicial notice of race and gender as components of Person-hood. However, they fail to do similarly with the category of sexual orientation.
Heterosexuality is recognized, but nothing more.
As a result, the Supreme Court in deciding Lawrence incorrectly excludes homosexuality as a component of Person-hood and consequently does not examine the Texas statute as closely as it ought. Having failed to apply proper scrutiny, Lawrence, as precedent, now permits courts to apply such levity to all other laws concerning homosexual behavior.
It will be a long time before our courts truly protect the equality of all the People of this Union. The Judiciary will continue to assume the existence of a "rational basis" for certain forms of discrimination, those which not surprisingly coincide with personal prejudice. Lawrence correctly invalidated a law which threatened Liberty, but the Decision maintains that Due Process and Equal Protection will continue to be enforced unequally among the People, and in light of that truth, I for one cannot celebrate.
- Kathleen Antonia Tarr, J.D.
Segregation: by race, by gender.... What is equality?
| ||||
| ||||||
|
link here for Ralph Raphael's Tribute Page
| ||||||
