JFK's close gay friend remembered ...

[Jingthing]

JFK was of course an iconic American and this being the 50th anniversary of his assassination, nobody really needs to hear yet again that if you were alive then and older than a toddler you remember where you were when you heard that shocking news.

But here's another rather charming angle to the JFK story that is certainly new to me. His extremely close friend Lem Billings, a closeted gay man, was quite obviously in LOVE with JFK (who was so NOT gay). They were so close that Billings had his own room in the white house without holding any office (except ... friend). Billings mourned his friend greatly and has been described as "Probably the saddest of the Kennedy 'widows.'

Nobody is suggesting that JFK was gay, not that there would be anything wrong with that, ha ha ...

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/books/2013/11/22/photos-memories-jfk-his-gay-best-friend?page=0,0

JFK and Lem, close friends from boyhood

JFK and Lem on youthful European tour with the "nicest German they ever met"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lem_Billings

Edited November 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

Highly interesting. I followed all the links and it seems established that Billings was indeed the best friend of JFK. Some sources confirm that Billings was gay, but given the times it is clear that if he was, he would not have been open as nowadays. From my initial research, it is not established that he was gay, but there are many indicators that he was, and it appears likely. If he was gay, I would have no doubt that JFK knew that.

Good news.

But the timing of releasing these news during the current debate about gay marriage in the US and the world is a bit suspicious, wouldn't you think?

[Jingthing]

I don't see anything nefarious in the timing of this. The story of Billings is not in any way news but it was new to me and probably most people as well. The 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK was a huge media event in the USA and it's only natural the leading gay media organ in the USA, The Advocate, would publish a story about a gay angle if there was one during the period of heightened attention, and there is one. I don't think there is any serious historical doubt that Billings was a gay man and OF COURSE he was closeted coming from that era.

As far as what JFK knew and when did he know it, a lot of that info is likely buried with both men. Yes he probably knew something and the fact that he didn't reject his closeted close friend because of it is not something that all or most men of his era would have done.

As far as "debate" in the USA about gay marriage, I don't see any connection at all to the Billings story. The connection is clearly to the 50th anniversary media blitz.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Highly interesting. I followed all the links and it seems established that Billings was indeed the best friend of JFK. Some sources confirm that Billings was gay, but given the times it is clear that if he was, he would not have been open as nowadays. From my initial research, it is not established that he was gay, but there are many indicators that he was, and it appears likely. If he was gay, I would have no doubt that JFK knew that.

Good news.

But the timing of releasing these news during the current debate about gay marriage in the US and the world is a bit suspicious, wouldn't you think?

"But the timing of releasing these news during the current debate about gay marriage in the US and the world is a bit suspicious, wouldn't you think?"

No.

This was barely "news" when "Jack and Lem: John F. Kennedy and Lem Billings: The Untold Story of an Extraordinary Friendship" was published in 2007. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15198865.html

[Jingthing]

Exactly.

Now IF there had been any faint hints that JFK had been sexually involved with Billings especially as an adult or as president, now THAT would have been huge news. But nothing like that.

Of those were different times in so many ways. For example JFK's womanizing was not covered in the press in his times and not because the press didn't know about it. Compare to Bill Clinton's nightmare over a little cigar play ...

Edited November 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

The most interesting thing about "JFK's close gay friend", to me, is just how much things have changed in 50 years - and while I am all for a lot of the changes, particularly in the fields of egual human rights and ending discrimination and persecution, I can't help thinking that there's also a lot to be said for the respect for personal privacy that existed at that time but has been declining ever since.

Just as "everyone" at the time knew about JFK's sexual peccadiloes, as they did about, say, Winston Churchill's or Ted Heath's sexual preferences before and after that, so "everyone" knew about Lem Billings' pretty obvious sexual preference but "everyone" including their political opponents accepted them as being of negligible importance when compared to what they were actually doing in their public life, which "everyone" including the gutter press appreciated and respected. As long as whatever those involved got up to was between consenting adults and didn't involve child abuse, wife beating or anything of a similar nature and it wasn't flaunted gratuitously "no-one" really cared - it was a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

Now, though, things have changed and it doesn't all seem to be for the better. "Everyone" seems to think they are entitled to know everything about anyone's private life regardless of whether it has any relevance or not. Fair enough, in my view, if they are being hypocritical and saying one thing in public and doing the opposite in private but if it's irrelevant then it should stay irrelevant.

No-one cared that JFK's closest friend (and possibly his most trusted "sounding board") was gay - it didn't make any difference, including to his opponents. No-one cared because he didn't care, and crucially neither he nor Lem Billings made an issue of it. Now, for better or worse, it would be an issue and those involved would be forced to defend and justify themselves by both their critics and their supporters. Instead of "don't ask, don't tell" everyone seems to think that they are not only entitled to ask but that anyone asked is obliged to tell.

Would the progress made in terms of advancing human rights and ending discrimination and persecution in the last 50 years, at least in some places, have been possible without sacrificing that respect for privacy? Maybe, maybe not .....

[Jingthing]

It was a HORRIBLY oppressive time for gay Americans. To idealize those times as the good old days is beyond ridiculous, it's revisionist history.