Opinions
A forever Pride stamp for gay Ambassador James C. Hormel
U.S. Postal Service to consider the idea at upcoming meeting
James C. Hormel, an American philanthropist, LGBT activist, and owner of Hormel Foods, a Fortune 500 multinational corporation, died on Aug. 13, 2021. He was 88 years old.
Hormel was the first openly gay person to serve as a U.S. Ambassador. He served at the U.S. Embassy in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, from 1999 to 2001.
Hormel was a courageous person. He faced the hateful, oppressive, and anti-American politics of Washington in the 1990s. I know the viciousness of the era based on my experience with the federal bureaucracy and homophobic Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).
As a federal employee, I vocally supported non-discrimination policies and employment equality for LGBT federal employees. After I gave a speech on the subject at an Arlington, Va., conference, Helms tried to have me fired.
On July 19, 1994, Helms said LGBT federal employees and their straight allies like me had our minds in our “crotches.” He said LGBT federal employees and their straight allies like me were “perverts.” He said many more vile things that are preserved for history in The Congressional Record, July 19, 1994, and on C-SPAN.
I survived the Helms assault thanks to staffers for then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and GOP contacts in other offices on Capitol Hill. The experience helped me to understand the oppressive and hostile work conditions that my LGBT colleagues faced. This made me a stronger ally.
In the 1990s, Hormel was brave to take on the anti-LGBT politicians in both political parties. In 1994, President Bill Clinton considered Hormel as ambassador to Fiji. After the Fijian government objected to his LGBT advocacy, Clinton reconsidered the Hormel nomination.
In 1997, Clinton nominated Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg. At that time, Helms chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In his memoir “Here’s Where I Stand,” Helms did not mention Hormel. He was, perhaps, concerned about his legacy. He may have realized that his homophobia would hurt funding for his Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, N.C., a suburb of Charlotte.
Hormel’s nomination lingered before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for two years. The committee never recommended Hormel’s nomination to the Senate for a confirmation vote. If Helms had been the visionary foreign policy leader his supporters claim, he would have advanced Hormel’s nomination.
Hormel said Helms went “easy” on him during the nomination process. Other senators, including Arkansas Sen. Tim Hutchinson, held up the Hormel nomination. In 1999, Clinton used his authority to give Hormel a recess appointment as ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel served until Clinton left office in 2001.
In 2006, I relocated from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco. I lived there for 10 years. I met many cultural and political legends, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, City Lights Bookstore owner/publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti, former Bay Area Reporter (BAR) editor Paul Lorch, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, and former Ambassador James C. Hormel, among others.
I freelanced on evening assignments for the BAR. These assignments included several events where Hormel was a speaker or an attendee. During LGBT Pride Month, Hormel once spoke at an event for the Commonwealth Club of California (CCC). He spoke about the history of the LGBT rights movement. It was a small group of CCC members. We sat at a long table as Hormel spoke in his soft, yet commanding, voice as an LGBT historian and activist. It was like being in an LGBT history class with Hormel as the instructor. It was a priceless experience.
Among the other attendees was a representative of the Consulate General of Luxembourg’s San Francisco office. It was informative to hear Hormel and the representative of Luxembourg speak about the foreign service, the State Department, U.S. and European LGBT politics, and the Luxembourg people’s respect for Ambassador Hormel. It was clear from the conversation that Hormel had left a positive impression on the government and the people of Luxembourg. If every ambassador had the diplomatic skills of James Hormel, America would likely have better foreign relations and possibly more respect in the world.
In 2011, Hormel with Erin Martin published his memoir “Fit to Serve: Reflections on a Secret Life, Private Struggle, and Public Battle to Become the First Openly Gay U.S. Ambassador.” Venezuelan filmmaker and playwright Moises Kaufman said of Hormel’s book: “Future generations will look at this book and experience their history told honestly and courageously.” Novelist Richard North Patterson called “Fit to Serve”: “Rich, engrossing, and deeply affecting.” Patterson added: “In the truest sense, this is a great American story.”
I attended Hormel’s book discussion and signing at Books, Inc., a San Francisco bookstore in the Castro District. It was one of the largest and proudest LGBT audiences I had seen at a book event for an LGBT author. Though the event was on a chilly November night in San Francisco, LGBT warmth was abundant for Hormel. After the signing, I engaged the former ambassador in a brief conversation about Jesse Helms, who died on July 4, 2008. He regretted the LGBT lives harmed by Helm’s homophobic hate speech.
In 2013, after Rep. Barney Frank left Congress, he gave a well-attended speech for members of the Commonwealth Club of California at the Fairmont Hotel. I covered the event for BAR. Ambassador Hormel and his husband Michael provided quotes for my news story. Hormel agreed with Frank that gays should come out, because people needed “to recognize the presence of gays in our society.”
The last time I spoke with Ambassador Hormel was at a 2014 reception at San Francisco City Hall after the unveiling of the Harvey Milk Forever Stamp. He recalled Milk’s political leadership and public service. He said Congress needed to seriously address gun violence. For me, this event was a rare opportunity to see one gay man of courage, Harvey Milk, honored by another courageous gay man, Ambassador Hormel.
Throughout his life, Hormel enjoyed success. He represented a needed change in our society and U.S. and global diplomacy. His life experience offers lessons in self-acceptance, understanding, and discipline.
In a 2013 story in the San Francisco Chronicle about homophobia, Hormel said: “I was in my 30s when I finally was willing to come out. I had been married [to a woman] for 10 years. I had children. I was hiding. I was pretending. If I [had] led my life like that, how can I expect other people to suddenly just come around.” This was, no doubt, a painful thing for Hormel to say. It may have also been therapeutic for Hormel to share with others.
Hormel’s life experience was personal growth, achievement, and happiness despite the painful memories. He successfully worked through the mental stress that many LGBT people experience. If young LGBT professionals are looking for an LGBT role model, they might consider Hormel.
It is important to keep Hormel’s memory alive so others can learn from his success. I recently wrote the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to request a Forever stamp honoring Ambassador James Hormel.
In a letter of Feb. 16, Shawn Quinn, the USPS manager of Stamp Development, wrote: “I am pleased to inform you that this proposal will be submitted for review and consideration before the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee at their next meeting.” Mr. Hormel is worthy of remembrance in this way. He was an honorable man.
A Forever Pride Stamp for Ambassador James Hormel in 2025? If you agree, please let Shawn Quinn and your members of Congress hear from you. Happy Pride 2024!
James Patterson, a life member of the American Foreign Service Association, is a writer and communications consultant in the D.C. area.
The racist felon in the White House has sunk to what many people consider a new low, with his posting the disgusting depiction of the Obamas on his social media site. The depths to which he will sink would be considered unfathomable to many. But there is nothing we should think him incapable of. With this latest post, and refusal to apologize, I have to question the principles and decency of anyone, who still in any way, is willing to support him.
I once thought to give people taken in by his lies and carnival barker routine, the benefit of the doubt. I had the benefit of always knowing Trump was a liar and slimeball, having met him years ago in New York. I understood he learned well at the feet of his mentor, Roy Cohn, who was one of the more disgusting figures in New York politics. But not everyone knew that history. But now, after his behavior and actions, during the first year of his second term, I will not give the benefit of the doubt to anyone. If you still stand with the felon, you are a person with no principles, or decency, yourself. If you still support him you are standing with a man who first glorified the murder of a VA nurse, Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis, calling him a domestic terrorist. A man who said the ICE agents who did it were just doing their job. He did the same when they murdered Renee Good in cold blood, calling her a ‘domestic terrorist.’ He supported his agents acting like the Gestapo when taking a five-year-old boy into custody on his front stoop.
The felon went to Davos and in a stunning attack on our allies, claimed the men and women in their military never joined us on the front lines in Afghanistan, insulting all those who fought, and died, with our troops. He was either too dumb to know, or chose to disregard, that Article 5, a critical clause in the NATO pact, which means an armed attack on one member of the alliance will be treated as an attack on all members, was only invoked once in NATO’s history, and that was after the Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.
He is destroying our country, and all our credibility around the world. He bows down to Putin and other despots. He clearly wants to be King of our country, and now an Emperor in the eyes of the world, as he threatens Greenland, and threatens to attack numerous other countries.
The problem those sycophants have, is I believe the people of the United States will finally understand he is destroying what is best in their lives. They will rise up and depose him; they will do it with their votes. Many of those who believed his lies and promises, are now seeing him as the “Emperor with no clothes.” He lied to them, and fooled enough of them, to win the election. They are waking up to the fact he is more senile than they thought Biden was, and clearly much less intelligent. They are seeing him for the grifter he is and finding out he cares not a bit for them, or their welfare. He clearly couldn’t care less that their grocery prices are going up, their rents are going up, their heating costs are going up, and for some, their healthcare costs are tripling. None of that bothers him in the least. He cares more about getting gift planes from Qatar, selling crypto coins, seeing Melania make money on a weird so-called documentary, and giving tax breaks to his rich friends and corporations.
The American people have fought a revolution before. We fought a king and won. This revolution may look different from that, and from the French Revolution. We may man/woman the barricades but will do so without guns. We will win with our votes.
The wealthy like Jeff Bezos, and others who see themselves as American nobility, corporate and media giants, who think the felon will make them even richer if they kneel before him, will in the long run be very disappointed. He has some power for a few more years, but even that will be curtailed when Democrats take back Congress in January 2027.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
I was a “chubby” kid. A “husky” kid. Horrible terms that still make me cringe. Food issues stem through the family tree. I remember hearing a family member vomit when I was in elementary school; the residual scraps left floating in the toilet. I tried sticking my finger down my throat as a teen — an easy purge after a buffet binge. “Easy” being a sick way of looking at such a violent act to oneself, but the swiftness of an occasional act turning to addiction is frighteningly simple.
I was in my early 20s when I went on another diet in a series of crash diets, but this one hit different. I barely ate and worked out intensely each day. I decided to reward myself at the end of the week with a large pizza and breadsticks. Devouring a whole pizza (and more) was not new to me. I could down an alarming amount of food and hit the pillow in a haze. I didn’t know about nutrition, calories, or balance for many years to come. The meal went down the toilet, and I resumed my starvation diet. The calorie deficit pushed me closer to addiction’s ledge, and the hunger sent me over.
The sporadic binge turned to several a week — running to the local country store for a smattering of chips, candy, soda, honey buns, cookies, anything to fill me up. Soon, it was a regular appointment, arranging a home buffet to mindlessly stuff my body for hours ‘til I knelt over the ceramic bowl.
The binge-n-purge cycle turned twice daily. If I couldn’t binge at home in private, I would gorge at buffets or in my car — throwing up in restaurants, grocery stores, lobby restrooms. I lived in a house with a septic tank at the start of my illness. I clogged the tank, causing vomit to rise to the surface of the soil. Fearing further damage, I started throwing up in trash bags, collecting them in large bins, and driving them to public toilets to dispose of them. This went on for seven years, all through college, internships, and my first corporate job.
The older man I was with was losing himself at the same time, falling deeper into the abyss of severe depression he’d battled lifelong. We saw the best in each other at the start, and the worst by the demise. His bouts of darkness were beyond my repair, no matter how hard I tried to tackle the impossible fix. How is a 21-year-old supposed to convince a 46-year-old to seek treatment, talk him down from suicidal tendencies, get him to understand people love him? I couldn’t navigate it, and food seemed to be the one thing in my control.
It also became my reward and my excuse to treat myself in the face of any stress or accomplishment. He wants to kill himself: binge. I aced a test: binge. Work was rough: binge. Food was all I lived for. Friends, family, love all took a backseat. I was ruled by a hidden hunger I kept secret from nearly everyone, though my emaciated frame didn’t go unnoticed.
I was productive through the battle, working full time, graduating college summa cum laude, landing a solid job and moving up the ladder. All common addict attributes. Bulimia consumed me ‘til I was nearly 30 — four years after splitting from my first love, two years after he killed himself, and three years into a relationship with the man who would become my husband, and later my ex-husband.
They say the difference between privacy and secrecy is that privacy is about respect, whereas secrecy has shame attached. So, let’s drop the shame and the secrets held far too long. It’s been 12 years since I spent my days, nights, and thousands of dollars gorging and purging for hours. Twelve years since I was face down in a toilet at my own will.
I was a TV producer for a decade, booking more than 15,000 segments through the years. I often received pitches for February’s Eating Disorder Awareness Month and made a point to share these stories every year. Still, every pitch and every spokesperson I booked was with a woman. The stigma surrounding body dysmorphia in men continues despite men representing up to 25 percent of people with eating disorders, with members of the LGBTQ+ community at a higher risk, according to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders. Men are also more likely to not recognize a problem, and their cases tend to be more severe by the time they see a doctor.
Living in secret and hiding is not living. It’s shame-based and the ultimate red flag that something needs to change. It will haunt you ‘til you are unrecognizable to yourself and everyone around you. You don’t need to share your story with the world, but opening up to someone is a crucial step in recovery and healing. Living in lies and maintaining deception is the heaviest of burdens
Addiction is blinding. You are unable to see the joys, the freedoms, and opportunities awaiting when you’re solely focused on soothing your addiction’s rage. Living for the fix pushes every other interest out of focus. When you start to release the devil on your back, you make room for wings to spread and space to fly into passions suffocated far too long.
It’s taken a lot of work, therapy, reflection and learning. Not to say I’m recovered, not to say I’m healed. I’ll forever have this devil on my back. It’s about learning to quiet his rage, soothe his anxiety, and ensure his safety and love. It’s a lifelong path of healing more with each day, each year.
And there is always hope. Even in the deepest depths of despair and isolation and ‘I’ll-never-get-better-ness.’ Whatever your circumstances, those tinges of hope are worth clinging to. They’ll carry you through.
I don’t know where I’ll be next year, let alone a future once so clear. And I’m okay. You’re okay. The other side isn’t perfect. Nothing is. But what a gift to make it there and experience life unshackled from your ghost.
There’s so much to see.
Kyle Ridley is an Emmy Award winning journalist with more than two decades in print and television.
Opinions
Why trans suffering is more palatable than trans ambition
We are most readily accepted when framed as victims
In the current media and political climate, stories of trans suffering move quickly. Stories of trans ambition do not.
A trans teenager denied healthcare. A trans woman attacked on public transit. A trans man struggling with homelessness. These narratives circulate widely, often accompanied by solemn op-eds, viral posts, and carefully worded statements of concern. The pain is real. The coverage is necessary. But there is a quieter pattern beneath it: trans people are most readily accepted when they are framed as victims—and most resisted when they present themselves as agents with desire, confidence, and upward momentum.
This distinction has sharpened in recent years. As anti-trans legislation has proliferated across statehouses and election cycles have turned trans lives into talking points, the public script has narrowed. Trans people are legible as objects of harm, but far less comfortable to many audiences as subjects of ambition. Survival is tolerated. Aspiration is destabilizing.
The reason suffering travels more easily is not mysterious. Pain reassures the audience. It positions trans people as recipients of concern rather than participants in competition. A suffering subject does not threaten status hierarchies; they confirm them. Sympathy can be extended without requiring a recalibration of power, space, or expectations. In this framing, acceptance remains conditional and charitable.
Ambition disrupts that arrangement. A trans person who wants more than safety—who wants money, authority, visibility, creative control, or institutional influence—forces a different reckoning. Ambition implies permanence. It implies entitlement. It implies that trans people are not passing through society’s margins but intend to occupy its center alongside everyone else.
You can see this discomfort play out in real time. When trans people speak about wanting success rather than safety, the response often shifts. Confidence is scrutinized. Assertiveness is reframed as arrogance. Desire is recoded as delusion. The language changes quickly: “unstable,” “narcissistic,” “out of touch,” “ungrateful.” In public discourse, confidence in trans people is frequently treated not as a strength, but as a warning sign.
Media narratives reinforce this dynamic. Even ostensibly positive coverage often relies on redemption arcs that center suffering first and ambition second—if at all. Success is framed as overcoming transness rather than inhabiting it. A trans person can be praised for resilience, but rarely for dominance, excellence, or command. Achievement must be softened, contextualized, and made reassuring.
This is especially visible in cultural reactions to trans people who refuse modesty. Trans figures who express sexual confidence, professional competitiveness, or political authority routinely face backlash that their cis counterparts do not. They are accused of being “too much,” of asking for too much space, of wanting too much too fast. The underlying anxiety is not about tone; it is about proximity. Ambition collapses the safe distance between observer and observed.
Politically, this preference for suffering over ambition is costly. Movements anchored primarily in pain narratives struggle to articulate futures beyond harm reduction. They mobilize sympathy but have difficulty sustaining leadership. A politics that can only argue from injury is perpetually reactive, always responding to the next threat rather than shaping the terrain itself.
This matters in a moment when trans rights are no longer debated only in cultural terms but in administrative, legal, and economic ones. Influence now depends on institutional literacy, long-term strategy, and the willingness to occupy decision-making spaces that were never designed with trans people in mind. Ambition is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for durability.
Yet ambition remains suspect. Trans people are encouraged to be grateful rather than demanding, visible rather than powerful, resilient rather than authoritative. Even within progressive spaces, there is often an unspoken expectation that trans people justify their presence through pain rather than through competence or vision.
This is not liberation. It is containment.
A society that can tolerate trans suffering but recoils at trans ambition is not offering equality; it is managing discomfort. It is willing to mourn trans deaths but uneasy about trans dominance, trans leadership, or trans desire that does not ask permission. It prefers trans people as evidence of harm rather than as evidence of possibility.
None of this is an argument against documenting suffering. That work remains essential, particularly as legal protections erode and violence persists. But suffering cannot be the only admissible register of trans life. A politics that cannot imagine trans people as ambitious cannot sustain trans people as free.
Ambition does not negate vulnerability. Desire does not erase harm. Wanting more than survival is not ingratitude—it is the baseline condition of citizenship. The question is not whether trans people deserve ambition. The question is why it remains so unsettling when they claim it.
Until that discomfort is confronted, acceptance will remain conditional. Sympathy will remain cheap. And trans futures will continue to be negotiated on terms that stop just short of power.
Isaac Amend is a writer based in the D.C. area. He is a transgender man and was featured in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He serves on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Contact him on Instagram at @isaacamend
