For this� final post, let's return to the first. It was September 2007. We were Visiblevote then. The staff was me, Jay [1], Pauline Park [2], and John Polly of NewNowNext [3]. My first post was a disaster. Our writing program kept jamming, the photo didn't format correctly, and the writing was drivel. Screamed at the computer that entire morning. The insanity was so over the top that poor Billie [4] looked at me, slowly got up, and found a more comfortable spot to dream of snacks and tennis balls.
In that September, Democrats and Republicans were gearing up for the 2008 primary season. The lines were drawn in the sand. Anything we wrote that was remotely negative about then Sen. Hillary Clinton was quickly dismissed as "Hillary hate." Words that weren't supportive of the guy with the funny name, and big ears, were called press releases from Camp Clinton.
[5]
Despite those partisan charges, our coverage of the 2008 election season matches anything done. Anything. Jay, John, and Pauline� made me a better writer and thinker. I thank them for that.
While the thanks are being dispensed, I must talk about Ali Davis [6]. If you need to listen to a crazy man [7] bring Ali along. She wears the best shoes. Sooooooo many Beck fans asked me about her� sneakers. Ali: I better get an invite to the commitment ceremony between you and Melinda. She loved you!
Also want to give thanks to John Culhane, Lisa Neff, John Corvino, and Emma Ruby-Sachs. I've learned much from your words.
Have to give Jay a big hug. She's unparalleled as an editor. Always willing to listen. Here is what you need to know: any decent post of mine is because of her. All the lousy ones? My sole responsibility. This site's success is due to her efforts.
Before this turns into the last episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show [8] (don't mock Polly!), kudos to those who gave us your time. I can be found here [9]. Drop by and cuss me out.
Best of luck. Keep keeping on. Peace.
[1] http://www.JenniferVanasco.com
[2] http://www.paulinepark.com/
[3] http://www.newnownext.com/
[4] http://whattheworlddoesnotneed.blogspot.com/2008/10/billie.html?zx=90880988f9d4a64c
[5] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/News-foggy-road-top.jpg
[6] http://www.365gay.com http://davisexmachina.wordpress.com/
[7] http://www.365gay.com/topics/news_politics/fear-and-learning-at-the-glenn-beck-rally/
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKwZ_aejLw8
[9] http://whattheworlddoesnotneed.blogspot.com/
Friday, September 30, 2011
Defend Abortion Rights. Support Dr. Carhart!
http://action.now.org/o/5996/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=104629Anti-abortion rights terrorists are coming to the Washington, D.C. metro area to besiege the clinic of heroic abortion provider Dr. LeRoy Carhart, Jul. 30 - Aug. 7.
Support, counseling, education for gay youth
(AP) – Support and other resources for gay young people are out there, sometimes only a click or a phone call away, but advocates said the recent suicide of Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi and other teens who were believed to have been victims of anti-gay bullying point to the need for even more widespread help.
In a country of about 12,000 public school districts, the education network known as GLSEN (glsen.org) counts about 4,000 Gay-Straight Alliances, the name for school clubs - mostly in high schools - that register with the group.
“Youth in general are not very help-seeking,” said the organization’s executive director, Eliza Byard. “Getting people to reach out is one of the big challenges.”
Another nonp…
Read More
In a country of about 12,000 public school districts, the education network known as GLSEN (glsen.org) counts about 4,000 Gay-Straight Alliances, the name for school clubs - mostly in high schools - that register with the group.
“Youth in general are not very help-seeking,” said the organization’s executive director, Eliza Byard. “Getting people to reach out is one of the big challenges.”
Another nonp…
Read More
And so it begins...
Academic life has begun again. While most of the other college students are enjoying their summer off, I am back in the mix.? I have not taken any time off from school (not even last summer) because I want to graduate before my school changes the requirements for graduation this fall. And by "graduate", I only mean getting my Associates and then going to the university to finish my 4 year, so I won't really be out of school... just out of this school. If I don't get out in August, there is a whole new slew of classes that I would be required to take, including MORE accounting! A slow ride down a razor blade slide and falling into a pool of rubbing alcohol would be preferable to more accounting so I am cramming my last 2 classes in this summer. .Melissa & I decided that we should at least take 1 class together in college and since she's good at math, Algebra is what we ended up doing together. We researched our teacher on RateMyProfessor.com and she got the best marks. She's called "Jonsey" and I think she's a granola lesbian. She is certainly nice and can teach much better than my last 2 math teachers. She looks awkward in a dress and I am thankful that she isn't hot so as not to be a distraction for us..Jonsey is cramming 10 weeks worth of Algebra into 5 weeks of classes so we have to go 4 days a week and are doing 2 sub chapters per day. So far, it is horrendous but Robin Meade is right here with me, cheering me on and keeping me focused. (on her). See??When I am getting confused, she stands on my desk and makes Post-It notes to remind me about the things that she feels will help me keep it straight. Here she is, being the best gosh-darn tutor there ever was: Today, it is all about Algebra. And so is tomorrow. But tomorrow night, Melissa and I are taking Nick and his friend and also Robin Meade, to go see Motley Crue and Poison. After all, we need a little head-banging from time to time, right? I'll be sure to post pics when I have some time. Until then, please pray that we catch the mouse that is loose in our house. 3 females (even though 2 of us are lesbians) are NOT cool with any type of rodents in the house. Setting out glue traps now... peace!
Release of Prop. 8 tapes shows judicial hubris
At first blush, U.S. District Judge James Ware's decision to unseal videos of the federal trial challenging Proposition 8 would seem to be a victory for truth, justice and open government. But you can't always tell a...
Cher-Gaga Duet Is "Timeless" and "Uplifting"
"The Greatest Thing," the much anticipated duet between Cher and Lady Gaga, might actually live up to its title.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Clint Eastwood: "let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone"
GQ has a
Q&A out with Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio, who are
teaming up for a new movie about J. Edgar Hoover. Here's the
obligatory section about Dirty Harry's politics, interspersed with
Leo's frantic Global Warmingism:
GQ: [To Eastwood] You've described yourself as
a social libertarian. What does that mean to you?
Clint Eastwood: I was an Eisenhower Republican
when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the
Korean War. And over the years, I realized there was a Republican
philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians
had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a
little more time leaving everybody alone. These people who are
making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about
who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a
big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of.
Leonardo Dicaprio: That's the most infuriating
thing?watching people focus on these things. Meanwhile, there's the
onset of global warming and?
Clint Eastwood: Exactly!
Leonardo Dicaprio: ?and
these incredibly scary and menacing things with the future of our
economy. Our relationship to the rest of the world. And here we are
focusing on this?
Clint Eastwood: They go on and on with all this
bullshit about "sanctity"?don't give me that sanctity crap! Just
give everybody the chance to have the life they want.
Leonardo Dicaprio: It's the great diversion.
Politicians are masters at getting you to be on their side so that
you don't look at how big business?
Clint Eastwood: I love big business! [They
both laugh.]
Clint Eastwood: I love big business if it hires
everybody and does all the right things, and if they get off track
then they'll have to deal with whatever?
Leonardo Dicaprio: But they often do get off
track, unfortunately. See, now you've got us in a political
debate!
Thanks to Moose
of Reason for the tip. Reason on Clint Eastwood
here.
Q&A out with Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio, who are
teaming up for a new movie about J. Edgar Hoover. Here's the
obligatory section about Dirty Harry's politics, interspersed with
Leo's frantic Global Warmingism:
GQ: [To Eastwood] You've described yourself as
a social libertarian. What does that mean to you?
Clint Eastwood: I was an Eisenhower Republican
when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the
Korean War. And over the years, I realized there was a Republican
philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians
had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a
little more time leaving everybody alone. These people who are
making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about
who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a
big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of.
Leonardo Dicaprio: That's the most infuriating
thing?watching people focus on these things. Meanwhile, there's the
onset of global warming and?
Clint Eastwood: Exactly!
Leonardo Dicaprio: ?and
these incredibly scary and menacing things with the future of our
economy. Our relationship to the rest of the world. And here we are
focusing on this?
Clint Eastwood: They go on and on with all this
bullshit about "sanctity"?don't give me that sanctity crap! Just
give everybody the chance to have the life they want.
Leonardo Dicaprio: It's the great diversion.
Politicians are masters at getting you to be on their side so that
you don't look at how big business?
Clint Eastwood: I love big business! [They
both laugh.]
Clint Eastwood: I love big business if it hires
everybody and does all the right things, and if they get off track
then they'll have to deal with whatever?
Leonardo Dicaprio: But they often do get off
track, unfortunately. See, now you've got us in a political
debate!
Thanks to Moose
of Reason for the tip. Reason on Clint Eastwood
here.
HHS awards $1.89 billion in grants for HIV/AIDS care and medications
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HHS today announced the release of more than $1.89 billion to ensure that people living with HIV/AIDS continue to have access to life-saving health care and medications. The grants are funded through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which helps more than half a million individuals each year obtain clinical care, treatment and social support services.
Bar hosts HIV/AIDS event
Local bar/lounge TZAR hosted a launch for the new Belvedere RED special-edition bottles Sept. 28. Models walked the runway, sporting fashion from the clothing store Akira while sampling the vodka on the stage.
Becoming Law: On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books
Feature Story:
The conclusion of a four-part series marking the 15th anniversary of the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act
By the time the Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act on Sept. 10, 1996, there was no question what President Bill Clinton was going to do when the bill was presented to him.
Months earlier, May 23, 1996, Clinton made his first comments on DOMA, jumbling the specific effect of the bill but echoing comments from his press secretary that he would sign it. On July 11, 1996, the administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy: ''The President … has long opposed same sex marriage. Therefore, if H.R. 3396 were presented to the President as ordered reported from the House Judiciary Committee, the President would sign the legislation.''
Bill Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act
(Illustration by Scott G. Brooks)
But, asked if that was the only path, people around at the time — from LGBT advocates to Clinton staffers — almost universally say no. As the then-head of the Human Rights Campaign, Elizabeth Birch, says of the impact of a Clinton veto of DOMA at the time, ''He could have survived it. Absolutely.''
Paul Yandura, who worked in the White House gay and lesbian liaison's office at the time, puts Clinton's decision to support DOMA in stark terms.
''He could have said, 'Look, I'm just going to veto this.' If you look at the polling around that time, he was way ahead in the polls. And so, could he have taken a five-point dip? Sure. Were we worth it? I guess they decided that we weren't.''
Yandura sees the decision as a political one. That view is shared by Richard Socarides, the Labor Department's White House liaison when DOMA was introduced in the House in May 1996, but became the White House liaison to the gay and lesbian community in the midst of the debate over DOMA. Socarides says, ''It was clear to us from the first moment we heard about it that it was a Republican Party campaign stunt to box Clinton in and to give them something to run on against him, and they were very, very clear on that.''
But for former Sen. Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, and the 32 Democratic senators who voted for it, DOMA was essentially the lesser of two evils — he says they considered a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be almost ''inevitable'' at the time.
''There was a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment to put in constitutional law the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And the concern that many of us had was that you couldn't beat the constitutional amendment,'' he says. ''So, you had to come up with an alternative to a constitutional amendment and argue that this was better for all concerned. And that was a big part of the tactical and strategic decision-making that went into the run-up to the vote itself.''
As to whether the Republican presidential politics of Bob Dole — the Senate majority leader at the time of DOMA's introduction — were key, Daschle says only, ''I would defer to others on that. I don't remember that part of it.''
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) does. He says politics were at the center of DOMA, noting of Dole's campaign, ''They were lagging behind Clinton, and they saw this as a classic wedge issue. They saw it as a way to force Clinton to either take a position that would be unpopular in the country as a whole – or alienate gay people. It was all the Dole campaign.'' Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who led the Senate opposition to DOMA, said as much at the time, calling the bill the ''Endangered Republican Candidates Act'' in his opening statement in the July 11, 1996, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill. He went on to say of DOMA's intrusion of state regulation of marriage, ''I assume that Bob Dole's copy of the 10th Amendment has a new hole in it.''
Daschle's argument — that DOMA was stopping something worse — doesn't fit with the recollections of most LGBT advocates engaged in the debate at the time. Evan Wolfson, who was then running the National Freedom to Marry Coalition while a lawyer at Lambda Legal, says, ''That's complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something 'worse' until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn't really possible to happen.
''So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the '90s.''
''You Never Know What Would Have Happened''
Although the constitutional amendment may not have been the central question as Daschle remembers, it is clear that, as Yandura puts it, Clinton's decision to support DOMA ''was a political decision that they made at the time of a re-election.''
Socarides explains, ''Presidents make tough calls all the time, and I think that there were people advising the president – the president had a group of political advisers who, at the time, actually believed that if the president had vetoed the bill, that his re-election would be jeopardized.''
He adds, ''I did not believe it then, and I think history has proven those advisers wrong. But they actually believed it at the time – and I convinced myself at the time that they actually believed it and that there was no convincing them otherwise. That's not to suggest that the president's political advisers thought it was a good idea. Nobody was happy about it. But there were many more people who were resigned to it than were outraged by it.''
Why many advisers were, at best, resigned to Clinton's signing DOMA into law, in Andrew Sullivan's mind, it also raises a question about LGBT advocacy at the time. Looking back, he says that he and Wolfson had more freedom to address the issue than groups like the Human Rights Campaign and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
''We didn't have to tell our paymasters and our funders and our fundraisers that we were doing all of this only to lose. They don't like that – it's institutionally not the way lobby organizations want to run. They don't want to tell their memberships, 'I'm sorry we're losing, but it's good for us.' They would rather avoid anything that could lose, wait until they got something that they knew could win,'' Sullivan says. ''My point was, 'No, no, no, we wait for-fucking-ever if we do that. So, let's get it out there. I'm sure we're right. I'm sure we have the better arguments.' And that was Evan's position, 'Let's just face this down.'''
Yandura — who says that he thought at the time that the organizations' positions made sense — now agrees that stronger pushback could have mattered: ''You never know what would have happened if they would have said, 'No, fuck you. We're not taking DOMA. We ate 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' … You know what? You're going to take a hit. You know what? You have really smart people around you, figure out how to politically do this.' You just never know what would have happened if HRC and NGLTF said no.''
Birch, though, says, ''That's silly. We went at it tooth and nail. It was like hand-to-hand combat. It was extremely painful.''
''The idea that we couldn't pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but we were going to somehow be able to stop DOMA, it's folly in its analysis,'' she says. ''One of my largest fights when I was at the Human Rights Campaign was with [the late Sen.] Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.). Beloved, almost a folk hero in terms of progressive policy. But he voted for it. And he said, 'Don't you want me here to fight for other things?' And I said, 'No, because if you vote for this, you will no longer be Paul Wellstone.'''
Socarides defends HRC's efforts, saying, ''As someone who was there – and I've had my differences with Elizabeth Birch and with HRC – they fought and she fought extremely hard over this. As someone who was in touch with her every day, pretty much every day during this period, she was an – probably the hardest – extremely determined and effective advocate against this bill. She was very clear, both in person and in writing, on the grave consequences to the country, really, and to President Clinton's reputation in history and very clear that the stakes could not have been higher.''
Although she opposed Clinton's decision, Birch notes the abrupt and successful way he eliminated the issue from the campaign: ''Clinton moved very expertly and took it out of play – but it was incredibly painful. There wasn't even a chance for discussion.''
To those who say there was no way Clinton was going to announce that he would veto DOMA in the midst of the 1996 re-election campaign, Wolfson says, ''I don't agree with that. I think we are entitled to demand much more of politicians, and I think it would have been in Bill Clinton's interest to do that. There's always been this failure to appreciate that the American people like politicians who stand up for what they believe in and who make a case, particularly when it's something ultimately that most of them either don't care about or can understand in a different way if given a way to understand it.''
Despite the attempts, such as they were, inside and outside the White House to push Clinton in any different direction on DOMA, Yandura says that by time the bill was introduced in May 1996, the debate already had turned to a question of semantics.
''At that point, it was like, 'How are you going to talk about it?''' he says. ''There was no more, 'We can stop this. We can sidestep it.' I know that we were all hoping inside, and there were conversations, but [no].''
By the summer of 1996, as Democrats prepared to head to Chicago in August to re-nominate Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, the decision on DOMA already was established and publicized.
Socarides notes, ''It was extremely discouraging, but once you knew a decision had been made, it was time to move on. We were in the middle of a re-election, and in politics it's always about the alternatives, and the alternatives we knew were going to be far worse, and it was time to move on and get the president re-elected.
''That was my job.''
On Aug. 29, 1996, Clinton accepted his nomination and addressed the Democratic National Convention.
''Look around this hall tonight, and to our fellow Americans watching on television, you look around this hall tonight — there is every conceivable difference here among the people who are gathered,'' the president said. ''If we want to build that bridge to the 21st century we have to be willing to say loud and clear, if you believe in the values of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, if you're willing to work hard and play by the rules, you are part of our family and we're proud to be with you.''
Going on to say, ''We still have too many Americans who give in to their fears of those who are different from them,'' Clinton then said, ''So look around here, look around here — old or young, healthy as a horse or a person with a disability that hasn't kept you down, man or woman, Native American, native born, immigrant, straight or gay, whatever; the test ought to be I believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.''
Yandura points to that as a significant moment, saying, ''I think a turning point for him was when he went to the convention and talked about gays and lesbians. All he did was say, 'Look out there, look across the room, you see … gay and straight.' He didn't say, 'I'm for gay marriage' or 'I'm gonna go further.'''
Saying how different a time it was then, Yandura continues, ''That's all he said, and after that, you can see, the press turned,'' referencing what he perceived at the time as a decreased focus by the press on a ''rift'' between Clinton and the gay and lesbian community.
''And we were raising money [from gay and lesbian donors],'' he also notes.
As the money was raised and the campaign continued on, Dole — the man many say was at the center of DOMA's introduction — was out on the campaign trail full time, having resigned from his Senate seat in June 1996. As such, when the Senate voted to pass DOMA on Sept. 10, 1996, Dole was no longer a senator and didn't even cast a vote on the bill.
''I Am Signing Into Law H.R. 3396''
Ten days later, Sept. 20, 1996, the bill passed by both chambers of Congress was sent to the White House and ''presented'' to the president.
At that point, Clinton had 10 days to sign the bill.
The White House Press Office released a statement from the president, in which he said, ''Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans.''
Then: ''I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do. I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.
''This legislation … has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws.''
Clinton's statement closed: ''I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.''
Much has been made of the way he signed it.
''President Clinton waited until the dead of night yesterday to sign legislation aimed at preventing gay marriages, timing his action to minimize public attention and contain any political damage just 45 days before the election,'' The Washington Post's Peter Baker reported at the time. Socarides says that the ''dead of the night'' legacy of Clinton's signing is slightly overstated.
''He didn't sign it in the middle of the night to try and hide it from anybody,'' Socarides says.
''The reality behind that story was that a decision was made that, if he was going to sign the bill, he should sign it as soon as he could. Just to sign it and get it done with so that we could put as much time between the actual election and his signing of the bill,'' he says. ''On the day it arrived at the White House, the president was traveling — he was in the Midwest. So, when he got home they put it in front of him and he signed it.''
At 12:50 a.m., Sept. 21, 1996, in the early hours of a Saturday, the president signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
Although some advocates involved at the time were able to understand the president's desire to get the bill off the table to diminish the issue's impact on the fall elections, a mid-October 1996 advertisement run by the Clinton/Gore re-election campaign showed how strained the relationship between the gay, lesbian and bisexual community and Clinton had become in the wake of DOMA.
Yandura, who had left the White House to run gay and lesbian outreach for the re-election campaign, says, ''I was in my office at the re-elect, and I got a call from [then-HRC communications director] David Smith, irate as shit, like, screaming at me, and I didn't know what happened because no one told us.''
What had happened was that the campaign had responded to an ad from the Dole campaign questioning Clinton's values by running an ad of its own on Christian radio stations touting Clinton's signing of DOMA, as well as proclaiming his support for laws banning late-term abortions.
''I got a copy of the ad and it really was, 'Oh, don't worry, we don't like the gays either, we're against the marriage thing.' There was no possible way that if anyone would have seen that — in my office or Richard or any of us — that it would have ever gotten through,'' Yandura says, noting that he considered quitting over the ads. Talking about the difficulty of explaining ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and DOMA itself to gay, lesbian and bisexual voters, he says, ''I felt like we used a lot of political goodwill to get where we were. This was the last straw. When I heard them myself, I remember my heart sunk and I just thought, 'I can't do this, I just can't do this.'''
Yandura says, ''We were being told to tell the public that the ad agency made them and they weren't approved by the campaign. I refused … because that was clearly not the case.'' When campaign staff like Yandura didn't believe that explanation, he says the campaign ''wound up pulling them, which, I'm glad they did.''
Frank, the out gay representative from Massachusetts, also heard about the ads — and says he ''raised hell'' with his sister, Ann Lewis, who was the communications director for the Clinton/Gore campaign: ''I called my sister and said, 'What the hell are you guys doing? You can't do this,' and it got pulled. But it shouldn't have been on in the first place.''
Yandura adds that if people like he and Frank hadn't complained, the ads likely would not have been pulled. ''If we would have said, 'Okay, that's fine, it's the religious right,' they would have probably played them.'' The ad was pulled, the country moved on, and, on Nov. 5, 1996, William Jefferson Clinton won re-election, handily defeating Bob Dole and garnering more than double the electoral votes of the former senator from Kansas.
The Defense of Marriage Act, meanwhile, had become the law of the land.
''It Was Like a Checkmate''
In less than five months, the Defense of Marriage Act went from an idea to a federal law.
Nonetheless, the lawsuit in Hawaii that had launched the debate in Congress continued forward. The case brought by Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon and Joseph Melilio led to the historic decision on Dec. 3, 1996, that Hawaii's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional under the state's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
The Hawaii trial court found that the state had failed to prove what the state Supreme Court had ordered it to prove: that the marriage law's ''statute's sex-based classification is justified by compelling state interests'' and was ''narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of the applicant couples' constitutional rights.'' Toward the end of the decision, after reviewing all of the evidence that had been presented by the plaintiffs and the state, Judge Kevin S.C. Chang concluded: ''[T]he evidence presented by Defendant does not establish or prove that same-sex marriage will result in prejudice or harm to an important public or governmental interest.''
For Evan Wolfson, the decision was exactly what was needed to offset DOMA's passage. Co-counsel on the case with Dan Foley, a local Hawaii attorney the couples had found to represent them in 1991, Wolfson says of the decision, ''I wrote at the time … that the earth had just moved, that this was a tectonic shift in our movement, in our country's history, in the conversation about marriage and that we now had the American people's ear and could talk about who gay people are and why marriage matters in a way that was going to profoundly change things.''
He adds that this conversation would benefit other efforts, in his view, because, ''A deeper understanding would show that marriage has always been a battleground on which larger questions of inclusion and equality and freedom and what kind of country this is going to be have been contested.''
But the victory did not lead to marriage equality in Hawaii. A constitutional amendment was proposed to and, in November 1998, passed by voters that allowed the Legislature to ban same-sex marriages in the state.
And, on the federal level, DOMA was a painful loss that stuck in people's minds and, advocates say, altered the debate.
Elizabeth Birch calls DOMA and the Hawaii amendment ''horrifically difficult battles that were enormously expensive,'' and adds, ''We did pay a price at the federal level in that we could not achieve other things. It ended up coming in and really scooping out the vestiges of any force that the Democrats had or any conviction to get anything done – and so nothing got done. But I blame the Republicans — who played it like a massive chess game, and it was like a checkmate.''
HRC's legislative director at the time, Winnie Stachelberg, says, ''I think it set us back significantly, from a number of vantage points. I think it was deflating for our community. It was hurtful. I think, politically, it opened the door for the state DOMAs, the state super-DOMAs … an all-out assault of anti-gay initiatives. Congress passed and the president signed a piece of legislation that people say should be repealed and is unconstitutional — and yet, at the time, it passed so overwhelmingly, with support from purported allies.''
Birch adds of the anti-gay Republicans, ''They won. They used it. And then they used it over and over and over again. Honestly, I think it's been [only in] the last couple of election cycles where it's just been wrung out. It's just not potent anymore.''
From a lawmaker's point of view, Barney Frank says that DOMA ''forced people to commit prematurely, so that a lot of members of Congress and other elected officials had to commit against marriage. That wasn't helpful to us.
''We really couldn't make the argument in favor of same-sex marriage until we had it,'' he says, pointing to the emergence of marriage rights in Massachusetts and other states as important changes in the political landscape. ''What's changed the fact of this debate is that we had marriages and nothing bad happened. Reality beats fiction, but in the absence of reality it's hard to do that.''
That debate in 1996 was an essential part of creating the reality of the successes since, says HRC's political director at the time, Daniel Zingale: ''It was certainly a moment of maturation for us in experiencing for ourselves what our new allies in the civil rights movement were telling us, which is that the road to equality is a long struggle. And, just because you're right, you don't get what you know you deserve when you know you deserve it.''
Looking back over those successes and failures of both movements, Andrew Sullivan sees a similar, if more active, message.
''We have to use our defeats as ways of educating and illuminating,'' he says. ''And we've got to take risks. And we've got to be able to lose in order to win.''
Richard Socarides, who continued to serve as President Clinton's gay and lesbian liaison after DOMA's passage, adds, ''I think what made it easier to move on was that nothing changed; the law was signed and nothing changed. What made it easier to move on is that [because] you couldn't be married anywhere, no one was immediately affected. The fact that no one was immediately affected, that made it easier to move on.''
Wolfson agrees, to a point, saying, ''Evil and discriminatory as DOMA is, it does not prevent states from taking steps to end marriage discrimination and that's precisely where we need to focus our efforts — and that's, of course, where we did focus our efforts.''
It was the success of those efforts — the marriage equality case in Massachusetts in 2003 that led to same-sex marriages there in 2004 — that showed DOMA's teeth, Socarides says: ''We only saw later, almost eight years later, only began to see the real damage of the legislation.''
As same-sex couples began marrying in Massachusetts and eventually elsewhere, federal benefits – from government employees' spousal health insurance to Social Security survivor benefits – began being denied to partners in those marriages. As same-sex partners began to end their legal relationships, questions about the way the other states would treat the end of those relationships arose from Virginia to Texas.
In those and many more situations popping up across the country, the real impact of DOMA began to become clear to people everywhere. Its original supporters, from the lead House sponsor, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), to Daschle and Clinton, turned on the legislation: All three support repeal of the 1996 law.
And, for people like Mary Bonauto, who was the lead attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in the Massachusetts marriage case, a path forward – a path to dismantle DOMA – began to form.
Part 1: Domestic Disturbance
Before DOMA, there was another debate over marriage – within the gay and lesbian community
Part 2: Marriage Wars
In 1996, DOMA went from being introduced to being passed by the House – and given the OK of the Clinton administration – in less than 10 weeks
Part 3: Double Defeat
In 1996, ENDA was hoped to help ease the pain of DOMA, but instead fell by one vote in a Senate focused on a ''thinly disguised example of intolerance''
Part 4: Becoming Law
On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law – a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books
...more
The conclusion of a four-part series marking the 15th anniversary of the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act
By the time the Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act on Sept. 10, 1996, there was no question what President Bill Clinton was going to do when the bill was presented to him.
Months earlier, May 23, 1996, Clinton made his first comments on DOMA, jumbling the specific effect of the bill but echoing comments from his press secretary that he would sign it. On July 11, 1996, the administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy: ''The President … has long opposed same sex marriage. Therefore, if H.R. 3396 were presented to the President as ordered reported from the House Judiciary Committee, the President would sign the legislation.''
Bill Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act
(Illustration by Scott G. Brooks)
But, asked if that was the only path, people around at the time — from LGBT advocates to Clinton staffers — almost universally say no. As the then-head of the Human Rights Campaign, Elizabeth Birch, says of the impact of a Clinton veto of DOMA at the time, ''He could have survived it. Absolutely.''
Paul Yandura, who worked in the White House gay and lesbian liaison's office at the time, puts Clinton's decision to support DOMA in stark terms.
''He could have said, 'Look, I'm just going to veto this.' If you look at the polling around that time, he was way ahead in the polls. And so, could he have taken a five-point dip? Sure. Were we worth it? I guess they decided that we weren't.''
Yandura sees the decision as a political one. That view is shared by Richard Socarides, the Labor Department's White House liaison when DOMA was introduced in the House in May 1996, but became the White House liaison to the gay and lesbian community in the midst of the debate over DOMA. Socarides says, ''It was clear to us from the first moment we heard about it that it was a Republican Party campaign stunt to box Clinton in and to give them something to run on against him, and they were very, very clear on that.''
But for former Sen. Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, and the 32 Democratic senators who voted for it, DOMA was essentially the lesser of two evils — he says they considered a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be almost ''inevitable'' at the time.
''There was a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment to put in constitutional law the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And the concern that many of us had was that you couldn't beat the constitutional amendment,'' he says. ''So, you had to come up with an alternative to a constitutional amendment and argue that this was better for all concerned. And that was a big part of the tactical and strategic decision-making that went into the run-up to the vote itself.''
As to whether the Republican presidential politics of Bob Dole — the Senate majority leader at the time of DOMA's introduction — were key, Daschle says only, ''I would defer to others on that. I don't remember that part of it.''
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) does. He says politics were at the center of DOMA, noting of Dole's campaign, ''They were lagging behind Clinton, and they saw this as a classic wedge issue. They saw it as a way to force Clinton to either take a position that would be unpopular in the country as a whole – or alienate gay people. It was all the Dole campaign.'' Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who led the Senate opposition to DOMA, said as much at the time, calling the bill the ''Endangered Republican Candidates Act'' in his opening statement in the July 11, 1996, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill. He went on to say of DOMA's intrusion of state regulation of marriage, ''I assume that Bob Dole's copy of the 10th Amendment has a new hole in it.''
Daschle's argument — that DOMA was stopping something worse — doesn't fit with the recollections of most LGBT advocates engaged in the debate at the time. Evan Wolfson, who was then running the National Freedom to Marry Coalition while a lawyer at Lambda Legal, says, ''That's complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something 'worse' until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn't really possible to happen.
''So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the '90s.''
''You Never Know What Would Have Happened''
Although the constitutional amendment may not have been the central question as Daschle remembers, it is clear that, as Yandura puts it, Clinton's decision to support DOMA ''was a political decision that they made at the time of a re-election.''
Socarides explains, ''Presidents make tough calls all the time, and I think that there were people advising the president – the president had a group of political advisers who, at the time, actually believed that if the president had vetoed the bill, that his re-election would be jeopardized.''
He adds, ''I did not believe it then, and I think history has proven those advisers wrong. But they actually believed it at the time – and I convinced myself at the time that they actually believed it and that there was no convincing them otherwise. That's not to suggest that the president's political advisers thought it was a good idea. Nobody was happy about it. But there were many more people who were resigned to it than were outraged by it.''
Why many advisers were, at best, resigned to Clinton's signing DOMA into law, in Andrew Sullivan's mind, it also raises a question about LGBT advocacy at the time. Looking back, he says that he and Wolfson had more freedom to address the issue than groups like the Human Rights Campaign and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
''We didn't have to tell our paymasters and our funders and our fundraisers that we were doing all of this only to lose. They don't like that – it's institutionally not the way lobby organizations want to run. They don't want to tell their memberships, 'I'm sorry we're losing, but it's good for us.' They would rather avoid anything that could lose, wait until they got something that they knew could win,'' Sullivan says. ''My point was, 'No, no, no, we wait for-fucking-ever if we do that. So, let's get it out there. I'm sure we're right. I'm sure we have the better arguments.' And that was Evan's position, 'Let's just face this down.'''
Yandura — who says that he thought at the time that the organizations' positions made sense — now agrees that stronger pushback could have mattered: ''You never know what would have happened if they would have said, 'No, fuck you. We're not taking DOMA. We ate 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' … You know what? You're going to take a hit. You know what? You have really smart people around you, figure out how to politically do this.' You just never know what would have happened if HRC and NGLTF said no.''
Birch, though, says, ''That's silly. We went at it tooth and nail. It was like hand-to-hand combat. It was extremely painful.''
''The idea that we couldn't pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but we were going to somehow be able to stop DOMA, it's folly in its analysis,'' she says. ''One of my largest fights when I was at the Human Rights Campaign was with [the late Sen.] Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.). Beloved, almost a folk hero in terms of progressive policy. But he voted for it. And he said, 'Don't you want me here to fight for other things?' And I said, 'No, because if you vote for this, you will no longer be Paul Wellstone.'''
Socarides defends HRC's efforts, saying, ''As someone who was there – and I've had my differences with Elizabeth Birch and with HRC – they fought and she fought extremely hard over this. As someone who was in touch with her every day, pretty much every day during this period, she was an – probably the hardest – extremely determined and effective advocate against this bill. She was very clear, both in person and in writing, on the grave consequences to the country, really, and to President Clinton's reputation in history and very clear that the stakes could not have been higher.''
Although she opposed Clinton's decision, Birch notes the abrupt and successful way he eliminated the issue from the campaign: ''Clinton moved very expertly and took it out of play – but it was incredibly painful. There wasn't even a chance for discussion.''
To those who say there was no way Clinton was going to announce that he would veto DOMA in the midst of the 1996 re-election campaign, Wolfson says, ''I don't agree with that. I think we are entitled to demand much more of politicians, and I think it would have been in Bill Clinton's interest to do that. There's always been this failure to appreciate that the American people like politicians who stand up for what they believe in and who make a case, particularly when it's something ultimately that most of them either don't care about or can understand in a different way if given a way to understand it.''
Despite the attempts, such as they were, inside and outside the White House to push Clinton in any different direction on DOMA, Yandura says that by time the bill was introduced in May 1996, the debate already had turned to a question of semantics.
''At that point, it was like, 'How are you going to talk about it?''' he says. ''There was no more, 'We can stop this. We can sidestep it.' I know that we were all hoping inside, and there were conversations, but [no].''
By the summer of 1996, as Democrats prepared to head to Chicago in August to re-nominate Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, the decision on DOMA already was established and publicized.
Socarides notes, ''It was extremely discouraging, but once you knew a decision had been made, it was time to move on. We were in the middle of a re-election, and in politics it's always about the alternatives, and the alternatives we knew were going to be far worse, and it was time to move on and get the president re-elected.
''That was my job.''
On Aug. 29, 1996, Clinton accepted his nomination and addressed the Democratic National Convention.
''Look around this hall tonight, and to our fellow Americans watching on television, you look around this hall tonight — there is every conceivable difference here among the people who are gathered,'' the president said. ''If we want to build that bridge to the 21st century we have to be willing to say loud and clear, if you believe in the values of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, if you're willing to work hard and play by the rules, you are part of our family and we're proud to be with you.''
Going on to say, ''We still have too many Americans who give in to their fears of those who are different from them,'' Clinton then said, ''So look around here, look around here — old or young, healthy as a horse or a person with a disability that hasn't kept you down, man or woman, Native American, native born, immigrant, straight or gay, whatever; the test ought to be I believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.''
Yandura points to that as a significant moment, saying, ''I think a turning point for him was when he went to the convention and talked about gays and lesbians. All he did was say, 'Look out there, look across the room, you see … gay and straight.' He didn't say, 'I'm for gay marriage' or 'I'm gonna go further.'''
Saying how different a time it was then, Yandura continues, ''That's all he said, and after that, you can see, the press turned,'' referencing what he perceived at the time as a decreased focus by the press on a ''rift'' between Clinton and the gay and lesbian community.
''And we were raising money [from gay and lesbian donors],'' he also notes.
As the money was raised and the campaign continued on, Dole — the man many say was at the center of DOMA's introduction — was out on the campaign trail full time, having resigned from his Senate seat in June 1996. As such, when the Senate voted to pass DOMA on Sept. 10, 1996, Dole was no longer a senator and didn't even cast a vote on the bill.
''I Am Signing Into Law H.R. 3396''
Ten days later, Sept. 20, 1996, the bill passed by both chambers of Congress was sent to the White House and ''presented'' to the president.
At that point, Clinton had 10 days to sign the bill.
The White House Press Office released a statement from the president, in which he said, ''Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans.''
Then: ''I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do. I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.
''This legislation … has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws.''
Clinton's statement closed: ''I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.''
Much has been made of the way he signed it.
''President Clinton waited until the dead of night yesterday to sign legislation aimed at preventing gay marriages, timing his action to minimize public attention and contain any political damage just 45 days before the election,'' The Washington Post's Peter Baker reported at the time. Socarides says that the ''dead of the night'' legacy of Clinton's signing is slightly overstated.
''He didn't sign it in the middle of the night to try and hide it from anybody,'' Socarides says.
''The reality behind that story was that a decision was made that, if he was going to sign the bill, he should sign it as soon as he could. Just to sign it and get it done with so that we could put as much time between the actual election and his signing of the bill,'' he says. ''On the day it arrived at the White House, the president was traveling — he was in the Midwest. So, when he got home they put it in front of him and he signed it.''
At 12:50 a.m., Sept. 21, 1996, in the early hours of a Saturday, the president signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
Although some advocates involved at the time were able to understand the president's desire to get the bill off the table to diminish the issue's impact on the fall elections, a mid-October 1996 advertisement run by the Clinton/Gore re-election campaign showed how strained the relationship between the gay, lesbian and bisexual community and Clinton had become in the wake of DOMA.
Yandura, who had left the White House to run gay and lesbian outreach for the re-election campaign, says, ''I was in my office at the re-elect, and I got a call from [then-HRC communications director] David Smith, irate as shit, like, screaming at me, and I didn't know what happened because no one told us.''
What had happened was that the campaign had responded to an ad from the Dole campaign questioning Clinton's values by running an ad of its own on Christian radio stations touting Clinton's signing of DOMA, as well as proclaiming his support for laws banning late-term abortions.
''I got a copy of the ad and it really was, 'Oh, don't worry, we don't like the gays either, we're against the marriage thing.' There was no possible way that if anyone would have seen that — in my office or Richard or any of us — that it would have ever gotten through,'' Yandura says, noting that he considered quitting over the ads. Talking about the difficulty of explaining ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and DOMA itself to gay, lesbian and bisexual voters, he says, ''I felt like we used a lot of political goodwill to get where we were. This was the last straw. When I heard them myself, I remember my heart sunk and I just thought, 'I can't do this, I just can't do this.'''
Yandura says, ''We were being told to tell the public that the ad agency made them and they weren't approved by the campaign. I refused … because that was clearly not the case.'' When campaign staff like Yandura didn't believe that explanation, he says the campaign ''wound up pulling them, which, I'm glad they did.''
Frank, the out gay representative from Massachusetts, also heard about the ads — and says he ''raised hell'' with his sister, Ann Lewis, who was the communications director for the Clinton/Gore campaign: ''I called my sister and said, 'What the hell are you guys doing? You can't do this,' and it got pulled. But it shouldn't have been on in the first place.''
Yandura adds that if people like he and Frank hadn't complained, the ads likely would not have been pulled. ''If we would have said, 'Okay, that's fine, it's the religious right,' they would have probably played them.'' The ad was pulled, the country moved on, and, on Nov. 5, 1996, William Jefferson Clinton won re-election, handily defeating Bob Dole and garnering more than double the electoral votes of the former senator from Kansas.
The Defense of Marriage Act, meanwhile, had become the law of the land.
''It Was Like a Checkmate''
In less than five months, the Defense of Marriage Act went from an idea to a federal law.
Nonetheless, the lawsuit in Hawaii that had launched the debate in Congress continued forward. The case brought by Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon and Joseph Melilio led to the historic decision on Dec. 3, 1996, that Hawaii's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional under the state's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
The Hawaii trial court found that the state had failed to prove what the state Supreme Court had ordered it to prove: that the marriage law's ''statute's sex-based classification is justified by compelling state interests'' and was ''narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of the applicant couples' constitutional rights.'' Toward the end of the decision, after reviewing all of the evidence that had been presented by the plaintiffs and the state, Judge Kevin S.C. Chang concluded: ''[T]he evidence presented by Defendant does not establish or prove that same-sex marriage will result in prejudice or harm to an important public or governmental interest.''
For Evan Wolfson, the decision was exactly what was needed to offset DOMA's passage. Co-counsel on the case with Dan Foley, a local Hawaii attorney the couples had found to represent them in 1991, Wolfson says of the decision, ''I wrote at the time … that the earth had just moved, that this was a tectonic shift in our movement, in our country's history, in the conversation about marriage and that we now had the American people's ear and could talk about who gay people are and why marriage matters in a way that was going to profoundly change things.''
He adds that this conversation would benefit other efforts, in his view, because, ''A deeper understanding would show that marriage has always been a battleground on which larger questions of inclusion and equality and freedom and what kind of country this is going to be have been contested.''
But the victory did not lead to marriage equality in Hawaii. A constitutional amendment was proposed to and, in November 1998, passed by voters that allowed the Legislature to ban same-sex marriages in the state.
And, on the federal level, DOMA was a painful loss that stuck in people's minds and, advocates say, altered the debate.
Elizabeth Birch calls DOMA and the Hawaii amendment ''horrifically difficult battles that were enormously expensive,'' and adds, ''We did pay a price at the federal level in that we could not achieve other things. It ended up coming in and really scooping out the vestiges of any force that the Democrats had or any conviction to get anything done – and so nothing got done. But I blame the Republicans — who played it like a massive chess game, and it was like a checkmate.''
HRC's legislative director at the time, Winnie Stachelberg, says, ''I think it set us back significantly, from a number of vantage points. I think it was deflating for our community. It was hurtful. I think, politically, it opened the door for the state DOMAs, the state super-DOMAs … an all-out assault of anti-gay initiatives. Congress passed and the president signed a piece of legislation that people say should be repealed and is unconstitutional — and yet, at the time, it passed so overwhelmingly, with support from purported allies.''
Birch adds of the anti-gay Republicans, ''They won. They used it. And then they used it over and over and over again. Honestly, I think it's been [only in] the last couple of election cycles where it's just been wrung out. It's just not potent anymore.''
From a lawmaker's point of view, Barney Frank says that DOMA ''forced people to commit prematurely, so that a lot of members of Congress and other elected officials had to commit against marriage. That wasn't helpful to us.
''We really couldn't make the argument in favor of same-sex marriage until we had it,'' he says, pointing to the emergence of marriage rights in Massachusetts and other states as important changes in the political landscape. ''What's changed the fact of this debate is that we had marriages and nothing bad happened. Reality beats fiction, but in the absence of reality it's hard to do that.''
That debate in 1996 was an essential part of creating the reality of the successes since, says HRC's political director at the time, Daniel Zingale: ''It was certainly a moment of maturation for us in experiencing for ourselves what our new allies in the civil rights movement were telling us, which is that the road to equality is a long struggle. And, just because you're right, you don't get what you know you deserve when you know you deserve it.''
Looking back over those successes and failures of both movements, Andrew Sullivan sees a similar, if more active, message.
''We have to use our defeats as ways of educating and illuminating,'' he says. ''And we've got to take risks. And we've got to be able to lose in order to win.''
Richard Socarides, who continued to serve as President Clinton's gay and lesbian liaison after DOMA's passage, adds, ''I think what made it easier to move on was that nothing changed; the law was signed and nothing changed. What made it easier to move on is that [because] you couldn't be married anywhere, no one was immediately affected. The fact that no one was immediately affected, that made it easier to move on.''
Wolfson agrees, to a point, saying, ''Evil and discriminatory as DOMA is, it does not prevent states from taking steps to end marriage discrimination and that's precisely where we need to focus our efforts — and that's, of course, where we did focus our efforts.''
It was the success of those efforts — the marriage equality case in Massachusetts in 2003 that led to same-sex marriages there in 2004 — that showed DOMA's teeth, Socarides says: ''We only saw later, almost eight years later, only began to see the real damage of the legislation.''
As same-sex couples began marrying in Massachusetts and eventually elsewhere, federal benefits – from government employees' spousal health insurance to Social Security survivor benefits – began being denied to partners in those marriages. As same-sex partners began to end their legal relationships, questions about the way the other states would treat the end of those relationships arose from Virginia to Texas.
In those and many more situations popping up across the country, the real impact of DOMA began to become clear to people everywhere. Its original supporters, from the lead House sponsor, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), to Daschle and Clinton, turned on the legislation: All three support repeal of the 1996 law.
And, for people like Mary Bonauto, who was the lead attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in the Massachusetts marriage case, a path forward – a path to dismantle DOMA – began to form.
Part 1: Domestic Disturbance
Before DOMA, there was another debate over marriage – within the gay and lesbian community
Part 2: Marriage Wars
In 1996, DOMA went from being introduced to being passed by the House – and given the OK of the Clinton administration – in less than 10 weeks
Part 3: Double Defeat
In 1996, ENDA was hoped to help ease the pain of DOMA, but instead fell by one vote in a Senate focused on a ''thinly disguised example of intolerance''
Part 4: Becoming Law
On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law – a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books
...more
ask for help
It not realy news but so helpful. It's about sample essay . When you have to many stuffs to do - why just don't ask for help?
NY Post Stoops Lower than Usual to Discredit DSK Accuser
Offender: Reporter Laura Italiano and her editors
Media Outlet: New York Post
The Offense: In a July 2 cover story, the New York Post attempted to discredit the woman who was allegedly raped by Dominique Strauss-Kahn by labeling her a prostitute. The cover screams "DSK MAID A HOOKER" in huge type. Inside, writer Italiano provides very little beyond gossip, depending heavily on puns such as "big tips for extra turndown service" to convey this completely unsubstantiated accusation.
NOW's Analysis: Italiano jumps right into the piece, claiming that the 32-year-old mother and alleged rape survivor "wasn't just a girl working at a hotel -- she was a working girl."
Throughout the article, Italiano's harsh rhetoric and unsupported accusations portray the accuser as a "pathological liar and scam artist" willing to do anything for quick cash. Based on quotes from an unnamed source, the accuser supposedly had been "getting extraordinary tips . . . And it's not for bringing extra f--king towels." With no evidence, the reader is meant to align the accuser's income with prostition. After all, how else would this hotel maid be able to pay for her "hair braiding" and "salon expenses?"
The case for prostitution continues as Italiano's source speculates that the accuser's union "purposely assigned" her to such a high-class hotel because "it knew she would bring in big bucks." Recently, The Washington Post revealed that the union in question actually sent the New York Post a packet of documents on the accuser, including a copy of an employment application she filled out at the Sofitel, in which she listed the International Rescue Committee (not the union) as the source that referred her to the hotel.
There are countless problems with this article, two of which should greatly concern feminists. First, claiming (with no evidence and only one anonymous source) that an immigrant woman working as a hotel maid is actually a "hooker" is sexist, racist and classist, to say the least. Second, implicit in this accusation is that a prostitute cannot be raped, or that any claim she makes of being raped should not be taken seriously. Even the New York Post should be held to a standard that says promoting harmful stereotypes and demonstrating such blatant misogyny are unacceptable.
Take Action: The accuser is currently taking action by filing a libel suit against the New York Post for labeling her a prostitute. Take your own action by writing to the New York Post and giving them a piece of your mind.
Media Outlet: New York Post
The Offense: In a July 2 cover story, the New York Post attempted to discredit the woman who was allegedly raped by Dominique Strauss-Kahn by labeling her a prostitute. The cover screams "DSK MAID A HOOKER" in huge type. Inside, writer Italiano provides very little beyond gossip, depending heavily on puns such as "big tips for extra turndown service" to convey this completely unsubstantiated accusation.
NOW's Analysis: Italiano jumps right into the piece, claiming that the 32-year-old mother and alleged rape survivor "wasn't just a girl working at a hotel -- she was a working girl."
Throughout the article, Italiano's harsh rhetoric and unsupported accusations portray the accuser as a "pathological liar and scam artist" willing to do anything for quick cash. Based on quotes from an unnamed source, the accuser supposedly had been "getting extraordinary tips . . . And it's not for bringing extra f--king towels." With no evidence, the reader is meant to align the accuser's income with prostition. After all, how else would this hotel maid be able to pay for her "hair braiding" and "salon expenses?"
The case for prostitution continues as Italiano's source speculates that the accuser's union "purposely assigned" her to such a high-class hotel because "it knew she would bring in big bucks." Recently, The Washington Post revealed that the union in question actually sent the New York Post a packet of documents on the accuser, including a copy of an employment application she filled out at the Sofitel, in which she listed the International Rescue Committee (not the union) as the source that referred her to the hotel.
There are countless problems with this article, two of which should greatly concern feminists. First, claiming (with no evidence and only one anonymous source) that an immigrant woman working as a hotel maid is actually a "hooker" is sexist, racist and classist, to say the least. Second, implicit in this accusation is that a prostitute cannot be raped, or that any claim she makes of being raped should not be taken seriously. Even the New York Post should be held to a standard that says promoting harmful stereotypes and demonstrating such blatant misogyny are unacceptable.
Take Action: The accuser is currently taking action by filing a libel suit against the New York Post for labeling her a prostitute. Take your own action by writing to the New York Post and giving them a piece of your mind.
Bullying and Nasty Gossip Rears its Ugly Head Real Housewives Beverly Hills
Believe it or not, I was actually kind of appalled Monday night at Real Housewives of Beverly HIlls! Talk about MEAN GIRLS! OUCH! Brandi Glanville made her first appearance on the Real Housewives of BH, and she came on crutches. Actually, she was fairly benign at Kyle Richards? charity party, leaving the bad behavior to the gaggle of tacky Housewives cackling meanly over the new girl?s choice of footwear. Who wears a stiletto when you?re on crutches?, they all cried. Had Brandi worn a Croc to the party, and had she not so recently been photographed with Vanderpump nemesis Cedric, perhaps the ladies would have been more welcoming. ?What is with Brandi?? said Taylor, sounding like a sick Mean Girl. ?Her husband left her for LeAnn Rimes,? said Kyle. ?That?s her claim to fame.? - and a group of about 4 woman sat there and mad fun of Brandi and talked trash about her - AND she was close enough to hear it all, sitting within ear shot, I am sure she heard everything. THIS IS THE ROOT OF BULLYING. This is the kind of shit that kids do. And these are tragic adults still pointing fingers saying we're better than you. Kyle and Taylor, you should be ashamed of yourselves, you pathetic, tragic women!
While Brandi and fellow newbie Dana Wilkey aren't considered "real" Housewives just yet, the rookies have plenty to say about their castmates and sat down with E! News to exclusively dish on their claws-out catfights and what "craziness went down" that made Brandi pull her kids from the show...
Because of a controversial incident during filming, we won't see much of Brandi's two kids with Eddie Cibrian. Despite her ex-husband's opposition, Brandi says, she allowed her sons to be featured on the show -- until some "craziness went down."
"Once something happened that I wasn't comfortable with," the mother of two reveals, "I pulled the plug."I think Adrienne Maloof is the only one with any class on that show.
While Brandi and fellow newbie Dana Wilkey aren't considered "real" Housewives just yet, the rookies have plenty to say about their castmates and sat down with E! News to exclusively dish on their claws-out catfights and what "craziness went down" that made Brandi pull her kids from the show...
Because of a controversial incident during filming, we won't see much of Brandi's two kids with Eddie Cibrian. Despite her ex-husband's opposition, Brandi says, she allowed her sons to be featured on the show -- until some "craziness went down."
"Once something happened that I wasn't comfortable with," the mother of two reveals, "I pulled the plug."I think Adrienne Maloof is the only one with any class on that show.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Looking for Consistency in Rick Perry's Federalism
While I was on vacation, I received a
bunch of messages taking me to task for my August 10
column about Rick Perry and the Christian right. Several
expressed concern (or rather un-Christian glee) at the prospect of
my eternal damnation. The less metaphysical ones questioned my
argument that Perry's support for constitutional amendments banning
abortion and gay marriage contradicts his professed commitment to
federalism?suggesting, as I put it, that he "does not really
believe in the 10th Amendment." These readers pointed out that
Perry does not propose simply ignoring the 10th Amendment; rather,
he wants to follow the constitutionally prescribed procedure for
carving out new exceptions to it. Joe Carter
raises a similar objection on the First
Things blog:
These "fair-weather federalists" are growing tiresome. No, I
don't mean [Bryan] Fischer [of the American Family Association] and
Perry, I mean folks like Sullum. If they were willing to follow
their logic they'd argue we should have never added the 13th
Amendment since it interfered with the states' right to legalize
slavery and involuntary servitude. But they have no qualms with
that particular amendment since it matches up with their own moral
values.
When exactly did supporting the 10th Amendment mean that you
could never, ever support a constitutional amendment that limits
the rights of states?
Paul Kroenke
argues that amending the Constitution is itself an exercise in
federalism:
How can mandating this or that at the federal level be
federalist, you ask? The answer is simple. Amendments to the
constitution are not fly-by-night mandates on the people a-la
Obamacare's mandate that we all buy health insurance or face stiff
fines. Amendments to the Constitution represent one of
the most federalist processes we have to govern ourselves.
First, an amendment must be introduced in Congress, go through
the rigorous process of debate and revision and whatnot, and then
be passed by a 2/3 majority in both the House
and the Senate. After this happens, the amendment is then sent to
the states to be voted on, where it must be approved by 3/4 of all
of the states to be added in as part of the Constitution.
This is not some top-down, anti-federalist ignoring of the 10th
amendment to further one's agenda. This is the process by which a
massive, massive majority of the country decide that we are going
to fundamentally change the laws under which we live.
In supporting amendments to the constitution, Perry is indeed
supporting the federalist process.
While the nationwide bans that Perry favors would be
constitutional by definition, it is hard to see how a process in
which a majority of states dictates policies to a minority
exemplifies federalism. And Perry does not merely acknowledge what
the 10th Amendment requires; he passionately
defends the underlying principle of leaving all but a few
specifically enumerated areas of public policy to the states, so
that decisions can be tailored to local needs, values, and
preferences. Furthermore, he has specifically cited abortion and
marriage as matters properly addressed by state governments in
accordance with this principle. Hence his current position is
rather like defending freedom of religion while advocating a
constitutional amendment denying that right to Muslims?after citing
tolerance of Islam as an example of what's so great about the First
Amendment.
Carter is right in suggesting that federalism is a means to an
end, not an ultimate value. The Constitution imposes various limits
on state sovereignty that, like the ban on slavery, aim to preserve
liberty and prevent local tyranny. Although I do not see Perry's
proposed bans on abortion and gay marriage in that light, perhaps
he does. If so, however, it is hard to understand why he cited
state autonomy regarding abortion and marriage to illustrate his
federalist convictions. Would an abolitionist circa 1860 have seen
diverse approaches to slavery as testimony to the genius of the
Framers' design?
bunch of messages taking me to task for my August 10
column about Rick Perry and the Christian right. Several
expressed concern (or rather un-Christian glee) at the prospect of
my eternal damnation. The less metaphysical ones questioned my
argument that Perry's support for constitutional amendments banning
abortion and gay marriage contradicts his professed commitment to
federalism?suggesting, as I put it, that he "does not really
believe in the 10th Amendment." These readers pointed out that
Perry does not propose simply ignoring the 10th Amendment; rather,
he wants to follow the constitutionally prescribed procedure for
carving out new exceptions to it. Joe Carter
raises a similar objection on the First
Things blog:
These "fair-weather federalists" are growing tiresome. No, I
don't mean [Bryan] Fischer [of the American Family Association] and
Perry, I mean folks like Sullum. If they were willing to follow
their logic they'd argue we should have never added the 13th
Amendment since it interfered with the states' right to legalize
slavery and involuntary servitude. But they have no qualms with
that particular amendment since it matches up with their own moral
values.
When exactly did supporting the 10th Amendment mean that you
could never, ever support a constitutional amendment that limits
the rights of states?
Paul Kroenke
argues that amending the Constitution is itself an exercise in
federalism:
How can mandating this or that at the federal level be
federalist, you ask? The answer is simple. Amendments to the
constitution are not fly-by-night mandates on the people a-la
Obamacare's mandate that we all buy health insurance or face stiff
fines. Amendments to the Constitution represent one of
the most federalist processes we have to govern ourselves.
First, an amendment must be introduced in Congress, go through
the rigorous process of debate and revision and whatnot, and then
be passed by a 2/3 majority in both the House
and the Senate. After this happens, the amendment is then sent to
the states to be voted on, where it must be approved by 3/4 of all
of the states to be added in as part of the Constitution.
This is not some top-down, anti-federalist ignoring of the 10th
amendment to further one's agenda. This is the process by which a
massive, massive majority of the country decide that we are going
to fundamentally change the laws under which we live.
In supporting amendments to the constitution, Perry is indeed
supporting the federalist process.
While the nationwide bans that Perry favors would be
constitutional by definition, it is hard to see how a process in
which a majority of states dictates policies to a minority
exemplifies federalism. And Perry does not merely acknowledge what
the 10th Amendment requires; he passionately
defends the underlying principle of leaving all but a few
specifically enumerated areas of public policy to the states, so
that decisions can be tailored to local needs, values, and
preferences. Furthermore, he has specifically cited abortion and
marriage as matters properly addressed by state governments in
accordance with this principle. Hence his current position is
rather like defending freedom of religion while advocating a
constitutional amendment denying that right to Muslims?after citing
tolerance of Islam as an example of what's so great about the First
Amendment.
Carter is right in suggesting that federalism is a means to an
end, not an ultimate value. The Constitution imposes various limits
on state sovereignty that, like the ban on slavery, aim to preserve
liberty and prevent local tyranny. Although I do not see Perry's
proposed bans on abortion and gay marriage in that light, perhaps
he does. If so, however, it is hard to understand why he cited
state autonomy regarding abortion and marriage to illustrate his
federalist convictions. Would an abolitionist circa 1860 have seen
diverse approaches to slavery as testimony to the genius of the
Framers' design?
Horoscope
ARIES (March 20 – April 19): Sex doesn’t solve all the problems in a relationship, but now it offers an interesting perspective on whatever the real problems are. Any secrets, resentments, unfulfilled wishes? Share yours and invite your partner to open up!
TAURUS (April 20 – May 20): Your partner and colleagues are obstructing whatever you want to do. Or is that really it? Be responsible for your own accomplishments. While your partner’s feedback won’t make you happy, it will help you find answers.
GEMINI (May 21- June 20): Trying too hard to promote your own plans can provoke problems with colleagues. If you’re sensing hidden agendas, it may be due to your own pushiness. Have a good talk. Listen between the lines, but…
Read More
TAURUS (April 20 – May 20): Your partner and colleagues are obstructing whatever you want to do. Or is that really it? Be responsible for your own accomplishments. While your partner’s feedback won’t make you happy, it will help you find answers.
GEMINI (May 21- June 20): Trying too hard to promote your own plans can provoke problems with colleagues. If you’re sensing hidden agendas, it may be due to your own pushiness. Have a good talk. Listen between the lines, but…
Read More
(7) The I Have No Show, Show. Going Topic-less!
All I need is the right man, Thank God I’m gay, No topic whatsoever, Being ditched, Bad Karaoke Nonsensical ramblings, Paris? Kelly Clarkson? Farting? A tasteless show indeed …
Op-ed: Back-to-School Could Be Better Than Gay Parents Think
Fears of discrimination can come for gay parents sending their kids to school for the first time. But there's reason to believe it will all turn out all right.
Lesbian News - 16 Sep 2011
Cyndi Lauper opening homeless shelterSL Letter of the Day: Straight Up Ex-LesbianGay asylum seekers not gay enoughTwo decades of openly queer college coachingCall to recognise domestic abuse in same-sex relationshipsAnglican Diocese on Support for GLBT MembersMakeup: Film ReviewCampuses Lead Gay Rights StruggleSame-sex partner benefits can't be cut offSexual satisfaction affects ageing
(50)-Shows & 2 Years / Let?s Get Serious
Show #50 starts with an awful PC Love Song, Sleepy after posting show 49 it turns into a more reflective monologue about the past two years; Then come YOUR voicemail’s of well wishes! Please PLEASE forgive us if your call did not make the show. Listened to all of them and every single one was [...]
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Man found guilty of killing Francisco Valencia, son of lesbian couple
A jury found Logan Square man Narcisco Gatica, 21, guilty of shooting and killing DePaul University student Francisco Frankie Valencia and wounding his friend, Daisy Camacho, in 2009, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Life Beyond Therapy
Is Monogamy outdated?
In this age of almost-legal GLBT marriage, many of my coupled clients are examining traditional heterosexual marriage-based relationships and finding them lacking. Other people, however, think that the idea of “emotional monogamy and sexual non-monogamy” is just a cop-out, a way to rationalize not being faithful to your partner.
While this is a controversial issue, it’s a great opportunity for us GLBTers to be social pioneers and make our own way. We can critically analyze what heterosexist society has pushed on us for the past two hundred years or so. For many of us, the model of a traditional monogamous “marriage” isn’t a good fit, no matter how many movies or TV shows tell us that a “faithful” marriage is…
Read More
In this age of almost-legal GLBT marriage, many of my coupled clients are examining traditional heterosexual marriage-based relationships and finding them lacking. Other people, however, think that the idea of “emotional monogamy and sexual non-monogamy” is just a cop-out, a way to rationalize not being faithful to your partner.
While this is a controversial issue, it’s a great opportunity for us GLBTers to be social pioneers and make our own way. We can critically analyze what heterosexist society has pushed on us for the past two hundred years or so. For many of us, the model of a traditional monogamous “marriage” isn’t a good fit, no matter how many movies or TV shows tell us that a “faithful” marriage is…
Read More
Lesbian News - 20 Sep 2011
Leigh Hendrix To Present How To Be A Lesbian in 10 Days or Less
Ugandan LGBTI rights activist to be honoured
Medical Schools Neglecting Gay Health Needs, Study Says
Lifting of policy marks end of silence for gay military members
Anti-Bullying Laws Get Tough With Schools
Stage collapse shines light on Ind. stance on gays
GLBT Alumni of Notre Dame raising awareness at tailgate party
Ugandan LGBTI rights activist to be honoured
Medical Schools Neglecting Gay Health Needs, Study Says
Lifting of policy marks end of silence for gay military members
Anti-Bullying Laws Get Tough With Schools
Stage collapse shines light on Ind. stance on gays
GLBT Alumni of Notre Dame raising awareness at tailgate party
Green Tip Of The Week: Make your oven work for you!
Grilling seems to be the official cooking method of summer-- or almost year-round in San Diego -- but your oven may need to get back into the action from time to time, like during the rainy season.
If you find yourself turning on your oven during the warmer months, try isolating the kitchen by shutting doors to that part of the house if possible. By containing the heat pumped out by your oven, you will keep the whole house from heating up, kicking the AC into higher gear or melting your friends and family.
Treat your oven differently when it's warm and when it's cool, thus saving money on cooling or heating.
read more
If you find yourself turning on your oven during the warmer months, try isolating the kitchen by shutting doors to that part of the house if possible. By containing the heat pumped out by your oven, you will keep the whole house from heating up, kicking the AC into higher gear or melting your friends and family.
Treat your oven differently when it's warm and when it's cool, thus saving money on cooling or heating.
read more
Hello Faithful Friends
Hey, remember when Dipstick and I used to post stuff here? For those of you who haven't given up on us, THANK YOU!Have you ever felt caught up in a vortex, where things are spinning so fast around you that you actually see colors and bright shiny things in the clouds (no hallucinogenics involved)? That is how I've been feeling and it's been hard to hold onto the reigns. Beyond basking in glee and drinking packets of EmergenC, that also means any free time I've had has been dedicated to sleep, so sincere apologies for being MIA.Anyhoodle, for now, I'll fill you in on all things Lipstick since I last wrote.A little over a week ago, we shot our first short film Til Death To Us Toby. For Patty (who was an awesome Assistant Director) and I, it was a 22 hour day. We got up at 3:45am, crew call was at 5:45 and we were rolling by 6:30. We shot until 11:11pm non-stop, save 15 minutes for lunch and 15 minutes for dinner. I thought it was killer that I said "that's a wrap" at 11:11 (I'm superstitious that way). We partied with the cast + crew until nearly 1am. The cast and crew were beyond AMAZING! Seriously, what a stellar team we had, who never complained or ran out of energy. Can't wait for the big wrap party!If you're out of the loop, you can follow the thread the Hot Pink Shorts HERE.It's been an amazing journey with OUTtv and this Hot Pink Shorts program. I'm gushing with gratitude and spinning at the sight of exciting things on the horizon, finally truly within grasp. I told the folks at OUTtv that I felt like a caterpillar who'd transformed into butterfly throughout this process. Week One, I was a furry little larvae and slowly, as we ate all the mentors had to offer, and set out on our own journey into the sticks and leaves, my wings actually began to take shape and I could eventually lift off the ground. And now, well, there's no stopping me as I fly around this wonderful world of opportunity.More to come soon, for sure, as there are some really cool things simmering on the TV front.**Small caveat for you Portland peeps: in the upcoming month, we'll be filming a little music video for the original song Christine Havrilla and I are co-writing for Toby. It's called Hightail and it's addictive. Think Jack Black meets Melissa Etheridge. For the video, which will also be part of the credits for the film, we'll need people to come out and help us, so stay tuned. We'll need as many people as we can get for the shoot, which is slated to happen at Laurelhurst Park.Enjoy the little slideshow below of our shoot, both of the action and behind the scenes. Cate Cameron captured these amazing moments. Be sure to check her out online. She rocks!*photos by Cate Cameron
NCLR challenges law firm's refusal to provide benefits to same-sex widow
San Francisco, CA, September 23, 2011—The National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a brief in federal district court in Pennsylvania yesterday arguing that private employers cannot hide behind the federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA to justify discriminating against same-sex spouses in private benefits plans.
NOW Political Action Committee Proudly Endorses Tammy Baldwin
http://now.org/press/09-11/09-12.htmlThe National Organization for Women Political Action Committee is proud to announce our endorsement of Rep. Tammy Baldwin for U.S. Senate. Baldwin launched her bid this week to become the next Democratic senator from Wisconsin, filling the seat of the retiring Sen. Herb Kohl.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Advice: ?What the Heck Do I Call My In-laws??
First names sometimes don?t come easy, and then there are all those other names for in-laws too. Gay etiquette expert Steven Petrow has the answer in this week?s Queeries.
Advice: ?What the Heck Do I Call My In-laws??
First names sometimes don?t come easy, and then there are all those other names for in-laws too. Gay etiquette expert Steven Petrow has the answer in this week?s Queeries.
(26) TLM-Minute: Be My Therapist For 8 and a Half Minutes
Harley Davidson Vests, Balloons, Horseshit Beach, Mental & Emotional Clutter, To Say or Not To Say, Meanies … Why Pay A Therapist Who Probably Has More Problems Than I Do, When I Can Podcast?
Bert is not gay - say Sesame Streets producers
Apparently the use of the word Mo in reference to Bert does not mean he is gay. Mo is a derogatory US word used to refer to gays as well as hairstyles. The LA Times says the reference is about the hairstyle and not the sexuality (of a puppet)!
Gay newsView Australian Queer News on the web at Gay News Blog
Gay newsView Australian Queer News on the web at Gay News Blog
Rick Perry?s Fair-Weather Federalism
Two of Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry?s most cherished loves
are in conflict. Those two things are the 10th Amendment, which
states that the ?the powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
to the states respectively or to the people?; and right-wing holy
rollers, a constituency that Perry will need if he decides to seek
the GOP presidential nomination.
Since 2009, when Perry made headlines by reminding the nation
that Texas had once been an independent republic, and ?could,?
according to his spokeswoman, ?secede if it wanted,? Perry?s two
great loves existed in separate spheres.
The religious right did not make a peep when Perry
said shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, ?I
believe the federal government has become oppressive. I believe
it's become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of
its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.?
Christian conservatives had no qualms with Perry?s endorsement of
a nonbinding resolution authored in the Texas legislature that
reaffirmed the protections provided by the 10th Amendment. Being
opposed to public education specifically and Democrats in general,
the religious right did not ding Perry when he said
earlier this year that ?Obamacare, the EPA's takeover of Texas'
successful air permitting program, and a misguided amendment to the
education jobs bill filed by Rep. Lloyd Doggett in his attempt to
require the governor to make assurances in violation of the Texas
Constitution? were all violations of the 10th Amendment.
In fact, Perry?s love for the 10th Amendment was fine and dandy
until he said last week that New York?s gay marriage law was none
of Texas? business.
?Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that
said that marriage can be between two people of the same sex and
you know what that is New York and that is their business and that
is fine with me, that is their call,? Perry said at an event in
Colorado. ?If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their
business.?
That statement did not sit well with Tony Perkins, president of
the once (and apparently still) influential Family Research
Council. Perkins quickly got Perry
to submit to an interview, so that he could recant.
?I think marriage and family policy is best dealt with at the
state level,? Perkins said. ?But the tenth amendment ? and I am a
strong supporter. I fought the federal government on a number of
issues when they were trying to force us to do things. But when you
look at what?s happening on marriage, the real fear is that states
like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas. At
that point the states rights argument is lost.?
Perry heartily agreed. ?That is the reason that the federal
marriage amendment is being offered, it?s that small group of
activist judges, and frankly a small handful, if you will, of
states, and liberal special interests groups that intend on a
redefinition of, if you will, marriage on the nation, for all of
us, which I adamantly oppose.?
Perkins continued to lead Perry through his absolution:
?Governor, we are about out of time but I don?t want to put words
in your mouth, but I think I hear what you are saying. The support
given what?s happening across the nation, the fear of the courts,
the administration?s failure to defend the defense of marriage
act.?
And Perry, like the false mother who went before King Solomon to
determine the parentage of a stolen baby, gladly cut the baby in
half rather than maintain his defense of the 10th
Amendment.
?I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the
constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment,?
Perry said in the final minutes of his interview with Perkins.
?That amendment defines marriage between one man and one woman, and
it protects the states from being told otherwise.?
Putting aside for a moment that the president has no role in the
amendment process, and that with enough time and fear-mongering,
the Constitution could be amended to such an extent that the 10th
Amendment would be absolutely worthless, Perry?s conversation with
Perkins suggests that he is either confused, or a liar. For Perkins
wasn?t the only person Perry spoke to this week about his comments
in Aspen. On the same day the Perkins interview appeared, the Texas
governor told
the New Hampshire Union Leader, ?If you're going to
respect the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, you can't go
picking and choosing? which laws to shove down the states?
throats.
Either way?confused or lying?Perry?s lip service to the 10th
Amendment appears to be exactly that.
Mike Riggs is an
associate editor at Reason magazine.
are in conflict. Those two things are the 10th Amendment, which
states that the ?the powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
to the states respectively or to the people?; and right-wing holy
rollers, a constituency that Perry will need if he decides to seek
the GOP presidential nomination.
Since 2009, when Perry made headlines by reminding the nation
that Texas had once been an independent republic, and ?could,?
according to his spokeswoman, ?secede if it wanted,? Perry?s two
great loves existed in separate spheres.
The religious right did not make a peep when Perry
said shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, ?I
believe the federal government has become oppressive. I believe
it's become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of
its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.?
Christian conservatives had no qualms with Perry?s endorsement of
a nonbinding resolution authored in the Texas legislature that
reaffirmed the protections provided by the 10th Amendment. Being
opposed to public education specifically and Democrats in general,
the religious right did not ding Perry when he said
earlier this year that ?Obamacare, the EPA's takeover of Texas'
successful air permitting program, and a misguided amendment to the
education jobs bill filed by Rep. Lloyd Doggett in his attempt to
require the governor to make assurances in violation of the Texas
Constitution? were all violations of the 10th Amendment.
In fact, Perry?s love for the 10th Amendment was fine and dandy
until he said last week that New York?s gay marriage law was none
of Texas? business.
?Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that
said that marriage can be between two people of the same sex and
you know what that is New York and that is their business and that
is fine with me, that is their call,? Perry said at an event in
Colorado. ?If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their
business.?
That statement did not sit well with Tony Perkins, president of
the once (and apparently still) influential Family Research
Council. Perkins quickly got Perry
to submit to an interview, so that he could recant.
?I think marriage and family policy is best dealt with at the
state level,? Perkins said. ?But the tenth amendment ? and I am a
strong supporter. I fought the federal government on a number of
issues when they were trying to force us to do things. But when you
look at what?s happening on marriage, the real fear is that states
like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas. At
that point the states rights argument is lost.?
Perry heartily agreed. ?That is the reason that the federal
marriage amendment is being offered, it?s that small group of
activist judges, and frankly a small handful, if you will, of
states, and liberal special interests groups that intend on a
redefinition of, if you will, marriage on the nation, for all of
us, which I adamantly oppose.?
Perkins continued to lead Perry through his absolution:
?Governor, we are about out of time but I don?t want to put words
in your mouth, but I think I hear what you are saying. The support
given what?s happening across the nation, the fear of the courts,
the administration?s failure to defend the defense of marriage
act.?
And Perry, like the false mother who went before King Solomon to
determine the parentage of a stolen baby, gladly cut the baby in
half rather than maintain his defense of the 10th
Amendment.
?I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the
constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment,?
Perry said in the final minutes of his interview with Perkins.
?That amendment defines marriage between one man and one woman, and
it protects the states from being told otherwise.?
Putting aside for a moment that the president has no role in the
amendment process, and that with enough time and fear-mongering,
the Constitution could be amended to such an extent that the 10th
Amendment would be absolutely worthless, Perry?s conversation with
Perkins suggests that he is either confused, or a liar. For Perkins
wasn?t the only person Perry spoke to this week about his comments
in Aspen. On the same day the Perkins interview appeared, the Texas
governor told
the New Hampshire Union Leader, ?If you're going to
respect the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, you can't go
picking and choosing? which laws to shove down the states?
throats.
Either way?confused or lying?Perry?s lip service to the 10th
Amendment appears to be exactly that.
Mike Riggs is an
associate editor at Reason magazine.
End of 'don't ask, don't tell' is overdue
On Tuesday, a long era of discrimination against gays and lesbians serving in the military will officially come to an end. The transition proved remarkably smooth. Military leaders certified that allowing gays and...
NFL Adds Sexual Orientation as Protected Class
If an NFL player decides to come out and live openly as a gay man, some of the risk of losing his job is now gone.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
13 Best Videos to Watch on Bisexual Visibility Day
Welcome to the Bizarre World of the Bisexual, and other videos worth watching.
In the Pit
Look out…. for BEARQUAKE 2010
Get ready for BearQuake 2010! I don’t know if that means they’ll be shaking, rocking or rolling but the Southern California Bear Club Alliance wants to welcome all their hirsute brothers, their chasers and maybe a few sisters to San Diego for “Cirque De L’Ours” on the weekend of October 14-17. This means you have approximately three weeks to grow your beard, chest and back hair so you too can be “without the trappings”. Bear events are still some of my favorites because of the names they come up with (bears can insert the word “bear” anyplace and have a jolly good time) and more importantly because there is food, everywhere!
“Cirque De L’Ours” is hosted by Bears San Diego and Bears L…
Read More
Get ready for BearQuake 2010! I don’t know if that means they’ll be shaking, rocking or rolling but the Southern California Bear Club Alliance wants to welcome all their hirsute brothers, their chasers and maybe a few sisters to San Diego for “Cirque De L’Ours” on the weekend of October 14-17. This means you have approximately three weeks to grow your beard, chest and back hair so you too can be “without the trappings”. Bear events are still some of my favorites because of the names they come up with (bears can insert the word “bear” anyplace and have a jolly good time) and more importantly because there is food, everywhere!
“Cirque De L’Ours” is hosted by Bears San Diego and Bears L…
Read More
This One?s a Real Nail Biter.
Stress is a major part of a woman’s life, but having someone to back �you up is a great stress reliever. Think about it, when you are going through a crisis, would you rather your partner panic too or would you rather her be calm and rational? Someone has to think “straight” right?! Everyone deals [...]
What kind of reaction do you think gay and lesbian servicemembers will face when they come out to their military colleagues?
It will probably be a non-event for most.
77.49%
It could make for some tense situations.
12.85%
-More-
77.49%
It could make for some tense situations.
12.85%
-More-
AIDS Scott McPherson: Life Catches Up to Art
Scott McPherson was born in Columbus, Ohio, in 1959. He began acting in high school and went to Ohio University, where he majored in theater and dance. It was there that he first had a play produced, a one-act version of his slapstick farce 'Til the Fat Lady Sings. Since his death, Ohio University has named a theater space in McPherson's honor.
Busy B.: B. Smith conquers the catwalk, the kitchen, business and Broadway
Dining:
When it comes to New York joining the marriage-equality states, B. Smith borrows a famous line from Martin Luther King Jr. ''It's like, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, we're free at last!'''
Obviously, the straight restaurateur – and actress and former fashion model – is happy about the news that came out of her home state over the summer.
''I have chills, I'm so, so happy,'' she says. ''I hope that [marriage equality] moves forward in a way that it continues to grow and people continue to understand that it's not about them.''
B. Smith photographed at her Union Station restaurant, July 14, 2011
(Photo by Todd Franson)
Rather, it's about not denying people the ability to live their lives fully, to raise their kids, to love their spouses, all without hurting anyone else, says Smith, who says she never struggled with views on homosexuality. There was no handwringing or emotional revelation needed.
''I can't remember not being accepting,'' the 61-year-old says plainly.
She can, however, remember not being accepted herself while growing up in ''Smalltown, USA'' of western Pennsylvania.
''All of us actually have something that people have rejected about what we do or who we are,'' she says. In Smith's case, early rejection came from the Future Homemakers of America when she was in elementary school. Her observation is that while Americans generally consider African-Americans' connection to the unfortunate part of America's agricultural history, from slavery to sharecropping, there is a disconnect when it comes to grasping the contemporary connections with produce and farming. But with her restaurants today featuring earthy-yet-sophisticated staples such as a black-eyed pea soup with garden vegetables and fried green tomatoes, the woman with her own lifestyle brand has more than made up for that early rejection.
''Future Homemaker of America – that's what I am today!'' Smith says, enjoying the last laugh. Rather than accept that early setback, Smith started her own home economics club and made herself its president.
It's that spirit of perseverance and pluck that has gotten Smith where she is today. ''You just have to keep knocking on doors,'' she says. ''It doesn't happen overnight.''
Smith may be best known for three eponymous Southern-themed gourmet restaurants, including a grand location at D.C.'s Union Station, but they may not know about the determination it took to get them.
Already armed with talent in the kitchen, Smith realized she needed business acumen in order to transition from her first career in modeling. So just as a new restaurant was about to open in New York, Smith introduced herself to its management. ''What can I do?'' she asked. '''Well, you can take over the coat check.' And I was like, 'Okay, I'll do that.' Because I at least was in the restaurant.'' After working her way up the chain of command, Smith eventually partnered with that restaurant company to open B. Smith's New York City in 1986. By the time she was ready to open B. Smith's Union Station in 1994, she decided to team up with her husband, who remains her partner in life and in business today. (It's definitely a family business, with Smith's daughter managing special events at the D.C. location.)
''I think of restaurants as centers in the community,'' Smith continues. To that end, she's working to engage the community through healthier eating. ''We're trying to work more with children to get them to understand that food can be tasty and healthy at the same time.''
As for the lifestyle label, Smith has often been called the ''black Martha Stewart.'' Having produced her own ''edutainment'' TV show and magazine, as well as a few cookbooks, it's not a surprising comparison. Like Stewart, Smith has become something of a style maven, with a line of products offered at retail stores, including Bed Bath & Beyond.
Smith grants that Stewart has inspired her and many others, but that if you're going to go big you've got to forge ahead on your own terms. Or, as Smith says, ''Find your own style.'' And Smith's style, contrasted with Martha Stewart's, is ''much more colorful, maybe just a little bit more relaxed. I go out of the box more than she. Basically, what I do is a little bit easier to attain.''
But while Smith's style may be easier to attain, reaching her level of dynamism may not. Beyond the restaurants, the lifestyle branding and the former modeling career, earlier this year Smith starred on Broadway in a rotating cast of Nora and Delia Ephron's Love, Loss & What I Wore.
''It was like a feel-good moment in my life,'' she says. ''It was an awesome experience. I hope I get the opportunity to do something like that again.''
She's also eager to get a new television show. Today's television, of course, is a different ballgame than it was in the 1990s when B. Smith with Style aired on NBC stations.
''They want you to be slapping people,'' she says, laughing.
''I'm just not beating up my husband on television! Or acting crazy-crazy.''
B. Smith's Union Station, 50 Massachusetts Ave. NE, serves lunch, dinner and a Sunday buffet brunch. For reservations, call 202-289-6188 or visit bsmith.com. ...more
When it comes to New York joining the marriage-equality states, B. Smith borrows a famous line from Martin Luther King Jr. ''It's like, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, we're free at last!'''
Obviously, the straight restaurateur – and actress and former fashion model – is happy about the news that came out of her home state over the summer.
''I have chills, I'm so, so happy,'' she says. ''I hope that [marriage equality] moves forward in a way that it continues to grow and people continue to understand that it's not about them.''
B. Smith photographed at her Union Station restaurant, July 14, 2011
(Photo by Todd Franson)
Rather, it's about not denying people the ability to live their lives fully, to raise their kids, to love their spouses, all without hurting anyone else, says Smith, who says she never struggled with views on homosexuality. There was no handwringing or emotional revelation needed.
''I can't remember not being accepting,'' the 61-year-old says plainly.
She can, however, remember not being accepted herself while growing up in ''Smalltown, USA'' of western Pennsylvania.
''All of us actually have something that people have rejected about what we do or who we are,'' she says. In Smith's case, early rejection came from the Future Homemakers of America when she was in elementary school. Her observation is that while Americans generally consider African-Americans' connection to the unfortunate part of America's agricultural history, from slavery to sharecropping, there is a disconnect when it comes to grasping the contemporary connections with produce and farming. But with her restaurants today featuring earthy-yet-sophisticated staples such as a black-eyed pea soup with garden vegetables and fried green tomatoes, the woman with her own lifestyle brand has more than made up for that early rejection.
''Future Homemaker of America – that's what I am today!'' Smith says, enjoying the last laugh. Rather than accept that early setback, Smith started her own home economics club and made herself its president.
It's that spirit of perseverance and pluck that has gotten Smith where she is today. ''You just have to keep knocking on doors,'' she says. ''It doesn't happen overnight.''
Smith may be best known for three eponymous Southern-themed gourmet restaurants, including a grand location at D.C.'s Union Station, but they may not know about the determination it took to get them.
Already armed with talent in the kitchen, Smith realized she needed business acumen in order to transition from her first career in modeling. So just as a new restaurant was about to open in New York, Smith introduced herself to its management. ''What can I do?'' she asked. '''Well, you can take over the coat check.' And I was like, 'Okay, I'll do that.' Because I at least was in the restaurant.'' After working her way up the chain of command, Smith eventually partnered with that restaurant company to open B. Smith's New York City in 1986. By the time she was ready to open B. Smith's Union Station in 1994, she decided to team up with her husband, who remains her partner in life and in business today. (It's definitely a family business, with Smith's daughter managing special events at the D.C. location.)
''I think of restaurants as centers in the community,'' Smith continues. To that end, she's working to engage the community through healthier eating. ''We're trying to work more with children to get them to understand that food can be tasty and healthy at the same time.''
As for the lifestyle label, Smith has often been called the ''black Martha Stewart.'' Having produced her own ''edutainment'' TV show and magazine, as well as a few cookbooks, it's not a surprising comparison. Like Stewart, Smith has become something of a style maven, with a line of products offered at retail stores, including Bed Bath & Beyond.
Smith grants that Stewart has inspired her and many others, but that if you're going to go big you've got to forge ahead on your own terms. Or, as Smith says, ''Find your own style.'' And Smith's style, contrasted with Martha Stewart's, is ''much more colorful, maybe just a little bit more relaxed. I go out of the box more than she. Basically, what I do is a little bit easier to attain.''
But while Smith's style may be easier to attain, reaching her level of dynamism may not. Beyond the restaurants, the lifestyle branding and the former modeling career, earlier this year Smith starred on Broadway in a rotating cast of Nora and Delia Ephron's Love, Loss & What I Wore.
''It was like a feel-good moment in my life,'' she says. ''It was an awesome experience. I hope I get the opportunity to do something like that again.''
She's also eager to get a new television show. Today's television, of course, is a different ballgame than it was in the 1990s when B. Smith with Style aired on NBC stations.
''They want you to be slapping people,'' she says, laughing.
''I'm just not beating up my husband on television! Or acting crazy-crazy.''
B. Smith's Union Station, 50 Massachusetts Ave. NE, serves lunch, dinner and a Sunday buffet brunch. For reservations, call 202-289-6188 or visit bsmith.com. ...more
Saturday, September 24, 2011
My DADT story as a closeted transgender woman
Back in the summer of 1980, I joined the US Navy. The country was in the midst of a nationwide recession and I lied about my personal history of teen cross-dressing.
I signed up for the Advanced Electronics Program, and once in the Navy, I was assigned to the Fire Control Technician (Missiles) rating. The rating title later reverted back to the historic name “Fire Controlman,” so my rating title changed to Fire Controlman in 1984. I first trained to work on the Mark 92 Gun and Missile Fire Control System, which were only on Guided Missile Fast Frigates (FFGs) and hydrofoils. In my career, I was assigned to two FFGs as a Mark 92 technician. Later in my career, I retrained as a Mark 15 Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) technician and then served on o…
Read More | View Comments (1 comment)
I signed up for the Advanced Electronics Program, and once in the Navy, I was assigned to the Fire Control Technician (Missiles) rating. The rating title later reverted back to the historic name “Fire Controlman,” so my rating title changed to Fire Controlman in 1984. I first trained to work on the Mark 92 Gun and Missile Fire Control System, which were only on Guided Missile Fast Frigates (FFGs) and hydrofoils. In my career, I was assigned to two FFGs as a Mark 92 technician. Later in my career, I retrained as a Mark 15 Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) technician and then served on o…
Read More | View Comments (1 comment)
Top DoJ official talks LGBT progress at the Center
More than 30 LGBT community leaders attended a special talk by Matt Nosanchuk, senior counsel and LGBT liaison in the U.S. Department of Justice, at the Center on Halsted Sept. 15.
ADOPT ME! Snap up Snapper and take him home!
Snapper is a medium senior wire fox terrier.
Why I'd make a great companion: I'm a mellow and easy-going dog, content just to feel loved. I'm looking for a special home where I'll be a cherished member of the family. I am ready for a quiet life surrounded by a family who loves me. I was raised with Bosco, we are best friends and are looking to go home together.
Take Snapper home today!
read more
Why I'd make a great companion: I'm a mellow and easy-going dog, content just to feel loved. I'm looking for a special home where I'll be a cherished member of the family. I am ready for a quiet life surrounded by a family who loves me. I was raised with Bosco, we are best friends and are looking to go home together.
Take Snapper home today!
read more
Matthew Morrison, Chord Overstreet & Cory Monteith in shirtless Glee
The new season of Glee is well underway here in the UK, but I haven't watched any of them yet! Too busy with holidays and selling the house. Last week we were in Barmouth in Wales in a caravan for a week. It was really cool to get away, but there was NO television reception.
What I missed was the guys from Glee getting their shirts off in their production of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. How camp can Glee get?
Matthew Morrison (hot hot hot)
Cory Monteith
Cory doesn't have a hair on his chest AND its getting a bit saggy. You are supposed to be the Quarterback Cory. You need to hit the gym Cory! And get a pair of man bikini briefs.
I havent seen anything of the new sexy blond boy, Chord Overstreet, but he gets his kit off as Rocky.
Tell me guys, leave a comment - WHO has the best chest?
Corrie,
Chord or
Matthew?
Gay newsView Australian Queer News on the web at Gay News Blog
What I missed was the guys from Glee getting their shirts off in their production of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. How camp can Glee get?
Matthew Morrison (hot hot hot)
Cory Monteith
Cory doesn't have a hair on his chest AND its getting a bit saggy. You are supposed to be the Quarterback Cory. You need to hit the gym Cory! And get a pair of man bikini briefs.
I havent seen anything of the new sexy blond boy, Chord Overstreet, but he gets his kit off as Rocky.
Tell me guys, leave a comment - WHO has the best chest?
Corrie,
Chord or
Matthew?
Gay newsView Australian Queer News on the web at Gay News Blog
The GLT turns the spotlight on Mila Rivera
Dancer and bartender at Rich’s and Numbers
Upon meeting Mila people are surprised to find out she is not a wild party girl. Her passion is dancing, however she is a self described puzzle geek and somewhat of a homebody. She is surprisingly reserved and likes spending her days cooking, reading and relaxing. Her nights are reserved for her showboating alter ego, she says. A girl who lives to learn new things and who has interests that range from one extreme of the spectrum to the other makes for a really well rounded and interesting person.
“I love garlic, bats and sharks, caverns and canyons, drag shows, deep philosophical conversations and the smell of sandalwood. I enjoy studying language, archaeology, history, the arts, and science. My past jobs include working at zoos and observatories, wri…
Read More
Upon meeting Mila people are surprised to find out she is not a wild party girl. Her passion is dancing, however she is a self described puzzle geek and somewhat of a homebody. She is surprisingly reserved and likes spending her days cooking, reading and relaxing. Her nights are reserved for her showboating alter ego, she says. A girl who lives to learn new things and who has interests that range from one extreme of the spectrum to the other makes for a really well rounded and interesting person.
“I love garlic, bats and sharks, caverns and canyons, drag shows, deep philosophical conversations and the smell of sandalwood. I enjoy studying language, archaeology, history, the arts, and science. My past jobs include working at zoos and observatories, wri…
Read More
Zayn Malik Shirtless Again
Yet another photo of Zayn Malik Shirtless. People keep asking me for them...
Gay newsView Australian Queer News on the web at Gay News Blog
Gay newsView Australian Queer News on the web at Gay News Blog
Friday, September 23, 2011
Pulling the Ol? Switcharoo.
The other day a co-worker of mine was telling me about an upcoming trip to Chicago with a good friend of hers. I told her that was great and she felt compelled to tell me that the friend “used” to be a lesbian but now she’s not. She then wanted to know if she should [...]
Gaga speaks, Reid acts on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’
LAS VEGAS (AP) – Does Lady Gaga run the U.S. Senate?
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday a vote to repeal the military’s ban of openly gay and lesbian soldiers had been planned for next week before the singer made waves with a plea during a daytime talk show.
The pop star known for flashy performances and eccentric style called on Reid to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in an interview with Ellen DeGeneres that aired Monday.
Reid’s campaign and Gaga traded talking points on Twitter after the lawmaker announced the vote. Reid told Gaga repealing the measure was the right thing to do.
Campaign spokesman Kelly Steele said Reid does not take cues from Gaga.
…
Read More
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday a vote to repeal the military’s ban of openly gay and lesbian soldiers had been planned for next week before the singer made waves with a plea during a daytime talk show.
The pop star known for flashy performances and eccentric style called on Reid to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in an interview with Ellen DeGeneres that aired Monday.
Reid’s campaign and Gaga traded talking points on Twitter after the lawmaker announced the vote. Reid told Gaga repealing the measure was the right thing to do.
Campaign spokesman Kelly Steele said Reid does not take cues from Gaga.
…
Read More
President Obama at UN: "We must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere"
NEW YORK -- President Barack Obama forcefully spoke out for global LGBT rights during a speech today at the United Nations.
?No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere,? Obama said in the speech, which he used to address his opposition to Palestine's UN bid for statehood.
The president's support for global LGBT rights came one day after the U.S. military began open service, which allows gay and lesbian troops to serve openly.
read more
?No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere,? Obama said in the speech, which he used to address his opposition to Palestine's UN bid for statehood.
The president's support for global LGBT rights came one day after the U.S. military began open service, which allows gay and lesbian troops to serve openly.
read more
Life Beyond Therapy
DADT and Mental health
Over the years, I have been the psychotherapist for many active and retired military personnel. It has been my privilege and honor to be able to support these fine men and women in whatever ways I can. It is clear to me, however, that DADT has been a major roadblock to their mental health.
As a federal law, DADT institutionalizes several phenomena:
• Forcing active and retired servicemen/women to lie, deny and hide who they are as LGBT people
• Making it crucial that LGBT servicemen/women take on a false identity, e.g. pretend they’re heterosexual
• Labeling LGBT people as unacceptable
• Putting extreme social/financial/emotional pressure on servicemen/women to keep pretending, lying, denying and hiding
In essence, DADT is a …
Read More | View Comments (1 comment)
Over the years, I have been the psychotherapist for many active and retired military personnel. It has been my privilege and honor to be able to support these fine men and women in whatever ways I can. It is clear to me, however, that DADT has been a major roadblock to their mental health.
As a federal law, DADT institutionalizes several phenomena:
• Forcing active and retired servicemen/women to lie, deny and hide who they are as LGBT people
• Making it crucial that LGBT servicemen/women take on a false identity, e.g. pretend they’re heterosexual
• Labeling LGBT people as unacceptable
• Putting extreme social/financial/emotional pressure on servicemen/women to keep pretending, lying, denying and hiding
In essence, DADT is a …
Read More | View Comments (1 comment)
No Perfect Union: As Americans, we can't be a perfectly harmonious society because we have lots of inharmonious ideas
Opinion: Every writer looks back and cringes at some of their past work — what seemed clear at the time is clunky in retrospect, what was once an expression of heartfelt emotion now seems childishly overwrought. But that's not only part of the job, it's part of growing as a writer and a person. The anniversaries of 9/11, especially the imminent marking of 10 years past that day, are annual cases where I look back and find just those things in my own writing. My sentences were clunky, my emotions were unchanneled. I was at a loss for words to publicly express what I felt in the face of a horrific attack that had once been unimaginable. Oddly, it was my private emails to family back home in Kentucky and Indiana — describing life in the city in the days following the attacks, with armed soldiers on downtown street corners and the blanket of politeness that settled over all of us — where I actually found some part of my voice. The annual remembrances of 9/11 stoke many of those emotional memories — a rare moment where being an American outweighed all of our other identities, when those like Jerry Falwell who attempted to divide by laying blame on LGBT people at home were pushed even further to the fringe, when even the most skeptical among us found themselves believing that everything is different now. ... (more)
GOP Debate Viewers Jeer Gay Soldier
During one of the few Republican debates to address gay rights, a
soldier posted a YouTube question for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum about "don't ask, don't tell," which resulted in the soldier
being booed by the Orlando, Fla., crowd.
soldier posted a YouTube question for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum about "don't ask, don't tell," which resulted in the soldier
being booed by the Orlando, Fla., crowd.
Multiple Charges Dog Washington: Man charged in Columbia Heights lesbian assault pleads guilty to felony charge in an unrelated case
News:
The man accused of attacking a group of women, at least one of whom identifies as a lesbian, in Columbia Heights in late July has pleaded guilty to a felony charge of receiving stolen property and to assaulting a police officer.
Christian Washington, who along with his brother, Dalonte, faces assault charges for the July 30 incident in Columbia Heights, appeared in D.C. Superior Court Sept. 21 before Judge Robert Richter to plead guilty in a separate case involving a stolen motorbike. He has been scheduled for a sentencing hearing on Nov. 16.
Washington had also been charged with the unauthorized use of a vehicle, fleeing a law enforcement officer, destruction of property over $200, reckless driving and not having a permit to operate a motorbike. As a result of today's plea deal, those charges have been dismissed.
In the Columbia Heights incident, Washington faces charges of bias-related threats to bodily harm and bias-related simple assault against one of five women who he and his brother had allegedly harassed and aggressively flirted with as the group walked to the Columbia Heights Metro Station. According to charging documents, Christian Washington verbally threatened and physically attacked one woman who told him that she and her friends were not interested because they were lesbians. In that case, the Washington brothers have been scheduled for bench trials on Nov. 7. ...more
The man accused of attacking a group of women, at least one of whom identifies as a lesbian, in Columbia Heights in late July has pleaded guilty to a felony charge of receiving stolen property and to assaulting a police officer.
Christian Washington, who along with his brother, Dalonte, faces assault charges for the July 30 incident in Columbia Heights, appeared in D.C. Superior Court Sept. 21 before Judge Robert Richter to plead guilty in a separate case involving a stolen motorbike. He has been scheduled for a sentencing hearing on Nov. 16.
Washington had also been charged with the unauthorized use of a vehicle, fleeing a law enforcement officer, destruction of property over $200, reckless driving and not having a permit to operate a motorbike. As a result of today's plea deal, those charges have been dismissed.
In the Columbia Heights incident, Washington faces charges of bias-related threats to bodily harm and bias-related simple assault against one of five women who he and his brother had allegedly harassed and aggressively flirted with as the group walked to the Columbia Heights Metro Station. According to charging documents, Christian Washington verbally threatened and physically attacked one woman who told him that she and her friends were not interested because they were lesbians. In that case, the Washington brothers have been scheduled for bench trials on Nov. 7. ...more
Brad Pitt: Equality is what makes us great. Watch.
“We live in this great country that is defined by our freedoms and equality and yet we allow this discrimination to go on every day. That’s not what we’re about. That’s not what makes us so great. And until that … Continue reading →
Thursday, September 22, 2011
‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ injunction now up to judge
SAN DIEGO, Ca (AP) – U.S. government lawyers are trying to stop a federal judge from issuing an injunction that would immediately do what President Obama has yet to accomplish so far in his first term: Halt the military’s ban on openly gay troops. Now it is up to U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips to decide if she is willing to do that.
The White House says the legal filing Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice attorneys in a federal court in Riverside follows government procedure by defending an act of Congress that is being challenged, but it does not detract from the president’s efforts to get ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repealed.
“This filing in no way diminishes the president’s firm commi…
Read More
The White House says the legal filing Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice attorneys in a federal court in Riverside follows government procedure by defending an act of Congress that is being challenged, but it does not detract from the president’s efforts to get ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repealed.
“This filing in no way diminishes the president’s firm commi…
Read More
Gay WWII vet's discharge upgraded to 'honorable'
Almost 70 years after expelling Melvin Dwork for being gay, the Navy is changing his discharge from "undesirable" to "honorable" - marking what is believed to be the first time the Pentagon has taken such a step on...
SILENCE! The Musical..Special Price
SILENCE! The Musical is the hilarious unauthorized parody of The Silence of the Lambs. In the Academy Award-winning film, rookie FBI agent Clarice Starling matches wits with the brilliant but insane cannibal, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, to catch the serial killer known only as Buffalo Bill.
And now, at last, this delicate symphony of suspense has been turned on its ear and retold in the only way it can be ? as a musical. A singing chorus of floppy eared lambs narrates the action; Buffalo Bill gleefully dances a hoedown while kidnapping hapless Catherine Martin; and even Dr. Lecter, scary as ever, sings about the life he?d like to lead someday outside the prison walls.
Now playing through September 24th at Off-Broadway's Theater 80 on St. Mark's Place.
SPECIAL OFFER: $29 (reg $48) for Saturday at 10:30PM performances.
1- CLICK HERE and enter code HHC.
2- Visit Silencethemusical.com and click on Buy Tickets Now and enter code HHC.
3- Call 212-352-3101 and use code HHC.
Offer valid for the 10:30PM performance on Saturday nights. Not valid on the 8PM performances. Offer may be revoked at anytime and is subject to availability. Not valid on prior purchase. Offer cannot be combined with other discounts of promotions; blackout dates and restrictions may apply.
And now, at last, this delicate symphony of suspense has been turned on its ear and retold in the only way it can be ? as a musical. A singing chorus of floppy eared lambs narrates the action; Buffalo Bill gleefully dances a hoedown while kidnapping hapless Catherine Martin; and even Dr. Lecter, scary as ever, sings about the life he?d like to lead someday outside the prison walls.
Now playing through September 24th at Off-Broadway's Theater 80 on St. Mark's Place.
SPECIAL OFFER: $29 (reg $48) for Saturday at 10:30PM performances.
1- CLICK HERE and enter code HHC.
2- Visit Silencethemusical.com and click on Buy Tickets Now and enter code HHC.
3- Call 212-352-3101 and use code HHC.
Offer valid for the 10:30PM performance on Saturday nights. Not valid on the 8PM performances. Offer may be revoked at anytime and is subject to availability. Not valid on prior purchase. Offer cannot be combined with other discounts of promotions; blackout dates and restrictions may apply.
(12) The Lesbian Teen Show (1hr)
Sandi talks with teenagers Mandy, Tash and Mary, about relevant and retarded issues. What’s on the minds of lesbian youth today, safe dental sex, and how to off an abusive parent … all in one 54 minute show.
DADT repeal celebration: A historic night filled with mighty veterans, lots of gratitude and plenty of relief
(Editor's note: I was assigned to cover this event and in doing so, I knew I'd have to write the story in first person. I spent 22 years in the Navy, 12 of those years were spent serving prior to DADT coming into effect, and 10 were after. This topic hits close to home for me.)
View the celebration at The Center through the lens of my own time served under the ban that is now history.
read more
View the celebration at The Center through the lens of my own time served under the ban that is now history.
read more
(27) The Complete Guide to Loosening Uranus
The Shadow Knows, Melissa’s Mash-Up Submission, Listener Call In, Polygamists, Summer Diets, Gym Observations, Kardashian Meaninglessnesses, Fantasies, Subconscious Seriousness and more … Music Featured by: The Trucks http://www.myspace.com/thetrucks
New Podcast: This Week In Gay
Just wanted to make you aware (if you weren't already) of our new podcast 'This Week in Gay'. We invite all fellow LGBT podcasters to join us each Sunday night talking about the Gay News of the week.
www.ThisWeekInGay.com
Come Join us and feel free to spread the good news!
www.ThisWeekInGay.com
Come Join us and feel free to spread the good news!
(43A) Interview w/Melissa Ferrick! (Part 1)
**Exclusive Interview w/Melissa Ferrick (Part 1)** Prop 8 Turrets by Yours Truly, Part 1 of an Exclusive 2 Part Interview w/ Out Lesbian Singer/Songwriter, Indie Icon, Melissa Ferrick! We talk New Couches, New Album: Goodbye Youth, Touring w/Ani DiFranco, Relationships, Coming Out and More … FRIEND MELISSA FERRICK: http://www.myspace.com/melissaferrick NEW! LISTEN TO THE LESBIAN MAFIA [...]
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
(52) Three Legged Lesbians
Donation thank you’s; Multi-Tasking; Stupid Americans; Oxymorons; LoHans Solo 2.0; Odd Couples … and more! Reproduced and renamed song *You’re a Stupid Cunt* by Kiko Lombardi of: http://www.visitronix.com Music bed provided by DJ Toni Teresi http://www.myspace.com/nypstar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)